ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[MicroBob]

okay...it's late (or really early now actually, whatever) and I'm lazy and can't make it through this whole thread.

But I'm curious about this whole bit about 'should be just about bankrolled to buy-in directly into the event anyway' bit that's been argued about.
Surely Zee didn't have a huge enough bankroll to actually afford all these $10k events on his own (if we're talking $1-mil or more) when he played them.

It seems to me that if you already have the bankroll for them then playing satellites to get into them is effectively wasting your time.


Lets look at someone who has $30k or so and plays the $215's on Stars. Is he really going to waste his time playing the satellites there? Isn't he better off just buying-in directly?


But some of you guys seem to be saying that if he DOESN'T have this much he shouldn't be playing the satellites in the first place (this is assuming he's playing the 215's and isn't keeping the dough himself).


Somewhere in there the satellites have to be generally +EV.
But it seems like we have a situation where if you have too small a bankroll then it's irresponsible to waste your money trying for big scores like this....and if you have the full bankroll then your time is certainly better spent making more money actually playing these events then it would be playing piddly, teeny satellites to try to get into them.

Somewhere in the middle where these satellites would actually be +EV seems to be a VERY narrow area.



Basically I think the point of the satellites is to cut your losses here.
If I want to just have one extra table up there for satellite purposes then I can dedicate just $50 to trying to win my WSOP seat via Stars and that will very likely be enough to last me a long time if I want it to.
I play enough of the $2 rebuys to win W$33 at a shot. Then when I've run that up to $200 or so I can start trying the $5-rebuys into the $175 double-shootout. I can cash-out the $175 if I want and keep building or I can take my 1-in-81 shot right there.
whatever.
Yes, technically I can take the $300 in W$ I've won (or whatever) and just exchange it for cash so this is still just spending our own money.
So are satellites just a weird form of money-management and shot-taking combined?
I'm not going to lose my $50....when I get knocked out of the big satellite then I start over at $50 or $100 or whatever and go back to the $2-rebuys I guess.


I like to think that satellites are a decent idea at some point and aren't just part of that very narrow middle-ground.
But it really probably is just a combo of shot-taking and money-management.


I certainly am now about to buy-in to one of the big events. But I am playing the satellites (both the lower ones to win tourney-dollars because I believe they are +EV for me....and then using some of that for occasional 'shots' at the $380 for the France EPT or something for example).

Does this mean that I'm self-delusional about the timw that I sometimes spend/waste in pursuit of the occasional major land-based tourney?

Sigh.


I'll go back and read through more of the thread later when I think I'll be able to understand more of it.