Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
I disagree.
You're an accountant.
If you had to calculate the net present value of the second entry at the point in time when they began making plays for it in the tournament:
Is the value of an unused entry in the hands of a skilled player at that point in time worth more than other entries that have already been depleted in terms of both bankroll and bullets?
Assuming nearly equal skill among the players involved:
Is the likelihood of entries near the top of the leaderboard being caught from behind by an unused entry greater than that of being caught from behind by an already depleted entry?
In my opinion the answers to the above questions is yes.
However, all of that said:
I do agree that a rules change is needed.
-jp
.
|
I think I understand what you are saying, but what about this?
Let's say I am on my own and have only one entry. Let's say I make absolutely no plays for awhile while everyone else is making plays. Some have depleted their entry to zero along the way and others are on the leader board. I then decide to make my move after some are already out and I can look at the leader board and see what I need to do to win. Do I need a huge bomb, some mid prices horses etc..
What have I done wrong or differently?
I believe if you can act last without penalty you have an advantage because you get to see what you need to beat, but I'm not sure there's much difference between what I described for myself and what those guys did with 2 entries. With one entry they waited until later just like I described. Everyone can do that.
There has to be a legitimate penalty for waiting or smart people will wait to gain an advantage, but it's not really colluding to do it with 2 entries. They were simply partners.
(hope I am understanding the rules correctly)
