[swarm]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Raymer winning it will be terrible for poker. if people realize that poker is more a game of skill than luck, they'll be less likely to gamble when they do play... and they might actually start studying poker.

doesn't that thought send a chill down your spine?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this ME is perfect in the sense that you have a diverse mix of top regarded pros (Ivey, Matasow, Raymer) sharing the leaderboard with self-proclaimed "luckboxes" who somehow find themselves one of the last 27 people in the tournament (Steve Danneman (read the article in another thread) and Tiffany Williamson). This showcases that poker has skill but it also reinforces the fantasy that anyone can win given the right cards.

If you have all pro's at the end then people think there is too much advantage. All nobody's and people view it as a complete toss up and it becomes less interesting. What makes poker great right now is complete unknowns will be batteling with top of the line pros for LARGE amounts of cash. Who doesn't dream of flopping a set and taken down a big pot from Ivey or Raymer...

With Ivey (people love wathcing Ivey), Raymer(defending champ run, always a great story) and Matasow (ever entertaing) at the top most of the way they are going to have great TV. Throw in the group of wildcards they have they have endless angles to shoot with Tiffany(amature woman, this has never happened before, only pro women have made this kind of run), Daneman (seems to be quite the character, kind of a Ellix Powers who uses unorthodox techniques to tilt his table).