So todays question is once again more of a philosophical nature than anything specific. The question of the day is this, as poker players we are always scouring for the beatable game. We want to find the pond where all of the fish swim where we can be the lone shark and dine as we please. Does this hurt our development as players? I was spending some time thinking about signing up for another site for playing cash games because it is really soft and very beatable. I started to think about that though and began to wonder, is that really what I want. To play in a place where my mistakes are gifted with winning. Where my leaks become re-enforced because after all I am profitable there, but when i move locations I struggle and lose. I wonder if in general this is the attitude that is limiting us as developing players at times, and perhaps we should look to play where the competition is the fiercest. After all if you want to become a champion, shouldn't you play against other champions. No one gets to the top of their game by beating all of the guys who are at their worst. The day you achieve greatness is the day you beat the best. So that being said, I think that I am becoming more comfortable with the idea that in the short term I may be losing, but I am playing where the competition is the toughest and in the long run I think it will make me better. Don't get me wrong, I am not against free money or nice profitable play, but what I wonder is, does chasing that stagnate us as developing players. Should we focus on where the learning is the most profitable, rather than where the money is the easiest? Tough question, no easy answer. This is the Gman signing out. May all your flushes be royal.