By Jay Lovinger
Page 2

I've received a lot of e-mails from readers wondering when I'm going to write about playing poker online. Unfortunately, because I'm a technological Luddite, I've had a hard time getting my techno karma together sufficiently to try the online version of the game. It isn't from want of trying.

You all will be happy to hear that I now have the software in hand and some money in a working account. Good to go, right? Not yet. The only non-Mac computer in our household is on the fritz. I hope to get the tech guys from ESPN The Magazine to fix the problem. When they do, I will be betting electronically and writing many thousands of words about it.

My prediction: You, dear reader, will be sorry you ever mentioned the subject.

Many readers have also written to bemoan the preponderance of "negative" e-mail in my Toxic Mailbag columns. For example ...

Jackpot, do you really receive that many bad e-mails? That would make me cringe every time I heard "You've got mail." If it makes you feel any better, I always look forward to reading your columns. Just wish you'd write more often ... slacker.
-- David Burt, Idaho

The reality? Most of my mail is positive ... or at least neutral. It's just that the positive mail is not as interesting as the critical stuff. And it's a lot harder to come up with interesting answers to e-mails that offer praise. What can you say besides, "Well ... uh ... thanks"?

However, I appreciate the positive stuff, and hope you'll keep it coming ... even if I don't acknowledge your kind efforts in future mailbags.

That said, let's get down to toxic business.

WHO SAID THE ART OF GENTLE PERSUASION IS DEAD?
Melody is an idiot, and so are you. The "mess" we are in is because of people like you and her who have bent to others. F--- both of you.
-- David, Atlanta

David, your subtle argument has convinced me. It IS better not to waste time trying to communicate. Let's get right to the killing.

GUESS I LOST MY WAY
Are you the same Jay Lovinger who used to edit the Washington Post Magazine, the same Jay Lovinger who is mentioned by Mike Sager in "Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Publish" (Nation Books: 2004)? If you are, how does your new line of work reflect upon the state of journalistic integrity? Moreover, what does it say about your own integrity as a human being, that you would forsake your responsibilities to your family, and to journalism, in exchange for a deal with the devil (with the devil holding the better hand!)?
-- Steve, St. Paul, Minnesota

I confess. As to what it says about my own integrity (I don't think I can speak for journalistic integrity) ... well, what can I say? David from Atlanta must be right -- I AM an idiot. Or maybe I just got tired of trying -- and failing -- to reach the Davids of the world.

(Jay's wife says: "The question of whether Jay has, in fact, forsaken his responsibilities to family is an interesting one. Last spring, when I had not heard from him for four days during the WSOP and he phoned on his cell from a busy street outside the Horseshoe, I shouted into the phone, 'Call everyday or it's curtains for you, babe.' On the other hand, he was the only boyfriend I ever had who consistently held down a job, a fact that made him singularly appealing to my mother, may she rest in peace, and he is still employed even while playing poker, for which I thank God.")

THE "BAD BOYS" BITE BACK
If you are going to try and be a professional writer, please at least do a minimum of research on your subject. I just began reading your last poker article about "The Bad Boys of Poker" tournament. Almost immediately it was clear to me that you didn't even go to the Travel Channel website to find out what you were commenting on. If you had done any research at all, you would have known that the amateur Mark Richards did, indeed, win a tournament. Please do some fact-checking in the future before you embarrass yourself again.
-- Dan, Watertown, South Dakota

Ask Jackpot Jay!
Got a poker problem or want more details about Jay's Vegas adventure? Send in your questions and comments.

Dan, to my mind, there's a big difference between a news story and a review. When it comes to a review -- which is what I was doing in the "Bad Boys" column -- I believe that only what is actually present in the object of the review (TV show, movie, book, whatever), only the information the typical viewer has at his or her disposal, is fair game. Do you believe, in a review of, say, a movie, that the critic is supposed to call up the director to find out what he was thinking about when he filmed a scene that seemed to make no sense?

