ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with all this discussion of satellites, BUT, I have 1 problem.

If it makes no sense to try to qualify for a tournament you wouldn't consider buying in direct to, then there aren't very many people in the world who *should* play the world series. I mean, using the 100 buy-in benchmark is 1 million dollars, and there are very few players in the world with 1m dollar bankrolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it doesn't make sense for most players to use $ from their own roll to play in 10K events on a regular basis, I'd agree with that. But let's say someone has a 200K roll, taking one shot at a 10K event isn't going to stop them from playing their normal game. If they want to continue to play 10K events, they're going to have to work something out though... or cash huge very early on.

[ZeeJustin]

And btw, the 100 buying bankroll for MTT's is [censored]. 30-40 is standard for SNGs, and if you think MTT's only have 2-3x more variance, you are out of your mind.

Edit: Actually, I might be being a bit harsh here, but I doubt it. I"m gonna run some sims and actually quantify the variance of MTT's.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation in a satellite should be measured and compared in $ terms to expectation in other games. Because clearly, if you can get the cash more efficiently in another game, you should. And whether entering a satellite to an MTT is a good idea is in large part dependent on whether you have the bankroll for the larger event, since the value of the tickets should be thought of as a portion of your cash bankroll and you shouldn't devote a large portion of your bankroll to a single event. I could go on but I think you did a fine job with this. Let's just say I agree.

What I'm arguing is something much simpler:

Take two tournaments, same buyin, same field size (for the sake of controls on the argument assume field size is constant), that pay ten percent of the field.

One is a standard $250 MTT. The other is a $250 supersatellite where 10% wins seats to a $2500. The second clearly has lower variance, assuming a player is equally skilled at both formats. If a player wants to play 1000 $250 tourneys and use the proceeds to play as many $2500 tourneys as he can afford, playing satellites will be a lower variance way of winning the same (expected) number of seats, and therefore a lower variance way of experiencing his overall expected return. To be clear I am talking about MTT-style supersatellites that pay 10% of the field, not something like a double shootout which pays 1 in 81 or a MTT supersat that pays 1 in 50 like a $300 sat to a WS package.

[/ QUOTE ]


i'm pretty sure this is not true. if you're playing to qualify for a larger, $2500 tourney, then your variance in that MTT is going to be way larger, b/c the variance in the $2500 event is enormous. Maybe on average you only spend $12-1500 in sats to qualify, but then a $12-1500 tourney would probably be above your BR (if you're a $250 MTT player)

The only way it reduces variance is if you had the BR ,and were planning on probably buying in anyways (or at least considering buying in). then playing the sats would of course be lower variance than buying directly into the big event.

The exception of course would be if you're able to sell your buyin, and were just playing the sats to win $$.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
The exception of course would be if you're able to sell your buyin, and were just playing the sats to win $$.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I recommend all the time when low stakes players emailing me saying "omg, I won an entry into the 215, tell me how to win it!"

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
And btw, the 100 buying bankroll for MTT's is [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

100 is fine IMO. esp if you're willing to drop down buyins if you run real bad. and even moreso if MTTs aren't your main source of income.

But of course, its very dependant on how good you are. 100 buyins might be a bit short if you're a 50% ROI or less. but if you're in the 200%+ range, then you could get away with much less.

Sklansky showed results from MTT sims in Poker, gaming and life (i think), and i believe that losing 80 buyins was very unlikely for a winning player. they were only for 200 people fields i think. bigger fields will of course increase variance, but i believe not quite as much as it may seem, since finishing in the top .5% usually still nets a pretty decent payout, regardless of field size.

obv. if MTT events are your only source of income, and you're too stubborn to ever move down in stakes then you'd probably want 250+ buyins. but i doubt many people fall into that catagory.

[LearnedfromTV]

Yes, as I said in another post to N 82:

"I should add that my point requires that you be playing multis at the same buyin level as the satellite (i.e. you are replacing some $250 regular tourneys with $250 satellites.) If all you do is play satellites way under your bankroll to get into events at your bankroll, you're wasting time. This only makes sense for people who are rolled for events big enough that they don't have a lot of them to play (and thus often play lower buyins because it is the best available option). Of course, these are the people least concerned about variance, which makes my point less relevant."

