[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its pretty obvious to anyone with any reading comprehension ability at all that in that article he was speaking of public perception of Raymer.

but you make it seem like Rosenbloom took a shot at Raymer's ability, when he certainly didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]


I must have missed Advanced Reading Comprehension then, because when I read this (which is the entire extent of the comments Steve made in his letter reply)

<font color="blue">"Who says an exclusive main event is good? Like they say, anyone can enter and anyone can win. And when anyone such as Chris Moneymaker and Greg Raymer indeed do win, then the game grows, and I think that's a good thing."</font>

... I certainly don't get your interpretation. Now, if you put Greg on Moneymaker's level.. and then put them both on the level of "anyone" who would get into the WSOP ME, then I'll accept your interpretation.

Oh well, back to school for me I guess. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

i know this, you know this, but 99% of the public doesnt know this, and this is the point of view that this article is written on. When someone like Raymer, who pretty much no one outside of 2+2 had heard of before his wsop win, wins the main event it brings people into the game and the game grows. How is that not what Rosenbloom said? Did he say Greg was a bad player? No

Just as an example, because we're 2+2ers we know who someone like Bicyclekick is, and we know that he's a very good poker player. So lets say that Bicyclekick goes and wins the 2006 Main Event. The general public has never heard of Brian Clark and knows nothing of his playing ability, despite the fact that he's even cashed in a WSOP tourney before, because he's never been on tv, and being a good cash game player doesnt make you a star. So while we'd all know that a very good player won the WSOP, the general public would again see it as just your regular average guy winning the WSOP.

To be honest, no offense to Raymer, but I love the fact that public perception is that he's not a great player, and that he got lucky to win the WSOP. It's good for the game. It brings in new players, most of whom won't be very good, and makes for more profitable games. Think about the public perception right now. A solid aggressive thinking player like Greg is thought of as lucky, while some degenerate gamblers are looked upon as "Poker Superstars". As a poker player, I dont think you could ask for anything better.