ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[MLG]

usually I like your moral compass shane, but I think your pretty far off here.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

N82 and I are friends and he got my permission before posting this. It certainly was not a cheap shot.

[ZeeJustin]

When I play poker, I generally think about hourly wage and variance. I will only play satellites over SNGs (my personal form of cash games), if I think my hourly wage is higher in satellites. Furthermore, I will only play satellites if am at least close to buying in directly. IMHO, if you aren't willing to buy in directly, you shouldn't really be playing satellites unless there's a seriously lack of game selection available.

FWIW, I consider Stars satellites, especially the 600+40's to be very profitable w/ relatively low variance.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
When I play poker, I generally think about hourly wage and variance. I will only play satellites over SNGs (my personal form of cash games), if I think my hourly wage is higher in satellites. Furthermore, I will only play satellites if am at least close to buying in directly. IMHO, if you aren't willing to buy in directly, you shouldn't really be playing satellites unless there's a seriously lack of game selection available.

FWIW, I consider Stars satellites, especially the 600+40's to be very profitable w/ relatively low variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% with ZJ here, that is the proper way to think about satellites IMO.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
When I play poker, I generally think about hourly wage and variance. I will only play satellites over SNGs (my personal form of cash games), if I think my hourly wage is higher in satellites. Furthermore, I will only play satellites if am at least close to buying in directly. IMHO, if you aren't willing to buy in directly, you shouldn't really be playing satellites unless there's a seriously lack of game selection available.

FWIW, I consider Stars satellites, especially the 600+40's to be very profitable w/ relatively low variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with this generally but its probably worth qualifying it to say that this is true only for the professional player. for the recreational player, while its not wise in terms of bankroll management, sometimes the "thrill" of playing in a bigger tournament (depending on the player, this could be the WSOP or the PP Mill. Guaranteed) makes up for the bad money management.

And of course, we're how you guys make all your money [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I play poker, I generally think about hourly wage and variance. I will only play satellites over SNGs (my personal form of cash games), if I think my hourly wage is higher in satellites. Furthermore, I will only play satellites if am at least close to buying in directly. IMHO, if you aren't willing to buy in directly, you shouldn't really be playing satellites unless there's a seriously lack of game selection available.

FWIW, I consider Stars satellites, especially the 600+40's to be very profitable w/ relatively low variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with this generally but its probably worth qualifying it to say that this is true only for the professional player. for the recreational player, while its not wise in terms of bankroll management, sometimes the "thrill" of playing in a bigger tournament (depending on the player, this could be the WSOP or the PP Mill. Guaranteed) makes up for the bad money management.

And of course, we're how you guys make all your money [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was considering whether or not that I should edit my previous post and say this only applies to players that rely on poker for income, but I figured that much is implied in a post like that.

[N 82 50 24]

Well yea, if you're just playing for the thrill or to take your shot, then sure, it's fine to try to take that shot.

But mathematically sound gambling doesn't have much room for satellites for the most part (unless, like I said, you're a bigger favorite there than your regular game).

[ansky451]

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.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

N82 and I are friends and he got my permission before posting this. It certainly was not a cheap shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guys, I was kidding. N 82 and I are friends, too, and I think his work with thepokerdb is actually quite amazing. In fact, I've said before "the pokerdb is more entertaining than tv."

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
there aren't very many people in the world who *should* play the world series

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute. Are you telling me out of the 6,000 people that play this tournament, they're not all winning players ?!??!?!?!?!? Who would playa $10,000 event if they weren't a winning player !?!??!?!?!?

Edited to add: ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? ?!?!