View Single Post
  #4  
Old 08-11-2006, 07:22 PM
Chump Change Chump Change is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: WITH UR POOR ROBBIN UR RICHES
Posts: 9,851
Default Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?

Gold is great for the game and i'll tell you why.

(drum-roll)

If a young kid or woman wins, then another slew of broke young kids and women flood the poker scene. Great for the low stakes and levelling up sharks.

But gold wins, and now, I hope, a slew of rich 'middle-aged' white guys will flood the games, thinking, 'ZOMG, I can do this too!' Not fish, but whales.

Do you see why?

That being said, however, I must add that the Gold defense (his playing ability, not his 'good for the game-ness' or personality) is drastically overcompensating in response to the Gold hating. Which is understandable, but unrealistic.

Gold outplayed people the same way Danneman did. Black's TT holds up and we aren't talking about a 'meltdown' now. Save for once in the FT, there hasn't been a documented hand where he lost a coinflip or had a big pair (1 in 5 remember) cracked. And there were sooo many times where people were in the position to put so many chips in with him. The amount of QQ>JJ and KK>QQ matchups he stumbled upon is unprecedented, the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket. To say he outplayed anybody (lagtard bluffs, yawn; the calling and folding stations at the FT outplayed themselves) is laughable. The only thing more laughable is his talkative, 'i'm gonna get a read' table act, which only gave everybody else good reads.

The haters are annoying because they are stretching, and the hate is so ungrounded in reality, but having the defense of him equally ungrounded is also as annoying.
Reply With Quote