Bankroll Question re Satellites

Is there a general rule of thumb people use for good BR management when working out what level of satellite events your BR will allow you to play?

I have been thinking along the lines detailed below, but the resultant figure seems very high. I would be glad if someone can point out if I am on the wrong track and why!

Assume the following figures are reliable for all levels of tourney played and that I have been sticking to the 100x rule for direct buyins (so currently $50 max)
Current BR: $5000
ITM% (Direct buyin): 27%
ITM% (Satellites): 33%

I am thinking that if I am going for a single stage sat event then my total ITM% for the subsequent main event should be ~9% (33% x 27%).
However my resultant total ROI is higher because I am saving money by satelliting in. So say the sat is one where 1/8 get a ticket then my max buy in for this event should be ($50 x 33%) x (8/3) = $44???

Honestly I have no idea what your post says.

don't play sats if you can't afford to buy in direct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drmcboy

don't play sats if you can't afford to buy in direct.

---

so you wouldn't play in a WSOP ME sat unless your br is like $1,000,000?

that seems to make for a lot of grinding before ever taking a shot....

The ME is a different story. I plan on playing the ME before I die and hopefully a WPT event or two, but I don't expect them to be +EV. I want to play them because I want to be in that room when they say shuffle up and deal, and I want to take the last piece of chicken on the buffet before Doyle gets there.

Assuming you're NOT talking about a tourney that non monetary value to you personally, yes, I stick by my original statement.

I think you could make a compelling case for not playing something like the nightly 150 on stars even WITH a 15k roll because the variance will eat you up if you are not ready mentally.

Also, you are not going to play well at the FT when every fold may allow you to double your BR.

COULD you win a big pay day? Sure. Mostly you just take a nice win (from the sat) that would add 200 or 1k or 3k to your roll and gamble it all rather than using it to slowly build up a roll. If that seems like 'a lot of grinding' to you, you haven't played enough MTTs yet.

You're really 'taking a shot' every time you play a MTT. You take a shot playing cash to see if you can maybe move up one level or to get yourself a more comfy roll for the level you are at. That's going to happen with all but the smallest of MTT wins. Also, in cash moving up one level is (sometimes) not a subtantial change in the amount of money you have to think about. It's hard enough to ignore payouts late in a MTT that is IN your BR, let alone one that isn't.

I take your point but

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drmcboy

I think you could make a compelling case for not playing something like the nightly 150 on stars even WITH a 15k roll because the variance will eat you up if you are not ready mentally.

Also, you are not going to play well at the FT when every fold may allow you to double your BR.

---

Personally, my stats at higher buyin events that I have satellited into are better than my stats at lower BI events. This may sound strange and I would admit that it is taken from a very small sample size, but I know that my playing style suits deep stack structure/longer rounds (I have predominently played cash rather than tournies). Also, I find it easier to get "in the zone" at big games, although this probably would read better as "I need to concentrate better and bring my A game to the table however low the stakes are!"

Is it a given that MTT variance increases a lot as you move up in stakes?

The better structure part makes sense but as you say it's tough to prove it to yourself mathematically. One of the things that fascinates me about the guys who play 25-30 10k BI events a year is that really they can't have a good idea of what their ROI is, at least in the same way they we internet folk would look at it.

Let’s agree you have an edge in ‘better’ structure tourneys, which are clearly more common at higher limits - how do you logically apply that info assuming you generally believe 100 BIs is the ‘correct number’? It just feels to me like a fuzzy, hard to quantify excuse to play above your roll that you can trot out every WCOOP.

Quote:

---

Is it a given that MTT variance increases a lot as you move up in stakes?

---

I didn't say the variance increased - it is your ROI that should decrease as skill level goes up, all other things being equal. You'd have less variance in 100 FOs with 300 players each than you'll have in the 3 rebuy on stars with 2500. I mentioned the 150 not just because it costs 150 to enter but because it is also so huge. You may have a big edge in that event but not see it until you win two in a row - your 200th and 201 times playing it. That's not so bad in the 3 RB when you've lost like 3k total and you turn it into 6k on time 201, but you may jump off a building losing 15k playing in the Stuper.

Same with the big Sundays – here you almost certainly have an edge, probably > 75% of the tourney is dead money. But boy, it may take a while to see the pay off.

Assuming you have no issues with losing XX percent of your roll in one day, it’s fine to ignore all this and take a shot. But it isn’t fine to act like it is anything except gambling. You are giving up long term earning potential (because you won’t be able to move up limits as quickly) in the hope that you will get lucky in the short term. Again, this sort of makes sense in cash games because you aren’t a huge dog to win when you go play 600 nl with 2 BIs instead of your normal 200 nl game. But in a MTT, you are a huge dog to win big money at any limit.

What would make more sense to me is to decide that you are OK with increasing the risk of needing to move down limits (or go broke) and use a 75 BI rule. We all know 100 isn’t really enough to not go broke, it’s just enough that hopefully you see what’s happening and move down before you do. Running good and running bad will happen, it’s just a question of what happens to you while it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiLo

so you wouldn't play in a WSOP ME sat unless your br is like $1,000,000?

---

That is correct.

The 100 buy-in rule for regular MTT's applies because at least you cash in a regular MTT 15% of the time or so. If you're playing a satellite that only costs 1/10 of a buy-in, then if you win a seat 1/8 of the time you're still only getting a return on your investment about 2% of the time. And even then, most of the time you'll barely make one buy-in in profit.

For the most part, satellites are for donkeys and that's why the level of play in them is so bad.

The above doesn't apply if
a) You're rolled to buy in directly.
b) You decide to un-register from the target tournament and keep the cash instead of buying in.

Otherwise, you is being a fish.

Thanks for the input guys, this has helped clarify my thinking.
I haven't played enought MTTs yet to get a realistic idea of br management working - My longest dry spell is 11 played without cashing, so I haven't experienced any huge swings yet. I guess this has made me over optimistic on the idea of taking shots at bigger tournies.

I think I will stick to your advice for the most part, and just occassionally try to satellite into bigger events if, for example, I have had a good month and am playing well. For the experience as much as anything else....