Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

I will admit I'm not that much of a Jamie Gold fan. That's no big deal; most of the posts regarding Jamie on twoplustwo have the usual donktastick and luckbox flavour to them. But, I think this issue needs to be revisited and looked under a stronger microscope.

I'll start and end my argument with a simple phrase: TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. In looking at Jamie's performance, yes he did have a sick run of cards for a lot of the tournament. In the earlier days it could have been luck, it may not have been, the broadcast really didn't show him all the way through, he became the focus right around day three when he started to charge through and Dmitri Nobles was giving away his chips. So, for the first three days, other than annecdotal reports, it is hard to say the kinds of cards Jamie was getting. Perhaps it was skill that got him to day three where it seemed that he was outrunning all sorts of trouble and would constantly spike miracle hands. But looking at that final table again, he simply bullied his way through a few key spots that could have changed the course of history had it gone the other way. He bluffed Cunningham off of a huge hand, when Alan had 10's but was worried about overcards. He bluffed the guy that came in third, whatshisname, in that infamous hand where he flipped over the Jack to show the guy, in the middle of the hand. As well, the biggest move of them all was the hand that will haunt Wasicka for the rest of his life where he folded his 78s when Jamie went all in after the guy in third pushed with his A10 and hit the ten on the board. Straight draw, flush draw, and Paul pusses out. It doesn't matter that there was a guy behind, you know that you are a favourite in the hand.
I bring up these hands to show that 1)it wasn't all luck but more importantly 2) the players in the tournament have no one to blame but themselves. Poor reads and poor decisions are why they finished where they finished and not only because of miracle hands. Yes, if Jamie busted you and you were the huge favourite and the miracle card spiked, then that was simply bad luck, you made the correct decision. But there are many many many instances where Jamie forced the other players to make extremely LOUSY decisions. If Wasicka would have called (hich is a frieking no brainer, even if he suspected Jamie with two pair or trips, it's still a call) history may well have changed right there. But he folded. Why? Jamie pushed him out of the hand. These players need to take repsonsibility for that. While Jamie did have moments where the cards were cold decked in favour of him, a lot of times he played a big stack powerfully as opposed to Dmitri Nobles.

Now, I'm not saying I endorse Jamie, or think that he is a great player. I don't think he is a player of superstar calibre, and his demeanor at the table was horrendously asssaholic. However, to CONSTANTLY in every post keep calling him a luck box and using that as a rationalization as to why others or yourself may have busted to this guy is pawning off responsibility to the wrong thing.

At the end of the day poker is about choices and decisions and trying to make the best ones given the incomplete information that is presented to you. Only one person makes that choice..YOU. Take responsibility and stop blaming or pointing to bad luck as to why other people became champions.

Let the flames begin.

THE HUN.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Quite frankly, its hard to judge how good a player he was based on what we saw.

He did have an incredible run of cards. And unfortunately, he was never put to the test at the final table so we could see his mettle.

So I can't judge his skill very well. But I can judge that he comes off as a jerk.

--Zetack

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Nicely put. I was going to go on an additional direction talking about how much we can really know of a player given a 5 day tournament edited down into a few 47 minute episodes. But, had to work on something....

THE HUN.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Michael Binger was the guy that finished in third place.

Anyways, you are right, in that Paul Wasica got pushed off of the hand by Jaime Gold in the one that sealed Binger's fate. However, I would have to look at it from the other side as well. First, you want to be playing for first place, but here you have the 2nd best stack at the table. The third stack went all in and the huge chip leader pushes all in. At that point, what do you think you are up against. My guess would be that my hand is dominated. I might not be, but I would venture to think that at least one of them had a huge hand and my fold reasoning would be, hey, I want to guarantee myself second place money if the chip leader wins the hand. I think that was the decision that ultimately he made. Whether Wasica's fold was correct or not, have you ever been put to a decision like that where if you lose the hand to the chip leader, you win 4 million. If you win, you have a good chance at 12 million. If you fold and the CL wins, you are guaranteed 7 million. Not sure about you, but I think I'll take that guaranteed 7 mill.

If he would have stayed in the hand, he would have won, knocked out Binger and took a huge pot putting him and Gold at about the same number of chips. I think though with the raise and reraise in front of him, he made the correct decision though that I would have made and figured that someone had me dominated.

