Without doubt, this is one of the strangest posts that this thread has and that I have seen in relation to poker.
That's probably because what you've written has more to do with quota than with contributing anything meaningful to the discussion.
Of course, tournaments are what they are, and not what they seem or fail to seem to him.
... in poker, being an analyst or expert in the field does not guarantee the result as winning player in the long term, that in essence is the magic of poker, open to any type of player, even the fish are winners at some point.
From your comments it is clear that you have played poker and understand it, so I doubt if this is a typo:
A skilled poker player tends to win in the long run. There are only a few exceptions:
1) That he moves up levels and ends up playing at a level where he has no edge. Therefore, assuming he manages his bankroll well, he has to go down a level.
2) He is going through a bad psychological moment in his life, which leads to alcohol or drug consumption and that affects his gambling.
3) In the case of big tournaments played live, the variance can last for months or years without significant results. Thus there have been a few players who quit the modality or poker altogether.
But a winning NL100 SH player, settled at the level for years and who wins at 6bb/100h, and hasn't dabbled in alcohol or drugs is always going to win in the long run.