|
|
#81
08-11-2006, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
a) He seems like a pretty interesting dude. I think he could pan out pretty well as an ambassador.
b) The game while still strong, is certainly not going to EXPLODE again like it did after Moneymaker, no matter who wins. IE - Forrest Gump could win the whole thing and we're not going to have 50k ppl in the ME in 3 years. c) Imagine if that Swedish dude had won? That invalidates your whole "worst possible" premise right there. 
|
|
#82
08-11-2006, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
[ QUOTE ]
ZBT and others, I think most of you vastly overestimate the influence of what particular individual happens to win the WSOP has on the growth of the game. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. Hachem and Raymer are obviously great players, but it's Moneymaker who brought the masses to online poker.
|
|
#83
08-11-2006, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
another point is that you only see everything if you watched the ppv coverage last night...you aren't gonna see all that on espn...a lot of how gold comes across will be due to the espn editing and such...
btw...i thought he was fine, and he was my second choice after cunningham...
|
|
#84
08-11-2006, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] When you end up having to defend yourself to this many people, it's a good bet that you could have expressed yourself a little more clearly in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] Frankly I think it's a better sign that a lot of people on this forum can't read/reason. His points were pretty straightfoward. I don't really agree that Gold will be a bad thing for poker, but there's something to be said that somebody else might have been more optimal from a marketing persective. [/ QUOTE ] Sir, no one is questioning a debate on whether there are more "marketable" players than Gold. I personally think it would be difficult to know right now the impact he may have on poker. The problem is the bigoted tone of the inital post. A simple, "Which player at the FT would have been better as a winner for the game than Gold, and why?" Or something of that nature. I think the difference is very clear between my question vs. that of the OP.
|
|
#85
08-11-2006, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] When you end up having to defend yourself to this many people, it's a good bet that you could have expressed yourself a little more clearly in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] Frankly I think it's a better sign that a lot of people on this forum can't read/reason. His points were pretty straightfoward. I don't really agree that Gold will be a bad thing for poker, but there's something to be said that somebody else might have been more optimal from a marketing persective. [/ QUOTE ] Sir, no one is questioning a debate on whether there are more "marketable" players than Gold. I personally think it would be difficult to know right now the impact he may have on poker. The problem is the bigoted tone of the inital post. A simple, "Which player at the FT would have been better as a winner for the game than Gold, and why?" Or something of that nature. I think the difference is very clear between my question vs. that of the OP. [/ QUOTE ] You do realize that this is a DIRECT QUOTE from the OP. "obviously speaking from a "Good for the game" point of view."
|
|
#86
08-11-2006, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
ladies and gentleman: jamie gold, the new bad boy of poker!
He will be marketed completely different than th previous winners, and he will fit in with bodog's edgy campaign that they want to have.
|
|
#87
08-11-2006, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ZBT and others, I think most of you vastly overestimate the influence of what particular individual happens to win the WSOP has on the growth of the game. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. Hachem and Raymer are obviously great players, but it's Moneymaker who brought the masses to online poker. [/ QUOTE ] And the timing of internet poker and hole cams. It wasn't just Moneymaker.
|
|
#88
08-11-2006, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ZBT and others, I think most of you vastly overestimate the influence of what particular individual happens to win the WSOP has on the growth of the game. [/ QUOTE ] Other than Moneymaker, your probably right. [/ QUOTE ] CM was like 10% of the equation, any non-rich person that qualified online would have been suffice. Hole cams and onine poker being available made poker. People dont really care who wins the ME they care how much they win. $12 million is the winner and $12 million is what will keep bringing people into the game. The other winner here is Bodog. ~Justin
|
|
#89
08-11-2006, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ZBT and others, I think most of you vastly overestimate the influence of what particular individual happens to win the WSOP has on the growth of the game. [/ QUOTE ] Other than Moneymaker, your probably right. [/ QUOTE ] CM was like 10% of the equation, any non-rich person that qualified online would have been suffice. Hole cams and onine poker being available made poker. People dont really care who wins the ME they care how much they win. $12 million is the winner and $12 million is what will keep bringing people into the game. The other winner here is Bodog. ~Justin [/ QUOTE ] I respectfully disagree. He won on 40$ - HUGE His last name was Moneymaker - HUGE First live tournament - HUGE I'd say he was at least 50% of what happened. Online poker was around before, and wasn't booming like it did.
|
|
#90
08-11-2006, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] When you end up having to defend yourself to this many people, it's a good bet that you could have expressed yourself a little more clearly in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] Frankly I think it's a better sign that a lot of people on this forum can't read/reason. His points were pretty straightfoward. I don't really agree that Gold will be a bad thing for poker, but there's something to be said that somebody else might have been more optimal from a marketing persective. [/ QUOTE ] Sir, no one is questioning a debate on whether there are more "marketable" players than Gold. I personally think it would be difficult to know right now the impact he may have on poker. The problem is the bigoted tone of the inital post. A simple, "Which player at the FT would have been better as a winner for the game than Gold, and why?" Or something of that nature. I think the difference is very clear between my question vs. that of the OP. [/ QUOTE ] The OP's post did all of that, if the rest was unclear it's mostly because it's hard to read when your knee is jerking in front of your face.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
