UniquePerspective wrote:What's fascinating about this game is that...Rachael, through all the daily doubles, went conservative. But yet, I think it's her conservative nature on them that won her the game....
UniquePerspective wrote:I'm impressed Rachael knew to wager as little as she did.
This was no surprise to me at all. In our TOC in 1994, Rachael won her semifinal
with a $0 bet in FJ that had the rest of us in the audience gasping in amazement:
Brian Moore: $4,000 - $4,000 = $0
Rachael: $9,200 - $0 = $9,200
Kurt Bray: $8,600 + $500 = $9,100
Kurt was caught smack in the middle between Rachael in first place and Brian’s doubled score from third. So he had no choice but to bet exactly $600, risking a tie on both the up and down sides. Rachael read the situation perfectly and bet $0. It’s true that Kurt blundered and underbet, throwing away his chance to possibly win the game on a tiebreaker, but that in no way detracts from Rachael’s perfect analysis and sheer guts to stand pat in that situation. As to this...
Golf wrote:This is one of those games where the far superior player didn't win, it happens.
Don’t sell Rachael short: she is a very good player with a solid knowledge base. It’s true her wagering is on the Venusian side, but she is sneaky good. She could well go further in this tournament than you expect.
Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked.