[David Sklansky]

Most haven't read it yet and those who haven't should reserve comment until they have. The jist of it is that he puts poker players into two categories, basically grinders and risk takers, and he then gives the pros and cons to both approaches.

I'll elaborate on my objections later on. But for now I would simply like to say that there is nothing that forces you to choose to be in either extreme category. Daniel claims that risk avoiders will never be found above 80-160 or 25-50 NL. Nonsense. He also implies that the highest players are making good decisions when they play against each other rather than play smaller and win more in the long run with less risk. And that there are good reasons to take big risks regarding going broke. Again nonsense.

I completely agree that those who never push themselves past their comfort level are somewhat sad cases. If you can afford it, play in higher games than you are used to if for no other reason than it will help your game. If things work out you just may move up the stakes ladder for good. Don't just think of poker as a steady job if there is any chance at all you have not reached your peak. But you can do all this without being a sucker.