Micro tournaments or satellites

[Manf1]

For a begginer player, what do you recommend? Play Micro tournaments or satellites

 

[fundiver199]

Depends on your goals. If you want to have fun, then satellites are probably more exciting, because you get a chance to play in some higher buyin tournaments. But if you want to become a winning player, then microstakes tournaments are a way better choise. The first reason for that is, that a beginner can not beat the field in higher buyin MTTs. And the second reason is, that if you play satellites, then almost per definition you are not following any sort of bankroll management, which mean, you are playing with a budget.

 

[infonazar]

For a begginer player, what do you recommend? Play Micro tournaments or satellites

Both variations are quite good, the only thing I would advise you to pay attention to is the format and structure of the tournaments. In my opinion, hyper tournaments are not suitable for a beginner because it is a kind of lottery

 

[iwont20]

If you need to build/maintain bankroll - then micro tournaments, where you can do it while learning how to play. And if you can deposit whenever, then you can pick what to play, satellites could be more exciting.

 

[Lena M]

For a begginer player, what do you recommend? Play Micro tournaments or satellites

Hi
When I started, I almost never played in satellites, preferring micro-buy-in tournaments. But it turned out that the tournaments where I won places in the satellites brought me the biggest profit

 

[makisaa]

The micro tournaments are better, because if you get in the money you have profit and this profit can stay in your bankroll or you can use it for other tournaments. If you get the ticket from a satellite it can be used only to the main event.

 

[martDdart]

Micro tournaments turbo three tables at once get a lot of experience fast and get comfortable at the tables and find your playing style ,take a break for at least 10 minutes in total silence when you get tired.

 

[kaynbergo]

I prefer micro-tournaments; stylights just waste your time and nerves, and eventually, at some stage, you crash out and everything is for nothing

 

[23maxim88]

It's better for me to play satellites to larger tournaments. I just can't seem to take micro stakes seriously, especially when there are huge fields on the major poker sites.

 

[Ruslan L]

For a begginer player, what do you recommend? Play Micro tournaments or satellites

In my opinion, it is important for a beginner to build a bankroll. It is necessary to play in those tournaments in which you will see and feel the results of your game, in tournaments that will allow you to feel the growth of your bankroll. If I were a beginner now, I would probably prefer micro tournaments.

 

[rhoudini]

Just to add a couple thoughts:

1. If you want to take it seriously, first you need to define where you want to get to, what are your goals playing both formats.
2. In general, you should only play satellites in a regular basis if you can also potentially win the target tournaments. If you win satellites just to be crushed in higher limits, why playing them? If you can't beat micro stakes, you surely won't be able to win at higher stakes.
3. With the exception of targeting special tournaments or annual series, or if you can try to qualify for a live tournament, I don't think that playing micro satellites will help much in the beginning.
4. Have in mind that the game in satellites is quite different from the regular tournaments. ICM (independent chip model) has a huge impact in satties, because everybody is playing for the same prize, so it changes the way you should play.
5. If you still want to go for the satellites, maybe the best resource is Dara O'Kearney's book about satellites. Definitely worthy to be studied.

 

[TeUnit]

If you think you have an icm edge in the sattys then they are great, but if you do not understand the specific icm of the satty structure stick to micros.

 

[Huntre]

Play what you enjoy most, when you try both variants you will know what best fr you, build your own pros and cons...

 

[pancho_1954]

I think that playing both is ideal, although I am more of a freeroll player, I like to play the freeroll satellites, I have won many very good tickets, although I have not had outstanding results, I think I did not do so badly.

 

[Chebchoub]

For me, both are good. Satellite will qualify me for a high buy-in tournament, and micro tournaments are good and suitable for me as a buy-in value.

 

[Marshmalo1994]

For a begginer player, what do you recommend? Play Micro tournaments or satellites

I wouln't recommend to pay the same for sats that you are willing to pay for mtts.
For example, I play 2.20-3.30 mtts, and .55, .8, 1.1 sats

 

[tcummo]

For a begginer player, what do you recommend? Play Micro tournaments or satellites

Both.. until you find which you prefer ..

 

[maronza1]

I think both are okay, as long as you stick to the right strategy for each type.

 

[SpaceMage]

For a begginer player, what do you recommend? Play Micro tournaments or satellites

My advice is to play both micro-stakes and satellites.

Apply proper bankroll management of only spending 1% of your bankroll on either type of individual game and you should do well as you learn the game.

 

[Igor Popadyk]

my opinion is that you need to play a lot if you are ready to play your optimal game at several tables, and devote time to theory

 

[fundiver199]

Apply proper bankroll management of only spending 1% of your bankroll on either type of individual game and you should do well as you learn the game.

Spending 1% of your bankroll on a satellite is not good bankroll management. Variance is way higher in satellites, because you have to cash in the satellite AND then the target tournament to win anything. So as a simplification you should be bankrolled for the target tournament to play the satellite. Like if the target tournament is a $11 MTT, then the minimum required bankroll is $1.100, even if you try to satellite into it. Otherwise you are either "shot taking" or playing with a budget / for fun. Both of which are fine, but then you should know, that this is, what you are doing, and you should not be surpriced, if you will need to redeposit, if you do this frequently

 

[pentazepam]

Satellite MTTs are a waste of time (with some exceptions):

Thinking Poker: Are Satellite Tournaments Alchemy or Fool’s Gold?

Satellite tournaments are a great way to win a ticket to a larger poker tournament, but are they always a smart option?

www.pokernews.com

 

[fundiver199]

Satellite MTTs are a waste of time (with some exceptions)

"Waste of time" might be a bit harsh, but they are definitely more suitable to play for fun than to build a bankroll or learn the game. Almost per definition the main reason, people play satellites, is because, they are not bankrolled for the target tournament. So in reality satellites end up being one of the main reasons, why otherwise winning players fail to make their bankroll grow or even end up needing to reload.

 

[userX]

For a begginer player, what do you recommend? Play Micro tournaments or satellites

I would recommend focusing on micro tournaments for the first 3-5 months. But all this time, you should definitely keep detailed statistics of each tournament you play. Such statistics will help you understand your strengths and weaknesses, allow you to work on your mistakes and understand the vector in which you should continue your development.

 

[dreamer13]

Satellites are a great way to get into expensive and interesting MTTs. 2003 world champion Chris Moneymaker will probably be happy to subscribe to these words. He won an $86 satellite on pokerstars, flew to Vegas and took home $2.5 million.