[ QUOTE ]
Think about it. What are the alternatives? Loose Aggressive, Loose Passive, Tight Weak??? I think some of the posters are suggesting a loose aggressive approach, but does anyone really think that over the long run the average winning player would a) be able to withstand the swings associated with that style of play, and b)still be a winner over the long run??
Just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

In a full ring game, the forces of time and tight play should yield a profit--considering a player's ability to voluntarily enter pots in which they perceive a statistcal advantage and, as a result, apply risk adverse and reward bolstering wagering strategies.

However, a tournament constrains the time variable. A fixed field of competitors must play for advantage amid an ultimately finite all-or-nothing scoring system; first place accumulates all the chips once possessed and evenly distributed among all the competition (rebuy tounrmants add slight variation to this principle.)

The differences between tournament play and ring are signifcant enough to suggest winning strategies may differ as well.

Is TAG even the norm in tourneys? I think the battles of tight-passives and LAGS seem to define the early stages of a tournament...perhaps even continuing as an overall paradigm until one person possesses every chip in the tournament's universe.

It would be interesting to see empirical evidence to explore this question further.