WSOP Sattelites

Hectorjelly

Andy Ward has a short piece on sattelites here:

http://pokersoftstrategy.blogspot.com/

Which is pretty much how I feel.

First of all the average player playing in a $10k event is going to have an equity of a lot less than $10k. Waiting for premium hands and trying to get all in preflop with AQ+ isnt a viable strategy at that level of competition/structure. It just doesnt make sense for a player to jump from low/mid stakes to 10k events in one swoop. There are plenty of events in between which can ensure a more smooth rise up the ranks.

Secondly there is the time and cost of playing the sattelite. All of the time that you spent trying to win the seat could be spent playing normal games. As long as you trust your ability to spend money wisely it has to be - EV to play a sattelite as unless there is money added the EV of winning money that has to be spent on something must be lower than the EV of winning the cash amount.

All in all I think sattelites are just a way for people to trick themselves into paying huge amounts into tournaments they really have little chance in. Obviouisly if you are a world class player and you intend to buy your way in anyway then it makes sense to play them.

Waylander

Were the last two winners of thew main event at the WSOp not satelite winners?

AmarilloFats

Where's your romanticism...Yeah what waylander said..Also robert Varchoni played questionably the yr he won... and

Hitman Actual

Is Ward talking specifially about B+M sats or online sats, or does it matter?

I think Raymer would have bought in anyway, even if he didn't qualify online. He'd played in some of the previous ones, and I doubt if he'd qualified for all of them online. Raymer was (is) a successful live player anyway; some people seem to think that because he qualifed online that he was lucky to win last year, but I think he's a really good player. Like the article says, it makes sense for a top-class player to play the sats if you're going to buy in anyway.

NickyOD

I would have to agree with Hector. There's a misconception that when you get into a tournament in a satelite you got in cheaply. No you didn't. You won a tournament and got 10K. Now you are handing over 10K for another tournament and that 10K is no longer your money. This is not the same thing as a top professional getting sponsored to play. Generally you shouldn't play a satelite to a tournament unless you are willing to pay the full whack if you don't qualify. I see online sats a good way of making money. I've lost count of the times I've qualified for the 200+15 on Stars and just took the T$.

I guess with the WSOP though there is "the experience of a lifetime" mentality and if I qualified cheaply, I would most likely go. I SHOULD take the money but I probably wouldn't.

Andrew Galzer wrote an excellent article in Cardplayer on satelites here

pokertroll

Waylander wrote:

Were the last two winners of the main event at the WSOP not satelite winners?

Going by Andy Wards' reasoning, Chris Moneymaker should have put that 10k satellite money towards his pension instead of trying his hand at the WSOP as he would obviously be punching above his weight.

HectorJelly wrote:

All in all I think sattelites are just a way for people to trick themselves into paying huge amounts into tournaments they really have little chance in. Obviouisly if you are a world class player and you intend to buy your way in anyway then it makes sense to play them

Is a person's ability as a poker player measured by the size of their bankroll or how much they are willing to pay out of their own cash into the event?
Just because you have paid $9 (or free as in Oscars case) for your ticket does that make you a lesser player? You've got to start somewhere and satellites are good start for me. As Scott Gray said in his interview, if you are not a sponsored player, they are a good way to get on the circuit cheaply.

Personally, I think even a pro would be crazy to fork out 10k into a tournament with 6000 entrants.

Do you really think a player who plays $100 or $500 entry games is that much out of their league in a high entry event such as the WSOP?
I have seen and played with many World Series winners/contenders in such events over the past few years.

Samba

I have to admit I would be tempted to sell an entry ticket, yes it is the WSOP but my tournament play is the weakest aspect of my game, I feel I could make alot more money with that 10k online than if I headed off to the WS

pokertroll

Samba wrote:

I have to admit I would be tempted to sell an entry ticket, yes it is the WSOP but my tournament play is the weakest aspect of my game, I feel I could make alot more money with that 10k online than if I headed off to the WS

I think its worth it for the experience. Besides, you can always try to win a second one use it to make more money ;-)

ionapaul

The vast, Vast, VAST majority of poker players would probably achieve a much, Much, MUCH better return on investment by putting the 10k into a ETF or market-tracking mutual fund and leaving it there for 20 years, than playing poker of any kind with it

I know what I would prefer to do!

