Re: About Jamie Gold...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He CONTINUES to get Chan's opinions DURING THE GAME (one player to a hand?)
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the only thing that really bothered me.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as it's not during a hand, there is no issue here. You guys are searching for a reason to hate.
The f'ing guy led for 4 days. Did the deck hit him for 4 days or did he actually play some good poker. Give the guy a f'ing break. He dominated the tournament.
[/ QUOTE ]
I want to stop in these threads but I feel possessed. Yes, the deck hit him in the face for four days, plus he was cardracked. You can look at cardplayer or any of the sweat threads here.
Does this mean he's not a good player?
Absolutely not.
I always thought he was decent (would be much better without the antics) and upon further review think he's pretty good, way above average. But it doesn't change the facts.
But that's pointless. Why should it surprise anybody? In a field this big the deck is going to hit somebody square in the face, and that's who is going to win (FT table at least). Yes, i'm aware this oversimplifies things a bit.
I'd say it's almost unfair to Gold that he had to play this big of a field. He'll never get the respect because a 9000 person field is absolutely ludicrous. I remember thinking about the first ME when doyle won, damn, a SNG for the title. This is the opposite end of the spectrum.
Does anybody have any thoughts about capping the number of entrants, and perhaps raising the buy-in? I think it's the only way for the ME to be taken seriously again (I might be in the minority here) and move it away from being an expensive lottery ticket.
|