Page 2
Sometimes, when I read my e-mail, I find myself questioning my lifelong commitment to freedom of speech. But I guess, on balance, the pros still outweigh the cons.
To validate my beliefs, once again, I give you the unexpurgated opinions of some of my many "fans":
THE POSTMAN ALWAYS KNOCKS ... AND KNOCKS ... AND KNOCKS ...
Dude, you are a f------ d-----bag. Get off Phil [Laak, also known as The Unabomber]. I know the guy personally. I was one of his guests at the WPT final table at the Bike last September. He is an incredible player, a flat-out brilliant guy, and genuinely hysterical.
I've met a lot of accomplished people in my life -- I was an Ivy undergrad and possess a law degree from one of the top schools in America -- and Phil ranks with the best of them as far as inherent intellect. That you blame him for some supposed effect he will have on untold millions of impressionable young poker players is retarded and makes you look like a child. Grow up.
I know for a fact that when you first printed that article, he took it to the Bellagio and a great laugh was had by the top pros at your expense. They respect Phil, and they should. Quit being a dusty old t--t, and shut your cakehole until your results even begin to remotely approach Phil's winnings.
-- Michael Patrick, San Francisco
Counselor, didn't they teach you anything about the art of gentle persuasion at that cool law school you attended?
Just to set the record straight, I never said Phil Laak was unintelligent -- or even that he lacked "inherent intellect," to use your interesting phraseology. I said he was annoying, thanks to his infantile and self-absorbed behavior.
And, if you'll pardon my presumption, I find your philosophy of he-who-makes-the-most-money-makes-the-rules unworthy of an Ivy grad. By that standard, Bill Gates can do whatever he likes and fear no criticism ... Warren Buffet can do whatever he likes and fear no criticism, except from Bill Gates ... the Sultan of Brunei can do whatever he likes and fear no criticism, except from Bill Gates and Warren Buffet ... and you, Michael Patrick, must be prepared to take criticism from anybody who makes more money than you do.
That said, you actually attached your name to your e-mail, which puts you in rarefied company. My sincere respect for that.
Hey, Lovinger, haven't you learned to not try and act hip, or that you don't have the slightest clue about pop culture? Even if it is pop culture from the '80s??? "Get your money for nothing, and your chicks for free." From Dire Straits. That's a direct quote from your latest column. The real lyrics go, "Get your money for nothing, and your CHECKS for free." See the connection ... money, checks? Get it now, Einstein?
And what's the deal, are you used to paying for chicks? Sad, Jay, really sad. Also another direct quote from your latest column ... "12. Don't play A-x unsuited at a full hold 'em table. What are you rooting for to come on the flop?" So what are you saying, I should fold with my A-K, or A-Q, two of the best possible starting hands? What are you smoking??? Do us all a favor and stick your head in an oven.
-- Mike, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
Hey, Mike, what are you trying to say -- that because I "misquoted" a word from a rock song, I should commit suicide? Or is the reason you think I should kill myself that I tried to act hip when I don't have the slightest clue about pop culture? If you don't mind my saying so: Either way, that seems like a bit of an overreaction.
Especially since you are wrong. The correct line is exactly as I quoted it. Everybody knows sex has always been more important to rock stars than banks that offer free checking. Does that make you less pop-culturally hip than me? And, if so, can I expect an apology soon?
As for No. 12, A-x is the internationally recognized designation for an ace and any card less than a 10. It does not include A-K or A-Q, which I would not suggest folding, unless, of course, you are facing a huge raise or re-raise, in which case you might have to consider releasing your hand.
Regarding your "raise or fold" advice, I've heard this elsewhere -- most memorably from Mike McD in "Rounders": "If it's good enough to call, it's good enough to raise." But if everyone at the table followed this advice, there would never be any post-flop betting. Either several players would eventually go all-in by raising and re-raising each other, or all the other players would fold to the high raiser.
When we see Sam Farha call a bet in the WSOP, is he making a weak play? Or is a more accurate way to phrase this dictum: "Whenever possible, don't call without first raising"? You say you think you can "do this," meaning (I'm assuming) play poker for a living. What percentage of people with a basic understanding of and passion for poker (say, your readership) do you think has the guts and guile to "do this," as well? And if you think it's a small percentage, well, er ... what makes you so damn special, Sparky?
-- Marc Wilson, Atlanta
|
|
|---|
| Got a poker problem or want more details about Jay's Vegas adventure? Send in your questions and comments. |
If everybody played poker correctly, most people would come out just about even, and pretty soon nobody would be interested in playing. Luckily, there's almost nothing in this world that "most people" do correctly, so let's not worry about it.
