ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
When is this info gonna be available on your site, N? Your post got me kind of curious of what my own stats look like.

(I know I'm a decent winner $-wise but as you've showed, there's a lot more to it than that)

[/ QUOTE ]

I PMed you to avoid being permanently banned for spamming or whatever

[LearnedfromTV]

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.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation isn 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, 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 ]

If you feel that type of lower variance payout suits your game, then you should play them just because they suit you... not because it allows you to lower your cost of entry. I'd never argue people shouldn't play satellites -- but they should only play them if that's the best place to "invest" their $ at that time.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I agree that expectation isn 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, 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 ]

If you feel that type of lower variance payout suits your game, then you should play them just because they suit you... not because it allows you to lower your cost of entry. I'd never argue people shouldn't play satellites -- but they should only play them if that's the best place to "invest" their $ at that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're on the same page. Rereading my first post I realize that "lower your average cost of entry" was a bad choice of words. My only point is that an MTT player can reduce his overall variance by including satellites. He could just as easily reduce his variance by playing STT's or cash games and using the cash to play MTT's. The difference, in my mind, is that a satellite (when it has a supersat format) is a type of MTT, albeit one with an unusual pay structure. But that's semantics.

Edit: 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.

I play satellites for two reasons:

1. I play SNGs so it's really just like playing a $22 or $33 and I treat it the same way. I find the skill level even lower in the satellites, though, so it's a good place to play.

2. When I tell my wife at dinner time "I'm in the Super again" she takes it much easier if I say I did it on a $22 satellite than that I plopped down $165 of our kid's college tuition.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I play satellites for two reasons:

1. I play SNGs so it's really just like playing a $22 or $33 and I treat it the same way. I find the skill level even lower in the satellites, though, so it's a good place to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense to play them for that reason.

[ QUOTE ]
2. When I tell my wife at dinner time "I'm in the Super again" she takes it much easier if I say I did it on a $22 satellite than that I plopped down $165 of our kid's college tuition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose if you're dealing with non-players who don't know the math behind successful gambling, then it's a valid excuse.

[Ulysses]

N,

I will sometimes play a satellite to a tournament because I am willing to invest $x and/or x amount of time to play in a tourney, but not the full amount of the buyin. I imagine that is the case for a fair number of cash game players who play these things.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
N,

I will sometimes play a satellite to a tournament because I am willing to invest $x and/or x amount of time to play in a tourney, but not the full amount of the buyin. I imagine that is the case for a fair number of cash game players who play these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so... let's say you want to play in a $1K WCOOP event. You're willing to invest $x and y hours to satellite in.

You don't think you could win $1K at a cash game with a similar investment of $x and in less than y hours?

And what's the point of the idea of an investment of $x?

I personally think that satellites exist for two reasons, only one of which benefits the good players:

1) Generate more rake (not really helpful for good players)
2) Put a lot of low limit donkeys into big events (a HUGE boost that generates a ton of dead money and is one of the greatest things to ever happen to big $ MTTs)

[shaniac]

Hmmmm...thinly disguised spam, a cheap shot at a poker player who makes more money in his sleep that you ever will in your dreams, and the point of it is....that tournaments are high variance?

Good thing we have geniuses like you around to tell us what's what.

[Exitonly]

Wow, what crawled up your ass?

He asked Justin if he could do it, he made a good point, and i really doubt that most posters here realze that huge swingy-ness in these things.