What is the difference between competence to waive counsel and competence to represent oneself?

In short, the distinction between competence to waive counsel gauged by whether the accused realizes "the probable risks and consequences," and competence measured by the ability to actually represent oneself cannot be fully maintained, for there is a threshold of competence to present a defense below which one cannot genuinely realize the risk of doing so. (Cf., People v. Powers, supra, 256 Cal.App.2d 904, 915, 64 Cal.Rptr. 450 ["a distinction ... between the right to waive counsel and competency to conduct a criminal defense ... does exist but the two concepts are nevertheless closely interrelated."] ) If he truly desires to establish his innocence, a person wholly unable to defend himself who nonetheless attempts to do so does not understand the nature and consequences of his act. Realization of the risk of self-representation necessarily involves an element of sober self-examination. A defendant who does not appreciate the extent of his own disability cannot be fully aware of the risk of self-representation where the disability significantly impairs his capacity to function in a courtroom.