Gus Hansen's call with 10-8 suited against an underpair (7-7, 6-6, 5-5, 4-4, 3-3, 2-2) is virtually the same as a call with A-K in that situation. Give Hansen credit for putting Esfandiari on a hand, and having the gumption to call him down.
-- Mike, New York City

If Hansen actually put "the Magician" on a small pocket pair, wouldn't that justify his call? After all, he had committed a large amount of money to the pot already, and he had two over cards. In reality, wasn't his hand just as good, if not better than, A-K, in that situation? I thought it was a brilliant play ... if his read was accurate and he wasn't just screwing around.
-- Jim Bauguss, Dallas

Mike and Jim, there are few things more misunderstood in poker than the process of putting an opponent on a hand. First of all, it is more art than science, which means, at best, after a series of bets, a good player can make an educated GUESS as to what he's up against. In some cases, you can narrow it down to just a few possible hands.

For example, if someone in early position makes a big bet, and the guy behind him makes a huge all-in raise, and the next guy comes over the top with an even larger all-in bet, you can be pretty sure that the last raiser, unless he is clinically insane, has, at worst, K-K or, much more likely, A-A.

However, in the hand between Gus and the Magician, there is no way Hansen could have known that Esfandiari had exactly 7-7. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hansen is a true instinctive genius of hand reading, and he somehow knew -- which I doubt -- that Esfandiari had a medium pair (and not, say, A-Q suited, which, off the betting, was just as likely). In that case, Esfandiari could as easily have held 10-10, which would have dominated Hansen's hand, as 7-7. Or he might have held 9-9, which would have been better than a 2-1 favorite, as would have 8-8.

In other words, even if Gus had read the Magician's hand almost perfectly -- that is, if he somehow knew for a fact that Esfandiari had a middle pair -- it was still a terrible call, since in about half the cases he would be a big underdog and in the other half a slight underdog.

Of course, as some observers have suggested, since there was relatively little at stake for Gus, he might really have been using a low-cost opportunity to solidify his image as a wild and crazy guy.

ABUSING THE DOCTRINE OF FREE SPEECH
Jay, you said in your last mailbag: "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.)"

Why is it that so many columnists (in sports, especially, but elsewhere also) fail to understand the concept of "free speech." A reader boycotting your articles because he or she does not like them has nothing to do with free speech. If ESPN fired you because they thought you wrote asinine comments, it has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech refers to your ability to speak without government restriction (with some limited exceptions).

POKER CENTRAL
Have you become obsessed with poker too? Well, no worries -- Page 2 has launched its very own poker section. Check it out.

What you are complaining about is the marketplace of ideas sorting out what it wants to hear/read and what it doesn't. Speech is free, but not without cost.
-- Mike Soejoto, Los Angeles

Well said, Mike. I totally screwed that one up. What I was trying to get across (and, obviously, I failed miserably) is that it was too bad the reader didn't bother to see what my point was before deciding to dismiss it -- and me.

A MOMENT OF EXQUISITE EMBARRASSMENT
Jay, Please explain why Josh Arieh was so "offended" when he was put all-in on last week's WSOP telecast. The other guy had A-J, and A-K-Q was flopped, which gave him a superior hand to Josh. But when he turned over his cards, Josh was offended, and then turned into an idiot when he got lucky on the river. Is there some etiquette I'm missing? Why would it be wrong to put someone all-in when you have a superior hand over his?
-- Scott W., Tucson

I'll make an educated guess. Based on the betting, Arieh felt that Harry Demetriou's all-in raise was a bad move, that he should have read Arieh for having a better hand than he actually did. In other words, Arieh felt (I think) that Demetriou was not giving him enough respect.

To Arieh's credit, after he watched the broadcast of his abysmal behavior, he posted a message on rec.gambling.poker (an unmoderated chat site) -- and perhaps elsewhere -- acknowledging how badly he had acted and apologizing for it.

