Page 2
I need your help.
I've been on my journey for more than five months ... AND I'VE ONLY HEARD ONE POKER JOKE. ONE!!!
Q: What's the difference between a puppy and a poker player?
A: Eventually, the puppy stops whining.
This makes no sense to me at all. By contrast, I haven't picked up a driver in 40 years, but I know thousands of golf jokes. My favorite printable one ...
God and Moses are at the first hole, taking a few practice swings as they prepare for their monthly match. Moses, off first, drills a beautiful drive 320 yards right down the middle of the fairway. God nods in admiration, steps up to the tee, takes a mighty swing and barely clips the ball, bouncing it wildly to the right, maybe 50 feet away. Just as the ball is about to dribble to a stop, a squirrel comes out of nowhere, picks the ball up in its mouth and takes off toward the first hole. About halfway there, an eagle comes screeching out of the sky, grabs the squirrel and carries it right over the hole. The squirrel drops the ball, which bounces once and comes to rest on the lip of the cup. Suddenly, it starts to storm, and a lightning bolt hits the ball and blasts it into the hole. Moses turns to God and says, "Hey, are you gonna play golf or are you gonna screw around?"
So my question is: Where are all the poker jokes? Send in your favorites (it will help if they can slip past the Disney Good Taste Censor -- which is to say, not too dependent on profanity or racial/sexual preference/gender stereotypes), and I'll use the best ones in an upcoming column on poker humor.
|
|
|---|
| Got a poker joke, a poker problem, or want more details about Jay's Vegas adventure? Send in your questions and comments. |
DEFENDING PHIL HELLMUTH
I'm not gonna blast you or call you names -- in fact, I usually agree with you -- but what is the deal with everyone disparaging Phil Hellmuth? I'm not trying to justify Phil's whining, but I see him make great play after great play, and all I ever read about is how everyone revels in his demise. I read, "Annie outplayed him" -- really? Not on the hands I saw on TV. I saw Phil make a few great laydowns, and it's hard to win when your opponent has a better hand every time. "Every time he wins, it's skill, and every time he loses, it's luck." OK, not every time, but pretty damn close. Imagine how you would feel if 98 times out of 100 that you lose, you lose with the best hand when you push your money in, and tell me you wouldn't whine like Phil.
-- Matt, St. Louis
Even my wife says it's time to back off Phil. And I agree that he's a very fine player -- especially in no-limit tournaments -- who certainly was NOT outplayed by Annie Duke in the Tournament of Champions.
However, I must say that I would never whine like Phil, under any circumstances, and especially not after losing with the best hand. That's exactly how Phil has made his millions -- from lesser players chasing him with lesser hands. If they didn't do that, believe me, you never would have heard of Phil Hellmuth, Jr. And why Phil, a very smart man, doesn't seem to understand that is beyond me.
Why is everyone bashing Hellmuth for the way he played/acted in the Tournament of Champions? Early on, Brunson told Hellmuth that he was too good a player to be faced with this many tough decisions in one game. HELLO, PEOPLE, THINK ABOUT IT. Hellmuth knows every little motion he makes at all times. HE WAS POSTURING. He wanted the other players to think he was folding good hands. This way, later in the tournament they would fear his raises, thinking that he had a monster, since he had only played great hands so far in the tournament. Another time Hellmuth was posturing was during the heads-up match with Duke. He read her to have two pair, and made a good laydown. When Annie showed him the 9, he acted like he was really freaked out, when in reality that only proved to him that his read was right. So leave Phil alone. There is a reason for every little thing he says and every motion he makes.
-- Sam, Pittsburgh
I watched the TOC, and I say there's no way Annie Duke had Hellmuth befuddled at all. I believe he was just playing along, which is what I think he does most times, because it makes for good TV and he's seen enough of himself on TV that he knows what's good. If you think about it, Hellmuth "playing" befuddled would actually work in his favor, as it might actually cause a little bit of overconfidence to set in with Duke so that she'd play some suspect hands later on.
