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.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. When I said that to play the $250 sats for $2500 events you'd need close to the BR that you'd need for the $2500 events themselves, that is assuming you're playing those as a major source of your income. and because the variance in those things along is very big you'd need a huge BR to handle the swings. sure, its only $250 each investment, but only its only 2% or so that the $250 is turned into something. and MUCH, MUCH less that its turned into a BIG score.

when you're just "taking a shot" in a few of them, its different, but I think not as much different as most might think. So, in the case of somebody taking a shot to try and get in a 10k event, they won't need close to a $1 mil roll. but they should have just about enough that they'd feel OK taking a shot by buying directly into the 10k event. So, if you felt like you could take a shot at a 10k event with a 125-150k roll, then it'd probably be fine to play the sats with a 75-100k roll. Of course these numbers are pretty arbitrary, but i do think that in terms of risk of ruin, and bankroll growth, you need a much bigger roll for these sats than most people would think.

In the end, it just really comes down to how much EV you have in the sats, but you have to take into account that the variance is quite high if you plan on playing the bigger event rather than selling your seat. If, however, you're planning on getting cash instead, then some sats can have an enormous EV in relation to variance. but most big events don't even allow you to sell your first seat.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if say you have a 100 buyin BR for $250 MTTs, you should NOT be playing $250 sats for $2500 buyin events. unless you're just playing them to sell the $2500. Variance will INCREASE.

[/ QUOTE ]

But according to Erik Lindgren: Even if online poker is not my thing, there are innumerable ways for the small time player (me!) to enter big-time tournaments without paying the full entry fee, which will often be $10,000 or more (gasp!). (How Erik?) Believe it or not, it's easy to get the the World Poker Tour. He'll show me not just how to get there, but how to win there.

So take that you 500 buy-in ninnies. I have a book, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I read Lindgrens book. There was some very good stuff in it, but I didn't like how he tried a little to hard to convince the reader that "they too" could make the big time on the WPT. I mean sure, anyone who can play tournies, and sats well has A CHANCE. but he never quantified just how small that chance is. I just thought it was weird that he spent time to talk about how you need 500 BBs to play LHE, or 10,000 bb's to play NLHE cahs games. but then told the reader that playing sats is a good idea even if the event you're trying to qualify for is more than your current BR.

Sure its great if you get very, very lucky in your first or 2nd big event. but that's so unlikely that most people can find better, more effective ways to take shots, if you really want to hit it big.

[LearnedfromTV]

Bob, good post - my thoughts:

Satellites are a good investment for

- people truly bankrolled for big events (2K+) but who play smaller events when that is all that is available. Basically, using lower-variance satellite events to get into their larger events mitigates the risk of having a bad run with $200-$500 tournaments while they are killing time waiting for the next big event. Even if 2K + events are technically available nearly every week, I'm sure travel logistics often make playing them all impossible.

- people who aren't bankrolled for big events (2K+) but want to take shots at them and are willing to absorb the risk. In some cases these people can be taking a good calculated risk, if their EV in a $2500 tournament is higher than any other available game.

- people who are in the process of moving from medium stakes to higher stakes. I'll use pokerroom for an example because it is what I know best. They have the weekly $320 Big Deal and $40 satellites. Someone with 10K right now but who expects to have 30-40K within a few months could be playing a lot of $50-$100 tournaments *and* the $40 satellites, intending to accumlate tickets to use later. Assuming the ticket value will eventually be within his bankroll, he could even be better off playing the satellites if his EV in them is high enough. (Edit This can apply at any level. If you are playing $10 SNG's and $10 MTT's, and winning, you may expect to be playing $50-$100 multis soon enough, and find the $10 satellites to these events extremely soft.

- similar to the second group, people who want to take shots to move up through big MTT scores, perhaps because they feel their EV is greater in a tournament than in any othe form of poker (this is reasonable) and they are willing to take on the bankroll risk for the possible reward. This could be your $30000 player, buying into $215's and $215 satellites to $2000 events. Taken to an extreme this is bad bankroll management (no one with 30K whould be playing a 10K event, unless he's only doing it for the experience), but when done carefully can give a good player a reasonable shot of a huge score, while often at least getting his money back with small cashes while accumulating experience for later.

One thing to think about with respect to variance and taking shots is that playing over your bankroll isn't horrible if you do it occasionally. Plying 12 $2500 tournaments is terrible if you have 30K. playing a bunch of $200's and one $2500 is fine, especially if you get extrinsic value (learning experience, fun) from the $2500.

