A year ago I entered the event at the Bike and one of my friends is Thomas Keller. We both busted out and I asked him what he was gonna do that night. He said he was gonna go win his buy in back. I thought that was interesting.

So I thought why don't I think like that. A satellite is just a tournament so why do we view a cash win differently than we do winning a seat.

My point is lets say you have a goal and you want to play 6 events this year. Whether you sat in-win the money in cash games or win it in tournaments it is all relative.

Personally this year I am planning to play about 40k in buy ins this year. I have tried to satellite in but with no luck so far. Though I am up about 20k on Bodog in the last 10 days and I have had one 6k cash and one 2k cash. So only 12k more to go and I am good for the year.

Just an alternative perspective that some may not consider and don't give me that "I just won't pay 10k for an event" if that is the case you likely shouldn't be playing it in the first place.

satellites are for the poker rooms to make more profit not as much for players preference. like beanie said a lot of people will make the money but just dont want to fork it over for the tourneys. its all marketing from the poker rooms perspective...they offer this small buy in to win a huge amount in another tourney, so it attracts a lot of players (that as you said) shouldnt be playing in that main event. but once they get that entry, its not readily convertible to cash, so they have to play and it increases the casino/sites #'s in the tourneys. but ive wondered what most of the pros do in that situation as well.

This kind of shines on a bigger issue, which is that if you can't afford the buy in of a tournament, you probably shouldn't be playing it. Satellites make by far the most sense for people who are going to play the tournament anyway, because if they can get in cheaper *on average* by playing them and don't miss some other valuable opportunity while playing them, they save money on entry fees. If a player can't afford a buy in and is only playing a tournament after satelliting in, they may find that over time, their satellite costs are still out of their bankroll, in terms of what they have to put in to have an actual chance at return.

For instance, say you like to try to satellite into the $215 tournament on some site each week. Let's say they run $43+4 single table satellites that pay two spots, and you can only afford one of these each week, so you take one shot in one of these to get in, and if you don't get in, you don't play it. This may sound reasonable, as you're taking a shot with money you can afford to lose in order to try and get into a big tournament and have a big payday. But you're not getting into the tournament 100% of the time, so when you figure out through your statistics after a while how much $$$ on average you spend to get in, you figure out you're getting in just better than 1 in 4 times and your average expense is $170 to get into a $215 tournament. That means that every time you're getting any chance to get any return on your money, you're spending $170 on average to get that chance. This is expensive for a player who can typically only afford buy ins of up to $50 or so, and it's disguised in a way that makes the non-astute player think they're spending less than they really are.

For someone who can afford $215 buy ins and can play them anyway, paying $170 instead of $215 for each of them will give them a very substantial boost in terms of ROI. For someone who can't afford the $215 or even the $170 to play each time, they're putting too much of their bankroll at risk for each attempt (at the actual main tourney), and are in a high risk situation where they could go broke or at the very least stunt the growth of their bankroll.

This makes complete sense to me. Some people are uncomfortable putting up that kind of money even if it's within their bankroll. Bill Gates doesn't like to play above 3/6 limit poker because it bothers him when he gets down more than $300 in one session. He can certainly afford to play higher stakes, but mentally it doesn't work for him. For people like this with the bankroll, but are not comfortable putting up that kind of cash a satellite is the only option for them. That being said I agree with Adam that if they aren't comfortable putting up the buyin to begin with, they probably shouldn't satellite into it. But this scenario is the only one I can forsee where satelliting is the only option and not necessarily wrong. FWIW.

It has to do with discipline, and enforcing checks and balances on protecting your bankroll. It is an extremely low EV to simply pony up 10k to play in an event. It is a much better EV to win your seat in a satellite, and have a finite limitation on your financial exposure. Personally, I will never buy into a 10k event as I don't see the risk reward ratio as being positive.

Gl,

Chris

These satellites are basically just a form of trickery in my book to make people think they are getting in cheap. When you play a $215 satellite with say 200 players that gives away 4 seats you are essentially playing a regular tourney that pays 10K for 1st-4th places and nothing for the other spots. The only difference is you are then forced to spend your 10K in winnings on a main event buy in. It really is trickery but it even fools the best players and even though I know it, I still play some as I really like that form of a payout scale.

A.J.

"and don't give me that "I just won't pay 10k for an event" if that is the case you likely shouldn't be playing it in the first place."

I’m just a weekend run of the mill poker player. Poker is a pastime….a hobby.