-- Jason, Washington D.C.
If you say so, guys. But what most people see, I think, is more complicated -- a talented and cunning player who can't always control his inner teenager.
I know it's good TV, but don't you think that ESPN went a bit out of its way to make Phil look worse (not look bad -- he does that by himself)? Notice that Phil was the only player followed by the cameras out of the room. I'm sure somebody else dropped a few colorful adjectives after busting out, but they only showed Phil. Your thoughts?
-- Tom Kolodziej, Memphis
Two thoughts:
(1) You are partially right, in that TV loves "human drama" -- which it often defines as "people making fools of themselves."
(2) However, you've got to admit that the reason the camera follows Hellmuth around is that he is reliable ... he can be counted on to act badly after losing. And I am pretty sure that Doyle Brunson did not walk away from the table muttering and moaning and cursing.
On the other hand, Scott Fischman ...
DEFENDING SCOTT FISCHMAN
Let me preface this by saying that I've only seen these guys in one tournament, the WSOP on ESPN, so I may not know what the hell I'm talking about, but ... what's up with you killing Scott Fischman like you're making your paycheck on it while giving a relative pass to Josh Arieh and Mattias Andersson? I know you called out Arieh in your last mailbag, but it still seems like you don't have him anywhere near the Seventh Circle of Hell in which you have Fischman dealing cards. Arieh's misadventure with Harry Demitriou wasn't even the first time he'd been caught on camera at the WSOP acting like a jackass. First, there's his vignette, in which he brags, "I KNOW I've outplayed my opponents 95 percent of the time." Then there's the clip that ESPN shows three times per broadcast of him flipping over J-9 unsuited and saying to his opponent, "You think we're playing tiddly-winks? Let's gamble, baby!" And what about Andersson's ridiculous "I-just-dropped-a-manhole-cover-on-my-big-toe" scream every time he sucked out a winner on the river? I've seen extensive coverage of Fischman on the WSOP broadcast (before he was knocked out by Doyle Brunson), and maybe I missed something, but I never saw anything from him close to the chest-puffing teenage bravado of Arieh and Andersson. Even on the hand where Fischman got knocked out by Brunson, despite holding A-K, Fischman didn't thrash around or sulk, he just said, "Nice hand, Doyle," and left quietly, a nice contrast to guys like Phil Hellmuth, who grab their stuff and harrumph out the door without bothering to congratulate the winner.
-- Marc, Atlanta
Marc, you are probably right -- off their recent appearances on ESPN's TV coverage of the WSOP, Arieh is worse than Fischman. They are both arrogant know-it-alls, but Fischman seems a lot more good-natured about it -- and, as you rightly point out, he's obviously a much better loser. (Andersson, on the other hand, just seemed like a guy who was overwhelmed by his incredible good fortune, and didn't really understand how annoying his Raging Swede act was.) However, I'm not sure that Not-As-Bad-As-Josh-Arieh makes Fischman an admirable guy. Love the Seventh Circle of Hell line, though.
|
|
|---|
| Have you become obsessed with poker too? Well, no worries -- Page 2 has launched its very own poker section. Check it out. |
DEFENDING BEN AFFLECK
Jay, I enjoy your Page 2 poker articles, and generally think a lot of the venom spewed your way and put on display in the Toxic Mailbags is unjust. But -- and there is always a but -- why do you insist on belittling Ben Affleck? He won $350K-plus in a California tournament, is ranked in Card Player magazine, and has Annie Duke calling him "world-class." He has, by any quantifiable standard, accomplished more than you, Jay, in your respective poker careers? What gives?
