The problem with David Young
I like David. He is an old fashioned British eccentric. But, I cannot deny he has pissed me off. Firstly he questions my sanity with my decision to give up heads up matches on Pokerstars and then he continues to criticise me in his blog. He asks "I'm baffled. Is he after money or recognition?".
The problem with David, and anyone who has read his posts on the Hendon Mob forum will agree, is that he seem unable to see things from anyone elses point of view. I guess it is a problem alot of privately educated people suffer from.
He decides what his view on a subject is going to be on a subject and then stands by it through thick and thin. I don't think I've ever seen David admit he's wrong, let alone be swayed by an argument.
David is a cash game player. In order to be a good cash game player you have to be ruthless, you need to want to take the last penny of your opponent. If you have an ounce of sympathy it can come back to haunt you by the recipient of your sympathy taking all your money.
Playing cash games for a living is very much like having a job. You need to put the hours in in order to overcome short term variations.
I gave up work for alot of reasons, but one of them was to break out of the routine. Playing cash games (and heads up matches) for a living is the ultimate in routines.
I am also convinced playing cash games all the time affects your personality, you can become hard, aggressive maybe even greedy. (Obviously this is a sweeping generalisation and there are many exceptions to this).
I play poker primarily for pleasure and I get little satisfaction from cash games or heads up matches. Obviously I want to make a living out of the pastime and that is the aim. But, I would prefer to make my living doing something I enjoy.
David, please don't judge me by your standards. I don't want to make a fortune from poker. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be persuing the path I am.
I am happy with my decision and if that means you question my sanity, so be it.
The problem with David, and anyone who has read his posts on the Hendon Mob forum will agree, is that he seem unable to see things from anyone elses point of view. I guess it is a problem alot of privately educated people suffer from.
He decides what his view on a subject is going to be on a subject and then stands by it through thick and thin. I don't think I've ever seen David admit he's wrong, let alone be swayed by an argument.
David is a cash game player. In order to be a good cash game player you have to be ruthless, you need to want to take the last penny of your opponent. If you have an ounce of sympathy it can come back to haunt you by the recipient of your sympathy taking all your money.
Playing cash games for a living is very much like having a job. You need to put the hours in in order to overcome short term variations.
I gave up work for alot of reasons, but one of them was to break out of the routine. Playing cash games (and heads up matches) for a living is the ultimate in routines.
I am also convinced playing cash games all the time affects your personality, you can become hard, aggressive maybe even greedy. (Obviously this is a sweeping generalisation and there are many exceptions to this).
I play poker primarily for pleasure and I get little satisfaction from cash games or heads up matches. Obviously I want to make a living out of the pastime and that is the aim. But, I would prefer to make my living doing something I enjoy.
David, please don't judge me by your standards. I don't want to make a fortune from poker. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be persuing the path I am.
I am happy with my decision and if that means you question my sanity, so be it.
12 Comments:
I've heard you make this specious distinction before - cash players = greedy nasty capitalist scum, tournament players = free-spirited generous anti-establishment system buckers.
I fail to see the difference in principle, but hey, if those are the hoops through which you have to (metaphorically) jump to convince yourself that you are the latter, good luck to you.
D'oh. The last comment was by me.
Titmus
Ignoring for a moment the inevitable Camel holier than thou attitude his point is valid and surely not that hard to understand: some professionals gamble primarily to make money and some professionals gamble primarily to avoid doing things they don't want to do (normally having to turn up to work everyday). And primarily is the key word, the one is not mutually exclusive from the other.
All the Camel is saying is that as he considers himself in the latter camp and as such as long as he can make enough money to maintain his somewhat profligate lifestyle he'd rather make it doing something he enjoys. Otherwise whats the point of giving up work in the first place. This doesn't make the Camel a better person, this doesn't mean he isn't motivated by money, all it means is he understands life is short so why do things you don't particularly want to do when you don't have to. As I believe he said in an earlier blog, if he's struggling he'll go straight back to big stakes heads-up games to get his bank-roll back on an even keel. Its really not that hard to undestand is it?
Bob Pigg
Nice post but:
1) I was state educated from the age of 13. I'm now 35.
2) This whole distinction between the cash players (ruthless bad guys) and the tournament players (honourable warriors, salt of the earth) is totally specious.
