I may expand these comments ito a proper badugi article at some point but for now some brief tips/comments.

1) position is very important.  You get to see not only other people’s betting actions but also other people’s drawing actions before you have to act.   The gap between playable hands in ep and in lp is wide.

2) The most common weakness people have is drawing too light.  They will look at the pot odds for making their badugi rather than for making a badugi that is likely to be good.

3) Full ring a badugi will often be necessaryto win.  Short-handed good 3 card lows should be value bet confidently on the river.

4) If you figure to have the best 3 card low bet it. For value. This is where most of your profit comes from.

5) If you don’t figure to have the best 3 card low you should often be folding.

6) The 2nd most common weakness is folding to a show of strength too often.  As such one of the most important plays you have should be the checkraise bluff out of position – usually on the 2nd draw.  If you figure not to have the best low draw you make a two-way check (you’re happy with a free card) and then raise if bet into.  you stand pat and bet the hand the rest of the way.  People will often fold/break rough badugis and draw to 3 card lows intending to fold the river if they miss.  This adds up to huge profit for you.  The most amusing thing about this is that someone will fold A35 on end unimp to this line but call if they catch a King badugi despite the hands being essentially equivalent.  You need to pay attention to who this play works on and exploit them ruthlessly while making note of who it won’t be profitable against.  Getting caught in this will lead to people paying you off more when you actually do have it.

7) paying attention to people’s play will bring rewards more quickly in this game than in any other – when people show a hole in their game to you, you get frequent opportunities to exploit it.

I played a hand earlier where I cold called an aggressive ep raise with Ad 2c 6s Jd on the button – both blinds came along.

BB draws 2 the rest of us (including pfr) draw 1.  I catch Kh for a smooth (!!! ) K badugi.

PFR bets, I raise and sucessfully isolate.  He calls.

PFR draws 1. I stand pat.  He check calls.

PFR draws 1.  I draw 1.

With a rough K I would stand pat  and check behind, call/fold depending on opponent as I can’t value bet the K hi badugi.

However my A26 is almost equivalent to the K hi badugi so by drawing I give myself a chance to catch when he does and win a pot I would have lost.  I also open up this opponent’s betting range on end so I can snap call with my smooth 3 card 6 and if he checks to me I can now value bet.

friend: I dont know if its worth it to play another Aussie millions sat

spence: in what sense?

friend: whats the cutoff for how much to spend to get a seat before I should just straight buy-in

spence: there shouldn’t be one

spence: you’ve heard the advice about not paying for more than 3 sats to an event?

friend: sure

spence: ridiculously illogical (*1)

friend: explain

spence: ok – you want to play the millions and play 8 $1k sats losing each one. You play one more and win – how much did your seat cost u?

friend: 9k (*2)

spence: there are 2 correct answers and that isn’t one of them

friend: lol…..go easy on me

spence: One correct answer is $1k

friend: so…you’re saying that as long as the sats are within your bankroll you should play as many as you want too?  Because each game is independent?

spence: precisely – the 8k is already gone.  If it helps think of it this way:  If you’d stopped after the 8th sat you’d have spent a total of 8k and have no seat.  After the 9th sat you have a seat and have spent a total of 9k.  Again 9-8=1.

spence: if its +ev and within your bankroll you should play as many as you want to.  If you have to play 22 sats at a dime a piece to win an 18k seat in this particular instance so what? As long as each sat was +ev its fine – in the long run you’re saving money.  You see why?

friend: because sometimes you’ll win seats for 1-3k?  So the total amount you spend on satellites will be less than the total real cost of the seats you win as long as you’re +ev and have average luck.

spence: exactly

friend: makes sense

spence: of course if the sat are only slightly +ev, or your BR is very big, buying direct may have greater utility.  Time/opportunity cost is often forgotten when people make their ev calculations

spence:  also if you’re -ev limiting your attempts is obviously sensible

friend: lol

spence: you know why 18k is correct as well?

friend: why?

