November 9 comment follow ups

I got some comments on the Nov 9 post that I wanted to address. Nothing special or Profound but I have nothing else to write. It's dreary here, Friday, and I have 113 kids running around. So I may as well do something :)

Hoy responded that because Ivey is at the final table this year, it will add auto growth to the ME in 2010.

I have heard a lot of reasons why those who play the "circuit" don't play the Main. One of the biggest is the fact that it's so big that the main becomes a luck box tournament, regardless of it's structure, and why would they waste 10k (call it a cop out if you want). I can see that point of view chasing guys back when Ivey is sitting there this year. It is afterall the Main Event. But those players are few and far between. And any increase in playership next year will have a number of factors to point to. I doubt one man will have any effect on a notable increase. but I get his point.

Bam wrote a whole post with his response. I answered in his comments, but for the long an short of it he referred to NASCAR being born out of the illegal booze runners. It's a valiant attempt to show why an immoral activity can grow into a mainstream sport. But there are two issues with that. One, being illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's immoral. Alcohol has never been immoral in our country (for whatever reason). But I answered in his post so go read.

Gorilla stated that high line sponsorship could be attained with high level stars. He compared it with Woods and Federer. Again, it's not so much about the pitchman, moreso with the audience he is selling to, and the vertical he is pitching from.

Baywolfe makes a great point as well by noting that Schulman is there also. Anyone paying attention long enough to poker knows who Schulman is. This could be the worst thing for the WSOP. He has claimed that he will throw the bracelet out if he wins in protest of Harrah's. Now, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Sure. But the firestorm this will cause... The whole focus of someone winning the World Championship will be taken away and be put on a pissing match between the WSOP and Cardplayer. Yeah, that oughta be GREAT! for poker.

With all of the crap poker has to wade through to gain some sort of credibility with not only mom and dad America, but with companies who would want nothing more than to be able to attract that whole 50 million person pool who play (with every conceivable demographic to shop their wares without the risk of alienating their brand because they are promoting gambling), you would expect a hero, or Ivey in this case to be the Knight in Shining Armor. I just don't see it.

So for now, players will stick with sponosrhips from online sites, Corem watches (as Doc said), and stupid energy drinks no one consumes.

Poker is a paradox. After a while, it's not just about the money. Everyone wants to play and win big dollars. But it's not enough to just win the money. They want to be able to have won it the right way. Does it really matter? Ask Jamie Gold.

I reckon that having Ivey there gives credence to that thought. Therefore, by default, being good for poker. I agree.

But I think I've been clear that being good for poker is one thing. Having an effect that will increse numbers, bring poker mainstream (or even acceptable as a mainstream contest), or even massively change the face of how poker is viewed in the long run will be obtained by having Ivey at this final table is just not going to happen. It's going to take a whole lot more.