Winning satellite is next to impossible

My prominent buyin for satellite is like three bullets sometimes I go for 4 or 5 bullet.
But that's were issue comes because well I have played tournaments around which has 10 minutes to 15 minutes blind interval and satties feels very speedy because it has 3 minute blind interval.

I agree, the 3-minute blind levels make satellites much more difficult than regular tournaments. You have to adjust your strategy and be more willing to take calculated spots because waiting too long can leave you with very little room to maneuver.

21+ year player. Yep game selection matters. I don't even bother with anything less then 10 min blind levels unless it's a 6 max MTT and even then I only play them if they're 8 min+ blind levels. Anything else isn't much different then a lottery and like playing all-in bingo.

Cheers!!!

hardongear said:

21+ year player. Yep game selection matters. I don't even bother with anything less then 10 min blind levels unless it's a 6 max MTT and even then I only play them if they're 8 min+ blind levels. Anything else isn't much different then a lottery and like playing all-in bingo.

Cheers!!!

Click to expand...

I completely agree. Blind structure makes a huge difference, and I also prefer tournaments with longer levels because they give you more room to make strategic decisions instead of constantly being forced into all.in sitituaions

hardongear said:

21+ year player. Yep game selection matters. I don't even bother with anything less then 10 min blind levels unless it's a 6 max MTT and even then I only play them if they're 8 min+ blind levels. Anything else isn't much different then a lottery and like playing all-in bingo.

Cheers!!!

Click to expand...

He was talking about satellites. Those are tournaments where u can qualify for target tournaments and they often come with less than 8 or 10 minutes blinds. This is imo a good thing especially if we talk micro satellites, otherwise they would take forever.

If he didnt mean those sub satellites where only a fraction gets paid then i disagree with OP. Normal turbo satellites should be very beatable if u play a lot of games.

Yes, they are quite difficult, but not impossible. With patience, good strategy and taking good advantage of opportunities, a good result can be achieved. In the end, variance also plays a big role.

Sunz of Beaches said:

He was talking about satellites. Those are tournaments where u can qualify for target tournaments and they often come with less than 8 or 10 minutes blinds. This is imo a good thing especially if we talk micro satellites, otherwise they would take forever.

If he didnt mean those sub satellites where only a fraction gets paid then i disagree with OP. Normal turbo satellites should be very beatable if u play a lot of games.

Click to expand...

I know. And there is the issue most avg rec/hobby players are never putting in enough volume to make them beatable. Specially if there are multiple sats before you reach the MTT that pays out real money. Just bingo lotteries praying and hoping to get lucky. Been playing for 21+ years, played my share of sats way back when it was easier competition, I could play a lot more and I could hold my own in them.

The kinda volume we're talking is likely close to 6-7 hours a day and registering for the max number of sats/tables you can play at once. At that point you're not a really a rec/hobby player or avg.

Cheers!!!

hardongear said:

The kinda volume we're talking is likely close to 6-7 hours a day and registering for the max number of sats/tables you can play at once. At that point you're not a really a rec/hobby player or avg.

Cheers!!!

Click to expand...

I mean i would give the advice to mostly not play sub satellites at all.

Regarding normal turbo satellites: i play some of them on low volume and i regularly qualify. Imo they are beatable (at least on micro levels) even if u not put in that many hours and tables. And i mean its not even possible to find that many running all day anyway on most sites.

Micro/low stakes satellites are absolutely beatable, but of course you need to adjust to the format. Both when it comes to playing with a shorter stack (more push/fold) and the ICM-situation, which is very different from a regular MTT. For very obvious reasons you are not playing to win a satellite but only to cash.

EUIt's not impossible, but if it's free entry you'll see plenty of ALL Win to double down.

So true! Those rapid 3-minute turbo structures turn satellites into absolute push-fold fiestas way faster than normal tournaments. It's easy to burn through multiple bullets before you even realize the blinds have caught up.

Just understand the icm of the format.

I find low buy in satties perfectly beatable, of course there's plenty of times where you don't win a seat, but there's a load of trash play and terrible bubble play and loads of oppurtunities.

Then you get to play some fun games a bit above your buy in level. My biggest ever online cash has come from the GG masters, and I'm never ever buying in to that direct. If it wasn't for the steps thing on GG then it would be tough to play it very often. The $10 step 3 is kind of turbo, and tricky to beat, but it is doable.

Sahbi1403 said:

I agree, the 3-minute blind levels make satellites much more difficult than regular tournaments. You have to adjust your strategy and be more willing to take calculated spots because waiting too long can leave you with very little room to maneuver.

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to disagree with this ^

Satellites are ALL about survival, where we are typically trying to maintain a stack that has fold equity. MTT's is more geared towards chip accumulation.

hardongear said:

I know. And there is the issue most avg rec/hobby players are never putting in enough volume to make them beatable. Specially if there are multiple sats before you reach the MTT that pays out real money. Just bingo lotteries praying and hoping to get lucky. Been playing for 21+ years, played my share of sats way back when it was easier competition, I could play a lot more and I could hold my own in them.

The kinda volume we're talking is likely close to 6-7 hours a day and registering for the max number of sats/tables you can play at once. At that point you're not a really a rec/hobby player or avg.

Cheers!!!

Click to expand...