Sam Farha's philosophy, I'm guessing, is that he can make "bad" calls and then make up for them by outplaying most people after the flop. He is probably right about that -- at least, most of the time -- though this is, at least partially, a rationalization for a guy who is obviously addicted to seeing as many flops as possible. Except perhaps as cautionary fable, his style of play has no relevance to the vast majority of players, who cannot afford to start off hands behind the eight ball. So, while Sam may be good enough to make his loose play work, you and I and millions of others would be "wrong" if we played the way Sam did at the WSOP.
That said, your phrasing of the dictum is right on. My congratulations to the chef.
The percentage of players who have the ability to "do this" is, in fact, small. It's been estimated that about 90 percent of people who regularly play poker in casinos and other situations where pots are raked will lose money in the long run. Simple observation suggests this is a pretty accurate estimate.
As to what makes me "special" ... well, maybe I'm just fooling myself, like a lot of others have been known to do. However, I'm a good inferential thinker, I'm very calm under pressure, I'm patient, I don't much care what other people think about me, I can comfortably cope with fairly big stakes, I'm hard to read (I think), and I'm a pretty astute observer of what makes people tick. All of those qualities provide positive expectations for a wannabe poker pro.
Jay, first of all, poker is better in LA, and for limit hold 'em you can easily clear $2-3K a week in Vegas, as well. Additionally, you can make $5-10K a month online because of the ability to play 4-6 games at once. What you are doing in Foxwoods, I do not know ...
-- Danny, Las Vegas
Danny, thanks for the mixed message. On the one hand, you seem to have faith in my ability to win money in Los Angeles, the toughest poker town in the world. On the other, you seem to be suggesting that I'm a chicken, or fiscally foolish, or both.
The main reason I've been playing at Foxwoods for the past few months is that I thought it would increase my chances of delaying the inevitable divorce if I spent the summer with my wife and kids.
The second reason: The players at Foxwoods, generally, are much more congenial and less annoyingly aggressive than those in LA and Vegas, which, to my mind, makes for a much more enjoyable playing experience. To me, at this (late) stage of my life, that's real important.
And third, as you might have noticed, I've been doing well at Foxwoods -- up about $40,000 for the past three months. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but ... maybe not. My theory is: Don't ever slap Lady Luck upside the head.
|
|
|---|
| Have you become obsessed with poker too? Well, no worries -- Page 2 has launched its very own poker section. Check it out. |
Jay, I keep checking your column with hopes of reading some of the articles you promised at the beginning of your "experiment." For example: "I'll find out what I'm made of, and what 21st-century poker masters are made of, by challenging them to $1,000 freezeout Q&As -- interviews designed to reveal what's at the heart of a great poker player while we're playing hands worth a grand each -- a sort of double-barreled baring of the souls. I'm going to find out who they hate to play, who they love to crush, who cheats, who trash-talks, and where there's still romance left in the game."
Aside from your diary from the WSOP, your articles have consisted of observations from watching TV, and a Foxwoods diary. When are you going to pony up and challenge one of the greats to a $1,000 freezeout? When are you going to write about that Flynt game (does he use naked-lady cards, or would that be overkill)? How about the cruise ship or riverboat circuit?
-- Chris, Washington, D.C.
Chris, don't you know that all great players are bluff artists? I was just kidding about all that stuff.
Actually, I'm just kidding now. I'm only about a third of the way through my year, still getting my feet wet, etc. Be patient.
Also, things always look a lot different from a distance than they do from inside. For example, it turns out that it isn't so easy to get a top pro to play against a rank amateur heads-up for $1,000. Two reasons: First of all, $1,000 is not a big deal to a top pro. They can make that much in 15 seconds playing in a decent-sized ring game. Second, can you imagine the embarrassment if they were to lose the $1,000 to the rank amateur, especially if that loss was described in excruciating detail on ESPN.com?
How can you have a column and not understand the odds of hitting a set on five cards (or have an editor who does)? Using basic statistics, and assuming we don't know any of the other cards, it works out to 1-(48/50x47/49x46/48x45/47x44/46), or 36.8 percent, which is A LOT better than the 20 percent you stated. Of course that doesn't mean you win ...
Isn't the right question: Am I up against a higher pair (like an 80-percent underdog) or two higher cards and want to take the coin flip (actually about 53-percent favorite, give or take) or not (in which case you are a significant favorite in any case)?
-- Jeff S., New York
Many readers took me to task for not being able to calculate basic probabilities, though most of them came up with a much lower figure for hitting a set on five cards than Jeff S's 36.8 percent. (Since I'm a math meathead, I'll leave it to my less mathematically challenged readers to take on Jeff S's figures.)
There is nothing wrong, of course, with knowing how to accurately calculate probabilities in poker. However -- and not to seem like a defensive jerk -- there are more important ways to spend your time at the poker tables, like trying to figure out what your opponents have, what they think you have, what you should bet, etc.
