[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
bc he's got class and skilllzz

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, but how is that good for the game? For example, Moneymaker's skills are questionable, yet his win was inarguably good for the game -- could have been the best thing ever for the game as we know it today. Hachem seems to be an upstanding guy, much like Raymer, but I can't see that he was any more good for the game than anyone else over the past year.

I think what has been good for the game is:

1. Moneymaker winning in 2003 (name, $40 sat win online, first mainstream hole-cam coverage, the bad-ass bluff of Farha ... whether that bluff was good or bad to 2p2 doesn't matter ... to people just looking at NLHE, that was huge)
2. The advent of the hole-cam that shows the hole cards
3. Increased TV coverage of poker
4. Availability of online poker, especially the huge number of WSOP sats that are run
5. And, believe it or not, Raymer's glasses (more than anything else Greg is or does, without the glasses he would have been no different to the casual poker fan than Hachem was ... I know tons of people who don't know Raymer's name, but know he was "the guy with the funky glasses."

The whole "will he be a good ambassador" argument is largely irrelevant. I am guessing the next big influence on poker will have nothing to do with the "Poker Ambassador" - think banned online poker, more focus on other games (the HORSE event could be a hit), etc. That is what will make or break poker as we know it, IMO.

NCAces