CẬP NHẬT VIDEO HOT HẰNG NGÀY

Once upon a time, a Soviet satirist of renown wrote a book satirizing a con man who set out to make some quick rubles. He was able to convince a small town chess club that he was a traveling chess professional wanting to organize a tournament. This went over big in the township and our man charged entry fees to those gathered about in eager anticipation to let the games begin. He structured the tournament with "twelve identical matches" and began the play knowing very little to absolutely nothing about the game of chess, this being only his second attempt at it. He managed to move the pieces around in a somewhat normal and convincing manner, greatly impressing the gathering who were awestruck by such a "professional" in their midst, reading glory into every play. Alas, the maestro lost all twelve games, but maintained his good humor. By the end, enough time had elapsed for him to run off with the fees he collected at the onset of the games. So, while he didn't know squat about chess, he came out a winner.

The Twelve Chairs is the title of the satiric novel. It has been translated into English to become both a book and film adaptation on DVD readily available at Amazon.com. A Mel Brooks comedy was the subject of the film and unless you are fanatical about Mel Brooks, stay clear of this one. Mark Zaharov, a brilliant director, not as well known as his compatriot Tarkovsky, adapted it into a Russian mini-series in 1976.

At the heart of the satire is that a good player, poker or otherwise, can be defined by what his goal is. The fictional con man of the satire was an effective chess player because his goal was to make some money and run, and he did just that. In addition, he was ever so cognizant of his shortcomings as a chess player and structured a plan to play fast and get out with the money before the townsfolk were onto him.

Now, a surprisingly large amount of poker players are reluctant to admit their less than average abilities. Ego is often central with poker players, it seems, perhaps because of the peculiar aura around the game. How they fail to realize that poker is a complex game one spends a lifetime learning is something of a marvel, but these pros-in-denial are exactly what makes poker a profitable game for the serious and talented players.

There are also the players who have simply learned a set of rules they strictly follow without applying much thought or trying to improve radically. They conceal their inferiority carefully enough to convey the impression of competence and mostly win in terms of overall profits. If that is their sole purpose for playing, than they may be called good players.

For those players to whom poker is an art, the above types are not true poker players, not really bad, just not real. They are in the clubs but are not the stars. The good player is looking for growth and more and more insight to improve his already good game. He or she understands that the game is a complicated mix of skill, theater, and perception. They know their weaknesses and work hard on improving their good points while lessening their bad ones.