Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?

[LAtoLV]

Jamie,
If you need a senior citizen to help you kill that whippersnapper let me know. Never bet against "old" age and guile.
LAtoLV
44

[chicagoY]

Congratulations man.

[Turn Prophet]

He played well (and got lucky like any champion) for a week, so it doesn't really matter how "qualified" he is for the win.

[Chump Change]

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.

[DeuceKicker]

I only read about 3/4 of the thread, so if this has already been said... tough

As Sirio(?) pointed out, a middle-aged winner is better than a young kid; they're more established financially.

Maybe it's been discussed before, but I think an asian winner would do "more for the game" than another white guy. Macao is closing in on Vegas for gambling income, and actually passed the strip casinos for the first time this year (I think). Las Vegas casino owners have known for years that asia was the next huge expansion market, and they spent gazillions of dollars to gain footholds in Macao.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think having a wealthy Hollywood type win will create a lot of publicity. It may also attract more rich people and Hollywood types to poker.

Having a little bit of a villain win is also not bad, as it creates interest. All of the champions in the last few years have been real nice guys, but that is not a requirement.

[chicagoY]

"I wanted a woman to win."

Shallow, shallow, shallow. Did they give you a "Conformist" award at school too?

[aramfingal]

you're thinking too hard. there's only one thing about jamie gold people who are new to poker are going to notice: he won $12,000,000.

[Flight_Risk]

[ QUOTE ]
So. Before the ME began, I had a list of people I hoped would win the WSOP, obviously speaking from a "Good for the game" point of view.

I wanted a woman to win.
I wanted a teenager to win.
I wanted someone good looking to win.
I wanted a poker celebrity to win.
I wanted a poker pro celebrity to win.
I wanted a complete retard to win.

Here's what I didn't want to win:

Anyone old
Anyone who didn't speak english
Anyone who didn't want to represent the game
Anyone rich
Anyone who represented themself very poorly at the table
Anyone who would cause "average people" to dislike them at the table.

Jamie Gold is middle aged. I think an [censored] at the table. Nobody has ever heard of him. He's not good looking. He's not a chick. He doesn't want to represent the game(ala Raymer).

Could anyone worse have won? Am I really off here? I just don't see this guy attracting ANYONE new to the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't really matter if he doesn't attract anyone new to the game when online poker is banned in the U.S. The poker boom as a whole is gonna mushroom inward and you're not gonna see tournaments this size again.

Flight_Risk

[lastsamurai]

i think his life story is more interesting that the last new winners...
2005- a mortgage broker from aussie..
2004- a patent attorney
2003- an accountant who wanted to chop the FT

His dad owns penske motors and he use to race cars. His bio is pretty interesting... Plus his dads story is pretty touching.