[LearnedfromTV]

One last point: For someone with $30000, deciding to play one or two $400 WSOP satellites that pays 1 in 30 may be bad bankroll management, but it's way better than buying in straight. Better to take a $800 shot at the experience (with a virtual freeroll the times you get there), then a 10K shot buying in straight. But maybe you think, "screw it I want to play the Main Event, to hell with bankroll", in which case playing satellites at your bankroll level to get there is best if you are have greater EV in them than in any other game.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
One last point: For someone with $30000, deciding to play one or two $400 WSOP satellites that pays 1 in 30 may be bad bankroll management, but it's way better than buying in straight. Better to take a $800 shot at the experience (with a virtual freeroll the times you get there), then a 10K shot buying in straight. But maybe you think, "screw it I want to play the Main Event, to hell with bankroll", in which case playing satellites at your bankroll level to get there is best if you are have greater EV in them than in any other game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of a freeroll doesn't make sense to me... If you really want to take shots, so be it. But still, I don't understand why someone wouldn't play where their $/hour are the highest. If you want to attempt to take $300 and turn it into a WSOP seat, why not play STTs if that's where you're best? If you're truly good at the satellite structure/payouts, THEN play the satellite. Don't play it just because it has a "Satellite to the WSOP" label on it...

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One last point: For someone with $30000, deciding to play one or two $400 WSOP satellites that pays 1 in 30 may be bad bankroll management, but it's way better than buying in straight. Better to take a $800 shot at the experience (with a virtual freeroll the times you get there), then a 10K shot buying in straight. But maybe you think, "screw it I want to play the Main Event, to hell with bankroll", in which case playing satellites at your bankroll level to get there is best if you are have greater EV in them than in any other game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of a freeroll doesn't make sense to me... If you really want to take shots, so be it. But still, I don't understand why someone wouldn't play where their $/hour are the highest. If you want to attempt to take $300 and turn it into a WSOP seat, why not play STTs if that's where you're best? If you're truly good at the satellite structure/payouts, THEN play the satellite. Don't play it just because it has a "Satellite to the WSOP" label on it...

[/ QUOTE ]

The person I'm talking about here is trying to make an economically rational decision; he's saying: To play in the main event would be a great experience. I'm willing to devote $800 and x hours of lost opportunity cost to take a shot at winning the experience, because it has non-monetary value to me.

(But maybe he isn't willing to spend $300 and the many many hours of STT play he would need to take. Because time and money are in a certain sense equivalent, 'taking a shot' in this way is a lot cheaper to him. It's like being willing to try to win $300 by betting 300-1 on a $1 horse, but not being willing to bet $150 on a 2-1, because you'd rather use the $149 for something else. This isn't economcially rational, but the thrill of hitting a 300-1 shot might be worth it to someone. Similarly, the thrill of the WSOP might be worth it to someone, provided it doesn't take too much of his time. He'd rather use the hours of STT play for something else (cash for his regular bankroll).

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
Are live tournaments deeper then online tournies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally yes. The WSOP this year started with 200bb stacks. But I dunno whether the average stack remains at this number throughout the tourney.

[Ulysses]

N,

I don't think you understood my point before. Let's say, for sake of argument, that I make $500/hr playing cash games. So, for me to enter a $10k tourney (including travel expenses let's say $12k), I have to play 24hrs of poker.

I am not a big fan of tournaments, but like to play them from time to time. However, 24 hours of my time (two weeks or more worth of poker for me) is not worth it for the value I personally would get from playing that tournament (combination of fun and EV).

But, if I can play that tournament by investing a few hundred dollars and a few hours in a satellite one evening, that's something I'm willing to do. Obviously, I only have an x% chance of winning, but that's fine. I either win and play or don't win and don't.

I only think your reasoning applies if someone is definitely going to play in the tournament and is going to keep playing satellites until they win a seat. In that case, it makes the most sense to play whatever option is the highest EV for you.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
N,

I don't think you understood my point before. Let's say, for sake of argument, that I make $500/hr playing cash games. So, for me to enter a $10k tourney (including travel expenses let's say $12k), I have to play 24hrs of poker.

I am not a big fan of tournaments, but like to play them from time to time. However, 24 hours of my time (two weeks or more worth of poker for me) is not worth it for the value I personally would get from playing that tournament (combination of fun and EV).

But, if I can play that tournament by investing a few hundred dollars and a few hours in a satellite one evening, that's something I'm willing to do. Obviously, I only have an x% chance of winning, but that's fine. I either win and play or don't win and don't.

I only think your reasoning applies if someone is definitely going to play in the tournament and is going to keep playing satellites until they win a seat. In that case, it makes the most sense to play whatever option is the highest EV for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I see what you're saying and it makes sense in that context.

I just have a different mindset and I don't gamble for fun, so that's where we differ.