spence: for the same reason that the PCA didn’t cost us $650 to get into.  It cost us 12k.   Had it been a cash tourney we’d have 12k extra in our accounts

friend: thats true

spence: I find it amusing when people sat into the wsop and don’t care cos it only cost them $100

spence: nope – it cost $10k (*3)

spence: so the only question is do you think playing the $1k sats is profitable and that you’re +ev in the aussie millions?

spence: if yes then how much you actually spend on sats is irrelevant

friend: hmm…interesting question…

friend: how the hell do you figure that out…i feel very confident in my live event play….but i dunno

spence: you estimate (*4)

spence: being very honest with yourself

spence: then you back your judgement with a lot of money

spence: thats what we do

1)  I know someone adhering to this advice who really wanted to play a certain EPT event.  He played 3 sats and failed on each one.   He then started playing sats for a WPT event he didn’t really want to play in.  The irrationality of this approach should be obvious to all.

2) Was this your 1st answer as well?

3) I’m thinking of people who would never dream of spending $2k on a tourney and play the ME as if they’re messing about in a home game.  And when they throw their chips away they genuinely believe they are only “out” $100.  In fact they were “up” $9900 and have now swung back down $10k.  Had they thought about it this way they would have treated the point where they “up” $9900 (the start of the tournament) much more seriously.  Of course it will often make no difference whether they play seriously or not as they are dead money, but this indicates that they made an error playing the satellite at all.  More on this at the end.

It’s interesting to note that there is a type of player who is helped by this irrational thought.  I’m thinking of the player who tightens up too much when he feels he is spending a large amount like 10k.  Playing with fear makes him dead money but normally he is skilled and capable.  Thinking of it as a $100 event can help this player play his normal game.  It’s important to realize what’s happening here though.  He is simply playing a psychological trick on himself.  We all have our psychological stumbling blocks and it’s tempting to leave these patchwork cures in place, however I believe your game will be stronger overall if you can cure yourself rather than merely treating the symptoms.

4) Of course if you’re not confident that you’re +ev in the target tourney, or even the sats themselves, then limiting your attempts becomes sensible.

Additional thoughts:

When entering a satellite you should think carefully about why you’re doing so.  I usually advise people not to sat into events they wouldn’t buy into if they had the cash in their hand.  This is a little strong but highlights the fact that this is real money they’re spending.

Satellites make it possible to play an event profitably even if your ev in the tourney is less than the buy-in, as long as it’s more than the real cost to you (in terms of average cost of sat entries.) However this ignores both hourly rate and utility.  It should also be remembered that where you’re close to break-even in ev the variance usually creates negative utility.   On the flip side of this the opportunity cost can be counterbalanced by the “experience” you gain in playing.  It would be perfectly reasonable to play satellites for major events you knew you were in –ev in at the moment if you felt that gaining this experience would allow you to become +ev in the future.  Or even if the experience will help other parts of your poker game and increase your future profits that way.  As poker can become a grind it’s also reasonable to do it for the “fun” of playing a major.  A little investment in keeping yourself happy and fresh (as opposed to jaded and burnt out) is always repaid handsomely.  It’s important however to be aware of the approximate ev cost that you’re paying here, and for this cost to be affordable.

If you have no illusions about your lack of profitability in the target tournament but wish to play it for the experience/fun anyway then by all means set yourself an amount of money you can afford to lose and stop when it’s gone.  My point in note 1 was that if you’re a professional and believe the sats to be a good (profitable) use of your time the only stopping point should be when the satellite buy-in moves out of acceptable bankroll parameters.

An interesting situation has arisen for the online satellite specialist in that the target tournaments on stars are no longer must-plays.  (For example you can qualify for a $162 tourney and instead of having to play it you can take the $162 as T$ instead.  T$ cannot be cashed out but can be used to enter any tournament)  This provides an excellent way to build a bankroll for the smaller stakes player.  T$ are almost real money if sold privately (for example I buy at 98%) and many people have built their rolls by exclusively playing the sats on stars and then selling surplus T$ funds (the amount over the T$ bankroll they need to continue playing the sats with a minimal risk of T$ ruin).  As satellites, once you’ve learned the proper strategies, are an “easier” game than normal MTTs it’s a particularly effective way to build if you lack experience or a complete skill set.