Re: question for barry
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for Mr. Greenstein.
Barry, It seems like you have some type of personal vendetta against tournament winners and the recognition they recieve. Why is this?
The overexposure of lucky winners is good for poker because it shows that the average person can go up against the pros and get lucky once or twice for a 100k+ payday. Hence, the growth of poker.
Also, do you find the fact that the only watchable poker games are NL hold-em and possibly PL Omaha Hi bad for poker in general? (Like no interest in Limit hold-em/7 card/Omaha hi-lo).
[/ QUOTE ]
1. I, personally, get a lot of exposure and acclaim for my tournament wins. I am coddled by the media. But I feel like I should set the record straight for the professionals in casinos and side games (and even playing online poker) around the country who aren't able to travel and enter lots of tournaments. Since the media is so biased toward the tournament players for obvious reasons, I want to balance the coverage.
My vendetta started when I would see the childish antics of tournament players, which led people to think that is how professional poker players act. I would say, "That guy is not a real poker professional. He's a charicature of a poker player." In many cases, the player in question was not a winning player, but had been staked in enough tournaments to build up a resume.
2. I don't watch much poker. The poker show viewership is so diverse that I don't know what is right to show. I certainly am not a representative viewer.
Barry
|