One-table satellite tournaments and multirebuy supersatellites have played an important role in tournament poker's growth, because many players who can't or won't pay the full entry fee for a tournament are willing to enter a satellite and gain entrance that way. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "I won't put up $1,000 to play the main tournament, but if I can get in on a satellite, I'll take my chances."
This is specious reasoning at its best, and closely related to the kind of reasoning a blackjack or craps player uses when he says he'll make large bets only when he's winning a lot. "I'm playing with the house's money, not mine," these "wise" players confide. "I'm too smart to make big bets with my own money."
I've got news for you, blackjack boy. The moment you win those chips from the house, they aren't "the house's money" anymore. They are your money, as a quick trip to the casino cage will prove.
With the exception of supersatellites for certain large tournaments, which require you to play a seat if you win one, most of the time when you win a satellite, you are given either cash or special tournament buy-in chips. That the cash is your own, with no obligation to enter the tournament, is obvious enough. Some players don't realize that other players are usually willing to buy the tournament buy-in chips from you at face value. You'll also find leeches hanging around trying to offer you $495 for a $500 chip, but normally it's not a problem to sell these chips for their face value in cash.
As a result, if you win $1,000 in a one-table satellite, you have two choices. You can go home with $1,000 in your pocket, or you can enter the tournament. It might "feel" like you're on a freeroll, but the reality is that if you never would have considered risking $1,000 of your own pocket money to enter a tournament, you should stop and put that satellite money in your pocket, and then see how it feels when you have to pull it out to enter the event.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the concept of satellite tournaments: quite the reverse, actually. They offer a terrific chance to practice the shorthanded play you'll need to win a regular tournament, and because so many weak players enter them in hope of winning a spot in the bigger tournament, they offer a nice overlay to strong players. Maybe that should be your first clue that satellites aren't merely devices to allow players to get into an expensive tournament cheaply. When I see successful pros like Chris Ferguson or Randy Holland sitting down in a satellite tournament, I know they aren't playing because they can't raise the cash to enter the main event. They're playing because they see the satellites as good money-making opportunities in and of themselves.
I do realize, though, that people aren't computers. People have dreams, and sometimes those dreams involve playing in a major tournament against famous players. Although some pros treat $1,000 like it is Monopoly money, for most people, a grand is serious money that they aren't willing to risk for the sake of a dream. Even though these players are exactly the same people who should consider pocketing the $1,000, there is something (not much, but something) to the argument that they had a $150 budget for poker this week, and by winning the satellite they have made entering the big tournament possible on their budget.
As long as you play with that kind of budgetary discipline, it's OK to use satellites as stepladders into larger events. Otherwise, if you can't afford to enter big tournaments, you shouldn't be entering them.
The Other Side of the Same Coin
Let's examine the satellite issue from the other perspective. Let's suppose that you're successful enough at poker or at something else to be able to afford entry into the big tournament without any significant financial pressure, and let's further suppose that you know for a certainty that you are going to enter the big tournament. Should you play satellites for that event, and if so, how many?
The question comes up because many players invest $600 in satellites, never win any of them, and then go ahead and enter the tournament, which means they have spent $1,600 to enter a $1,000 event. On the surface, this seems like poor financial planning.
There is, however, absolutely nothing wrong with playing poker this way, because your investment in the satellites is completely separate from your investment in the main tournament. It's the other side of the same coin we examined when discussing whether or not the budget player should take his $1,000 win and go home.
With the exception of those players who are on a budget and who want to use the satellite to fulfill a dream, your evaluation of whether or not you should enter a satellite should be based entirely on whether or not you believe entering the satellite has a positive expectation (often called "EV" for "expected value"). If you are good enough at satellite play to reasonably expect to win enough of them to overcome the house rake (and on a percentage basis, the rake on satellites is almost always higher than the rake on tournaments), it makes good economic sense to play lots of satellites.
If you're not good enough at satellite play to have positive EV, you probably shouldn't be entering them. The key is realizing that the decision to enter the satellite and the decision to enter the main tournament are entirely separate, independent events. You choose to play six satellites for a $1,000 tournament not because you think paying $1,600 to enter a $1,000 tournament is a good idea. You choose to play six satellites because you think satellites are a good source of income for you.
For exactly the same reason, if you win the first satellite you play, there's no reason to stop playing satellites. They're still good investments. Maybe you'll win five in a row and have pocketed a nice little profit before the main tournament ever begins.
If you're a home-game player who makes a once-a-year pilgrimage to a large tournament, it probably makes sense just to buy in to the tournament. You probably aren't going to get to play enough satellites to get good enough at them to have a positive expectation, and you also may get thrown off about the right pace at which to play tournament poker, because usually you have to play a lot faster in a satellite than you do in a tournament. Tournament veterans usually don't have problems "shifting gears" to adjust their game's pace; intermittent tournament players do.
Unless you fall into that very narrow "home-game pilgrim" category, I suggest you don't tie satellite play to tournament play. Play satellites for the money you can make in satellites, and play tournaments for the money you can make in tournaments. Just because the casino creates the image that the two events are related doesn't mean you have to play them that way.