Johnathon little says you shouldn't play sats since the likely hood of winning the sat and cashing in the bigger buyin mtt are not likely.

so should you play sats?

The problem with sats... You can have the run of your life and just 10% get a ticket... That time could have been better well used to get you into a great chip position with 10% of the field left.

Plus, sats play very differently they should not really be compared. Look for a casino that offers survivor tournaments, they pay the top 10% the same amount...

There's a few things here (and maybe try to do some research yourself on donkaments in general, when someone makes three threads in rapid succession as you have, they usually haven't) - first as you hint at, assuming normal payout structures it is about a 100-1 shot to cash, and that's just a mincash. Second, there's no point in playing a sat if you are going to be way out of your depth and dead/scared money, if you have a chance in the target event then you ought to have been beating smaller donkaments already and could buy in through winnings. Finally, they usually rake both the sat and the main event, so you get hit with rake twice which makes having a positive expectation even harder

Satties seem like a good idea on the outset, because it seems like a cheap way to qualify for a game you wouldn't normally play, and satties are often filled with absolutely terrible players. However...
Starting to play satellites a couple of years ago was probably the biggest mistake of my so-called poker career. I've played enough 10, 25 and 50 euro satties in an attempt to qualify for a 220 euro live event that just the rake I've paid in the satties would have covered a direct buy-in.
Some people run hot and just go win-win-win on their way up the satty pyramid, so can play the target tourney on their first try. I've been breaking even for 2 years. :/

You need to consider what percentage of the field gets paid to determine if the satellite is worth it. If you're confident you can beat the required percentage of the field that gets a reward then it's a good idea. It's also important to consider the difference between the satellite buy-in and the target tournament buy-in. It depends on personal preference but I wouldn't pay 20 dollars to get into a 200 dollar tournament, seems like it wouldn't be worth it. Some people recommend that your bankroll must be enough to cover the target tournament buy-in if you want to play the satellite, but I think that's a bit too nitty.

Yeah I don't think they are worth playing.

The bankroll requirement for satelliting into an MTT is slightly lower than the one for buying into that MTT directly, but much higher than for MTTs with cash prizes of the same BI as those sats. The bankroll needed for sattying into a $55 is like the one needed to play a $33-44, due to the additional EV that you can get from beating the satties that you wouldn't get if you bought in directly.

Playing a series of $5.50 sats to a $55 MTT is like playing a series of $5.50 MTTs that pay 1.5% of the field (1/10 of the 15% money zone of the target), perhaps with a bigger EV than a regular $5.50 MTT due to the 10 times bigger size of the field that includes everyone who tries to win a seat in the $55 target (only 'perhaps' because, while the field of the satty is softer, the field of the target is tougher), but surely with much more variance than a regular $5.50.

Also, of course, satties consume time and energy, so I'd only play them if I suddenly had an insanely large ROI at them (mostly if they overlaid) or if there weren't enough decent MTTs that I could buy directly into at that hour.