7a. Cant trust him!
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:31 pm ((PDT))A little off the subject but all the 2007-WSOP press reminded me of a
observation I made last year. Is it just me or does last years winner,
Jamie Gold, look like a complete weasel! The guy looks like some shady
character trying to swindle some rich widower in a lifetime channel
movie! I found his subtle condescention ,smug grins, and glib remarks
quite irritating! It may sound like sour grapes, but I was really
pulling for Greg Raymer in '04 and I wouldnt mind being '05 winner
Dominick Hachem for a day (handsome, cool australian accent, and WSOP
champion!). Id love to see a likable regular Joe win it all this year
rather than a weasly-eyed grifter who got tutored by Johny Chan
beacuse he did a documentary on him! Just some quick thoughts, would
love yalls input, esp. those of you who play live poker.
I play poker and follow the television coverage of tournaments as thoroughly as I can (it's almost impossible to get them all, and some have their episodes labeled ONLY by the tournament's name, so you don't know if it's a repeat or not and can't follow without checking every single broadcast and re-run).
I play in a social game once a month with others who are mostly similar fans of the television coverage, and so we occasionally talk about such matters, and they mostly agree with my points of view below.
Jamie Gold is not the first person of less than stellar character to win the main event, while, on the other hand, there are some real gentlemen who are great ambassadors for the game who are well-known, some of whom have won it and some of whom have not.
Of course, Gold got immediate bad press, apparently deserved, when it appeared that he "weasled" out of a promise to share his winnings with someone. The resulting lawsuit tied up the promised half of his winnings until settled, with part of the settlement apparently being a "gag order" on what the deal was.
Moneymaker, if you read his own book, seems to describe himself as pretty much of a degenerate gambler with a borderline drinking problem, at least that was the impression he left me with.
Raymer is great for the game, and has proved his staying power with continued good performance in a variety of tournaments. Hachem is interesting, and also has proved his staying power, but gets a little "in-your-face" too much for me -- it doesn't add anything to the game.
Either a regular guy such as Dannemann who finished second to Hachem would be good for the tournament and for the image of poker, or even one of the pro's who behaves him or herself.
But in such a large field, the element of luck comes up repeatedly, and there's no guarantee that anyone "deserving" will win -- but at least there's an excellent chance that if they're NOT "deserving", they will not likely be seen at a final table again anytime soon.
Much of Gold's problems are just his background - Hollywood deal-maker. While there are some fine individuals in that field, I'm sure, it strikes me to be more like a name-dropping used car salesman. But it's not my field, and it's entirely possible he's highly respected in his regular profession -- in which case my impression is wrong.
I'd put my money on an unknown, just because that's the bulk of the field, and the chances of a known entity winning, while better than an unknown, are not so much better as to make that small portion of the field a real favorite.
--BG
···
===========