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

Uglyowl · #1 07-12-2005, 11:03 AM

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 · #2 07-12-2005, 11:06 AM

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

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

TStoneMBD · #3 07-12-2005, 11:08 AM

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

TheMainEvent · #4 07-12-2005, 11:08 AM

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 · #5 07-12-2005, 11:09 AM

[ 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

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Uglyowl · #6 07-12-2005, 11:12 AM

[ 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 · #7 07-12-2005, 11:15 AM

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

TStoneMBD · #8 07-12-2005, 11:17 AM

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 · #9 07-12-2005, 01:00 PM

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 · #10 07-12-2005, 01:09 PM

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.