-- Matt Hagan, Lakewood, Ohio
Maybe I'm getting senile even faster than I thought, but I don't remember belittling Ben Affleck. (At least, not as a poker player, though his choices in movie roles could be better, wouldn't you say?) In fact, the only time I remember mentioning him extensively was in a column on my airtime with MSNBC, when they asked me about his skill as a player, despite the fact that I had told them repeatedly I had never played against him nor even seen him play. (I did see him in "Gigli." However, MSNBC never asked me about that.)
HOW GREAT IS DAN HARRINGTON?
in this decade, I believe it is fair to say that Dan Harrington is among the very greatest players in the game. In 10 years, he won a World Series, comprised of hundreds of mostly elite level players, took a hiatus, and then finished third in a WSOP field of over 800 and then fourth in a WSOP field of 2,500 in back-to-back years. Yet, Harrington is not really considered a poker great. I guess the beauty of his game is that you watch him and you think, "Hey, I could beat this guy." He's not too intimidating, but before you know it, he's taking home a million bucks. Where would you rank him in this modern age of poker?
-- Terry Silva, Receda Hills, California
Hey, Jay: Do you agree with Norman Chad's claim that Dan Harrington making it to the final table through a field of 800-plus and 2,500-plus in consecutive years is the greatest accomplishment in WSOP history?
-- Raj Joseph, Bloomington, Indiana
You stated that the key message in Doyle Brunson's "Super System" book is: "Aggression is good, more aggression is better, even more aggression is best." Both you and I agree with the message and your synopsis of the book is right on target. My question is: How do you explain Dan Harrington?
-- Adam, New Hyde Park, New York
I've got a soft spot in my heart for Dan Harrington, because, of all the top players, his game most closely resembles mine (though he obviously operates on a much higher level) -- he's sneaky aggressive, especially late in tournaments.
Though I hate to be caught agreeing with Norman Chad about anything, Harrington's accomplishments at the WSOP have to be right up there with the other great feats in WSOP history -- like Johnny Chan finishing first, first and second in three consecutive years, and Stuey Ungar crawling out of his "sick" bed, shaking off a cocaine haze and winning his third WSOP championship.
As to where Harrington ranks among the modern greats of the game, I'd guess solidly in the group right below the very top pros. Obviously, he's as disciplined as they come, which is good, but he does not appear to be as imaginative or as intimidating as some of the current top players -- like Phil Ivey and Daniel Negreanu. And, by his own admission, at 58, he's past his physical and intellectual peak.
OUR GUNSLINGING COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF: THE READERS FEEL STRONGLY ... BOTH WAYS
Yeah, a blue-blood Yale frat boy who dodged the draft and couldn't even do that right, what a proud cultural icon.
-- Dave Wilkinson, New York
I love your writing, wit and appreciation for human character. And I wish you well. With your intelligence and self-criticism, hopefully things will click for you and you'll become a poker master. While I don't know precisely what to make of the gunslinger/modern poker player comparison, I'm just dumbfounded that (sigh) our current president George W. Bush is described as being "self-reliant" and "willing to take responsibility for his own fate." Oh, please.
-- Steve Chasey, Lynnfield, Massachusetts
Heh, I just heard the mass stampede of "back button" clicking as soon as you included Dubya in your list of "my way or the highway" lone gunfighters. Too bad. At least, I'll check out your soon-to-follow hate mailbag article.
-- Jim, New York
Yeah, Jim, I was expecting some heavy-duty unfriendly fire on that one, too. But so far the only e-mail has been from Dave, your fellow New Yorker, and Steve -- and their complaint seems to be that I'm giving Dubya too much credit.
YOU ONLY HAVE ONE CHANCE TO MAKE A FIRST IMPRESSION
In my limited experience, I have found that many people are more inclined to call me down with dominated hands, simply because I don't have "the look" of a serious gambler. Consequently, whenever I go to play cards, I will go out of my way to make sure I don't look at all like I know what I am doing, and it has been working for me. In your experiences, have you found it beneficial to rely on first impressions when playing poker or have you been bitten in this way?
