Why a Raymer victory could be good for poker...

[Uglyowl]

I think a Fossilman victory would be good for poker since it shows that winning is more than luck.

How many players play poker due to the luck factor? Most people play cards since they think they are smarter than average.

People who want everything determined by luck play slots. People who want a game of skill play poker.

If poker is seen more of a game of skill maybe more people out there would give it a shot? Some people are against gambling, but if this is seen as more than that, then maybe it will increase the player base.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but thought my line of reasoning is a good one.

[Maulik]

I don't mean to be rude, but there are about one-hunrdred posts with the same title, it would be more efficient to search and post to the bottom of that thread rather than cluttering, but this is WPT and full of junk

/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[TStoneMBD]

didnt you already post this in another thread? do you find your thoughts so important that it merits its own thread?

[TheMainEvent]

I agree /w you. The general public doesn't think about gambling the way we do. When they sign up on Pokerstars, they aren't wondering if Raymer winning the WSOP two years in a row indicates that it is -EV for them to play.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to be rude, but there are about one-hunrdred posts with the same title, it would be more efficient to search and post to the bottom of that thread rather than cluttering, but this is WPT and full of junk

/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
didnt you already post this in another thread? do you find your thoughts so important that it merits its own thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maulik, I must of missed it, I apoligize.

TSTONE, no I did not post it elsewhere, go to hell.

[Maulik]

no worries we are all guilty of this at some point, just serving as a reminder.

[TStoneMBD]

ok sorry then. someone posted something very similiar in another thread yesterday and i thought it was you. still though, i dont think this needs a new thread.

[Bartman387]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "good for poker." If you mean legitimizing it as a game of skill rather than luck then I would agree. If by "good for poker" you mean having the game grow and increase in popularity then I would say that anybody but a "Raymer" or "Moneymaker" would be good for the expansion of poker. In other words, no middle aged white males winning the WSOP yet again.

[Nathan183]

Am I the only one who thinks that this year's WSOP winner will have little to no effect on the game of poker?

Sure Moneymaker was great for poker, and Raymer last year maybe a little, but I think that poker has gotten to the point where no one player winning will have a significant impact on the game.

[sting]

A popular winner can only help, but it doesn't matter who wins. ESPN is going to run a 6 month commercial for poker on a scale even greater than last year. Every college kid in the country not already playing will be playing by year's end.

[Rock27]

The only thing that could dampen the 'Poker Explosion' did not occur when Phil Hellmuth was eliminated! Can you imagine if you went golfing with Tiger Woods and he spent the entire day telling you how much you sucked and that everything you are doing is wrong!?! "Why would you even try chipping the ball in that situation, moron?"

Rock27 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Jefzter]

I think that a Fossilman victory will be great for PokerStars, but that is about all.

The fact that the average Joe thinks he can sit down and beat the best players there are in poker due to the fact that he might get lucky is a huge attraction to the masses. Anything that pounds the idea that you need a lot of skill to play good poker will turn off the majority of people since most will not want to be bothered to learn the necessary skills.

Raymer’s victory last year is still bringing in players when they see a relatively average, nice guy, can outlast a huge field that happens to have a few arrogant and/or obnoxious pros in it (Matasow & Arieh). That is the average Joe’s dream! As much as I could care less to watch yet another airing of the 2004 WSOP or see yet another magazine have Raymer plastered to the front… I also see more people dip their hand into their wallet and head to a poker game.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TaoTe]

[ QUOTE ]

If poker is seen more of a game of skill maybe more people out there would give it a shot? Some people are against gambling, but if this is seen as more than that, then maybe it will increase the player base.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's seen as a game of skill perhaps it will be legalized nationwide.

[TaoTe]

Junk, upon junk, piled onto this piece of junk.

[Daniel Hoerr]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is seen more of a game of skill maybe more people out there would give it a shot? Some people are against gambling, but if this is seen as more than that, then maybe it will increase the player base.

[/ QUOTE ]

What Paul Phillips has to say about that...

[ QUOTE ]
While his back-to-back performances here are incredible, many will misinterpret his success and conclude that poker is much more of a skill game than it is. If thousands of people flip a coin 10 times, some of them will hit 10 heads in a row. Is it because they're really that good at flipping heads? There is probably an anti-Raymer out there somewhere, an equally talented player who has taken a bad beat in the first hour of the World Series two years running who continues to languish in obscurity. That's poker, but that's part of why we love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LINK (http://www.slate.com/id/2122188/entry/0/)

[newhizzle]

wouldnt this be bad for poker, i mean dont we want people playing poker because they think it is a game of luck and any two cards can win?

[David04]

[ QUOTE ]
wouldnt this be bad for poker, i mean dont we want people playing poker because they think it is a game of luck and any two cards can win?

[/ QUOTE ]
In my experiences, the number of people who think that they are world class poker players greatly outnumber those who say "Eh, I suck, but I win sometimes"


Hence the table coach with a 45% VP$P.

[Shaun]

A Raymer victory is the best possible scenario and it's not even close. If the same guy gets through massive fields two years in a row in the game's most prestigous event, he becomes a hero of the game. If Raymer were to pull this off it would be the greatest accomplishment in poker history. We all know how lucky someone has to be to make it through such a big field, but the public doesn't know that. If Raymer wins again, he will be elevated to almost mythical status and that is good for the game. Also, in order to keep people watching poker on TV, the game needs to have some guys who are always there. If Raymer wins, he's a legend of the game, and that is good for us, good for him, and good for poker.

Go Fossilman!

[LSUfan1]

I say let some idiot like Matusow win it....

Then everyone will think its rigged and deposit at party!