About Jamie Gold...

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
All I have to say is Jamie played horrible I cant see how people think he played good all he did is call call call. He did win the chips but thats because he is very lucky. The thing that bothers me the most about him is he rubs it in their face he asked to see allens cards after allen lost to him and talking when he isnt in the pot just bad ediquitte.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, all he did was call... preflop. Then he took it away from them after the flop at the first sign of weakness. He made a ton of chips this way.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I saw/read I don't think Gold played bad, but if you're going to use the hand vs. Lee with QQ as an example of playing well, you're wrong. Gold's play there was horrible. He played to get QQ all in in a spot where the only hands that Lee could have crush him. HE just got lucky that Lee made a substantially worse play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that is what I was thinking during the hand. At the same time, Lee did seem to have difficulty getting away from big hands. Did Gold sense that Lee would have went all-in with TT and AQ as well? Or perhaps he thought Lee was frustrated and would push weak hands often in this spot as a bluff?

So I am not convinced that the play by Gold was that bad, even though it is certainly questionable. Had me made the same play against Allan Cunningham, then he is ligthing money on fire, but it is possible he would not have.

[MrFizzbin]

So whats the OP's opinion of Mike The Mouth going over and talking to Mark Seif and Phil Gordon during the 2005 event.... Or other pro players talking to their Peeps @ WPT events... as long as it's not during a hand, and not disturbing other players then fine. The card flashing is crap in a tournament and someone should have called Jamie on it and gotten him a warning. That would have put an end to it, because he wouldn't have risked his stack to a penalty.

As far as the yapping goes, not a fan, but hey everybody has their style... I do think that other players played too passively and gave Jamie too much credit for having hands, he went all in or put others all in a lot. Guess we'll find out just how good or bad everybody was in about 40 days when the event is on TV. Congrats Jamie enjoy it....

[Lawman007]

Personally, I think Jamie Gold is a world class jerk. However, he outplayed every single person at that final table, including and especially Alan Cunningham. The way they let him run over that table, they should have just given him the bracelet and the 12 million at the beginning, then played their weak-tight game among themselves for second place money.

We've all seen players with monster chip leads self-destruct at the final table. I kept waiting (and hoping) for Gold to do that, but he never did. He played almost perfect big stack poker.

Did Gold get hit by the deck? Of course. Was he very lucky? Yes. Did he earn that bracelet last night? You're damn right he did.

If he just weren't a rich, arrogant, obnoxious, Hollywood agent, I would feel a lot better about him winning.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a hater by any means, and I also thought he played the FT very well...however, I thought those comments in his interview were kind of weird.

He also made a comment about how people "got lucky" against him but he somehow still managed to prevail....come on....if he had just said "yeah, I got lucky winning all those fricken coin flips too" then maybe it wouldn't be weird, but all he said was basically "I outplayed everyone, they got lucky every once in a while but I still won." It takes a lot of courage to "play the player" when you have a 500 to 1 chip lead and you win every coin flip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Herein lies the problem ... you didn't understand what he was saying about "luck" and yet use it against him. What he said about others getting lucky was was simple and true:

Once he got his big stack, and if he played his stack properly, the only way he would have been able to lose would have been if the others got lucky. In that context he isn't saying he wasn't lucky, or that others were. Only that if he played his stack right, only luck was going to beat him.

We all agree he could have donked it off. That would be the "if I play my big stack right" part. And all the pros we've heard from, as well as most people here, have said that he played his stack really well. So he didn't donk off his chips, and was never in the position to. He kept the pots relatively small, pressured the hell out of people, played so many hands it had to be near impossible to get a read (his talking notwithstanding). Most of the time he was all-in he had the best of it. As he mentioned in his interview, he was running his strategy by Chan each night.

The luck he was referring to was that which would have happened if suddenly he started getting in bigger pots with the best of it and they drew out on him.

There were a ton of posts here about the "Black melt down," or that "AC was going to outplay him," etc. That which he could control, he did. That then leaves the alot of the rest to luck.

NCAces

[BlackRain]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he sounds like an ass in the interview. He says something to the affect that there was no way he was losing going into the FT, he knew he was going to win, unless the other players got 'extremely lucky'. Gimme a break dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation = Confidence.

This thread is unreal.

[Eaglesfan1]

I think we were all spoiled by Raymer and Hachem being such good champs. We were def. lucky to have such good people being the face of poker for their year.

I personally don't like this guys personality, and don't like the fact that he's going to be representing poker, the game we all love and live by for a full year. Maybe he'll end up doing a good job, but he just seems like such a douchebag after watching the broadcast all night.

