I disagree. It's foolish to think that a professional lesson will teach you how to perform in a high pressure situation. And since you're an instructor, your opinion is obviously biased.
If you don't have the skills required to play under pressure the. You need to get comfortable losing money because it's going to happen more than not. As long as you have deep pockets then I guess it doesn't matter though.
Scott may be an instructor but he knows what he is talking about here. If you go into a match against a seasoned money player that is your same speed during league nights then you are more than likely going to lose. Get where you are comfortable and confident with your non-money game and then go into playing small sets with the locals.
You may be like me though and have no issue with having a good time and losing $50 bucks. It is a lot better though when you walk away ahead. I'll give you an example. I took lessons from Scott last year and to be honest I didn't really practice what I was taught until a few months after the lessons. I play a guy regularly $20 sets to 7 and he would give me 4 games on the wire. He would beat me or bring it within one game. Now, after taking what I was taught seriously he is asking me for weight because he can't win. Knowing what to do and why helps. I'm not bragging.....I'm just giving you a real life example.
I was going to make a long post about this subject, buy you are a prime example of why one should play for money IMO. But, it has to be enough to hurt, not still be fun losing.
One can get very comfortable losing all the time to a better player. After all, they expect to lose going in. So, no surprise when they do lose. Even if one has the knowledge to improve, until there is an actual incentive to improve, they won't. You are the prime example of that.
Why didn't you incorporate what Scott taught you? Because you were comfortable losing and didn't have the incentive to put in the work. If one keeps losing, only three things can happen...1. They learn to become losers. 2. They get tired of losing and quit playing that person. 3. They accept that they have to change what they are doing to get better so they can eventually beat the person that has been beating them with no mercy.
Number three can slap you right up the side of the head and give you the incentive to put in the work to actually improve. Everyone wants to play better than they do, but few are willing to do what it takes. Often, a financial stake in the game will give one the incentive to do the work required.
Now, no one is saying to go play that A player when one is still a D player for money every day, and by osmosis you will improve. (anyone that does think that way is very misquided) But, go find someone near your level but better than you.
What I used to do is this- I would find as much easy action as possible. (rarely does one find easy action, it's like winning the lottery) 90% of my action was with "equal" players. Meaning, win today, lose tomorrow, ect. I would then take some of my winnings (not all, that's for suckers) and go play someone really good. Then I would incorporate what I learned into my game so I could win more often against my usual opponents.
I found I would pay a lot more attention to detail when playing a much better opponent than if I just watched him. It's really not the same thing. You can watch someone play, and learn a lot. But, when it is you involved in the game, it is a whole different level of experience and learning. You then really start to see things for what they are, why he did it, and how it made you feel and react.
So, does one need to gamble to improve? Of course not for some. Look no further than Thorsten Holmann. But, for the vast majority of us, when utilized properly, it can give a great incentive to actually do what is necessary to improve.
Well, I guess it got long anyways.
