@Marc: I think this is a good solution for a recreational player or a player with loose/very aggressive BRM, but I don't think it's sustainable in the long run. "Taking a shot" is inherently against proper BRM, whether you're buying in directly or qualifying via a satellite. I would be you'd have a much better ROI player $10 SNGs vs. $10 SNG satellites because if you win a satellite you still have to go succeed at the target tournament.
It seems to me really that satellites don't have much of a point that I can see. You could just treat any tournament as a satellite. What I mean by that is, say you need $100 to buy in to some big tournament, so you play a $10 tournament, and say to yourself that if you cash for at least $100, you'll play the $100 tournament. That is essentially "taking a shot" above your bankroll. I don't see satellites as being any different, except that you're forced to enter the target tournament in many cases.
It seems to me that the only reason to play satellites is to take advantage of weaker players who don't understand what I just said and have some dream of qualifying to the PCA or WSOP
, or as a recreational player, but if you're a rec player, you don't really care about BRM.
I have to admit that if/when I get access to Pokerstars
, I'll probably surrender to the allure of satellites, but that's because I'm not a professional player so I'm "allowed" (i.e. I would allow myself) to take shots, whether via a satellite or directly buying in to the event.