Larejo is a mid-stakes tournament mastermind who specializes in outmaneuvering 150-max players with a small number of entries
I’m all for trying new things, especially when it comes to food, as long as I can envision how a dish could come together based on a description of what’s included in it. If there’s a food item on a menu, but I’m not familiar with the name, or it sounds like a dish I’ve never even considered, I don’t know about you, but I likely won’t be ordering it. If instead, I see an item on a menu that looks like something I would be interested in, but it’s different in its own unique way, well, then that’s an item I am likely going to be excited about trying.
For anyone out there who loves cooking, sometimes the best form of cooking is the “tried-and-true.” Dishes and recipes that everyone knows and loves. And as the chef, you are familiar with preparing and perfecting it. This is indisputable. It’s how most of us eat every single day, with food and dishes we know that we like to consume. But every so often, situations call for trying something new. Maybe we’re just trying to switch things up. Maybe the people you are eating with are all in an exploring mood. When this happens, it can typically go one of two ways. The chef can either take the new dish too far (i.e. get too exotic with ingredients), or the chef can hit a home run and create something new and fresh that everyone loves (i.e. tweak and enhance a dish with a strong foundation). When the chef takes it too far, we all have the same reaction. Why? You should have just done X or stopped at Y, or put a little more/less of the Z ingredient, and then this would have been delicious!
This week, I want to focus on the second outcome, because it’s the optimal approach and it’s in sync with the Angles email from earlier this week: rational + random = perfection.