I do agree with the Nobles comment though. Nobles took his big stack and donked it off to everyone. I love listening to his phone call to his buddy during that "man, I just spread 400k of my chips to the table" or something to that extent. Great times.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
Michael Binger was the guy that finished in third place.

Anyways, you are right, in that Paul Wasica got pushed off of the hand by Jaime Gold in the one that sealed Binger's fate. However, I would have to look at it from the other side as well. First, you want to be playing for first place, but here you have the 2nd best stack at the table. The third stack went all in and the huge chip leader pushes all in. At that point, what do you think you are up against. My guess would be that my hand is dominated. I might not be, but I would venture to think that at least one of them had a huge hand and my fold reasoning would be, hey, I want to guarantee myself second place money if the chip leader wins the hand. I think that was the decision that ultimately he made. Whether Wasica's fold was correct or not, have you ever been put to a decision like that where if you lose the hand to the chip leader, you win 4 million. If you win, you have a good chance at 12 million. If you fold and the CL wins, you are guaranteed 7 million. Not sure about you, but I think I'll take that guaranteed 7 mill.

If he would have stayed in the hand, he would have won, knocked out Binger and took a huge pot putting him and Gold at about the same number of chips. I think though with the raise and reraise in front of him, he made the correct decision though that I would have made and figured that someone had me dominated.

I do agree with the Nobles comment though. Nobles took his big stack and donked it off to everyone. I love listening to his phone call to his buddy during that "man, I just spread 400k of my chips to the table" or something to that extent. Great times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Binger, right, thanks. Getting to that hand...it all boils down to personal philosophy concerning the end game. I play to win it all, especially for something as big as Main Event Champ. Here, it is not a matter of simply risking three mil to win five mil, because being champion brings in a ton of extra things, fame, endorsemtents, paid appearances, magazine articles...book deals, so financially there is a lot more at stake. I simply go for it. There are a lot of IFS in the argument FOR folding. IF the CL wins then you blew your guaranteed 7 mil.. IF! Well, what happens if CL loses. Shorty just tripled up, has as many chips as you do and in a few hands you can get taken out of the tournament. So in my mind it is either that, or push on a monster draw. But again, it is all personal preferences.

Other than that, I agree...I loved watching Noble just donk it away.

THE HUN.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

From what I saw on TV Gold seemed to play great big-stack poker. Maybe he lucked into the big stack, but once he got it he knew what to do with it.

I wouldn't dismiss someone as a luckbox who's got Johnny Chan vouching for his ability.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Michael Binger was the guy that finished in third place.

Anyways, you are right, in that Paul Wasica got pushed off of the hand by Jaime Gold in the one that sealed Binger's fate. However, I would have to look at it from the other side as well. First, you want to be playing for first place, but here you have the 2nd best stack at the table. The third stack went all in and the huge chip leader pushes all in. At that point, what do you think you are up against. My guess would be that my hand is dominated. I might not be, but I would venture to think that at least one of them had a huge hand and my fold reasoning would be, hey, I want to guarantee myself second place money if the chip leader wins the hand. I think that was the decision that ultimately he made. Whether Wasica's fold was correct or not, have you ever been put to a decision like that where if you lose the hand to the chip leader, you win 4 million. If you win, you have a good chance at 12 million. If you fold and the CL wins, you are guaranteed 7 million. Not sure about you, but I think I'll take that guaranteed 7 mill.

If he would have stayed in the hand, he would have won, knocked out Binger and took a huge pot putting him and Gold at about the same number of chips. I think though with the raise and reraise in front of him, he made the correct decision though that I would have made and figured that someone had me dominated.

I do agree with the Nobles comment though. Nobles took his big stack and donked it off to everyone. I love listening to his phone call to his buddy during that "man, I just spread 400k of my chips to the table" or something to that extent. Great times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Binger, right, thanks. Getting to that hand...it all boils down to personal philosophy concerning the end game. I play to win it all, especially for something as big as Main Event Champ. Here, it is not a matter of simply risking three mil to win five mil, because being champion brings in a ton of extra things, fame, endorsemtents, paid appearances, magazine articles...book deals, so financially there is a lot more at stake. I simply go for it. There are a lot of IFS in the argument FOR folding. IF the CL wins then you blew your guaranteed 7 mil.. IF! Well, what happens if CL loses. Shorty just tripled up, has as many chips as you do and in a few hands you can get taken out of the tournament. So in my mind it is either that, or push on a monster draw. But again, it is all personal preferences.

