Because Of or in Spite Of?

Donald Trump is legendary for being a world-class businessman. As lore would have it, every time he sits down at the negotiating table, he tries to "steal" something. Suppose, for example, he's closing on a multimillion-dollar loan with an investment bank, and after years of work, they're putting the final touches on the deal. At that point, Trump knows there's no turning back, and will demand that the investment bank pay the $200,000 in legal fees. Even though it's not in the contract, Trump knows they're not going to walk away from the deal for something this small, and will get the concession.

So, do you think this is good business or bad business? Many will argue that good business means never leaving a penny on the table, and Trump's technique was a clear $200,000 victory. Others will argue that this type of action will create negative sentiments that will cost him business in the future.

What's clear is this: Trump has larceny in his heart. I'm trying to figure out is if he's successful because of this or in spite of this. In other words, is his willingness to put a dagger in the heart of his investment banker the reason he's successful? Or, is he so brilliant in other areas that he succeeds in spite of the fact that he takes things too far?

College basketball announcer Dick Vitale's colorful vocabulary, combined with his knowledge of the game, has made him an icon. Take away the expressions diaper dandy, PTPer, and dipsy-doo-dunkeroo, and he's just a good analyst with an ordinary schtick. So, clearly, he's successful because of his vocabulary and over-the-top enthusiasm. But even so, if he chose his spots more selectively and didn't make every sentence an exclamation, might he not be even more effective? Would someone like me, who appreciates Vitale's knowledge and passion for the game, not put that television on mute if he didn't say "awesome baby" 15 times before halftime?

What made the Oakland Raiders such a feared franchise in their heyday was intimidation. That recklessness also made them the most penalized team in the league. So, were they successful because of the recklessness or in spite of it? Clearly, penalties hurt your football team, but if you take away the late hits and the cheap shots, one could argue that, for one, the players will lose their swagger, and two, the very fear that they put in teams will dissipate. In a perfect world, you find a way to program these players so that they're as nasty as humanly possible, yet somehow not enough to cross the line to commit penalties. Of course, the key word in that sentence is program – something you can do with computers, not human beings.

Is the absent-minded professor brilliant because he is absent-minded, or does he manage to overcome his absent-mindedness because he is so brilliant? Did the eccentric millionaire become a millionaire because she is eccentric, or did she earn money in spite of her eccentricities? The answer, of course, is, it depends – which brings us to poker.

Hall of Fame poker player Chip Reese said, "If you think about what money can do for you, you're gone. That's what made Stuey Ungar such a great no-limit player: He never, ever, ever cared." I think most of us would agree that Stuey was a brilliant poker player because he never cared about money, not in spite of that fact. Based on this information, you might want to pattern yourself after the three-time World Series of Poker champion. But keep in mind that Stuey was also perpetually broke because of his disregard for money.

It's the reason why it's a dangerous trap to find someone you admire and try to emulate his success. Whether it's Stuey Ungar, Donald Trump, or Dick Vitale, the very thing that makes them succeed is frequently what also makes them fail. When you study great players – which I think is an important part of any poker education – it's very easy to assume that great players always make great plays. You could take this to an extreme and decide that because Doyle Brunson won two World Series of Poker championships when playing 10-2, it's a great hand. Or, you could decide that because World Series of Poker Champion Phil Hellmuth Jr. makes it a habit to show up late to tournaments, you should show up late and piddle away your stack on lost blinds.

Even the great ones have weaknesses. In fact, true greatness engenders weaknesses. That same gene that breeds ultracompetitiveness is the same one that breeds tilt and will have you going off for a big figure to avoid a loss. On a simpler level, most aggressive players who are brilliant at buying pots have the toughest time laying down a hand when they know they're beat.

Bobby Knight did not win three national championships at Indiana because he threw a chair across the gym. Mike Kryzewski did win three national championships at Duke because he took the best of his former coach and left the rest. Now, Coach K. is a hero at Duke, and Knight has been banished by Indiana.

Stuey Ungar didn't win three World Series of Poker championships because of his cocaine addiction. Cocaine won't help you win three WSOP titles. But figure out what Stuey did right and leave the rest, and you just might win the World Series. Of course, if you don't have whatever that intangible is that makes you unafraid of going broke, you probably don't have that intangible that will make you a champion. And there's the rub: Gambling champions are successful because of their willingness to go broke. It's a difficult paradox, which makes poker such a hard way to make an easy living.

Greg Dinkin is the author of three books, including The Poker MBA, www.thepokermba.com. He is also the co-founder of Venture Literary, www.ventureliterary.com, a management company that works with writers to develop their material for books, film, and television.