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.