[alegendaryplayer]

I will make a some games to explain my thought questioning process in this threads topic.
The game is simple, it´s a full ring game, texas no-limit holdem style. Everyone get the same amount of chips to start with. Choose an M to. Let say it is 60.
Nothing strange yet, but here come what is different from a normal tournament. It is only one round. And the winner is the one the have got the most chips when the round is over. What my question is, if it´s only one round, (maybe two,if you change the game a little) has it any effect how long the round is? Exampel, would it be correct to wait for nice card if the round contained 500 hands in compare to 15. It seems to me that, this is the point Snyder try to do when he talk about the length of the rounds. I´m not sure i have maid my self clear but i hope you understand what i mean. Maybe some can take over my hypo-game and try to outwind and maybe have a good answer. Because wouldn´t we consider the playing style in comparison to how likly it is to get a Group A, or Group B hand, Hellmuth´s top ten hand, you understand what i mean. Now I´m talking about playing in the green zone where you can play every style but maýbe one is the better depending on the number of hands there is in the level and the likely hood of getting a certain hand. Hope you understand. I kind of consider this when i play, in a non matematical way. And it sounds similar to Snyder, but the M system is my ground if you know what i mean. If you don´t i don´t know if i can answer.