Poll: Most / Least like-able players at the WSOP FT

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
All Phil Gordon kept doing on the PPV broadcast along with his cronies was criticize and predict doom and gloom. It was annoying to listen to. I'm not sure which was more annoying to listen to - Gordon deathrooting him, or Yang praying to Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be fair to Gordon, he did change his opinion of Yang after some time, like most people who watched that final table. It took a while to realize that there was method to Yang's madness, and that it was working very well for him that day.

[Keyser.]

[ 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.

[Veil]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any fuss about the way Yang obnoxiously screamed after knocking someone out. Not only was it rude, disgusting and inconsiderate to scream that loud and annoyingly - but it also caused me to almost lose my hearing as I was listening to the ppv through headphones. So you're probably thinking that I dislike Khan's antics as well.. actually, not at all. I voted him as most likable because he's having a little fun which is amusing to me, and that wouldn't get on my nerves as much as an obnoxious cry of "YESSSS!! YES!!!" and sprinting to the audience. Khan would never have gone out of line if he knocked someone out from the ft. Also, it's more inline for Khan to behave a little fruity than Yang, in relation to their respective ages/appearances. Yang's trying so hard to be a nice guy, he should prove it by not celebrating their tournaments deaths that intensely. It's just bizarre.

And Jerry, I do believe you're only allowed to have one idol. I mean, come on, quit the suck-ups already. And praying to Jesus/God to get lucky is clearly up the creek considering the bible says no to gambling. And when Gordon queried him on this, he totally avoided the question. I don't dislike him, I'm sure he's is a nice guy, but the poker we saw from him is borderline dreadful in isolations, and some of his "nice guy" shtick really seems put-on to me.

[charliecozz]

I do think Yang has balls and I give him credit for not just sitting there playing defensively like Lam. BUT...Something quite off putting about him. I didn't like him. But would also take him over that smug douche Jamie Gold any day.

[The B]

[Silent A]

Least = Yang
Most = Khan

Based purely on what I saw on the PPV of the final table.

[boscoe1]

most= Kravchenko
least= Watkinson's girlfriend/wife

[Nightmare Fuel]

Lmao. Yeah, that all-in hand between Watkinson and Yang was seriously scary. I wasn't sure anymore if I was watching poker or a cult sacrifice.

Most: Hilm (though I warmed up quite a bit to Kravchenko as time went on).
Least: Rahme (keep it low, baby! yes, baby! play about zero hands, baby!)

[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…

[Hollywade]

I like Russian accents, but I don't like hole card camera nits.