In other words, if a very good player is +EV in $2500 multis and has the bankroll to play them, and has roughly equivalent EV's in $250 multis and a $250 satellite to the $2500, he can minimize his overall variance by playing satellites to $2500's in addition to regular $250 multis, provided that there are times when these buyin levels are the highest available options. This ignores other games - of course his time might be better spent in cash games or STT or PLO or something else.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, as I said in another post to N 82:

"I should add that my point requires that you be playing multis at the same buyin level as the satellite (i.e. you are replacing some $250 regular tourneys with $250 satellites.) If all you do is play satellites way under your bankroll to get into events at your bankroll, you're wasting time. This only makes sense for people who are rolled for events big enough that they don't have a lot of them to play (and thus often play lower buyins because it is the best available option). Of course, these are the people least concerned about variance, which makes my point less relevant."

In other words, if a very good player is +EV in $2500 multis and has the bankroll to play them, and has roughly equivalent EV's in $250 multis and a $250 satellite to the $2500, he can minimize his overall variance by playing satellites to $2500's in addition to regular $250 multis, provided that there are times when these buyin levels are the highest available options. This ignores other games - of course his time might be better spent in cash games or STT or PLO or something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. i understand what you're saying. and i think its very false.

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.

to play sats for $2500 events, you should at least have the BR to play in $1500-$2000 events.

[ansky451]

Hey Zee, way to completely misunderstand my post!

The point im making is that if you want to play within your bankroll for MTTs, there are very very few people in the world who should play the world series or other large buy ins. I have no idea where you got this from: [ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me out of the 6,000 people that play this tournament, they're not all winning players

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said anything about the quality of their play, merely that virtually everyone who wins seats into big buy in tournaments is playing over their bankroll.

I just used the 100 buy in as a random benchmark, not that its realistic. So if we were to say that 500 buy ins is appropriate, than there is practically no one who would be playing a 10k event within their own bankroll "parameters."


Please, be more condenscending next time, I didn't get enough of it in your last response.

[Blindcurve]

[ QUOTE ]
Another good example of MTT play is something like a role playing game. If you roll a 4+ 10 times in a row, you win the tournament. So what? A fish could do the same thing. But the advantage you get over being a better player is that you get yourselves into slightly better rolls. A bad player may have to roll a 5+ 10 times in a row. It really adds up over the long run.

Anyway, good job ZJ. MTG players represent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this example. RPGers represent.

As for MTT ROI%, I sort of thought the entire idea of playing these tournaments was to essentially break even until your big score. I always thought there were a lot of winning MTTers here simply because their cashes tended to be larger than the sum of their buy-ins. I'm starting to think this is more rare than I realized.

Clearly, because of the time it takes to accumulate a significant sample size, where you are in this buy-in/cash cycle has little bearing on how good you are as a player- other than how your perception of your progress affects your game.

I'd imagine the better you are, the less this perception affects you.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, as I said in another post to N 82:

"I should add that my point requires that you be playing multis at the same buyin level as the satellite (i.e. you are replacing some $250 regular tourneys with $250 satellites.) If all you do is play satellites way under your bankroll to get into events at your bankroll, you're wasting time. This only makes sense for people who are rolled for events big enough that they don't have a lot of them to play (and thus often play lower buyins because it is the best available option). Of course, these are the people least concerned about variance, which makes my point less relevant."

In other words, if a very good player is +EV in $2500 multis and has the bankroll to play them, and has roughly equivalent EV's in $250 multis and a $250 satellite to the $2500, he can minimize his overall variance by playing satellites to $2500's in addition to regular $250 multis, provided that there are times when these buyin levels are the highest available options. This ignores other games - of course his time might be better spent in cash games or STT or PLO or something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. i understand what you're saying. and i think its very false.

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.

to play sats for $2500 events, you should at least have the BR to play in $1500-$2000 events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read the second paragraph?