3) I'm fascinated by the idea that changing your mind is a strength. I have been known to admit that I'm wrong (e.g. I've predicted falls in the UK housing market for about five years now, to no avail) but it is rare because I spend a lot of time thinking about the things that I say and I check that my views fit the facts and provide reasonable forecasts.
You say that I am "unable to see things from anyone elses point of view". Actually I can often see things from others' points of view but usually decide that there is a flaw in their thinking. Once I spot the flaw, why should I continue to respect their opinion? I don't spend ages trying to see the point of view of someone who says that two and two makes five, for instance.
4) I'm not that motivated by money, strangely. You have far more of it than I do. Come to think of it, almost everyone has more of it than I do. I'm motivated by not wanting to work. I've never been rich.
5) I was about to print your response (explaining why you don't want to focus on online heads-up matches) on my site to provide his point of view. I can understand that you don't want to spend 8 hours a day in front of a PC. Fine. But you should realise how strange it is to be told how easily you make money on Pokerstars HU matches when you don't want to play them any more, especially when you keep telling us how many great tournament players there are out there.
There are many people who would drool at the thought of being able to make a grand a day so easily. I've been so skint at times that I got chest pains opening a phone bill!
And the above was by me of course. Bit tired, only had four hours sleep!
David Young
scary, scary, scary, scary, scary. the lack of selfawareness, the inability to answer arguments with RELEVANT counterarguments, the sheer david-young-ness of the man. Scary. Did i say that before?
Titmus here again.
I've had this argument with Keith before - as I recall it was in the petrol station opposite Luton casino - and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.
Keith told me that that in his youth he allied himself with socialist and anarchist groups, and that he still maintained similar views. I asked him how he married those views with the profession of poker, seeing that the name of the game is taking money from people less skilled than you, which would seem to be against socialist principles as I understand them. He replied with the argument that cash play was anti-social(ist?) whereas tournament play wasn't. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now.
My personal take on the cash vs. tournament thing is that they're not radically different, it's just a question of degree.
Winning (or placing high in) a tournament entails taking a moderate amount of money from a lot of people. Winning big in a cash game may well entail getting the lot off one individual.
I'm not saying it's better or worse, I'm just saying that I'm more comfortable with the former.
Andy.
I don't know if youre checking out my blog Keith, but i posted something about Dan Negreanu to the effect that his thinking went along the lines of "I'm in the right, now what's the question?" At the time I wrote it I remember thinking, this is just like David Young! I don't think its a symptom of a private education, rather the marriage of a mammoth ego with the germ of insecurity. Most poker player sufferers have an ego over poker, strangely with DY it is over politics, or in his own words: " Actually I can often see things from others' points of view but usually decide that there is a flaw in their thinking"
gl with the blog and everything
Dave
Titmus yet AGAIN,
Another thing, the heads up games on Pokerstars are in fact tournaments, not cash games, so you can now feel free to make $600/hour GUILT FREE! Woohoo!
'e.g. I've predicted falls in the UK housing market for about five years now, to no avail'
Lol : Hard to escape really - but then I've thought the same, however there have been some exceptional forces in the market keeping it where it is imo.
Well I don't read the posts on your site and not many on HM, unless I get involved in the thread. If it is true that you've never admitted to being wrong about something subjective, then I'm not surprised, but if you haven't known that you were wrong I'd be surprised. Surprisingly, though other people think through the arguments too - I know I do, but I suppose I haven't admitted to being wrong too often either - though I don't think I go out on a limb that often, or hold diametrically opposing views to others. When I was younger, I didn't lose many arguments but I was often wrong - one day my mum told me that I didn't care about being right, just as long as I could win. She was right, I wouldn't say I changed over night, but my perspective was very different.
In my experience with you, when you argeuments falter the insults come out - you are usually the first to those. But you're not the only one. However, on the War front we probably hold similar positions, whethr or not for the same reasons, I don't know.
Still you keep the masses amused, and for that, I'm sure the Mob are grateful. However, those who want to add value w.r.t to poker seldom post there - I know I won't, unless its trivial.
w.r.t. Keith I can understand both sides - if I was Keith I'd probably slog my guts for 6 months to a yearout and build a nice bankroll to go on play the circuit for a year or two. Playing on-line 24-7 can get you down !
chaos
Actually the comment re the insults was unfair. In my experiences with you that has been the case. But in other debates it hasn't been true.
chaos
Post a Comment
<< Home