Hectorjelly

Waylander wrote:

Were the last two winners of thew main event at the WSOp not satelite winners?

That doesnt really mean anything. The lotto is always won by someone who does the lotto, that doesnt make doing the lotto + EV.

AmarilloFats

Yeah they say the lotto is a tax for those who are crap at maths..
But $9 pokertroll paid..is negligable compared to the thrill of winning a seat and playing the event....

AmarilloFats

If bill gates said he'd give you 10:1 on the flip of a coin....For your entire worth..That would be very much so ++ EV... But ye could nae do it cap'n...
Sometimes ye have to pass +EV...and Grab -EV..Don't ye think!?

Hectorjelly

pokertroll wrote:

Going by Andy Wards' reasoning, Chris Moneymaker should have put that 10k satellite money towards his pension instead of trying his hand at the WSOP as he would obviously be punching above his weight.

Slight selection bias error there, but yes he probably would of been better off putting the money towards his pension.

pokertroll wrote:

Is a person's ability as a poker player measured by the size of their bankroll or how much they are willing to pay out of their own cash into the event?
Just because you have paid $9 (or free as in Oscars case) for your ticket does that make you a lesser player? You've got to start somewhere and satellites are good start for me. As Scott Gray said in his interview, if you are not a sponsored player, they are a good way to get on the circuit cheaply.

A player who has never played any medium/big tournaments, maybe hasnt played live that much and doesnt have a really good understanding of poker has very little chance at the WSOP - they are the very definiton of dead money. And thats the exact profile of 90% of sattelite entrants. Those players would be much better off doing something else with their time and money.

pokertroll wrote:

Personally, I think even a pro would be crazy to fork out 10k into a tournament with 6000 entrants.

This is crazy. If its + EV and you have the bankroll then you would have to be mad not to play it, there is probably more dead money in it than any other big tournament!

pokertroll wrote:

Do you really think a player who plays $100 or $500 entry games is that much out of their league in a high entry event such as the WSOP?
I have seen and played with many World Series winners/contenders in such events over the past few years.

You are clearly a much much better player than the one I outlined above, but then you have played many $100 - $500 entry games with many World Series winners/contenders, something very few sattelite entrants have.

pokertroll

Hectorjelly wrote:

This is crazy. If its + EV and you have the bankroll then you would have to be mad not to play it, there is probably more dead money in it than any other big tournament!
.

For example, consider the Mike Magee documentary that was broadcast last year - was he getting good value for what he said was his last 10k? Most non-sponsored pros would be in that bracket and would rely completely on satellites or backers to get a seat.

I take your points entirely hector - there will be a lot of dead money muppets there and I'm sure there are a lot of people who have spent a lot of money trying to get to the WSOP. Personally I like satellites as they are a nice cheap way of getting the experience of circuit events without spending too much of your own money.

Consider..

If I was to win 10k in cash, there would not be a chance in the world that I would spend it all on a WSOP ticket. I think it would need to be closer to 100k in cash before I would consider paying 10k of that for a ticket.

Shortstack

Satellites are good. They are usually winner takes all events and therefore cannot be directly compared to winning a normal tournament where you get 20-35% of the pool for winning. I doubt there are many people on this forum who could hand over the $10k to play in the event. I certainly couldn't if I had played the Merrion & Fitzwilliam 'satellites'.

Satellites elimate a lot of the fear factor some players get when they have anted up a lot of cash. Telling myself 'this only cost $160' helped me in the WPT & EPT events and similar thought processes will help Oscar, Mark & all the other qualifiers to play there ordinary game in a $10k buy in. Obviously that wll be negated if all they can think about is the $10million plus first prize money.

Sometimes it is not about money EV but about life EV. Not every golfer can play in the US Open but every poker player has a shot at playing in the World series.

accensi0n

AmarilloFats wrote:

If bill gates said he'd give you 10:1 on the flip of a coin....For your entire worth..That would be very much so ++ EV... But ye could nae do it cap'n...
Sometimes ye have to pass +EV...and Grab -EV..Don't ye think!?

I'd do it.