Other than that, I agree...I loved watching Noble just donk it away.

THE HUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys have the action in Wasicka's 78s hand all wrong. Gold pushed with his SD, then Wasicka folded, then Binger CALLED AI. If I'm Wasicka, I think I still probably call but its not as clear-cut as you are all making it because Binger insta-mucks anything but the nuts with Wasicka all-in ahead of him. Wasicka knows this and knows that Binger is on the short stack and will go out ahead of him if he folds, which means something like $2.5 million extra in Wasicka's pocket.

FWIW, I've been a Gold basher in the past. I think from what they showed on TV he was obviously on a rush of cards and made some hands in some big spots that allowed him to accumulate so many chips. Nothing wrong with that... same with Moneymaker, Raymer and Hachem before him. You have to get lucky not to be unlucky to win a tournament.

The difference between Gold and the other players I mentioned is they aren't angle shooting d-bags who collude with players next to them ("I said top top").

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Michael Binger was the guy that finished in third place.

Anyways, you are right, in that Paul Wasica got pushed off of the hand by Jaime Gold in the one that sealed Binger's fate. However, I would have to look at it from the other side as well. First, you want to be playing for first place, but here you have the 2nd best stack at the table. The third stack went all in and the huge chip leader pushes all in. At that point, what do you think you are up against. My guess would be that my hand is dominated. I might not be, but I would venture to think that at least one of them had a huge hand and my fold reasoning would be, hey, I want to guarantee myself second place money if the chip leader wins the hand. I think that was the decision that ultimately he made. Whether Wasica's fold was correct or not, have you ever been put to a decision like that where if you lose the hand to the chip leader, you win 4 million. If you win, you have a good chance at 12 million. If you fold and the CL wins, you are guaranteed 7 million. Not sure about you, but I think I'll take that guaranteed 7 mill.

If he would have stayed in the hand, he would have won, knocked out Binger and took a huge pot putting him and Gold at about the same number of chips. I think though with the raise and reraise in front of him, he made the correct decision though that I would have made and figured that someone had me dominated.

I do agree with the Nobles comment though. Nobles took his big stack and donked it off to everyone. I love listening to his phone call to his buddy during that "man, I just spread 400k of my chips to the table" or something to that extent. Great times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Binger, right, thanks. Getting to that hand...it all boils down to personal philosophy concerning the end game. I play to win it all, especially for something as big as Main Event Champ. Here, it is not a matter of simply risking three mil to win five mil, because being champion brings in a ton of extra things, fame, endorsemtents, paid appearances, magazine articles...book deals, so financially there is a lot more at stake. I simply go for it. There are a lot of IFS in the argument FOR folding. IF the CL wins then you blew your guaranteed 7 mil.. IF! Well, what happens if CL loses. Shorty just tripled up, has as many chips as you do and in a few hands you can get taken out of the tournament. So in my mind it is either that, or push on a monster draw. But again, it is all personal preferences.

Other than that, I agree...I loved watching Noble just donk it away.

THE HUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys have the action in Wasicka's 78s hand all wrong. Gold pushed with his SD, then Wasicka folded, then Binger CALLED AI. If I'm Wasicka, I think I still probably call but its not as clear-cut as you are all making it because Binger insta-mucks anything but the nuts with Wasicka all-in ahead of him. Wasicka knows this and knows that Binger is on the short stack and will go out ahead of him if he folds, which means something like $2.5 million extra in Wasicka's pocket.

FWIW, I've been a Gold basher in the past. I think from what they showed on TV he was obviously on a rush of cards and made some hands in some big spots that allowed him to accumulate so many chips. Nothing wrong with that... same with Moneymaker, Raymer and Hachem before him. You have to get lucky not to be unlucky to win a tournament.

The difference between Gold and the other players I mentioned is they aren't angle shooting d-bags who collude with players next to them ("I said top top").

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right, that's how the hand went. But even still, I still would have called. This is a monster spot to do it in and make a big hand.