Interestingly, Demetriou later posted a message on the same site, more or less accepting Arieh's apology and admitting that he probably did overbet the hand.

It isn't a question of etiquette -- other than that Arieh shouldn't have gloated after getting lucky, nor publicly criticized Demetriou's play -- and there's certainly nothing wrong with putting someone all-in when you have a superior hand. In fact, that's pretty much the ultimate goal in no-limit hold 'em. What Arieh was trying to say, I think, is that, given the betting, there was no way for Demetriou to know that he did, in fact, have the superior hand.

Arieh looked at Demetriou like he had stolen his wife and his kid's lunch money. When Arieh made his straight, on the river, he started taunting Demetriou, telling him it was "on now!" He acted so foolishly that other players were admonishing him for taunting after a lucky draw. Of course, he lamely apologized.

Thankfully, Norman Chad called him out, saying that he was "tired of guys acting like punks and then apologizing." Chad also verbally smacked Mattias Andersson for asking for a chip count with his mouth full. Chad scolded, "These Internet guys have no poker table manners."

Guys such as Andersson and Arieh are like the "players" on the Internet who go all-in on the first hand of a sit-and-go tournament with a 3-8 offsuit, in hopes of catching a lucky draw. There is no poker skill in this method, and it only creates an uphill struggle against the person that beats this type of lunkhead.
-- Terry Settles, Louisville

Terry, I'm pretty much with you all the way -- except for one thing: Don't make the mistake of thinking that Josh Arieh can't play poker. He acted like a jerk against Demetriou, but he's definitely got talent. A lot of talent. (Not so sure about Andersson, though.)

ADVICE TO THE POKER-LORN
Jackpot Jay, this is an odd-ball question, but I'm genuinely curious. You noted that Phil Ivey is rumored to have won $20 million in the past 12 months in "side games." Let's put aside for the moment how staggering that would be, on several levels, if true. My question is about the logistics. How do gamblers settle bets of that magnitude? Casually carrying around a few million in cash or accepting a check for such amounts seems out of the question. My imagination is failing me. Any insights? Thank you.
-- William Vens, New York City

Jackpot Jay's Poker Glossary
Confused by some of the terms Jay uses in his poker columns? Get their definitions right here.

Good question. When they play in casinos -- which is usually the case -- each player buys a large amount of chips from the casino, then cashes in whatever chips he or she is holding at the end of the game. They can get paid however they like -- cash, check, whatever. Many of the top players have safe deposit boxes at casinos in which to keep either cash or chips.

In private games -- and I'm just guessing here -- they might get paid in cash (high-stakes gamblers have been known to carry lots of money around on their persons) or by check. There is great honor among the top players, plus they earn their living in a world so small that it would be devastating to be branded an untrustworthy deadbeat.

If an opponent at the table is not making any attempt to cover his cards, is it bad form to look?
-- Jeff, Philadelphia

No. Each player is responsible for protecting his own cards. Leaning and peaking, however, are uncool.

Is there an unwritten rule of casino poker about how much time you should spend at a table after you win a big pot?
-- Dan, Greenlawn, New York

No. And nobody will care, because there's always somebody else to take your place. However, in a home game, you might want to wait a round or two before you make your getaway.

Is there one hand out there that looks better but plays worse than K-J? If you hit the jack, it usually won't be top pair; and if it is, and you've called a raise with it, chances are you're dealing with an overpair, or A-J at the least. If you hit the king, a jack kicker will rarely hold up, especially against better players, so there's no reason to play this unless you have the dealer in your pocket and know the straight is coming. Am I wrong for despising Kojak so much?
-- Joe, Miami

Everybody -- even many of the top pros -- has a favorite "marginal" hand that he or she can't resist playing. (Mine is K-10 suited. I just love the way it looks.) The trick is to know when to get off it -- and to have the discipline to follow through. Usual first hint: a big raise after the flop.

