Satellites!

Imposter

What are peoples opinions of satellites? Are they worth it or are you better off playing other games and then if you make a big score, then buying in direct into big games?

Personally I find that there are a lot of weak players playing them but there are enough strong players to make it very difficult to squeeze into the usually very top heavy prize places. Also the money you could spend trying to qualify could almost buy you in in some cases and your time would have been free to play other games.

I suppose the same would/should ring through for ladder stt games?

Shortstack

Imposter wrote:

What are peoples opinions of satellites? Are they worth it or are you better off playing other games and then if you make a big score, then buying in direct into big games?

Personally I find that there are a lot of weak players playing them but there are enough strong players to make it very difficult to squeeze into the usually very top heavy prize places. Also the money you could spend trying to qualify could almost buy you in in some cases and your time would have been free to play other games.

I suppose the same would/should ring through for ladder stt games?

Personally I think they are great for the game.

1. There are a lot of poor players in them usually
2. The payout structure pay less places but are flat
3. Try handing over $8000 in cold hard cash to enter a tournament when you are used to $50 Max.
4. Some satellites have added money ie: flights, hotels etc
5. Most sites treat you very well when you arrive at main event.
6. Wearing an online shirt at a live event can give you an advantage if you are a good live player (and unknown)

Hectorjelly

We had a discussion on them before. Basically if you are a serisous player unless there is added value or the standard of players is worse then normal you are better of playing normal games.

Hitman Actual

I assume you're talking about online MTT sats, but instead here's my take on the Fitz 270 game single-table sats. The tight structure means that playing these are pointless. Starting chips are 1000, blinds are 25/50, and levels are 10mins (ok some are 15mins, but mostly they're 10mins). I think this cancels out the edge a good player has. In the long run everybody wins one in ten, so you might as well just buy in directly. My point is that these type of satellites are only worthwhile for the better players if the structure is good.

(In saying that, I'll probably still play the Fitz ST sats!)

Imposter

Sorry Hector, didn't/can't remember it being discussed before and I generally avoid hitting the search button

lenny_leonard wrote:

I assume you're talking about online MTT sats

All sats or ladder games in which the prize is a buy-in to a larger game, online or offline.

Waylander

Well I think they are well worth while. I won a ticket for the Ladbrokes cruise when I was only playing about 6 months an I regard that experience as invaluable from a poker point of view, and I had a very pleasant and extremely drunken holiday to boot. I qualified for that on a $8 ticket or something like that. Having said that I do not tend to play them anymore unless I have a healthy account on that particular site.

Hectorjelly

Anyone who wins a seat and a cruise is likely to have a positive view of sattelites!

padraig_f

I can only speak for online satellites but I've always found them to be a good bit softer than STTs of the same buy-in. I think it's because you have people playing in them who don't normally play at that level. e.g. a $50 satellite will probably have a number of $5/$10/$20 STT players taking a shot at getting into the tournament, so it's going to be easier than a $50 stt. But the reverse is less common, for a $200 STT player, it would rarely be worth their time to play in a $50 satellite.

mewso

Hectorjelly wrote:

Anyone who wins a seat and a cruise is likely to have a positive view of sattelites!

Ah but then anybody who plays the game to make a living is going to consider a waste of time. If you have a job you can probably afford to waste a little time here and there trying to make a big event.

NickyOD

I generally only play satelites for the T$ on Pokerstars. Recently I've started playing the 40/50/90 FPP sats to te 500FPP sats, then playing the 500 for T$215. I'm 2 from 5 for T$430.

Other than that I would probably only play satelites in order to qualify for major tournaments and not the feeders to smaller online tournies, atleast not just as a means of qualifying but more as a means to make money from the satelite, because as Imposter said the play can be quite poor. The $100 sat to the Borgota open on Empire the other day had an enormous overlay and the play was absolutely brutal.

Also as I see it, with the increase in satelite qualifiers the standard at major events seems to be getting much poorer so your equity in playing instead of taking the buy in may sometimes be better than you think. Only 50% of the players in the british open are pros and some of those from what I've seen wouldn't be too far ahead of the freerollers in the Fitz.

Wallko

hey hold on a minute, thats a cheap shot, the freerollers are the best damn players in the world!

roryc

Im sick of everyone badmouthing the cream of the Irish poker scene....