Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?

[21times20]

at first i thought the people that said this thread was retarded were being harsh, but then i actually thought about it and im starting to come to the same conclusion

can someone please explain to me how a main event winner who is already successful in the media/public relations business is not WAY more likely to improve poker's image and mass public appeal than someone else?

in fact, as far as the future of poker is concerned, i think he is a lot closer to being the best possible winner out of the final 9 than he is to being the worst

the fact that a lot of people here already knew about his father's ALS well before he won or anything was televised, to me, is clear evidence that he will be using his talents and experience from hollywood to create a positive public image for both himself and poker (anyone who thinks that there is no way he would spin his father's illness to enhance his image pretty much has no clue how hollywood works)

and as far as demographics goes i think Gold winning will have a bigger influence on probably the most important segment of the population, celebrities. while poker was definitely a hot celebrity fad for awhile, im sure it is on the decline, having a Hollywood guy win the WSOP will do more to keep celebrities playing poker than anyone else, and this obviously translates to greater popularity in the average american household

so in conclusion, despite the fact that we all wanted AC to win, to speculate that Jamie Gold was the worst possible winner as the thread title and OP clearly do is ludicrous