[Rianna]

Than you for All of your posts and varied opinions,much appreciated.

I wish Jamie the best. I wish poker the best. He WILL be representing the poker world, stage for the next year as the 'World Champion' of poker. I also feel that the 'Champion', as this event rightly or wrongly strongly represents the poker world FOR folks like us and DOES have some degree of influence (responsibility?) as to the future of poker.

I became livid when I heard Jamie state that 'he would like the money but essentially _couldn't care less_ to be it's 'World Champion'. How many of us, players around the globe would kill for that title? IMHO it's something VERY Special. After playing, living the game for many years, perhaps I'm wrong or HAVE lost perspective.

Yes, table talk, deceit if you will IS part of the game. Jamie fully admits that he prides himself into 'talking' his opponents into or out of a call etc., 'that's the best part of his game'. Of course this is not against the rules, but I for one got disgusted by it. I am used to seeing players 'play' and not continually act like car salesmen (no disrespect to car salesmen, just trying to make a point).

Anyone with THAT kind of chip lead (well earned no doubt) I would like to have seen them simply keep their mouth shut and _play_. Out-play opponents, not out TALK them. I felt it went over the line.

If it's Ok for Jamie to constantly get Chan's advice DURING the tourney, then is it not Ok for the final table to get advice from a pro of their choice as he did? I think this sets a bad precident. Split the bracelet with Johnny.

I took offense to his priding himself into "Tricking his opponents". I would like to see a World Champion simply outplay his opponents. (get rid of the BUlSheet, constant salesmanship and play good poker, no "tricks" please).

I'm sorry if I was too hard on him, I'm sure he's a decent guy and obviously plays the game well. After watching Chan do a lot of coaching and then see Jamie 'hoot it up' by taking out esp. Allen, I lost it. How about some humility when you continue to hold the deck against these guys that WOULD love to be World Champion.

And yes of course I'm jealous, but that wasn't the essence of this thread.

The past three 'World Champions (at least) truely
_coveted_ that title. they wanted the Title and not 'just the money'

All the best to Jamie. Yes, he obviously deserved the win. I only hope he, somehow, does bring in more players and keeps the standards high for this game many of us live and love.

Being crowned "World Champion" should mean something IMHO. It's not just about the money.

Thank you again for your opinions.

[Chump Change]

[ 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.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
All the Jamie bashing is amusing to me. The question you need to ask yourself while your hating on this guy is, "Does Jamie give two shiets what I think about him?"

The thing that irritates me is how the media in general try to hype things. Case in point...Jamie is said to have cashed in 15 major tournaments. I didn't know <$1000 buyin events were considered "major". Plus they were already counting this year's ME as part of the "15".

Jamie Gold Poker Results
37th Annual World Series of Poker
Event #39 - WSOP No Limit Hold'em Championship WSOP FINAL 1st $12,000,000 Aug 10, 2006
Sport of Kings
Event #10 - No Limit Hold'em 2nd $18,400 Apr 7, 2006
Winnin 'O' The Green
Event #16 - No Limit Hold'em 5th $6,100 Mar 15, 2006
National Championship Of Poker
Event #8 - No Limit Hold'em 8th $1,290 Oct 26, 2005
Larry Flynt's Grand Slam of Poker 2005
Event #6 - No Limit Hold'em 5th $3,000 Jul 21, 2005
Larry Flynt's Grand Slam of Poker 2005
Event #6 - No Limit Hold'em 7th $2,050 Jul 21, 2005
Mini Series of Poker
Main Event - No Limit Hold'em 7th $4,725 Jul 6, 2005
Heavenly Hold 'Em
No Limit Hold'em 10th $4,668 May 6, 2005
Stars and Stripes
Pot Limit Hold'em 18th $240 Apr 26, 2005
Stars and Stripes
No Limit Hold'em 1st $54,225 Apr 23, 2005
Stars and Stripes
No Limit Hold'em 9th $1,060 Apr 17, 2005
Legends of Poker WPT Season 3
Event #20 - Limit E.O. World Championship 12th $985 Aug 16, 2004
San Francisco Open
Limit Omaha Hi/Lo 8th $840 Jul 2, 2003
Thunder by the Bay
Event #5 - Limit Omaha Hi/Lo 3rd $2,700 Oct 16, 2002
Pot of Gold Tournament
Event #19 - Limit Omaha Hi/Lo 4th $714 Oct 5, 2002

[/ QUOTE ]

That list shows that he is not a complete idiot at least. Other than that, the WSOP is just a huge lottery these days. Skill alone might be able to overcome a smaller field, but at this size you need dumb luck and nothing else.