ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[ QUOTE ]


Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

ansky maybe you need to reread this yourself, I was responding to Zee's post not N 82's.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

ansky maybe you need to reread this yourself, I was responding to Zee's post not N 82's.

[/ QUOTE ]


You said this: [ QUOTE ]
Zee, don't let him get to ya. 1st place in Sundays 500k. Nuff said.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Him" is obviously implying N82, and you are saying as if N 82 was insulting Zee, or putting him down in any way. I did not misread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

ansky maybe you need to reread this yourself, I was responding to Zee's post not N 82's.

[/ QUOTE ]


You said this: [ QUOTE ]
Zee, don't let him get to ya. 1st place in Sundays 500k. Nuff said.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Him" is obviously implying N82, and you are saying as if N 82 was insulting Zee, or putting him down in any way. I did not misread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zee wrote:

"Wow, this is embarrassing. Ok, a few points in my defense."

and I said "Zee, don't let him get to ya."

You did misread, try reading the post that i responded to. Zee said it was embarassing and felt a need to defend himself, hence my remarks.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
You did misread, try reading the post that i responded to. Zee said it was embarassing and felt a need to defend himself, hence my remarks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is the same as my other point, that n 82 was not critisizing Zee's results, nor was he trying to put down zee in anyway. For him to defend himself implies that somehow he was being attacked, which he wasn't.

[Ulysses]

N,

I think this is an excellent post and analysis and pretty succinctly illustrates the insanely high variance that exists in tourney poker. Another way of looking at it is that here's this thing where you have an expectation of say $200-400 a shot, yet in one instance you might get lucky and win $100k+. The long run in tourneys is much longer than even many very experienced top tourney players would like to think.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Zee: He's not talking about satellites. There is NOTHING to be ashamed of. I have your data in front of me too from the site, and wow, you play almost every big buy in tournament on the site. So uh yeah, you didn't ever win the 500k before this, that means nothing. You are a good player because you make good decisions etc etc, it doesn't really matter what specific results you have over a small sample size. N 82 is NOT saying that this is your true ROI, or that before yesterday your true ROI was less or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the main message in this post and the couple of others like it. But I think Zee's mention of satellites is worth considering because the main thing everyone is getting from this data is a confirmation that MTT's with large fields are a very high-variance form of poker. Playing satellites reduces that variance by providing the flattest possible prize pool (I'm talking here about sats where 10% get a seat, not 2% like the big 10K buyin sats.) and allowing a skilled player to reduce his average cost of entry to the tournaments with cash prizes without much risk. There is an opportunity cost for the time spent if you play in lower buyin satellites than your bankroll would allow, and satelliting in to buyins over your roll may not be a great idea, but they do reduce variance if used properly.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the main message in this post and the couple of others like it. But I think Zee's mention of satellites is worth considering because the main thing everyone is getting from this data is a confirmation that MTT's with large fields are a very high-variance form of poker. Playing satellites reduces that variance by providing the flattest possible prize pool (I'm talking here about sats where 10% get a seat, not 2% like the big 10K buyin sats.) and allowing a skilled player to reduce his average cost of entry to the tournaments with cash prizes without much risk. There is an opportunity cost for the time spent if you play in lower buyin satellites than your bankroll would allow, and satelliting in to buyins over your roll may not be a great idea, but they do reduce variance if used properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to address this, as I feel it's a flawed way of thinking. Satellites don't allow you to lower your "average cost of entry" into a tournament. That's a bit like saying you're "in for $11" in a Step 5 on Party. It really doesn't make sense. You *won money* at the satellite, not a ticket or whatever. You then choose to use that "ticket" to enter a larger buyin tourney. Even if you don't have the choice to unregister, by entering the satellite you're choosing to attempt to win a certain amount of $ to be used towards a larger buyin tourney.

Let's say you want to play the PCA and you need $11,000. You should play wherever your hourly rate is highest within your risk tolerance. If that's $200 STTs on Party, then so be it. If you feel like you have a great expectation in the weekly $650 sat, then play that. I think it's laughable that known cash game pros on Stars (people who never play STTs) would try to play these double shootouts when they could clearly have a higher expectation per hour at the 5/10nl or 10/20nl tables. Why not play those tables and just buyin with W$?

On the other hand, if you feel your best hourly expectation within your risk tolerance is at satellite tables, why not play them full time? If that payout structure is agreeable to you, why stop playing them after you win once?

Just had to get that off my chest... although it seems like a basic concept, a lot of people ignore it.

[TomHimself]

vn post n82, very interesting.
thanks zee for letting this be posted and again congrats

[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.