Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatWhiteFish
I'm not sure if there was another paragraph that followed and elaborated in more detail about what he was talking about?
Being familiar with JL's work, I have heard him criticize satellites for being too simple. The best strategy is often to build up a big enough stack, and then just play extremely tight until the bubble bursts.
With traditional tournaments the changing ICM dynamics, especially on the final table, create a lot more complex situations that can lead to a bigger edge for good players.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I suspect that is what he meant. I tend to agree with that particular part of his perspective.
However I don't necessarily agree that a "cap" on how much you can win in satellites is a bad thing. The structure also likely lowers variance, which is a good thing.
I put this up because from reading this paragraph it's clear to me that Little has a very poor understanding of basic mathematical expectation. Real quick, it you can win 10 big blinds more than three times as often 30 big blinds your expectation is probably higher in the satellite. It's actually more complex than this because in a tournament there are other payoffs as well.
Now, to be fair, a lot of good poker players don't understand this stuff very well and over the years I've seen numerous errors like this. But I do think that if you're writing and selling information about poker, as well as selling courses and making instructional videos, your understanding of mathematical expectation should be much better than this paragraph indicates,
Thanks for the response,
Mason