The difference between a 4-1 shot and an 81-percent-to-19-percent shot is meaningless in poker. It is useful to know the approximate odds of most situations in poker, for sure; but beyond that, if you are spending time and brainpower on calculating precise possibilities, you are wasting valuable time and brain power.
Jay, in your August 23 column, when describing the hand you lost with A-K, you wrote, "He was holding 7-7, which meant only a nine or the case ace on the river could save me." This is not entirely accurate, as a king would have won the pot for you with a higher full house. You had a total of seven outs: one ace, three kings, and three nines, assuming those cards were still in the deck. This means you had a 16-percent (7/44) chance of winning the pot. Still not great odds, but not beyond the realm of possibility.
-- John Hurst, Dallas
Oopsie, my bad.
WOMEN AND POKER
I strongly disagree with your claim that because women don't want to "subjugate one another" but would instead rather "communicate," they don't make good leaders. You even go so far as to say that women who are good leaders (Margaret Thatcher) are successful because they are "enough like men" to do well.
|
|
|---|
| Confused by some of the terms Jay uses in his poker columns? Get their definitions right here. |
This isn't a touchy-feely idea. We simply can't exist in the world today without cooperating with allies. As a woman, I find your statements not only ignorant but infuriating. Just because men (you included, apparently) think themselves the only ones qualified to run the world doesn't make it so.
-- Melody, New York
Maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough, Melody. As the father of three avidly feminist daughters, I agree with everything you say -- especially that communication is a vital component of effective leadership. My point was not that women cannot make good leaders or that they should not be elected, but rather that, given the prevailing values in this country and others, they are unlikely to get elected, at least at the highest levels.
I cannot WAIT until the next Mailbag. I heard Vegas has the over/under on the number of hate mails you get in regards to your Commandment No. 4 (women will never play poker as well as men) is 26.5. I've taken the over, but I'm slightly worried that there might not be that many women who read your column, seeing as how they're not good at poker and would therefore have little interest in it. Would you please do those of us with a financial interest a favor and post the actual number of hate mails? Don't count this one.
-- Paul B, Fresno
Sorry you took the over, Paul B, because, not counting your e-mail, I received only three on the subject, including one from a guy who read the first sentence and then swore he'd never again read another word written by yours truly. (I guess everybody doesn't believe in free speech.)
GAME FOR THE AGES
Jay, If you were able to pick nine professional poker players, living or deceased, to sit at a final table with, in a fun and friendly game of poker, who would they be and why?
-- John Cicc, Santa Barbara, California
Stuey Ungar, the only legit three-time winner of the WSOP, and possibly the best poker player who ever lived. (He almost certainly was the most self-destructive great player.)
Doyle Brunson and T.J. Cloutier -- probably the two biggest money-winners in poker history -- especially if they were in a wisdom-dispensing and/or story-telling mood.
Daniel Negreanu, because he is the most imaginative player I've ever seen.
Howard "The Professor" Lederer, a brilliant -- and clear -- thinker, who knows how to express himself in language even a mook like me can understand.
The fearless Phil Ivey, Mr. Intensity, who is rumored to have won $20 million in side games in the last 12 months. We'll make him play with a blindfold.
Layne Flack, to keep the patter flowing and the game loose, and so Daniel would have somebody to talk to.
Johnny Moss and Nick the Greek, who engaged in a months-long, head-to-head game at Binion's Horseshoe Casino that was the forerunner to today's WSOP, to see if legends look the same from close up as they do through the mists of oral history ... not to mention that The Greek was probably the ultimate action guy ever, making players as aggressive as Gus Hansen and Sammy Farha look like conservative geeks by comparison.
And if any of the above bust out, I'd give Jennifer Harmon (under-the-radar great), Ram Vaswani (Mr. Cool) or Chip Jett (one of the great chip splashers) a call.
AMEN, BROTHER
Am I the only one who finds it annoying when these guys go all-in on a hand they are longshots to win, then, when they get their miracle card, celebrate like they just kicked the game-winning field goal in the Super Bowl? Isn't the right reaction to this to wipe your brow and thank your lucky stars you can keep playing? I know this is high stakes and all, but celebrating like you somehow made that case eight come on the river ... Maybe I just prefer the old school (even though I'm only 20).
-- Jack, Moorhead, Minnesota
Apparently, there's something magical about TV cameras, whose mere presence transforms otherwise reasonable men into silly exhibitionists. Couldn't have said it better myself, Jack, even though I'm only 60. (And please, dear reader, spare me the you're-just-an-old-fart-who-doesn't-get-the-modern-world e-mails.)
