WSOP Problem
I won a sit'n'go to the $615+$35 tourney. I'm wondering wich way to go....this tourney has one seat to the main event for every $11,000 in the prize pool, currently there are 73 entrants and 4 seats. On the other hand I could try the $160 double shootout 4 times with the 650W$ with 81 entrys. Any suggestions?
wader
wader
Comments
Do you feel that either your short-handed of full-table game is better than the other?
If you feel that your short-handed game is very strong, you might want to try the double shootout format, since the majority of this tournament will probably be played 6-handed or less.
If you feel that the full-table game is your speciality, the $650 satellite might be a better choice, since you will rarely have to play short-handed in that tournament.
All else being equal, the dead money factor is probably much higher in the $650 tourneys, due to there being many more low buy-in (sub)satellites into the $650 satellite compared to the double shootouts. Of course, we know that PokerStars subsatellites to a $650 WSOP qualifier are nothing more than tournaments with a special payout structure whose prizes are equal to W$650. However, there are many players who enter the subsatellites to the $650 and actually intend1 to participate in the exact tournament that the subsatellite feeds into.
ScottyZ
1Or in rare cases, they do not know that there is an alternative.
I thought about this factor aswell, and i agree. I feel that my short handed game is good....but who doesn't? If every player was equal I have about a 1:20 chance in the $615 compared to the 1:80 in the $160. Any thoughts on that?
P.S
Whenever I want to change something in my post while I'm typing the letters type over top of the other ones. How do I change it?
I don't.
The key is not to guage your overall poker skill level, but to analyse which form of poker you are better at: short-handed or full-table. I feel that my full-table game is better than my short-handed game.
This doesn't matter in the long run assuming players are of equal skill, and not taking into account the value of your time. The idea is that you're (roughly) increasing your chances to win by a factor of 4 while increasing your cost to participate by a factor of 4.
What does matter (assuming all else equal) in the long run is what the house fee is as a percentage of the buy-in.
I'm not sure. Unless I have some text highlighted (which would be typed over in that case), it's actually impossible for me to get the effect that you are describing.
ScottyZ
I've won an entry via both routes (last year on the $615) and I don't feel one was easier than the other. Personally, I like the $615 a bit better as you don't have to finish first. But this year I didn't win an entry and really didn't want to plunk down $615 directly from my roll. The $160 seemed more palatable (thank goodness I won on my second try).
I'm still trying to win another entry -- and will look to the $615.
Cheers
Magi
I agree with your point, and probably both of these tourney formats are much tougher than usual, even compared to cash tourneys with similar buy-in amounts.
I guess I was trying to measure the "dead moneyness" of one relative to the other, and it seems that you think they're pretty similar in terms of skill pool. I'm curious to hear more thoughts on it from anyone who has tried these.
Also, any thoughts on how the blind/ante structure affects things? Do you feel that one format has "more play" over the other?
ScottyZ