Please hold while we load your cart...
I feel it appropriate that Evan Read's article was placed on Star City on the same day that the Sirlin articles on "Playing to Win" were posted. Essentially, Read says that if you are going to play in a small tournament, you shouldn't go all-out, and everyone should play his or her squirrel deck. If you want to play a net deck, save it for the PTQs. Unfortunately, his argument lacks any real basis.
Read's major point boils down to the fact that the person who ran Squirrel-Opposition (which, ironically, is a squirrel deck) wasn't playing for fun, but was mainly out there to make the other players miserable. But what is fun for one person might not be for another. Perhaps this person enjoys winning; I know I do. Is Magic fun even when I get stomped? Yes, it is, but I definitely seem to enjoy myself more when I'm winning.
Who is Read to say that the Squirrel-Opposition player wasn't playing for fun? Obviously, FNM isn't designed to be cutthroat Magic - hence the rules enforcement one and the eight K-Value - but if I derived the most fun out of Magic through winning, then by golly, I'm going to go out there, and do what it takes to win.
Read states that he wants to win. But does he really? (Note this is basically paraphrased from the "Playing to Win" articles.) He wants to win, but he doesn't want to do it on someone else's terms. He wants to go out there, and win with his squirrel monstrosity. That is equivalent to saying "I want to go win the Boston Marathon, but I'm only going to do it if I hop on one foot." At the Pro Tours, people play Psychatog and such because it gives them the greatest chance of winning. If it didn't, I'm sure everybody would be out there playing "fun" decks. Read's mental state says that he doesn't want to win; he wants to play for fun. You can't do both.
