[naphand]

It's interesting to see the reactions of people to these posts. How people see the game (and WRITE about it) is a reflection of their personality.

Look at the difference between HFAP and *Big Deal*. These are both books on poker, and both are very popular and loved by poker players everywhere. But the perspective is very different.

David's posts do contain technical information about his play, but what (for me at least) makes them so interesting (RIVETING even) is the HUMAN and EMOTIONAL aspect that David puts into it. Reading Sklansky and Malmuth helps us as individuals THINK about our poker better, for sure, but with authors such as Anthony Holden and David Ross we are right there by their side, part of the big pots and the excitement of it all.

Sure GoT may have an edge in his game by being unemotional (or is he just emotionally detached - able to experience the emotion but keep it apart from his rationale?) but perhaps he is missing something? Yes - I KNOW GoT will have a response to this to justify his thinking/play - of course he will. We should ALL be able to justify what we do, at least to ourselves.

I read Sklansky/Malmuth et. al. to learn about the game. But I come to David's posts to feel the excitement (romance?) of the game. To take part in big hands (above my present level of play) - not necessarily to find out how he does it. And of course, over the last months we have all seen how David's game has changed, this again adds a human touch, and makes anyone reading his posts feel as if they can achieve the same (being told you can, and FEELING you can are NOT the same thing at all).

I think, GoT, this is why you got picked on a little, and I also think that your post was out of place - as a consequence it came across as supercilious. Maybe you don't care, but David's response was on target (at least as far as, I suspect, many of the readers of this column feel) when he said he would quit playing if it ever became just another job.

I will never be a full-time poker player - I don't think I have the mental steel and resolve but I certainly want to keep playing and LOVE playing. I don't care if I don't perform perfectly (that does not stop me from trying, or thinking about improving my game) if I am enjoying myself. Part of the enjoyment is winning the money, sure, but it's not all there is to poker. Poker is played by people, not machines (not yet anyway), and people can be fun and interesting (and boorish, rude, arrogant etc.). If I can enjoy playing in a style that suits me, successfully choose the right tables (probably avoiding GoT [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) then I have a source of income that is ENJOYABLE and not some grim battle between poker minds, to squeeze an extra fraction of a BB per hour, like some Deep Blue/Kasparov chess marathon (however fascination such things may be - I'd rather be watching).

I guess what I'm saying is that maximising EV does not mean just $$, it can mean a lot of other things, like having fun, having a social life, not burning out etc. etc.

And David - if you are reading this - I think this is the angle you need to keep in your book. Give people your thinking, how you feel about the games, the emotional wrenches etc. That's what made "Big Deal" so popular, and there are too few books like this on poker. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]