Um, this is exactly what I said though. He didn't do things just for the sake of points, because if he does, he would have chosen a safer layout with similar content that would generate the same or almost the same BV. He thinks ahead, and whatever planned layout he has in his head, he chooses it to further and challenge himself into the next step. I did not said, nowhere in my statement, that he did not care about points. No need to type wordy lengthy paragraph and explanation in reply as if I said those. Geez.
What I'm saying he only does things when the points he gets at least compensate the risk he takes. Everyone faces the same rules. They can't go against the rules if they want to win. Their decisions are points oriented. My understanding of doing something not for the sake of points, is only if someone does something when the points rewarded don't compensate the risk (i.e. high risk, low reward). As long as the person gets at least enough points reward for the risk taken, i.e. he doesn't lose more points by doing something (e.g. he doesn't lose more points by doing 4-3 and 3-2 than doing 4-2 and 3-3 and the potential score he can get for doing 4-3 and 3-2 is higher than doing 4-2 and 3-3, i.e. doing 4-3 and 3-2 is high risk, high reward.), then he is doing it for the sake of points. Basically I'm saying, I disagree that he is not doing things for the sake of points. I do think he does things for the sake of points (most of the time) because that's a must if he wants to win. YMMV.
----------
ETA:
I listed a few scenarios that he does high risky things but his fans consider his risk taking as irrational. I explained that why I think he gets more points for doing those risky things. I don't remember he ever did/planned risky layouts that have lower scoring potential than alternative layout options (at least in the long run).
ETA:
This is not directed at you.
When fans claim that he is taking irrational risk just for the sake of taking risk or challenging himself and not for the sake of points, do they consider all the possible points he may gain by doing a more risky layout? He may not gain any points or even lose points now, but he will gain more points in the future. What is the rest of the field doing? Are they catching up? He may not gain any points in the BV explicitly, but he may gain more points in GOE and PCS indirectly. The current layout may appear to be too risky, but the alternative layouts are even more risky or have even lower scoring potential and are thus worse options. Is he the chaser or the one being chased?
(Ladies don't get extra BV for doing 3-3 in the LP. But many ladies, if not every lady in top 15-20 attempt 3-3 in the LP. Some attempt two 3-3s or do 3-3 in the 2nd half. Do they all attempt 3-3 not for the sake of points? Doing 3-3 is seen as superior. Girls who don't attempt 3-3 are perceived as inferior and will get 2nd tier scores because judges don't see them as medal contenders. Even doing easy 3-3 is not good enough. Doing harder 3-3 increases the PCS and/or GOE even if it doesn't increases the BV. For men, doing 4-3 is perceived as having superior skills. Doing 4-3 in the 2nd half is even more impressive. When everyone skates clean, the difference in PCS will just come down to who has superior tech, e.g. who does more difficult transitions with good quality, how many 4-3 do they attempt, how many quads do they attempt, how many types of quads do they attempt, how many quads do they attempt in the 2nd half, how many 4-3 do they attempt in the 2nd half, etc.)
In fact, many people who were skeptical with Yuzuru's strategies were proven wrong. Yuzuru's strategies have always been proven right. Athletes compete to win/medal/to get the best results possible. They all try to game the system to milk every point possible. The skaters with best results are also best strategists in the field. IMO, just because fans/coaches are short sighted or can't see the bigger picture, doesn't mean yuzuru is reckless and irrational. Yuzuru is the smartest and most rational strategist in the field.