Mike,
If you wanted to say that people over value the benefits of gambling with better players, I might be able to get on board with that, but I think gambling with players that are better (but not too much better and for reasonable stakes) does have value for several reasons. It might be a character flaw in me, but I have a knee-jerk reaction against extremes. Let me make the case for a type of gambling that improves your game...at least in my view.
1) To the extent there are flaws in your game, the better player exposes them immediately, and if you want to win, you must play correctly. For example, for the longest time I resisted playing an up-table game, even when the balls were laying where I was forced into that game with the correct shot. Trying to not play the up-table game when it is time for the balls to go up, simply leaves your opponent free banks and makes your wallet lighter...lesson learned against a better player in not a lot of time.
Also, moving in the end game with the balls up table, required me to have $ at stake, because it is the part of the game I dislike the most, and when playing for nothing, I too often checked out and shot the wrong shot. A few years ago, I had one 15-hour session with one of the better players in our city. I would argue to you that this single session improved my game by a ball or maybe two.
2) To me, the biggest reason you should play better players for money is...self image. Lenny Basham wrote a great book on competitive performance called "With Winning in Mind". One of his arguments in this book is that all of us have an image of ourselves as player of x speed in whatever discipline we compete in. When we compete, part of what puts real limits on our performance is our self image saying, "You are supposed to play at x speed", so the image we have of ourselves simply does not allow us to play better. Playing better players allows us to see ourselves competing against a better player, and it opens the door to an improved self image and a higher competitive ceiling. Lenny Basham explains it better, I highly recommend the book, and I am totally convinced after reading it that there is some truth in the assertion I am making here.
I might concede that the benefits of playing better players diminish when compared against the costs as an amateur player improves. Let's say a player works his skill level up to that of a quality amateur local player (Fargo Rate 650 -- 700ish). At this level there are very few players who are markedly better in any locale. For example in Chicago, the list that comes to mind is Chris Gentile, Ike, Mike Perron, Jr., Mark Jarvis (if he hangs out there), Bobby Hunter, maybe some others I don't know. In any event, that is an intimidating crew if I am looking at those guys as sparing partners. Even worse, how much do you have to bet to get Gentile in action? Some guys travel, and maybe some guys are known to be not the best sportsman. If you eliminate guys on the road, guys who are assholes, guys who are total champions, guys who only bet 1 million dollars, you might be left with no one to play in any given locality.
I believe the 700 player needs to be in action with a 720 player, the 720 player with a 740 player, and so on. Starting around 650, the pickings are slim unless you travel or are willing to bet an irresponsible sum of money. Just my humble opinion. However, if I win the lottery, I am going to be looking for better players to gamble with in the day time with a flashlight.
kollegedave