We all play games. It doesn't matter how much of a hardened gangster you are, everything we do can be likened to the competition. Whether it's moving up in the ranks before our peers in this thing of ours, or playing a friendly game of spades, the ultimate goal is to win. Hell, I can still hear the whispers of two games--a word many of us try to "mature" by calling it a competition--that just finished on the shores of our fine country, filled to the brim with so much difference that at this point we're all the same. It's a beautiful thing really.

Since I was a kid, I gamed. Started when I first came over here from the home country with my pop. We didn't bring much--our clothing, some money, a couple bottles of our town's olive oil--but he made sure to bring over a cribbage board. Dad learned the game when he was a sailor, said he coasted through the mediterranean, dropping off vats of "Italian oil" at those less fortunate countries. It was an easy game to play on a ship; it required a board with holes, and as long as you drill those in one day, they'll always be there. Once he was done sailing he taught me, and when we took our final trip across water to America, we played the fuck out of it.

Strategy wise, he didn't tell me much; his thought on the matter was you learned by playing, by watching how your opponents win. If they keep on walking away with victories, they must be doing something right. The beatings are worth it if you become a better player, and in cribbage the beatings I took. I tossed 5s to HIS crib, kept even cards with no chance of 15s or straights, really I just played awful when I first started. But I saw what he did. I saw him pull tricks by holding pairs while he pegged. I saw him hold the "more points" hand rather than the "drawing" hand when the odds weren't right. I learned how to win.

Not one game did my pop make it easy for me. There were no "freebies". And you know what? That made the game fun. I felt like I earned something when I beat him. If I lost, I knew it was a game and it didn't bother me as long as I played the game the right way. At the end of a match, if I did everything I could to win, and it didn't happen, how could I be mad at myself? How could I be mad at him? We both knew what we were getting into when we get the game: one winner, the rest losers. That was the game, like it always is in life. 

Now, from here on out, I'm going to apologize if anyone takes offense to this, but for those this pertains to, I hope you can take some of this to heart because it permeates beyond the boards and decks we deal. I have recently been dealing cards with a few players at my home game. The hands progressed and, in the game of poker, when there are few players there's a better chance of shittier hands out there. After a few hands, I realized how much these players liked to limp into games, to throw the minimum and hope for the best. They weren't accounting for hands worse than theirs that could've hit a better hand once the flop came out. They weren't accounting for taking stock of who had good hands, who was calling, who was raising, all moves that broadcast strength. I asked them "why aren't you raising?" They told me it was a friendly game. So I raised. And raised. And raised. Lo and behold, I won pot after pot after pot. If people re-raised me...I'd say about 75% of the time, I would've folded. I had SHIT! But y'know what? I had the confidence that it was the winning strategy because no one bucked back at me, and you know what? I was right. Again and again I placed top three. And why? Because I played to win.

Like I said, if anyone raised me at all before the flop, to try and buck back, I'd back off. Sure, sometimes would take a shot back, but I could go 5, 6 hands in a row betting 3x the BB, and I'd get a row of folds. So, I'd win at least 50 chips each time, then on the 6th I'd either have a hand and fold, both options that won me money. Rarely would I be threatened. And almost always I'd walk away with something for my troubles. If they bucked back, I'd change my strategy up, adapt like any player trying to win would. But I never changed the goal, which at the end of the day was to win.

There are no friendly games when, at the end, there is a winner. I am never comfortable handing anyone the crown, and as mafiosos, no one should be. When has any leader here gotten the crown for no work? I'll give you the quick answer so no one misconstrues that as me saying anything about any of the leaders here: never. Not once. No one gets a free ride. We are all competing to get to the top. So why, even in the smallest games where there is a winner, should I just throw my hands up in the air and give up? What makes a game "friendly"? As long as we all enter the game knowing the rules and parameters allowed, there shouldn't be any questions of how we go about it. There should only be frustration at yourself for allowing it to happen, not at the other players who seize the meta and recognize an opportunity when we see it. Are we not gangsters? Are we not always going for the top? Let me paraphrase here: Lambs go to slaughter; a man finds out how the machine works, and makes it work for himself.

For all those interested in playing with me in the future, I try and organize games at this address: #PistolPoker. If you act weak when I play against you, I will raise, because I play to win. I hope you do too, because I want to play with people with the same goal as I.