-- Kris Sonsteby, Coon Rapids, Minnesota
|
|
|---|
| Confused by some of the terms Jay uses in his poker columns? Get their definitions right here. |
I'm not sure whether these actually support my point, but here are a couple of first impressions of Jackpot Jay (oh, Greg and Aaron, where is the love?):
I saw your picture on the wall at Foxwoods the other day. I saw your picture on ESPN.com this afternoon. The ESPN.com picture makes you look like a cool guy, possibly a deadly gangster, but seriously hip. The picture at Foxwoods looks like a bum at the end of a three-day bender. Which is more accurate?
-- Greg, Kinston, Massachusetts
Over the last couple weeks, I've gone to Foxwoods on three different occasions and have noticed you were there every time as well. I understand that one's appearance at the poker table is of no great importance, but don't be afraid to grab a comb or to wear your "fancy" sweatpants once in a while. You look like an escapee from the local mental hospital.
-- Aaron Lewis, Peabody, Massachusetts
POKER AND SEX
Does poker cause erectile dysfunction? During most televised poker events, every other commercial is for Levitra. Because the advertisers go where their market is, I'm concerned that playing poker may cause my other game to go soft.
-- Eric, Yorktown, Virginia
Don't worry about it, Eric. Football game broadcasts are littered with ads for Levitra, Cialis and Viagra, and football certainly doesn't cause erectile dysfunction ... or does it?
Why doesn't ESPN let you go to some strip poker tournament that involves a bunch of strippers from the Foxwoods region of Connecticut? Now that would be worth writing about, no matter how poorly they played!
-- Aaron Zeleznik, Cleveland
Aaron, baby, from your mouth to God's ear.
ONE LAST CONSPIRACY THEORY ... FOR NOW
Jay, one more conspiracy question concerning the TOC won by Annie Duke: How do we know that there wasn't a prior deal splitting the $2 million 10 ways, or at least agreeing to 10 cash places of various amounts? Even the best pros on a freeroll would welcome some form of a guaranteed payday.
-- Mr. B, Orlando
The beauty of conspiracy theories is that you never can know, unless you were in the room. However, Annie Duke is on record as saying there was no split -- though she did sell a small share of herself to a backer or several backers, pre-tournament. Also, ESPN made it clear to everyone involved that they wanted no deals of any size or kind among the 10 participants. While this does not definitively rule out a deal, it's hard to imagine that any of the 10 would have risked their potentially lucrative future relationship with the Worldwide Leader by defying their clearly expressed wishes.
THERE'S A WORD FOR IT
Whenever we go to Vegas or even the two Connecticut casinos, if someone has to wait till midnight for the ATM to reset so you can take out another $400, me and my fellow degenerate gamblers say they got "Cinderellaed." Now it has morphed into: any time someone loses $400 in one day.
-- Anonymous, Newington, Connecticut
CLARIFICATIONS, NITPICKS, AD HOMINEM ATTACKS ... AND OOPSIES
A few comments on your article: "Lessons Learned Playing Poker." On Point 11: " ... but the game was no fun ... " Sorry to break it to you, but poker played to win isn't always fun; sometimes it's a grind. I would love to have a player like that [Editor's note: an annoying, it's-all-about-me type who is constantly raising just to boost his own ego] at my table. All you need to do is wait for him to make a mistake when you have a big hand. Also, get involved in the few pots he is not in when you have a decent hand, try to move to a position on his left so you always act after him. It is good for your sake that you are only doing this for a year; it's clear you don't have what it takes to be a long-term winner.
-- Maess, Minneapolis
I believe that anybody who is good enough to make his living at poker is smart enough, cunning enough, disciplined enough, tough enough to make a lot more money doing a lot of other things -- unless, of course, you are one of the best players in the world. Therefore, if someone chooses poker as his profession, he must be doing it for reasons other than making money. Now those reasons could have a lot to do with ego-boosting -- specifically, through conquering one's fellow man. But, more often, I believe, it's because of the lifestyle -- no boss, work when you want to, spend time with people who don't make your blood pressure act like Mt. Vesuvius, etc. If it's not fun, I don't really see the point.