Hectorjelly

pokertroll wrote:

For example, consider the Mike Magee documentary that was broadcast last year - was he getting good value for what he said was his last 10k? Most non-sponsored pros would be in that bracket and would rely completely on satellites or backers to get a seat.

If that was his last 10k then it was crazy of him to enter. Whilst he was getting good value for his 10k its still a very long shot.

pokertroll wrote:

If I was to win 10k in cash, there would not be a chance in the world that I would spend it all on a WSOP ticket. I think it would need to be closer to 100k in cash before I would consider paying 10k of that for a ticket.

[/QUOTE]

Its still costing you 10k to play in the wsop now, but by playing the sattelite you have removed the option of what to do with the money.

Hectorjelly

Shortstack wrote:

Satellites are good. They are usually winner takes all events and therefore cannot be directly compared to winning a normal tournament where you get 20-35% of the pool for winning. I doubt there are many people on this forum who could hand over the $10k to play in the event. I certainly couldn't if I had played the Merrion & Fitzwilliam 'satellites'.

The exact structure of the event is completely beside the point. When your deciding on what type of poker to play your main decision making factor is the profitability of the event, so they are directly comparable in this instance.

Shortstack wrote:

Satellites elimate a lot of the fear factor some players get when they have anted up a lot of cash. Telling myself 'this only cost $160' helped me in the WPT & EPT events and similar thought processes will help Oscar, Mark & all the other qualifiers to play there ordinary game in a $10k buy in. Obviously that wll be negated if all they can think about is the $10million plus first prize money.

Thats a good point, satelite winners probably have a slight psychological advantage in that they can delude themselves into thinking they are playing for less than the true buy in.

Shortstack wrote:

Sometimes it is not about money EV but about life EV. Not every golfer can play in the US Open but every poker player has a shot at playing in the World series.

This sound like an add for pokerstars.

Hectorjelly

AmarilloFats wrote:

Yeah they say the lotto is a tax for those who are crap at maths..
But $9 pokertroll paid..is negligable compared to the thrill of winning a seat and playing the event....

Id say pokertroll values his time at more than 0$ an hour so it didnt cost him $9.

Shortstack

Hectorjelly wrote:

The exact structure of the event is completely beside the point. When your deciding on what type of poker to play your main decision making factor is the profitability of the event, so they are directly comparable in this instance.

Not true, most poker players would put a high value on playing in such a large and prestigious event. In fact on more than one occassion you have said yourself you would give your right arm to play in one (if that is not -EV I don't know what is ). To be able to take a shot for $9 is tremendous value for 'life experience & an opportunity to win a sackful of cash'.

Hectorjelly wrote:

Thats a good point, satelite winners probably have a slight psychological advantage in that they can delude themselves into thinking they are playing for less than the true buy in.

It is no delusion, in an online qualifier you never get the money so how can you say you spent it?

Hectorjelly wrote:

This sound like an add for pokerstars.

Maybe it does, but show me a poker player who would turn down a $9 chance to play in the WSOP and I will show you a liar. Incidentally my pokerstars affiliate ID is.....

In all seriousness the best qualifiers are on Betfair where there is about 60K added to most satellites. That is 300 runners * 330 paying out 10 seats with package worth about $15000. There is one left this Sunday. And I have a -EV meal to go to :mad:

Hectorjelly

Shortstack wrote:

It is no delusion, in an online qualifier you never get the money so how can you say you spent it?

The time effort and bankroll that you spent winning the sattelite have a price of $10k once you win. Think about how illogical it is to think that an advantage of playing in a paticular event is that it takes away your freedom to do what you want with the money if you win.

Shortstack wrote:

Maybe it does, but show me a poker player who would turn down a $9 chance to play in the WSOP and I will show you a liar. Incidentally my pokerstars affiliate ID is.....

In all seriousness the best qualifiers are on Betfair where there is about 60K added to most satellites. That is 300 runners * 330 paying out 10 seats with package worth about $15000. There is one left this Sunday. And I have a -EV meal to go to :mad:

The time that you spend playing the sattelites has to be figured into the equation as well, so it didnt cost pokertroll $9 to get to the wsop.

Obv if you are playing a satelite with a big overlay then it might be sensible, should the overlay be big enough.

pokertroll

I wasn't playing for the cash, I was playing for the ticket and the love of the game.

