Party Super Musings

[Benal]

[ QUOTE ]
you do realize that using sats is the same thing as buying in directly

[/ QUOTE ]

Say by chance I win every sat I play, I'll be waaay better than break even for the year when I win a Super vs buying in directly (as per OP).

So how is it the same as buying in directly when it costs less to do so?

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you do realize that using sats is the same thing as buying in directly

[/ QUOTE ]

Say by chance I win every sat I play, I'll be waaay better than break even for the year when I win a Super vs buying in directly (as per OP).

So how is it the same as buying in directly when it costs less to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've often wondered about this line of reasoning. It really just doesn't make sense to me. A satellite has risk, like any other form of poker. In addition, it takes time to win a satellite. How is a satellite any different than playing a $60 turbo STT and taking your winnings to the $215 tourney on Sunday? IMO, it isn't.

The only question you should be asking yourself is where you think you can most easily make money. For example, do you suck at satellite situations but you're a STT expert? In that case, you should not enter a satellite... you should just use STTs to build your roll to the point where you can enter some big MTTs (btw, I'm assuming that's your goal here, even if entering those MTTs would be outside of normal bankroll management guidelines). If you suck at STTs and you tend to kill satellites (superior patience, whatever), maybe you should consider just playing satellites. I know of at least one person who makes a comfortable hourly wage from playing satellites to the $215. He's convinced you find the worst players there and he doesn't like shorthanded play. It's the best place for him to make money right now.

Forget the idea that you're getting in cheaper. Just focus on playing where you think you can make the largest hourly wage within your risk tolerance level (or listen to strassa and play where you can develop your game... but that's a different mindset).

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]

So how is it the same as buying in directly when it costs less to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

because its basically the same thing as winning a small tournament, and using those winnings to play in a bigger tournament

it would "cost less" for me to win a 50+5 SnG and use my winnings to buy-in to a 200+15

but i still had to win that 50+5 SnG in the first place

do you see what im getting at? its not like you entered the satellite for 30 bucks then immediately got 200 tournament bucks back. you had to play for it, and win it.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So how is it the same as buying in directly when it costs less to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

because its basically the same thing as winning a small tournament, and using those winnings to play in a bigger tournament

it would "cost less" for me to win a 50+5 SnG and use my winnings to buy-in to a 200+15

but i still had to win that 50+5 SnG in the first place

do you see what im getting at? its not like you entered the satellite for 30 bucks then immediately got 200 tournament bucks back. you had to play for it, and win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I think we have the same idea. This whole satellite misconception is definitely prevalent in poker though...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So how is it the same as buying in directly when it costs less to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

because its basically the same thing as winning a small tournament, and using those winnings to play in a bigger tournament

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me you understand the difference between a satellite payout structure and a cash tournament... it's MUCH easier to win 10x (or 20x, whatever) your buy-in in a sat than a cash tourney...

EDIT: if you're talking about STT's, then i understand...

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious observation is that your ROI is unlikely to reflect your true EV in a large field tournament even over 365 tournaments.


[/ QUOTE ]

Over in the STT forum we like to say meaningful sample sizes start at around 1000 SnGs....am I crazy or should that figure be even higher for MTTs...like....way higher?

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The obvious observation is that your ROI is unlikely to reflect your true EV in a large field tournament even over 365 tournaments.


[/ QUOTE ]
Over in the STT forum we like to say meaningful sample sizes start at around 1000 SnGs....am I crazy or should that figure be even higher for MTTs...like....way higher?

[/ QUOTE ]


The number is so high, its not even important to bother figuring it out, especially if you are regularly entering supers with 1000 entrants.

[Benal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So how is it the same as buying in directly when it costs less to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

because its basically the same thing as winning a small tournament, and using those winnings to play in a bigger tournament

it would "cost less" for me to win a 50+5 SnG and use my winnings to buy-in to a 200+15

but i still had to win that 50+5 SnG in the first place

do you see what im getting at? its not like you entered the satellite for 30 bucks then immediately got 200 tournament bucks back. you had to play for it, and win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I realize that I basically win $162 when I win a sat, and then I'm spending that $162 when I play a Party Super. I was simply trying demonstrate a different approach to the original post.

Shaniac stated you would need to win a Super just to break even when playing 4 Supers a week for 50 weeks. That's $648 * 50, or $32400. If you ABSOLUTLY had to play these 4 Supers a week, why buyin directly if you can win an entry for an average of $75? $300 * 50 = $15000

Now let's say that 1st place pays an average of $32000. I'm now showing a profit of $17000, vs being break even.

[Jason Strasser]

Lol you play this thing 200 times you ought to expect to win more money than 1 first.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol you play this thing 200 times you ought to expect to win more money than 1 first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning 5x as often as the field is not as easy as you think. Maybe you are good enough to do it, maybe not, but I certainly wouldn't laugh at someone who only wins one out of 300 as they are most certainly a winning player.