For me it’s just a matter of BR committed TO poker. I could pay for a $10k seat from my day job very easily…but to ME that is more than I am willing to spend on this hobby. Now my motorcycle hobby….I spend much more….but I like that more than poker.

So if I could satellite into one of the big events….namely the WSOP main event….and stay within the $$$ I want to spend (gamble) on poker….well that makes sense. And that is why satellites are attractive to me.

That’s my $0.02

And if that means I should not be playing….well…..F beanie :)

I read that Bill Gates plays 3/6 because the opponents are having fun still and the players aren't serious about the game.

I doubt Gates is really worried about 300 bucks. He loses that much taking the time out of his day to play. I read a stat (believe what you want) that if he drops a $100 bill, he loses money to stop and pick it up. (they get this by how much he makes a year/min/etc.)

beauright

"If you can get 300 people to sign up in a 1k event, you only have to make the money (top 10%) to get the 10k payout. This is a +EV for a good player. Generally you have to make the FT to get 10x your buy-in back."

Is this really +EV even for a good player? Wouldn't a good player be better off to enter a $1K tourney with 300 players strictly for the cash rather than one of 3 seats? Surely a good player would have money left over after paying $10K for his seat if he came in top 1-6th place.

I disagree with that mentality. If you need a freeroll you likely don't have much of a chance once you are there. I really am not trying to be disrespectful I am trying to illustrate that when the money starts to matter you won' play the same as someone who the money doesn't matter for.

I would guess JohhnyBax and other less skilled players would appreciate sats for 2 reasons:

1. With the ultra high variance seen in the big MTT's, sats provide a much more "reasonable" entry fee for the MTT you'll likely lose, and

2. Better players are more likely to win (read reduced variance) in the smaller field of lower skilled players that typically play $3 rebuy sats to the big ones.

Additionally, I play the sats because I know my skill level does not warrant a direct buy-in, but I could get lucky and win via a sat.

Actually that isn't what I mean and I know you smiled so I am just pointing out that because you won't put "that much money" for your hobby that puts you at a disadvantage against players who don't have that distraction. You can say this to me, I am playing for the experience and I would like to get the experience cheaply but that goes to Adam's point of why there is so much dead money in these fields.

The original point to this thread was not whether or not you could afford it or if you wanted to commit a part of your bankroll. i want someone to tell me why grinding out 2.5 weeks in a 30-60 game is somehow worse than trying satellites. While your time may be more it is possible your investment could be considerably less and it there is no guarantee your time would actually be less

All I am trying to point out is if you play reasonable stakes you could grind your way to the WSOP. Forking over that 10k is quite liberating.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time. I'd rather win $10k cash than a $10k satellite. The cash gives me a lot more flexibility. I can use it to buy in to a big tournament or to get my bathroom remodelled.

I've stopped playing satellites for Sunday tournaments. I make more money simply playing cash games. I'd prefer to play one cash game session and say to myself "If I profit $215 in this session I'm going to use the money to buy into the party $500k on Sunday."

However, I still play satellites to the big live tournaments, full well understanding that if I win I've simply restricted myself in how I can spend the money. In reality, a $10K satellite prize is of less value than $10k cash because of the time value of money and the risk of forfeiting my satellite prize if a change in life events forces me to miss the tournament.

On the other hand, payout structure makes satellite play strategy a bit different than normal MTT strategy. If you regularly are playing against people that don't understand the differences, satellites may be more profitable.

I won 2 EPT satellites and 1 WPT satellite in 2005. Had I won regular tournaments that paid the same amount in cash, I would not have used the money to play those events. Each time I won the satellite my wife asked me what the cash value was. When I told here she simply said "I wish you'd won the money instead"

And therein lies the true value of satellites for us weekend warriors: if we won the same amount in cash, there is no way in hell our wives would let us spend it on entering a WPT event in the Bahamas--especially when the kitchen needs a remodel!

For the regular Sunday tournaments, I tend to agree with you Adam. But for big live events I disagree a bit. I would never have spent the cash to go to PCA Bahamas had I not won a satellite. Playing an event like that is way above my bankroll. But I'm glad I did--it will be an event I remember for the rest of my life.

I agree with you, Puerto, and I've had a similar experience. Speaking strictly from a financial value standpoint, what I say does hold, I believe, regardless of the buy in and only dependent on the player's bankroll. The truth is, as players that aren't necessarily playing WPT events for value (in the traditional sense), we're not really making a good bankroll decision by trying to satellite into them. That said, there are other factors that are important to people besides building or maintaining their bankroll, and there are plenty of other reasons someone might want to play a tournament or be able to afford it.