Jamie Gold FT Commentary Thread - 12/11/06

[Ramon Scott]

A Jamie Gold commentary show about his play on the final table. What's the use, that's what we got anyways during the actual final table.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
I was impressed that he admitted (more then once) that Cunningham was the best player at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we'll call him Mr. Obvious! Don't give him too much credit. He's not very smart, but he's not Forrest Gump.

[boyd81]

After watching this i got a tingling feeling in my pants.

CANT WAIT for HSP with Gold im going to be as happy as a 16 year old school girl on her knees giving her first..

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
CANT WAIT for HSP with Gold im going to be as happy as when I was a 16 year old school girl on her knees giving her first..

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[TimeTraveler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CANT WAIT for HSP with Gold im going to be as happy as when I was a 16 year old school girl on her knees giving her first..

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]
nh

[BiiiiigChips]

[ QUOTE ]
Not very impressive commentary. I kept thinking back to GR's final table commentary and the difference between the two was as obvious as night and day.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think you can attribute that to the strength of their games and the situations they were in. Jamie seems more like a "feel and read" type player and Raymer more of a game theory and math based player. When you are going alot on feel and instinct it's hard to explain or give good reason for alot of the moves you make. Jamie had a massive chip lead and was absolutely getting ran over by cards. Of course to win a tournament like that you are going to have to get your fair share of luck but when your flopping sets, straights, hitting straight flushes on the turn, and everything else under the sun like he was it's tough to really say anything deep about your play. I actually would have liked to see what he did earlier in the tournament but they don't really start showing him until he's in the hunt and from that point on they just show him getting hands and making moves. I was more or less unimpressed by the commentary but I wasn't really expecting a whole lot. Raymer definitley had a very more insightful final table commentary show.

[Shandrax]

The whole idea of the WSOP marketing concept is that every idiot can get lucky and win at poker. No wonder they show him as a complete luckbox who can barely read the board. I am pretty sure that it's not easy to accumulate 36 million chips in such a tournament. He is certainly not as good as he thinks, but he is definitely much better than what the public thinks of him.