Dear Jay: I was watching the World Series of Poker the other night and noticed a lot of players wearing headphones at the table. I haven't played a lot of poker, but I know in most casinos they'll light you on fire if you try to make a phone call without backing away from the blackjack table. So why are poker players allowed to wear headphones? Isn't this a cheating risk? And is it disrespectful to you as a player? Like the person isn't paying attention?
-- Ernest Bowker, Vicksburg, Mississippi

I hate them -- half the time, you have to scream at the guy that it's his turn to bet, like he's deaf or something -- and I wish they'd be treated like cell phones. However, it can be kind of difficult to get through a five-day, 12-hours-per-day tournament without something to distract you while you are folding hand after hand. As John Lennon so wisely said, "Whatever gets you through the night, it's all right, it's all right."

I was wondering if your earnings this year would be enough to cover all of your expenses. I mean, it's interesting to see that you're up $36k, but is that enough to pay for your mortgage, car payment, etc.? In other words, could you get by just on your poker winnings?
-- Scott, Tunica, Mississippi

I wish. I've got two teenage daughters who will soon be going to college, not to mention that I live in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Luckily, I also get a regular paycheck from ESPN.

MORE DREAM TEAM NOMINEES
Jay, I love your columns. I don't agree with everything you say, but getting a variety of perspectives is always good. I have one player you left out who would get the first invitation to my all-time table, the legendary Amarillo Slim Preston.
-- Malcolm Knox, Louisville

Hey, Jay: In your last Toxic Mailbag, somebody asked you who, among all the poker greats, you would pick to play at a final table in a friendly game of poker. Being Asian, I couldn't help but notice the lack of players from my continent on that list (as stupid as that may sound). Wouldn't Men, Johnny or Scotty be worthy of being at that table?
-- Charles, Atlanta

Malcolm and Charles, worthy choices all. I didn't pick Slim because he's a conversation killer. Great storyteller and all; but let's face it: He's gonna dominate the table, and I'd kind of like to hear what some of the others, especially Doyle and T.J., have to say. Likewise, Men the Master.

John Juanda has the opposite problem -- too quiet, too normal to be truly interesting, if you know what I mean. It might have been a mistake to leave Scotty Nguyen off my list, though. I've played with him in a couple of tournaments, and he's a trip-and-a-half.

Super Powers
As a poker player, which super power would you rather have -- knowing your opponents' cards, or knowing what community cards will show up? A bunch of Jackpot Jay's readers chimed in.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK
Here's an important question for you ...

Which of the following psychic abilities would you want: 1.) to know which cards your opponent has; or 2.) to know which community cards are going to come up? It sounds like a stupid scenario, but I've gotten into extensive discussions about this.
-- Jeremy Gaynor, Charlotte, North Carolina

The official motto of the Toxic Mailbag is: The only stupid question is the one that is not asked. I'd vote for (2), since you can be outdrawn quite easily even if you start with better hole cards, whereas if you know you are going to be holding a monster at the end of the hand, you are not going to be beat very often.

Let's hear from the readers on this one, though.

CAN I GET ONE LAST AMEN, BROTHERS AND SISTERS?
Good Lord. I caught your latest "mailbag" column today and couldn't believe the amount of venom being spewed by some of these people. Poker attracts some very angry people, and some of the reactions to your column are further proof of that unfortunate fact.

I read the majority of your columns; and even as someone who used to live in Vegas and has been playing poker all my adult life, I have found a few useful observations and/or suggestions. Poker is all about common sense, patience and flexibility, none of which can be learned from reading a column on a website -- a fact which is obviously lost on the people who dissect every word you write and crucify you if they think you got one little thing wrong. Ignore these idiots, keep up the good work, and best of luck.
-- Erik, Houston

Erik, you are so right -- there are a lot of angry people out there, and all of them are not poker players. However, maybe it's better for all of us if they get a chance to spill their anger out relatively harmlessly in an occasional anonymous e-mail to your humble poker servant, rather than ... well, I don't really want to think about it too much. But if I'm right, I'm glad to be of some small help.

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.