My WSOP satelitte theory

[CardSharpCook]

OK, actually a pretty simple theory. If you are going to invest $100 in a tourney, wouldn't it be better to do so in a tourney that pays cash instead of something that is "just as good as cash". I mean, if you are gonna win an $11K prize in a tourney, wouldn't you like that prize to be cash?

Ok, ok. "But CSC, I'm not gonna play the WSOP for $10k - that is just too much money. But I'm willing to play a sat for $100 - I can afford that."

I understand, but Party offers $100 tourneys several times during the day AND you still get paid even if you don't win it all. Why not call one of these random tournies your WSOP qualifier? Then, say you win, you get $11k AND you don't HAVE to use it to play the WSOP. If you like, you can put it away for little Johnny's education, or you can use it to help buy a house, or how about a vacation for you and the missus? The point is, you still have 4 months to decide if you really want to spend ten grand on a poker tournement. True, true, it is an investment with longterm profitability, but for most of us, we can't afford the variance, nor are we going to be able to run enough repititions on this wager IN OUR ENTIRE LIFETIME to make this a safe wager. Again, for players who routinely play $1K+ buy in tourney's, this does not apply to you, but for the rest of us, this is a concern.

Next point of theory. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a hell of a lot better at MTTs than I am at Sats. I'm also a hell of a lot more comfortable playing with a standard prize pool distribution than I am with a winner take all tourney. It just makes more sense for me to invest in MTTs.

So why do we play sats? I think it is the very human part of us that wants to get something for a really good value. That part of us that believes we can win the lottery. But shouldn't the rational side of our brain rise up and ask these questions? Like, "I know that I am a good player who will make X% of my buy-in in a regular tourney and my avg tourney buy in is $100. I know that I will win this WSOP tourney Y% of the time. If an average WSOP Sat lasts two hours (sometimes I bust in 1, sometimes 3, but avg time I bust in is 2) and I need to play 1/Y tournies, that means I must spend 2/Y hours playing these WSOP sats to win a prize worth $11K. If 2/Y hours *X*100/(length of avg. tourney) > $11K, then I should play regular tournies instead. Don't try to follow this math, there are flaws in it, but you get the idea. If you are more profitable at MTTs, you shouldn't play WSOP sats.

Anyway, the point is, I think it might be foolish to play these sats. I figure it is better to play a real tourney where the prize is cash and more people get paid.

CSC