Interesting points. The distinction between “action” and “edge” is a good one. Although I play poker for a living, I don’t consider myself a gambler. I never touch table games, I don’t bet sports or horses, and neither winning nor losing is particularly exciting to me. Obviously I like winning, but not in a thrilling, roller-coaster sort of way that I understand to be the experience of the gambler. Most importantly, I don’t find losing to be exciting. I’m generally far more likely to get despondent and quit than to be driven by losses to keep playing to get even, move up in stakes, etc. I think you’re mountain-climbing analogy is a good one. If anything, Beal was addicted the challenge, and the money was just a tool he was using to overcome it.

Actually, it’s interesting that you chose mountain climbing. The little bit that I’ve read about it (primarily Krakauer’s Into Thin Air) makes it sound very much like an addiction/compulsion that avid climbers can barely control. It seems that at some point, virtually everyone who attempts a dangerous climb such as Everest looks back on it with regret, whether he was successful or not. They feel foolish to have taken such a crazy risk, yet they felt at the time they had no choice and would have been driven crazy if they hadn’t attempted it.

Good point, the action seems to be more of a factor then “edge” to what and who we percieve as a gambler. That being said the obvious attraction to the action given by the Corporation appears to be almost an addiction, as portrayed in the book, to Beal. After more than one attempt, note unsucessful attempt, he keeps returning to the action. The edge he may have thought he had was proven to be worthless, and yet again and again he returns to his “needle” of high stakes games. Given his history of taking on a challenge and becoming the best at something it can be likened to seeing that mountain and trying to climb it no matter the odds.

I think you’re right on the first point, but that’s why I don’t consider him a “gambler” per se. I feel like it didn’t matter to him that they were playing for money. Even when he argued over the stakes, it seemed like it was just a tool he was using to push the pros out of their comfort zone. I think of a gambler as someone who gets a rush from winning and losing money and who wants to bet on everything.

The way that I see Beal, as portrayed in the book, is someone looking to push himself and those around him to the highest point of their skills.

And personally, anyone that takes on some of the best players in the world in their home turf (for the most part) whilst claiming to be able to beat them is a gambler. 🙂

Heh, good catch, thanks.

My thoughts exactly, well said. Actually, I’m not sure I’d agree that Beal is a “true gambler.” I’m currently reading Amarillo Slim in a World of Fat People, and let me tell you, that man was a gambler.

The interaction of the “pros” with a man trying to knock them off Mt. Olympus was a fascinating insight into the mindset of a true gambler. In my opinion the lengths that BOTH parties go to trying to gain that elusive “edge” was worth the read for any poker player, full time or part time, professional or lackadaisical.