BigDragon

I would give $9 for an all expenses paid trip to HQ for the chance to see the worlds best play and whilst there get to play in a freeroll that has a nice payout.

I would never stump up $10k cash unless I had won multi-millions in the lotto.

Common sense really.

Iago

BigDragon wrote:

I would give $9 for an all expenses paid trip to HQ for the chance to see the worlds best play and whilst there get to play in a freeroll that has a nice payout.

I would never stump up $10k cash unless I had won multi-millions in the lotto.

Common sense really.

Of course, but I think the point is which is better value considering your relative skill level and odds.

1. Giving $9 for an all expenses paid trip to HQ for the chance to see the worlds best play and whilst there get to play in a freeroll that has a nice payout.

2. Giving $9 for $10K in cash that you could then utilise for something else, including turning it into more money by playing poker at a different level...

I don't play online satelittes, for me having to spend hours and hours to win a ticket for an event that I'm going to spend hours and hours ( and maybe days) playing with a relatively small chance of return just isn't worth my time and effort.

I almost played the fitz satellite, but only because I could take the money rather than a ticket. This may have more to do with me knowing the limitations of my game than anything else though.

Waylander

That is fine Iago, but people whodo play these satellites obviously know what the prizes on offer for and are happy enough to play for that prize, so I do not agree with the arguement that they paid full whack for their seat. Also saying it is -EV could be taken as a short term point of view, when you take into consideration the improvements that are likely to occur in your game from playing with the best of the best. The experience could prove to have alot of long term value. Hector, if you won the satelite over the net, the chances are you would be multitabling anyway, so it would not eat into your hourly rate al that much, although obviously this could not be done for the Fitz and Merrion satellites. I look upon satellites as a cheap way of gaining invaluable experience. I was playing poker six months when I won the cruise with Ladbrokes and ended up playing the same tourney as some big names in the game. It was definitley a good learning experience, not to mention a pretty good hoiday on top of that.

NickyOD

Shortstack wrote:

Sometimes it is not about money EV but about life EV.

I think this statement really says it all. If you are a "noob" to the live poker tables and were lucky enough to get a seat in a major event then the experience could do more harm than good since you'll most likely make a show of yourself. (I sure did in my first big live event) but as a player with some level of credibility I think turning down the chance to experience a major event and play with some of the best in the world would be madness. The experience and the enjoyment you would get from it would do your poker soul so much good and that is worth way more in EV to me than the money I'd have given up to enter.

Where you believe you sit on the poker food chain should have a lot to do with your decision, but at the end of the day a faeces thrown clown (like Tuan Le) can win a poker tournament and get his face on cover of Cardplayer. Unless I was one of those players playing for a living who struggles and grinds to make an average wage then there's no way I'd turn down a cheap entry to the WSOP, Carribean, Cruise, or any of the major EPT events. The fact that there are players on this board who have qualified cheaply for big events and cashed well says it all, and I doubt even those that didn't cash, like PokerTroll, have any regrets about not taking the entry fee.

Hitman Actual

Is this discussion about satellites in general, or just satellites to big events? Like Nicky says, a newbie is wasting his time in the big events, unless they get very, very lucky. But the guys who post here that are on their way to the WSOP are definately not wasting their time... they're far, far better than the dead money that will be floating around the event.

The question is, how long would it take to make the money (e.g. through cash games) to cover the cost of an all-expenses-paid entry into a big event? It's probably a hell of a lot longer than the time taken to play in the various online sats, so if your desire is to play these big games then online sats are a really good way to go (assuming you dont end up spending the price of the ticket in trying to qualify!).

But there probably is a cross-over point where you would be better off trying to make the money in cash games e.g. for a 1K-2K entry event, say, your time might be better spent at earning the money through cash games (assuming of course that you're a regular winning cash game player).

Sats in general: There are a lot of guys playing the Fitz 270euro freerolls week-in, week-out, and spending more than (or at least close to) the 270 euro needed to play... what's the point! Just pay the entry fee, ffs!

Personally, I like to play the freeroll and sats on the day of the 270 game. I'm going to play the game anyway, but this way I usually get a few cheap entries to the game each year, so it works out +EV for me.

RoundTower

Playing poker is -EV for most people. What's so much worse about playing satellites?