You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Satellites into bigger events
Whether it's a Sky Poker Main Event, a Super Roller, UKOPS or SPT...
...do you think you had an edge in sats?
If so...
- Why? Do you play differently?
- What's you're expected saving on direct buy-in?
- Is it lower or higher variance to say, 'normal' tournaments?
- Do you set yourself a budget? - e.g. five attempts at a 1 in 5
Interesting to discuss this.
Thanks
Sky Poker
Comments
3 minute blinds!!
Interesting question posed
...do you think you had an edge in sats?
imo it is impossible to have an edge with 3 min blinds, it makes it a shoot with the luckiest players progressing
The £33 game tonight has a £7.20 satellite with 3 minute blinds, for £7.20 of your hard earned coinage I expect more than a 3 minute shoot
I know it favours some players and certain players play satellites even once they have qualified as they feel they have the edge so each to their own!
Again depends on whether it's a slow sat or one of these 3 min blind ones but I reckon I probably average at getting maybe 30% off the price (if it's 1in5, I fancy to get through on average in 3-4 attempts max).
No budget, just if I can afford to keep playing 'em comfortably. Will sometimes play them for cash once I've got a seat anyway. I never used to but I like the 1in10s now cos they're quite top heavy and that's how I like my games.
You could also change these up nearer the event and do some hyper/tubos.
I would much prefer to play these than the normal sats running now.
I dislike satellites and almost never enter them. Paying rake on rake makes them hard to beat, direct entries are much better value imo. Anything that is a quarter-final or below is terrible value if you do the maths. Also if you can't buy-in direct you're not properly bankrolled for the event. Close to the bubble and beyond many satellite qualifiers will tighten up and play sub-optimal tournament poker because their decision making process is overly influenced by the pay jumps. This is why the pros love high buy-in events with a higher than usual proportion of satellite qualifiers in the field.
The 3 minutes level games are total crap-shoots long before you get close to the seats, any edges are severely blunted, I'd suggest it's very difficult to beat the rake. The upside of this is that many weak players who wouldn't buy-in direct get lucky and make the target event which therefore has a softer field, good news for those buying-in direct.
The bolded bit though. Well that's the exact reason people do choose to try sats. In reality, most players on here won't have the bankroll to make direct buy ins a good decision.
Take the next SPT, What % of players have the bankroll that would make that buy in comfortable? Very few , is my guess. By satting in you get to play a great structure event with a great prize pool. What's not to like?
BUT
There is a difference between being rolled to play £5 MTTs and being rolled to play £5 sats. A team mate (BearProof) wrote an article about it a while ago which was really good. Basically if you are playing a £5 sat to get into a £25 game (1in5 sat) and you think your edge means it'll take you an average of 3 attempts to get in, then you need to understand that you are essentially paying £15 to play in that MTT, so then the question is 'am I rolled to play a £15 MTT?'.
"Who cares what i'm rolled to play in, i'll have a punt for £12"
Also how much of the £105 profit was taken in rake charged when you were put in the target tournament? It's about 9% of the total prize value.
Lambert 180 made a valid comment with his £5/£15 analogy. However I'd suggest it's close to impossible to win seats 1 in every 3 times in the 3 minute level games over a big sample, 1 in 4 would be very impressive.
I've no problem with others playing satellites, I was being honest and saying that I don't feel I have an edge in them. I enjoy watching others players taking occasional shots and trying to sat into big events like the Super Roller. You won't see me doing that for two reasons; 1. I don't play poker in the evening. 2. As per my first post on this thread.
Sats are different to normal MTT and a lot of players don't adjust appropriately and know when they should shove any 2 and when they should take lower variance routes. Sometimes it is correct strategy to fold premium hands. A lot of this comes down to experience and like most things in poker analysing after the event. (You may have won a seat but that doesn't mean you didn't make any mistakes/get lucky to get the seat!)
If I had the time I would be happy to take on Gary's 1 in 3 seat challenge!
Matt
Out of interest in terms of amount of hands seen what do people think the equivalent of 3 min blinds 6 handed online is to a live table 9 handed ?
I am not sure but the 5 min sats on here dont seem to run any faster ( in terms of hands seen) than the 20min blinds at my local casino.
Sorry Sky, for my 2p the sats are rubbish.
I can't believe any decent player can have an edge in 3 and 5 minute sats. I tried one tonight (to try the new main event) and it was a donkfest, shoving with k3, calling with 96 as the blinds increased at epic levels.
Back in the day we had a semi-final at 5pm with 10 minute blinds where I believe I did have an edge.
I rarely play because of this which is a shame as I would love to play more main events, but the sats at the moment are poor.
It's a shame sky doesn't encourage good poker, sats with good blind levels, more mtt's with decent blind levels, sky is a bounty hunters paradise, apart from that it's a bit of a wasteland for the half decent MTT players, like I say just my 2p
Adrian
3 improvements to the satellites as they are at the moment that i would make are: