The "rude/egotistical" part is probably the assertion you can write a more interesting book than her article which is a self-absorbed comment, not in least because having great stories/ideas is useless compared to executing the idea. You're crapping on her effort/accomplishment (publishing an excellent piece) with nothing but a glib assertion that you have a more interesting story than hers.

Also I doubt it, because even with more "interesting" stories, I think she is a better writer than you. And because there's prob nothing more interesting than boning David Hayden.

(And I say this as someone who would also be interested in reading your auto-bio!)

Thanks for answering the question David. I didn't say you were 'rude or egotistical', I said that in my opinion the post sounded rude/egotistical.

Why? Because it's easy to SAY 'my life is/was so much more interesting and I could write a much better book/whatever' - not so easy to do so, and until such time then it's just a claim.

I could SAY that my journeys in life are/were much more worthy of a book or film than, for example, Odysseus' - but until I relate some of them it would just be so much wind to some people

I guess tone is hard to detect in written form (especially on a forum).

Edit: Just spotted shaniac's post saying much the same as mine.

Boiling Shane's point down, it's because you turned the conversation into one about yourself, David. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of egotistcal. That said, you'd be very likely to have a number of really interesting stories to tell. Perhaps not as many as Danny Robison, but still . . .

David, you don't write very well. Despite absolutely outstanding substantive content, much of your language when you write is terribly ambiguous and at times almost deliberately obtuse. I suspect it's a skill you don't think is particularly important. I'll still buy all of your damn books, but this is very definitely an area where you can improve.

As much as I like and respect David Heyden, let me speak for the collective and suggest that stories about boning him do not sound particularly interesting. He's too calm and even-tempered, and I don't think serenity in this area leads to great storytelling.

Mixing the two thoughts, Danny Robison once told me a story about how he prop-bet some guy $10K or some such number that he could sleep with one of the cute board girls at the Bike. The guy accepted the bet, whereupon Danny promptly went to the board girl and offered her $7500 to sleep with him, which she accepted. They ended up dating for six months or something. Danny had us all laughing so hard with that one that we couldn't breathe. It's not all that hard to think up that solution, but it does take some balls to carry it off -- if you fail at it, you're not only going to owe $10G, but you're going to get razzed by all of your friends for decades over the girl that wouldn't sleep with you for a fairly absurd amount of money.

I'd be a little surprised if you had all that many similar stories, David.

If the rumours are true, he's got a lot of similar stories.

Evidently I don't write well enough for people to get when I am joking. I asked why people think I am egotistical right after I wrote (truthfully) that I never needed to highlight anything in my textbooks and wrote (untruthfully) that I considered the assertion an insult.

As far as "crapping" on her work, I have every right to truthfully give my opinion that my stories, even if poorly written, would be more interesting than hers, especially after her thinly disguised nasty remarks that she knew people would think were referring me. Believe me, I held most of my fire.

Of course you have the right to do that. Nobody so disputes. But it's also an egotistical thing to do. The idea that your autobiography would be more interesting than hers isn't really related to her comments that many readers will assume relate to you. So, while you're very likely correct, your response does indeed make you look self-absorbed.

Please do write an autobiography, but coordinate it with an editor.

Dry senses of humor aren't generally appreciated fully.

Either way, keep us updated on when you start your autobiography. You have a much wider audience than 2+2.

That's a great idea. I'll buy it.

I don't care how badly Sklansky writes. I'd be buying the autobiography for the stories, not for his literary skill or lack thereof.

Sorry if I missed it in the article, but if you're referring to the introduction, I doubt it was written by her.

Anybody out there interested?

I charge a reading fee of exactly one rough copy of the book.

I'd be very happy to ghost-write it for you

I spent many years as a casino manager editing monthly reports by the Pit Bosses, before they were seen by Head Office. The main reason being that we didn´t want any criticism of our Pit Bosses, which could then fall back on management.

I´ll gladly help out if you need me.

next time you play plo at the aria try playing more than 2 hands in 3 hours

1. It's not the "interestingness" of the stories really that made that such a good piece. It was the deeply self reflective nature of the writing and the vulnerability and honest assessment of her life / character.

I'm sure you have some more stories about having a CRAZY prob bet with Mike Caro or some stud game variant you devised with a 47 card deck or whatever garbage, but nothing in anything you've ever written suggests you can write something of the quality she wrote.

2. To where it's your first thought that hey, people liked this piece, I'm jealous and I COULD DO BETTER, is pretty lol, and I mean do you have to ask why we think you're egotistical / self deluded? Really?

3. That piece was awesome Cat if you're reading.

Not in the slightest.

I highly recommend Howard Treesong's proofreading services.

My question, as I said, was a joke. She is a better writer than me, literary speaking, but its easier to do that when some of the stuff is made up. I'm not jealous of people's ability to write. If I was I'd learn that field. But I do know that I can write stuff that twoplustwoers would choose over what she (or the other author mentioned) wrote if they had to pick one of the two to actually BUY. Because they know that even my anecdotes are sometimes going to make them a lot more money than what they had to offer.

Of course even these minor negative comments would not have been made if she hadn't chosen to make negative comments about someone who she knew people would assume to be me.

i saw a Neil Strauss reference..\\

i know almost nothing about him and Las Vegas poker.......

but doesn't he write books like "How to Pick Up Women", under either his own name or pseudonym?........... therefore, for him to have that book and have it highlighted makes perfect sense as he might have been editing it for a new edition.

I'm also not convinced she would accuse Sklansky of marking a book with colour codes.

Probably the whole thing was written by a BBC hack.

You probably think this song is about you, don't you, don't you!?!?

To be fair the OP also thought the song was about Sklansky - as did I when I read it on the BBC site before I'd seen it here.

David: I assume you have read the book "Gambling Wizards". Your story would have to be at least as interesting as the people profiled in that book for an actual autobiography.

The late great Chip Reese is profiled/interviewed in the book, and I think he sums up you up pretty well. He states that you are very good player, but are comfortable at the middle limits because you understand risk/reward well, and don't have a ton of gamble. This does not make for a compelling auto-biography imho.

Of course I would buy your book. I assume it would be an integral part of poker history.