As for Jamie, again, I'm not saying he is good or horrific, but it all comes down to the take responsibility arguement. When I saw the infamous "top top" clip, I went nuts. If I was sitting at that table, I would have lost my mind, called over a tournament director let him know what happened and have them assess what to do. Everyone simply sat there (at least from what the broadcast was showing) and did SQUADOUCHE. They have only themselves to blame for sitting there and saying nothing while Jamie was violating tournament rules. In the final table when Jamie flips over the Jack, I would have gotten up, if I was either Binger or Wasicka, and bring that to the tournament director's attention, and have him assess a penalty. I would do something. All these mopes did nothing but watch. Again, Jamie got away with all that stuff because the other players let him get away; they have only themselves to blame.

THE HUN.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
All these mopes did nothing but watch. Again, Jamie got away with all that stuff because the other players let him get away; they have only themselves to blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

err... no. That's like saying we have everyone to blame for Barry Bonds taking steroids except for Barry Bonds. Gold's actions were wrong whether he is called out or not. He is an adult and he is responsible for his own behavior. Logic like the kind in your quote has enabled cheaters for ages and is just plain retarded.

But this is a really stupid thing to be arguing about because there is only one person who posts regularly on 2p2 who played with Gold late in the ME, and I don't think I've heard him (or any of the other players, for that matter) griping about Gold's behavior in a public way. It is the people who watched it on TV that have had such a negative reaction to him and we are all entitled to our opinions.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Nice post. Sure Jamie caught good cards but he used his stack as a weapon and put out the most dominant performance in a big tournament ever.

Most people are just jealous of someone who has better success then they do.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All these mopes did nothing but watch. Again, Jamie got away with all that stuff because the other players let him get away; they have only themselves to blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

err... no. That's like saying we have everyone to blame for Barry Bonds taking steroids except for Barry Bonds. Gold's actions were wrong whether he is called out or not. He is an adult and he is responsible for his own behavior. Logic like the kind in your quote has enabled cheaters for ages and is just plain retarded.

But this is a really stupid thing to be arguing about because there is only one person who posts regularly on 2p2 who played with Gold late in the ME, and I don't think I've heard him (or any of the other players, for that matter) griping about Gold's behavior in a public way. It is the people who watched it on TV that have had such a negative reaction to him and we are all entitled to our opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is completely misdirected and the analogy is wrong. My point is this: Jamie got away with the things he did because people let him get away with it. I certainly would not have let him get away with those things, but the others at the table, at least from the TV edit, simply sat there. That top top hand is clearly a collusive hand TV editing or not, and NO ONE had that looked into. They didn't cause Jamie to act that way, but they did nothing in reaction to it, and for that they are responsible and shouldn't complain about anything.

About this 2+2'er, I don't know who he is, but was he in that top top hand? did he see Jamie flash the jack at the final table? What was his reaction to either?

THE HUN.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Alan Cunningham folded his Tens to a bluff by Wasicka, not by Gold.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All these mopes did nothing but watch. Again, Jamie got away with all that stuff because the other players let him get away; they have only themselves to blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

err... no. That's like saying we have everyone to blame for Barry Bonds taking steroids except for Barry Bonds. Gold's actions were wrong whether he is called out or not. He is an adult and he is responsible for his own behavior. Logic like the kind in your quote has enabled cheaters for ages and is just plain retarded.

But this is a really stupid thing to be arguing about because there is only one person who posts regularly on 2p2 who played with Gold late in the ME, and I don't think I've heard him (or any of the other players, for that matter) griping about Gold's behavior in a public way. It is the people who watched it on TV that have had such a negative reaction to him and we are all entitled to our opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is completely misdirected and the analogy is wrong. My point is this: Jamie got away with the things he did because people let him get away with it. I certainly would not have let him get away with those things, but the others at the table, at least from the TV edit, simply sat there. That top top hand is clearly a collusive hand TV editing or not, and NO ONE had that looked into. They didn't cause Jamie to act that way, but they did nothing in reaction to it, and for that they are responsible and shouldn't complain about anything.

About this 2+2'er, I don't know who he is, but was he in that top top hand? did he see Jamie flash the jack at the final table? What was his reaction to either?

