Your comparison of "times of being unlucky" is flawed because it doesn't take into account the heavily skewed nature of luck in tournaments, similar to what I wrote on my blog an age ago, using a pseudo-Harry D as an example.
When all the prize money is heavily skewed to the top few places - and back in the day, that was the *entire* of the prize money in most comps - then being able to have a crack at this serious money is the whole of the game. A tight rebuy strategy normally means that you normally enter the second stage of the tournement with a much smaller stack and not only do you have less resilience, but also you would need to be luckier to get into contention.
Another factor was that fields were so much smaller - 100+ players was a big comp - that coming out of the rebuy stage with a big stack meant that you were often in shooting distance of the final two tables already.
Back in the midd to late 90s I played small comps all over the UK. I wouldnt be exaggerating to say that 90% of the most successful ones were very loose in the rebuy stage.
Re: Rationality
Date: 2005-12-01 03:08 pm (UTC)When all the prize money is heavily skewed to the top few places - and back in the day, that was the *entire* of the prize money in most comps - then being able to have a crack at this serious money is the whole of the game. A tight rebuy strategy normally means that you normally enter the second stage of the tournement with a much smaller stack and not only do you have less resilience, but also you would need to be luckier to get into contention.
Another factor was that fields were so much smaller - 100+ players was a big comp - that coming out of the rebuy stage with a big stack meant that you were often in shooting distance of the final two tables already.
Back in the midd to late 90s I played small comps all over the UK. I wouldnt be exaggerating to say that 90% of the most successful ones were very loose in the rebuy stage.
cheers
Dave