[kudzudemon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have yet to figure out what is so unlikeable about the new ME champ. so what if it's a bit annoying that he talks to jesus/god every big decision/hand. does that truly make someone unlikeable?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can watch Jerry Yang and not be hugely creeped out by his presence/voice/standing up/"in the name of lord jesus please let me win"/calling Bill Edler his idol/telling Norman Chad (!) it's an honor to meet him then I seriously doubt your judge of character.

also I was thinking recently about this "you guys are just jealous, would you hate all winners" thing, and it's clearly not true. Hachem is a baller and I think pretty much everyone respects his play a little, and everyone here likes Raymer too. So people here don't like Varkoni, Moneymaker, Gold (I don't mind Gold fwiw), and Yang... maybe b/c they are the worst of the recent champs, and it has nothing to do with jealously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, let me get this straight; you don’t “like” (your word, not mine) Varkonyi, Moneymaker and Yang because they don’t possess poker skills you view as befitting WSOP ME winner?

Yeah, you’re right…let’s expand that thought. The 1980 Olympic hockey team? Luckbox donkeys. Appy State…take away that win against Michigan, they’re clearly not as good as the Wolverines. Sorry, David…you’re not “as good” as Goliath, so we’re gonna go ahead and award the spoils of war to the Philistines, okay? You understand, right…I mean, you really DON’T DESERVE TO WIN…

“nothing to do with jealousy”…Bull. Keyser, I've read quite a few of your previous posts, and most of 'em indicate a pretty sharp person. Suprising, then, that that you would attach your name to one so indicative of blisteringly shallow thought as this one. It has EVERYTHING to do with jealousy, jealousy that you’re not in that position, and jealousy because you probably wouldn’t have played as well as those guys did. I read all these snarky comments about Yang and Moneymaker, written by mostly insecure, frustrated yah-hoos who think they know the score because they memorized TOP, and I gotta laugh. The angel of realistic thought has clearly passed these clowns over.

Nobody, not Doyle Brunson, not Stu Ungar, not Chris Ferguson, NOBODY has ever won a bracelet without getting lucky, and more than just “winning an extra coin flip“ lucky…that in no way diminishes their accomplishments or skill, it is just the way it is. Sure, Yang got cards, but he won because of his aggression early at the table, not because of his luck. He could have played tighter and MAYBE finished third or fourth, but he realized the chance he would have to take to win the whole thing. It wasn’t “luck” that caused Phil Hilm to call with KQ, it was the effect of Yang’s play on the psyche of the others at the table.

But truth be known, for any of us railbird snipers to win at that table, we would have to do the same thing, or at least play in a fashion that might veer from orthodox TAG play. And we feel comfortable criticizing others for doing it. Incredible. We really are an insecure lot.

Would you have made the bluff Moneymaker did on Farha? The play that inevitably won the bracelet for Moneymaker (who always said he was a gambler, not a poker player or ivory tower theorist like most of usrepresent)? Maybe you would, maybe not, but it seems to me that praise for transcending your skill set when the moment calls for it, a far more enviable and laudable action, is not merely ignored, but trivialized and even blasted. You guys just keep hammering away at their technical deficiencies because they somehow offend your delicate poker sensibilities. Amazing, just amazing. You also gonna criticize Doug Flutie’s last minute heroics because he was too short to be an effective pocket passer?

Honest analysis is one thing, but to state you “don’t like” someone because you view their game as lacking? That’s just…sad…

Jerry Yang played that table like a man, and he deserved his win…

Sorry for the tone of this post, but..damn…