THE HUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know who the 2+2er is who played with him late then you need to be reading more and posting less.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

It's interesting at the final table to watch Gold constantly avoid confrontations with Cunningham. He never really plays a pot out of position against AC, and when in position, frequently checks behind with semi-strong hands. Then, when he gets the opportunity to maybe have a coinflip situation to eliminate Cunningham, he jumps all over it

Of everything that Gold did at the final table, I think this was the most underrated. He recognized that he wasn't going to outplay the best player at the table, and compensated. I wonder if that was something Johnny Chan told him before the final table

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Ever since I watched the PPV final table of the ME I have thought that everyone's reaction to JG was completely unjustified. Sure he comes off as kind of an ass but have you people ever played poker? Every table im at has at least 2 douches that give JG a run for his money. Why does everyone take a guys attitude so personally? I really didnt think he did anything unbelievably obnoxious. The collusion stuff was pretty suspect but I blame the tournament staff for not intervening early and taking care of it - it was plain for all to see. Honestly, I perceived a lot of it to fall under table talk - and when Jamie refers to things like I told this guy to fold b/c I had a big hand, i am pretty sure that he was saying these things out loud and alternating when he was and wasnt telling the truth. This is at least the way i perceived it.

Everyone claims he is so readable, yet in a weeks worth of play none of the top pro's that made it to the end could find a spot to exploit this? I agree with OP, out of the big buyin tournys I've watched, JG put in one of the more impressive performances.

Just think of how difficult it is to keep your cool and wade through a 1k person mtt online - now tell me all it took was a 7 day run of cards (unheard of) for JG to take it down.

An honestly no offense, but if all you are watching is the edited espn versions and didnt even watch the final table (at a minimum) I do not think you can get a clear understanding of how he played.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if that was something Johnny Chan told him before the final table

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure Chad mentioned that Chan's instructions were to avoid Cunningham if possible.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ever since I watched the PPV final table of the ME I have thought that everyone's reaction to JG was completely unjustified. Sure he comes off as kind of an ass but have you people ever played poker? Every table im at has at least 2 douches that give JG a run for his money. Why does everyone take a guys attitude so personally? I really didnt think he did anything unbelievably obnoxious. The collusion stuff was pretty suspect but I blame the tournament staff for not intervening early and taking care of it - it was plain for all to see. Honestly, I perceived a lot of it to fall under table talk - and when Jamie refers to things like I told this guy to fold b/c I had a big hand, i am pretty sure that he was saying these things out loud and alternating when he was and wasnt telling the truth. This is at least the way i perceived it.

Everyone claims he is so readable, yet in a weeks worth of play none of the top pro's that made it to the end could find a spot to exploit this? I agree with OP, out of the big buyin tournys I've watched, JG put in one of the more impressive performances.

Just think of how difficult it is to keep your cool and wade through a 1k person mtt online - now tell me all it took was a 7 day run of cards (unheard of) for JG to take it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't understand why people hate JG so much. My impression was he was just as surprised as everyone else at the hands he was running into. Maybe it came off as being a douche to some people, but I didn't get that impression from him.

I thought Wasicka came off pretty bad saying he would beat JG if he had 10% of the chips in play heads up.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I don't understand why people hate JG so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the Icantformmyownopinions syndrome.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Some people are more in-tune to the human condition than others.
Those who are in-tune to this aspect of the human condition usually think Gold is a douche, while those who are totally oblivious to this aspect of life usually just listen to what Gold "says". Gold is bright enough to "say things" that attempt to mask the fact that he is a douche, knowing that 80% of the population (poker playing or otherwise) will be unable to see through it.

He is a whiny, self-aggrandizing, ego-driven, obnoxious POS who is smart enough to make overtures to hide it to those who are too dumb to see through to what he really is.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

LOL what a douchebag, trying to tell Doyle what to do.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Why do people dislike JG? Because he's a douche. What more reason do you need?

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

I watched every minute of the final table of the ME on the PPV and I thought Gold played quite well. Where he got insanely lucky is that, when he was reeling a little after Cunningham called him down with the ace high, he managed to pick up an extra $5 million from the San Antonio guy with QQ vs. JJ. If that hand doesn't occur I think Cunningham may have won the tournament. I think he knew it too, because his demenour changed a little after that hand.

After that, it was just standard tournament stuff, IMO. I mean, I certainly wasn't pulling for Gold, but I thought he deserved the win. The 'top top' situation was a little interesting, but I didn't see anything too overboard on that hand, regardless of what other posters have said. Gold actually came across as feeling a little bad for the guy who was making a desperate move that wasn't going to work. That's how I read it, anyways.

