|
|
#1
07-21-2007, 12:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Plausible Bankroll Management System Utilizing Satelites ...?
Ok this post is simply because I've been a little too in-my-own-head today and I can see myself utilizing this without looking at it too abstractly, evaluating the flaws, etc.
Ok here's the premise I'm basing this on: I have a bankroll of slightly under 300 dollars; do I cushion myself appropriately if I were to (a) Grind 2.20 sats to the 11$ 100k. (b) Once I've won three seats, examine my profit and loss and make sure I am overall + in profit by 6 dollars. -Example (b):I lose my first game; I win my 2nd game, putting me at overall +6.60. However I'm keeping the satellite position so I deduct full 11$. I lose the following two runs, deducting 4.40 more. I win the next two, additing 17.60; overall this puts me at 6.60. (c) I pull the 6 dollars aside to register for 6$ Round 1 Turbo sat and follow this system regarding qualifying, deduction, and profit: I. If winning the sat, and the profit is >10% of my bankroll, cash out t$ II. If winning the sat, and the profit <10% of my bankroll, treat with the same system as previous, treating it as a deduction in order to take a shot at a larger payday; do not play the shot again until the profit has been made up. (d~) Repeat process moving up in buy-ins to stable (10%+ field payout) Satellites, adding lower staked rebuys in once they move in, etc. How's this all make as far as...like...sense goes? The idea stemmed from a comment earlier about bankrolls not being as large for sats due to lack of variance. At first I figured I'd attempt a 50 times BI rule for Sats, but this makes...similar sense to me, though it appears more complicated, I feel like this controls its own variance and allows me to small ball and protect my bankroll while taking big shots for big paydays. Edit: I believe I messed up my math in section (a) here....but I believe the reasoning is clear enough to be lazy about it. 
|
|
#6
07-21-2007, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plausible Bankroll Management System Utilizing Satelites ...?
[ QUOTE ]
You aren't grinding if you are using profits to play higher, theyre basically opposites. [/ QUOTE ] It's zero-sum, effectively. But playing higher doesn't necessarily mean I'm not going to win higher. The entire idea somewhat banks on the fact that I can profit at the higher stakes.
|
|
#7
07-21-2007, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plausible Bankroll Management System Utilizing Satelites ...?
makes complete sense. The only thing is the 6$ turbos to 55, you have to get lucky in to get a seat.
|
|
#8
07-21-2007, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plausible Bankroll Management System Utilizing Satelites ...?
[ QUOTE ]
makes complete sense. The only thing is the 6$ turbos to 55, you have to get lucky in to get a seat. [/ QUOTE ] 10% payout that harsh? Or just because it's a turbo?
|
|
#9
07-21-2007, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plausible Bankroll Management System Utilizing Satelites ...?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] makes complete sense. The only thing is the 6$ turbos to 55, you have to get lucky in to get a seat. [/ QUOTE ] 10% payout that harsh? Or just because it's a turbo? [/ QUOTE ] Its a combo effect, once you get down to 30-25% of the field, if you dont have a big stack, its not very easy
|
|
#10
07-21-2007, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plausible Bankroll Management System Utilizing Satelites ...?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] makes complete sense. The only thing is the 6$ turbos to 55, you have to get lucky in to get a seat. [/ QUOTE ] 10% payout that harsh? Or just because it's a turbo? [/ QUOTE ] Its a combo effect, once you get down to 30-25% of the field, if you do have a big stack, its very easy [/ QUOTE ] Turbo satellites are pretty awesome because most players have no concept of how to play a short stack or a satellite, so when you combine the 2 it's a recipe for huge mistakes. Granted, I do stupid things sometimes just messing around, but you'd be amazed at some of the really bad plays these guys make.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
