I recently had the opportunity to pose a few questions to best-selling poker author David Apostolico, whose latest book, Compete, Play, Win: Finding your Best Competitive Self is available as a free Kindle downloadfor a limited time –an incredible deal considering the hardcover edition is normally priced at $22.95! You can find a full review of Compete, Play, Win here.
Apostolico is the author of several poker books including Tournament Poker and the Art of War and Machiavellian Poker Strategy, both of which have the distinction of making the cut on my poker shelf –a rather extraordinary feat when you consider I once owned upwards of 150 poker books before deciding to pare my collection down to less than 30 –giving Apostolico a full 7% of my poker shelf-space! Only James McManus and David Sklansky are able to make a similar claim.
Apostolico has also penned the following poker books (which I have yet to read at this point) Poker Strategies for a Winning Edge in Business, Lessons from the Pro Poker Tour, andLessons From the Felt, as well as making three contributions to the popular The Pocket Idiot’s Guide series: Poker Bets & Bluffs, Casino Comps, andTournament Poker, which are available for Kindle download.
You can purchase any of the above titles from David’s Amazon.com page.
Steve Ruddock: You and I seem to have a very similar “competitive spirit”, so I was very interested in the portions of the book that deal with abstract philosophies like politics; do you find it worthwhile to argue subjects like politics, religion, and other hot-button issues --where people’s stances are determined more by philosophy and beliefs rather than facts-- or do you try to just avoid these conversations altogether?
David Apostolico: I think you're hitting the nail on the head here. I used to argue these points all the time and it's a lot like trying to nail jello to a telephone pole. Completely pointless and nothing productive can come from it. I've learned to largely ignore even the most ignorant of remarks although I'm not perfect. I bite my tongue way more often than not when I sense an argument is pointless. Although there are times when I can't help myself. However, usually these are situations where I think it is incumbent to speak up lest someone think I agree with a particular outrageous statement. For example, if someone wants to use religion to justify their own bigotry, I'll express my opinion. I've learned to do that, though, in a thoughtful respectful manner and will quickly end a conversation if I sense it degenerating into an argument between "belligerents."
SR: This is more of a thought than a question: Throughout the book you cite the three competitive types, Belligerents, Emulators, and Strivers. My take-away from the text was that it’s almost always correct to be a Striver, sometimes advantageous to be a Belligerent, but never advantageous to be an Emulator, even though in most situations you are better off being an emulator than a belligerent! I equated it to poker where you have ignorant players, ABC players, and solid, winning, players, and even though it’s better to be an ABC player than an ignorant player, you’re better off being ignorant than an ABC player against a solid, winning, player. Am I on the right track here?
DA: I've never thought of it that way but I really like that example. I do, however, think that there are some times when being an Emulator has its advantages especially in poker. I think an Emulator is very in tune to what those around him are doing. The idea is to use that empathy to manipulate a situation not try to keep up with someone. Even so, there are times in poker where you do want to emulate someone. Often, I'll float a predictable player when I have position. So, I'll basically match their action until I see the opportunity to seize the moment (which usually comes on the turn or river when they give up on the pot).
Or if I have a decent but not great hand, I may match an opponent's action every step of the way.
SR: Before writing Compete, Play, Win were you self-aware of your personal behavior in the situations that you describe, or was this a conclusion you came to after reexamining the situation and putting it down to paper?
DA: I think for too long in my life, I was not aware of the self destructive nature that our innate competitive drive can have. There may have been a few times when I knew I had crossed the line but I was probably very unaware of how it permeates our every day life. I think playing poker and avoiding tilt really helped. This is a book I wanted to write for quite some time and going through the process really helped me crystallize the concepts and helped me throughout every aspect of my life. By no means is this book a case against competition. Rather, it is hopefully a guide to allow the reader his own self reflection to find how he can harness that his inner competitive drive for maximum effect in today's world. Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years. Yet, the base competitive traits we all carry aren't very helpful today if not channelled properly.
SR: Do you think people can recognize how they’re competing in the moment, or is this something they can work on after the fact?
DA: I think my book does a very good job of identifying various traits and types so that the reader will learn to know his hot spots and where he can improve. Self realization is the first and most important step to learning to compete successfully. That's why I've tried to give a background on how we are wired and how we react. Fortunately, in today's world we can slow down the reaction time. You can contemplate and make the correct decision rather than reacting to an enemy threat. Poker is a perfect example. I bet if you ask most players the single biggest cause of mistakes, it is reacting too quickly to a situation without thinking it through. We all do it from time to time even though we know we shouldn't. Now, think of other situations where we don't necessarily know better. Think of the last argument you had. At some point, I'm guessing it became about who is going to win rather than the substance of the argument. That's typical because we are reacting to the other person rather than slowing down and thinking of what we are trying to accomplish and what the best course of action would be to accomplish that. If you want to compete effectively, you go through those steps.
SR: You are a man of many hats, lawyer, poker enthusiast, author, and family man to name just some of your pursuits: #1, how do you make time for all of these things, and #2 is this because you’re intellectually curious or can’t sit still?
DA: I think I am very intellectually curious and I am equally driven. I've learned to channel my competitiveness in a productive way that allows me to achieve my goals. Plus, I have the most supportive wonderful wife in the world who helps me achieve my goals and who doesn't hesitate to keep me on the right path. She is my best editor of ideas and she will always tell me the truth even if I sometimes don't react too well to it.
SR: What’s in the pipeline as far as projects go?
DA: I have an outline for a follow up to Compete, Play, Win that will cover another related topic that I believe has not been extensively written about at all. Part of my desire to write Compete, Play, Win is that it is a topic that affects all of us on a daily basis yet there is a huge dearth of information out there on the subject of competition. I'd like to get the readership up for Compete, Play, Win first. To that end, my publisher Skyhorse is offering a free download of the book on kindle. Even if you don't own a kindle, you can download a free kindle app on your iphone or ipad and download the book for free.
Comments