That being said, Jamie may still be a douche, but I think a lot of the time he's getting a bum rap.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Its been awhile since I've watched it, but some of the [censored] he said was just completely WRONG with regards to basic poker theory. He made two (and maybe more) statements where he justified a call on pot odds after he saw the hands. But he wasn't getting anywhere close to the right odds on a reasonable range of hands for that player.

I'm sure he played well. I'm sure he's better than me (not hard at all) but there's no way he's even close to the upper echelon of poker players. Look at Moneymaker. Its a similar situation except I don't think Moneymaker would claim that he's in the same league as Brunson, Ivey, Reese, Greenstein, ... I think Gold does.

On top of that he bugs the hell out of me. I feel that he has no class and he comes off as obnoxious. These may not be valid complaints, but thats still the way I feel.

Edit: Oh and I forgot to add that I think he plays really well against amateurs, I don't think he plays well against pros (we may learn more about that after this season of HSP). But since the WSOP is mostly amateurs these days, thats a strength for that tournament.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
I watched every minute of the final table of the ME on the PPV and I thought Gold played quite well. Where he got insanely lucky is that, when he was reeling a little after Cunningham called him down with the ace high, he managed to pick up an extra $5 million from the San Antonio guy with QQ vs. JJ. If that hand doesn't occur I think Cunningham may have won the tournament. I think he knew it too, because his demenour changed a little after that hand.

After that, it was just standard tournament stuff, IMO. I mean, I certainly wasn't pulling for Gold, but I thought he deserved the win. The 'top top' situation was a little interesting, but I didn't see anything too overboard on that hand, regardless of what other posters have said. Gold actually came across as feeling a little bad for the guy who was making a desperate move that wasn't going to work. That's how I read it, anyways.

That being said, Jamie may still be a douche, but I think a lot of the time he's getting a bum rap.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly it, in a nutshell. Nice post, nice ass. Although the hand that really could have swung things in my opinion was the potential three way all in hand that never materialized. It was where binger hit top pair, with 10's , Jamie was going in on a straight draw and Wasicka had the straight/flush draw. If Wasicka called, which, I think he should have (Kido says it the best: "If you want to win the tournament you have to gamble" Considering the spot and to more than double up, and take out third, and have a TON of outs, gambling in this spot is the right thing to do, as opposed to the usual coinflip pair to overcards race. Yeah yeah, "oh but if he loses he's in third", well how about, if he sits on his butt, and shortstack manages to win, guess what...YOU are on the verge of shortstackedness. This was THE spot to gamble in, regardless of having hindsight knowledge of the fact that he would have caught. Ok, had to get it out.)then, the balance of the game would have shifted there. Oh well, woulda coulda shoulda. Douche or not, the money is going to go take care of his father and to some research ,at least he claims that is where it is going, and if that is the truth, then at least the money is going to a good cause, which balances out the douchenosity of Jamie.

THE HUN.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

I must admit, there has not been a lot of talk about Jamie Gold from Rizen or Doug Kim if I remember correctly, and they both played with Jamie late in the main event.

HOWEVER. There are two things that bother me:

1) When he discusses the strength of his hand WHILE OTHER PEOPLE ARE YET TO ACT AFTER HIM. To be honest, when he does crap like the guy check-raises AI with QdJ on the all diamond flop, and Jamie's like "aww man, I got top-top." While he's a tool for calling something [censored] top-top, I don't think that's out of line. The action of the hand has been completed except for his final decision - fold or call.
What bothers me, for example, is in the Rizen hand, when he limps on the button, the SB limps, and Jamie Gold raises, telling Rizen "if you shove I'm calling." I think that is terrible, because the SB has to act in between. What if the SB had limped with something like AJo or 88 because he didn't want to make a big pot preflop? So now Jamie's [censored] mouth has corroded his decision, and the hand is all out of whack.

2) He did an interview with Bluff Magazine, where he said that people were scared to play on his right, and he said in the interview that he would look at his cards right when they were dealt AND TELL THE GUY WHETHER IT WAS SAFE FOR HIM TO PLAY THE POT OR NOT!!! Are you kidding me?

Excerpt from Bluff Interview: So every day I’d come to the table and everyone would freak out, and there’d be this guy sitting next to me who was practically in tears because he knew could never raise a hand. So I said, “No, listen, think about it like this: No one can raise you, because they’re raising me after you. You’re in a great spot, and here’s the deal. In return for this protection, every time I tell you to lay down your hand, you lay down your hand. And they all said okay. So I would look at my cards before the guy to my right, and then I’d say, “OK, you’re cool; proceed…” or “Nope. Lay it down.”

