Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well anyway... ROOT FOR IVEY!!!!! I promise its the best thing for poker if he wins... If Ivey wins, the ratings on the ESPN show will be so rediculous, you wont even have to be a winning player anymore to make a living playing poker..... so GO PHIL IVEY!!!!!!!!!!!

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can u be losing poker player make a living playing poker? I think i know what he meant, but in his hyper active over reacting way he said it like a retard. I lost all respect for this guy when i saw him breat a player for calling him with a draw during a side game at the taj.

Will iveys win broaden the scope of poker... i think pokers having no problem broadening its target audience now, will ivey winning make that big of a difference maybe?

And being a winning player is a constantly changing spectrum depending on your opponents ur play and ur mind set.

Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he should learn how to spell

[/ QUOTE ]
That request is rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

funniest post of the day.

[/ QUOTE ]

definately

[/ QUOTE ]

you should learn how to spell. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he should learn how to spell

[/ QUOTE ]
That request is rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

funniest post of the day.

[/ QUOTE ]


slow day?

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, some people get it for a great point by point analysis of the play of a hand, or for discussing a new way to play a big stack in an MTT. I get it for being a sarcastic dick. 2+2, I love ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the subtle humor, gets me everytime.

Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how it can be the best thing for poker. Wouldn't it just prove that you have to be a top player to do well? I'm confused by his statement completely. I don't see any logic in it. Would Sammy Farha winning in 2003 have been better for poker than Moneymaker?

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, Varkonyi, Moneymaker, etc. have already won, and everybody knows it. There's no need to prove to the public, yet again, that "anyone can win."

Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

When I hear about what is good for poker I think of what will bring the most uneducated and most inexperienced money into the system for experienced players to take. Given that premise, I would say that the best two possible 2005 WSOP outcomes would be:

1. A total unknown wins it (ala Moneymaker)
2. Raymer wins it again (or Moneymaker but he's already out right?)

I'm not sure which order they should be in though. I can see it either way.

Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would Sammy Farha winning in 2003 have been better for poker than Moneymaker?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't be serious with this question. moneymaker winning in 2003, in conjunction with the huge ratings jump for the world series on espn, was easily the single greatest thing to happen for poker's popularity

FWIW im with the consensus that Ivey winning (or finishing very strong) would be the best thing for poker in terms of keeping the popularity train going.
the way josh worded it was pretty stupid though. that guy can be a real idiot.

Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

I agree with Arieh.

An unknown (in so far as Greg was "unknown" a year ago) has won three years in a row. It's not like its necessary for somebody else to step forward and win in order for people to believe its possible.

The poker industry has generally done a good job creating and marketing a pantheon of stars. But if Ivey wins it will have its first real superstar, one that is telegenic, young, and a bona fide great all around poker player.

Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would Sammy Farha winning in 2003 have been better for poker than Moneymaker?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't be serious with this question. moneymaker winning in 2003, in conjunction with the huge ratings jump for the world series on espn, was easily the single greatest thing to happen for poker's popularity

FWIW im with the consensus that Ivey winning (or finishing very strong) would be the best thing for poker in terms of keeping the popularity train going.
the way josh worded it was pretty stupid though. that guy can be a real idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not serious. It's a rhetorical question.

Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would Sammy Farha winning in 2003 have been better for poker than Moneymaker?

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't be serious with this question. moneymaker winning in 2003, in conjunction with the huge ratings jump for the world series on espn, was easily the single greatest thing to happen for poker's popularity

FWIW im with the consensus that Ivey winning (or finishing very strong) would be the best thing for poker in terms of keeping the popularity train going.
the way josh worded it was pretty stupid though. that guy can be a real idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not serious. It's a rhetorical question.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. well my point is i can't even imagine a world in which moneymaker didn't win in 2003. it totally ushered in a new era of poker.

i'm not glorifying him btw, but years from now when we look back, i think it will be a watershed moment

Re: From Josh Arieh\'s website
 

I agree with you.