Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner? - Page 21

ZBTHorton · #**201** 08-13-2006, 05:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
he's 36, that's not middle aged.

BTW how were you expecting a teenager to win? Would it be good for someone to win and then be disqualified?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant someone 21/22/23. I didn't mean a literal teenager.

And according to wikipedia, 40 is middle aged. I didn't know his actual age when I posted this thread. He looks 40 to me. 4 years isn't a huge deal obv.

Toro · #**202** 08-13-2006, 06:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And according to wikipedia, 40 is middle aged. I didn't know his actual age when I posted this thread. He looks 40 to me. 4 years isn't a huge deal obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

For some, when approaching the big four oh, it certainly is a big deal. Matter of perspective. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

You're probably too young to remember the famous comedian Jack Benny. He was perpetually 39 when asked his age.

chesspain · #**203** 08-13-2006, 11:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see how Raymer has been good for the game.

StrayBullet · #**204** 08-13-2006, 11:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
he's 36, that's not middle aged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seen the ages of people dying lately, the obits are FULL of 72 yrolds kicking the bucket....welcome to your middle ages crisis [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

uclabruinz · #**205** 08-13-2006, 11:13 AM

WTF, who cares whether OP or anyone else thinks those of us who are 36 are middle aged? You better embrace the idea pretty soon, because if we're not there yet, we will be shortly. Get over it.

Calling 36 year olds middle-aged is about the least lame thing about this thread, although 36 year olds getting their panties in a bunch about it certainly adds to the lameness.

mudbuddha · #**206** 08-13-2006, 01:30 PM

bc he's got class and skilllzz

NCAces · #**207** 08-13-2006, 11:51 PM

[ 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