As well as the link (so as to be free from accusation): Are you serious?

Things like this make it very very very very very difficult for him to ever gain my respect.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

I used to play frequently (several times a week) with Jamie at Hollywood Park and Commerce $5/10 and $10/20 NL games. We were actually quite friendly and on first name terms whenever we would meet anywhere (Vegas, etc). Always seemed like a nice guy and I am happy for him to have done so well.

His play: he always played an extremely aggressive style and was generally a player I wouldn't want to have at my table due to his constant raising and re-raising. He was still working as a producer/agent at this time too. The last few times I played with him at Commerce (probably 18 months prior to the WSOP) he went broke 2 hands in a row losing set over set on the river [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people dislike JG? Because he's a douche. What more reason do you need?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

It's not jealousy. I have no problem with Hachem, Raymer, Moneymaker, or even Varkonyi.

Moneymaker was a luckbox. Varkonyi was a dork and a luckbox, but neither of them was nearly the douchebag that Jamie Gold was/is. Every word out of his mouth was douchey, and that smug look he'd have on his face as he would rest his head in his palm make my head splode.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

Google Test.

"Jamie Gold" + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 1912.

"Chris Moneymaker" + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 676

"Joe Hachem" + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 460

"Greg Raymer + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 1050
(Note- Almost none of them are talking about Raymer being a douche or douchebag. Matter of fact, 322 of the articles that reference "Greg Raymer" and either "Douche" or "Douchebag" also contain the phrase "Jamie Gold" in them.)

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
Google Test.

"Jamie Gold" + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 1912.

"Chris Moneymaker" + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 676

"Joe Hachem" + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 460

"Greg Raymer + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 1050
(Note- Almost none of them are talking about Raymer being a douche or douchebag. Matter of fact, 322 of the articles that reference "Greg Raymer" and either "Douche" or "Douchebag" also contain the phrase "Jamie Gold" in them.)

[/ QUOTE ]

ha ha, thats [censored]-ing awesome.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

yea he's decent, nothing special, we'll see if he gets run over on high stakes poker or not, then we can reassess

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

I agree with all of this. Also, the issue with the top-top thing wasn't that he was talking about the strength of his hand while his cards were live. As you point out, there was only one other player in the hand and he was already all in. The issue with that hand was that conversation (aired by ESPN) immediately following the guy's bustout strongly or explicitly suggested the two players were colluding and had an arrangement to softplay each other. Gold actually said that he wouldn't have called with his hand if he knew he was AHEAD because they were buddies from LA and he didn't want to send the guy home.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
Google Test.

"Jamie Gold" + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 1912.

"Chris Moneymaker" + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 676

"Joe Hachem" + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 460

"Greg Raymer + "Douche" / ("Douchebag") = 1050
(Note- Almost none of them are talking about Raymer being a douche or douchebag. Matter of fact, 322 of the articles that reference "Greg Raymer" and either "Douche" or "Douchebag" also contain the phrase "Jamie Gold" in them.)

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
As well as the link (so as to be free from accusation): Are you serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

"I got a perfect score on the SATs when I was in the 5th grade."

This quote is from the Bluff article. It is precisely why I think JG is a douche. Even if it were true (and I call BS on it, by the way), no reasonable person except perhaps Sklansky would ever say it.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]


"I got a perfect score on the SATs when I was in the 5th grade."


[/ QUOTE ]
what a load

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As well as the link (so as to be free from accusation): Are you serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

"I got a perfect score on the SATs when I was in the 5th grade."

This quote is from the Bluff article. It is precisely why I think JG is a douche. Even if it were true (and I call BS on it, by the way), no reasonable person except perhaps Sklansky would ever say it.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have been quoted in the newspaper several times during my work career and I don't think the paper has ever quoted me accurately. So I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may not have been accurately quoted here.

I did read the Bluff article and if it is true that he made deals with the people sitting on the left and right of him, he is pretty unethical and not very smart for bragging about it.

Re: Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective
 

While I'm sympathetic to your notion of journalistic inaccuracy, Gold's quote here is in the middle of a paragraph long Gold self-tout about what a logic/math stud he is. It's still possible that he was misquoted, but it fits right in to the context of a larger discussion -- suggesting that it is accurate.