Jamie Gold...Worst Possible Winner?

[stereoman]

It'll be interesting to see how Gold is part of Team Bodog.

One assumes that Jamie will either be part of the team that comprises of Arieh, Ng and Williams or he's on his own.

Worst possible winner? I didn't want Jamie to win because of the Bodog association as I don't like Bodog's sportsbook.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
all,

this thread took a turn for the retarded way too quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]


Probably. It started off good, a reasonable topic for discussion.

I think he's a decent player and is great for the game.

What is baffling is that I was under the impression that everybody who had sweated the ME and the ME threads from day one, like myself, (and only a fraction of 2p2, notice how the thread views and replies grew exponentially day by day) knew that Gold luckboxed and more importantly cardracked his way into such a great chiplead and win.

The hate and defense was about his being 'good for the game' and his behaviour at the table and his integrity as a human being. People will debate about anything, but I thought how he succeeded in the ME event was a moot point. After 2nd in chips donked off with the JJ, it was like playing a 5+1 SNG.

Now all of a sudden everybody is coming out of the woodwork saying he's an awesome player with awesome moves and debating endlessly about that.

Meh. I dunno anymore. Not sure what even matters. I think the bottom line is that it's all good.

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]

Now all of a sudden everybody is coming out of the woodwork saying he's an awesome player with awesome moves and debating endlessly about that.

Meh. I dunno anymore. Not sure what even matters. I think the bottom line is that it's all good.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think anyone has said he's an "awesome" or "great" player; his supporters have merely said he was a "good" player and not the "donk" that the haters claim he is.

out of curiosity, does the fact that several of his FT opponents have complimented his style of play and Gold as a player mean anything to you?

[Kevmath]

This is from Pokerati.com, posted yesterday, the title of the blog entry is Jamie Gold's Horseman:

[ QUOTE ]
So everyone is talking Jamie Gold. He’s been dominating since Day 3. Turns out there’s an interesting story on how he got into the game. He’s Johnny Chan’s agent, of course — we all know that — and the inspiration for some character on “Entourage,” a show I don’t watch. (But all that leads me to believe he might be an [censored].) Anyhow, he was negotiating with Bodog to get some celebrities seats. As part of the negotiation, he wanted two seats — one for himself and one for a friend.

This is where my info gets a little foggy, but basically he got one seat … and I’m not sure how he and his buddy figured out how who got to play, but in the end, he took the seat … and now, of course, is guaranteed multiple millions.

But he’s only got half of himself. The other half of whatever he wins will go to — inside sources say — WPT Boot Camp instructor Crispin Leyser.

[/ QUOTE ]

[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.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now all of a sudden everybody is coming out of the woodwork saying he's an awesome player with awesome moves and debating endlessly about that.

Meh. I dunno anymore. Not sure what even matters. I think the bottom line is that it's all good.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think anyone has said he's an "awesome" or "great" player; his supporters have merely said he was a "good" player and not the "donk" that the haters claim he is.

out of curiosity, does the fact that several of his FT opponents have complimented his style of play and Gold as a player mean anything to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this is the second thread where you came at me, when I thought I was being diplomatic saying he was a decent player with a long cardrack, and that the haters should not pass such harsh judgement on his 'table persona'.

I didn't really reply in the other thread because it's the Russ appreciation thread, but here:

1) You said in that other thread, something to the effect, 'Show me a poker poker game where luck doesn't play a large role'. Well, show me a man who says that and i'll show you a donkey. You honestly think all these guys who are anywhere from paying the bills from poker to outright balling out are just really lucky? You're on a damn forum that proves day in and day out that's while it's not a determinate game, it's pretty much a damn science. Damn Sklansky wrote a book called the theory of poker.

2) It is common knowledge that when encountering said donkeys, you don't berate or educate them. Gold is a high stakes player who just won another 12 million. Do you honestly belive they are going to say, 'Well, this is what he did wrong, here are his tells, his questionable moves and weaknesses. Make sure he hears this because I sure don't want him to make these same mistakes again!'

3) Are you absolutely serious? Or are you just bored looking for an e-argument?

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]
1) You said in that other thread, something to the effect, 'Show me a poker poker game where luck doesn't play a large role'. Well, show me a man who says that and i'll show you a donkey. You honestly think all these guys who are anywhere from paying the bills from poker to outright balling out are just really lucky?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, over the long run, I don't think that winning players are "just" really lucky. But I do think that luck plays a large role in one single tournament (down to things as simple as table draw) and to say otherwise is nothing less than retarded.

[ QUOTE ]
You're on a damn forum that proves day in and day out that's while it's not a determinate game, it's pretty much a damn science.

[/ QUOTE ]

for your sake, i hope it's not too late to edit your post. hurry.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) You said in that other thread, something to the effect, 'Show me a poker poker game where luck doesn't play a large role'. Well, show me a man who says that and i'll show you a donkey. You honestly think all these guys who are anywhere from paying the bills from poker to outright balling out are just really lucky?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, over the long run, I don't think that winning players are "just" really lucky. But I do think that luck plays a large role in one single tournament (down to things as simple as table draw) and to say otherwise is nothing less than retarded.

[ QUOTE ]
You're on a damn forum that proves day in and day out that's while it's not a determinate game, it's pretty much a damn science.

[/ QUOTE ]

for your sake, i hope it's not too late to edit your post. hurry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are lame and I don't even know where to begin concerning your reading comprehension.
Yawn.
Have fun losing at poker.

[fyodor]

[ QUOTE ]
out of curiosity, does the fact that several of his FT opponents have complimented his style of play and Gold as a player mean anything to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's interesting is that his opponents have the common courtesy to compliment his play, whereas in his Cardplayer video interview he belittles all of them by saying how brilliantly he played the players, while they were all worried about their cards.

[ononimo]

so, is that another way of saying "you're right but i'm too stubborn to admit my mistake"? if so, i understand.