Plausible Bankroll Management System Utilizing Satelites ...?

[MJBuddy]

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.