What difference does it make if an average rec./hobby player is putting in a small amount of games (satties), a medium amount (whatever that might be?) or a good amount (6-7 hours/day ?) & how does this make them 'beatable' if they're not playing them for 6-7 hr/day? You've lost me here... I do not follow the logic here (actually I'm not even sure what the logic is with this statement).

In my opinion, they are just as beatable if you're playing 1 or if you're playing 100. ALTHOUGH, if you're actually learning to play the format then I'm going to assume that one is going to get better at the game after playing 100 of them so one would hope their chances of cashing in them is going to increase. Perhaps they'll get a higher winrate but not sure if it makes them more or less beatable.

Lower buy-in satellites are VERY beatable. Players are making HUGE mistakes in them, regularly committing ICM suicide. How many times do you see the idiot who has the ticket wrapped up but yet he seems to think it's his job to increase everyone else's tourney equity as he only tries to make gains in his ego by going after 90% of the pots... 'needlessly'.... as if he's going to win '2' tickets in one satellite where the prize is the same for all winners. Like he gets more for his efforts than the guy who places 90th in a Top 100 paid satellite. It's even funnier when you see this type of player continue to aggro/spew play until they actually put themself into a spot where they now MUST play in order to get a ticket (& best when they bust out off the bubble... meanwhile the guy nursing 4.5bb's for the past 3 orbits gets a ticket no problem).

One other question... how long have you been playing for 21yrs. now? I mean it must be getting close to 25yrs. that you've been playing for 21yrs? (I think I've heard the 21yr. number for a good 4 or 5 years now). Might be about time to change that intro to like 24 or 25yrs.... or 19.. maybe 18? Anything but 21.

My ROI for satties is far higher than any other format.

If you haven't studied sats of course they are going to substantially harder. The ICM implications are totally different than MTTs

Poker Orifice said:

I'm inclined to disagree with this ^

Satellites are ALL about survival, where we are typically trying to maintain a stack that has fold equity. MTT's is more geared towards chip accumulation.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right that survival is the ultimate goal in satellites since all prizes have the same value

These satellites mainly take place on PokerStars. In the past (4 months ago), I used to play them all the time, but the truth is that this style of play is not true poker, you won't be able to apply much theory to a hyper turbo satellite. I opened about 5 tables simultaneously and, even if I came with a good hand, I would probably lose.

Nowadays I prefer 10-minute tournaments between blinds, starting deep, even though it takes 4 hours to record such a tournament.

lwccasz said:

These satellites mainly take place on PokerStars. In the past (4 months ago), I used to play them all the time, but the truth is that this style of play is not true poker, you won't be able to apply much theory to a hyper turbo satellite. I opened about 5 tables simultaneously and, even if I came with a good hand, I would probably lose.

Nowadays I prefer 10-minute tournaments between blinds, starting deep, even though it takes 4 hours to record such a tournament.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with your insightful take on hyper-turbo satellites, as they often devolve into a high-variance lottery where the rapid blind increases severely limit the application of solid poker theory and strategic depth. Transitioning to deeper tournaments with 10-minute blind levels is undoubtedly a much better environment for allowing genuine skill, patience, and calculated decision-making to prevail over pure luck. Even though these structured events demand a substantial time commitment and a grueling grind of several hours, the mathematical edge you gain and the pure satisfaction of playing authentic, deep-stack poker make the investment entirely worth it.

Lodestone said:

My ROI for satties is far higher than any other format.

If you haven't studied sats of course they are going to substantially harder. The ICM implications are totally different than MTTs

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why they are so much easier.... because so many players have no clue what they're doing in them and are making huge mistakes. (evidence for this even just in this thread)

lwccasz said:

These satellites mainly take place on PokerStars. In the past (4 months ago), I used to play them all the time, but the truth is that this style of play is not true poker, you won't be able to apply much theory to a hyper turbo satellite..

Click to expand...

It is strange that in the past there were online pros solely playing hypers.

Of course you'll be able to apply theory. You need to make adjustments.

Poker Orifice said:

It is strange that in the past there were online pros solely playing hypers.

Of course you'll be able to apply theory. You need to make adjustments.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. Just because the blind levels are fast doesn't mean theory goes out the window. It's all about adjusting ranges.

Sahbi1403 said:

Totally agree. Just because the blind levels are fast doesn't mean theory goes out the window. It's all about adjusting ranges.

Click to expand...

And about adjusting to the different player types in those games (or in low buyin satellites where there's a lot of players making huge mistakes).

Poker Orifice said:

And about adjusting to the different player types in those games (or in low buyin satellites where there's a lot of players making huge mistakes).

Click to expand...

Exactly. I think that's where the real skill comes in — knowing the fundamentals but being able to adjust them based on the opponents you're facing. In low buy-in tournaments especially, identifying players who are making big mistakes and adapting your ranges and aggression accordingly can be much more valuable than simply trying to play “perfect” theory. Thanks for adding that point!

Sahbi1403 said:

Exactly. I think that's where the real skill comes in — knowing the fundamentals but being able to adjust them based on the opponents you're facing. In low buy-in tournaments especially, identifying players who are making big mistakes and adapting your ranges and aggression accordingly can be much more valuable than simply trying to play “perfect” theory. Thanks for adding that point!

Click to expand...

you're welcome 'GP'