I know that youth and women supposedly ruled this year's WSOP, but I can't imagine there weren't quite a few old-timers who loved watching Doyle Brunson beat Scott "We Own the WSOP" Fischman senseless the other night. I'm in my mid-30s and I loved it. Fischman couldn't have beaten Brunson with a pinochle deck.
-- Eric O., Colorado Springs
Respect for wisdom doesn't seem to be a high priority for your average twentysomething, poker player or not. To be fair, it wasn't high on my list, either, when I was Scott's age. Maybe he learned something from Doyle, though I wouldn't bet real American money on it.
Watched the WSOP the other night. The dichotomy between "old school" and "new school" players is fascinating. I assume it is frustrating to the old schoolers to deal with the Ragin' Swede (I can't remember his name) and other loudmouth, obnoxious punks (Fischman). Do the old schoolers talk about this among themselves and wish evil on all the newbies?
Also, couldn't help but be intrigued by the contrast between Lederer's elimination (stunningly bad beat, but handled with class and dignity) vs. Matusow's crying fit. Thoughts?
-- Brian, Pittsburgh
I'm totally with you on Lederer vs. Matusow.
In general, old schoolers are resentful of young newbies, partly because of the reasons stated above, partly because we wish we were young again. However, we also appreciate the new, improved and apparently bottomless source of income.
WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH ...
Jay, I would like to read about how you, as a "pro" (even if your "pro" status might only be temporary), deal with bad days. Now I'm not talking about bad beats. I'm talking about those days that shake your confidence as a player, the days where you walk away from the table genuinely unsure about whether you played poorly, just got bad cards, or a little of both. Even better would be how you avoid having those days to begin with, if you never have them. Thanks.
-- Lucas, Denver
I have plenty of bad days, and they shake my confidence far more than they should, probably because I haven't been doing this long enough to feel comfortable that tomorrow really is another day. After a bad day -- or session -- I try to do two things:
1.) Figure out what I did wrong -- never tell yourself it was just bad luck -- and concentrate on not doing it again the next few times I play.
2.) Play in a smaller game than usual, partially to build up confidence, partially to lessen the chance that I'll go on some huge bankroll-destroying binge.
MR. JACKPOT, IT'S TIME FOR YOUR CLOSEUP
Now that you're writing on ESPN.com, do you get noticed by players at Foxwoods? Do players seek you out and try to send you to the ATM? I would think that being a poker player with some exposure would cause every hero with a bankroll to come looking for you, especially since they know which casino you frequent. Are you fine with people noticing you at Foxwoods?
-- Ian, Beverly, Massachusetts
I'm getting recognized more and more, I'm afraid. The problem isn't the poker playing. For one thing, I'm not really good enough for people to bounty hunt. What are you going to tell your friends? "In a $60 Act I the other day at Foxwoods, I knocked out this aging former editor who is having delusions that he's a poker pro?" In fact, if anyone is crazy enough to go out of their way to try and put a beat on me, it will most often work to my advantage, since, presumably, they would be making uncharacteristic -- and therefore, unwise -- moves.
The real problem for me has to do with my role as a writer. When people act "normally" -- that is, when they are not presenting some kind of "cute" version of themselves for publication -- it makes for much better and more believable columns.
All that said, I'm actually fine with people noticing me at Foxwoods, especially if they have nice things to say about the column, which is usually the case. It tells me that I'm getting enough readers to keep ESPN happy -- ergo, that paycheck will keep arriving in the mail. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, I've got a healthy male ego.
AN ENCOURAGING WORD, OR TWO
Just wanted to let you know your column has become my second favorite Page 2 column, behind only the immortal Bill Simmons.
-- RT, Boston
Thanks, RT. I'm almost as proud as if you'd told me that my porn video was your second favorite, behind only the immortal Paris Hilton's. By the way, Mom ... I mean, RT ... when did you move to Boston?
You are my hero. It's my prayer that one day after I've wasted the best years of my life in my 9-to-5 job, I will get to spend a year exploiting my wife and family for a deck of cards and a bunch of faceless degenerates. Way to go. You are living the American dream.
-- Jason Spence, Middletown, Ohio
Jason, I'm going to assume, for the sake of concluding this mailbag on an upbeat note, that you are not being sarcastic. (Yes, I know this goes against my earlier assertion that one of my strengths is reading people. But the rules of comedy call for a happy ending here.)
HEY, IRS: HOW JAY IS DOING IN HIS NEW CAREER
Last Week: Lost $1,552.
CTD (career-to-date): Plus $36,744.
Jay Lovinger, a former managing editor of Life and a founding editor of Page 2, is writing on his poker adventures for ESPN.com and also writing a book for HarperCollins. You can watch the 2004 World Series of Poker Tuesday nights at 9 p.m. ET on ESPN.