Anyway, Maess, maybe I'm just a wussie, but that's the way I feel about it.
Jay, I love your column. I really do. I don't like sending in e-mails about mistakes people make. I prefer to offer praise. However, you made a huge mistake in your article about Bob Woodward and Greg Raymer. You refered to Oliver North as an Army officer. He was a Lt. Colonel in the UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS. If you look at the picture that was on the page, you can clearly see him in a Marine uniform. I know this might seem trivial to you. However, to all us who are leathernecks or love a leatherneck, it is a tremendous insult. Please be sure to offer a correction and apology in your next article. In the end, though, I do agree with Woodward's opinion.
-- Aaron, Minneapolis
A lot of readers brought this to my attention, though few in as kindly a manner as Aaron (which is why I picked his letter). My apologies -- it was a failure of my journalistic instincts (Bob Woodward would be scandalized), no insult intended.
Hey, Jay, "luddite" already implies technological avoidance, so a "technological luddite" is redundant, like saying a French Napoleon.
-- Joel, Fort Lauderdale
Regarding your answer to the e-mail about protecting your cards -- check your spelling. I have "peaked" at many Grateful Dead shows, but in that condition there is no way I could play cards. I have peeked at opponents' cards -- unintentionally -- when poorly protected, but I always feel bad when this happens.
-- Jim C., Baltimore
Jay, I love that you were able to scam, I mean convince, someone to bankroll your poker playing exploits for a year. (I recognize you're using your own advance for the bankroll, but still ...). I just had one brief comment on your writing. Overall, I love the casual style and insight. However, I've noticed you've used the phrase "not to put too fine a point on it" in at least three of your last eight articles, possibly more. I only notice it because it's a line from the song "Birdhouse" by They Might Be Giants, and because that song ends up in my head for the next 24 to 48 hours as a result. Were it any other phrase I probably wouldn't notice but when I hear it over and over again to the point of questioning my already tenuous grip on sanity, it's a little easier to notice.
-- Eric, Philadelphia
A recently published study shows that the Jackpot Jay column has a higher percentage of English professors and copy editors among its readers than any other column on the World Wide Web (except for "Madame Olga's Universe of Bondage"). But seriously, Joel, Jim and Eric, make sure to send your resumes in to Page 2. I need some help here.
In a recent column, I think the "Johnny" that "Charles from Atlanta" was referring to might be Johnny Chan, not John Juanda. Not only is Juanda not a Johnny, but for the reasons you suggested in your posted response to Charles, it is doubtful Charles was referring to Juanda.
-- Jeff, Los Angeles
Jay! Wrong Johnny! Charles in Atlanta obviously meant Johnny Chan ... right? Wow ... maybe all the flamers have you pegged! Ha ha.
-- Mike, Jacksonville, Florida
Ouch, Mike, that hurts. Would you believe I did it deliberately to ... uh ... test the acuity of my readers? Didn't think so. My bad, my stupid.
So your columns aren't so much about poker anymore, just you defending yourself against e-mailers, right? It's fine if you aren't able to come up with topics to write about, but maybe you should modify your mission statement for your postings.
-- Joe, Sun, Texas
Joe, if I didn't defend myself, Maess from Minneapolis would think I'm a bigger pushover than he already does.
Jay, aren't you getting paid to write about your adventures at the poker table, not as a television critic? Please, write more about your plays and less about all the other stuff, including the crap people like me who write you.
-- Mike, Washington D.C.
Geez, Mike, the crap people like you write some of the best stuff that appears under my byline.
HEY, IRS: HOW JAY IS DOING IN HIS NEW CAREER
Last week: lost $875
CTD (career-to-date): plus $31,734
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.
