[QUOTE=Also he has no e-mail address, credit card, doesn't play online, and no plans for the money. I don't think Darvin Moon is a real person...[/QUOTE]

LMFAO - I think you're on to something

Don't know if this is a level or not. I am refering to opponents of the Frank poker legislation. Ivey is easily the most recognizable face in the game to the average non poker player. Him winning gives credence to repealing the UIEGA and regulating poker. I think this is indisputable.

He is? Because of his million different ventures away from the table, Hellmuth has more mainstream recognition among the general public than Ivey IMO. I would even say Doyle is more well known among the non-poker playing public because of Super System and the fact that he has been playing for 50 years.

Darvin Moon vs Phil Ivey in a Chip Reese vs Andy Bloch style HU game, would be awesome. With Ivey winning.

Those of us in the game have a hard time seeing the reality. But my mom knows who Phil Ivey is. The Tiger Woods of poker etc. Phil Hellmuth is a blip on the radar of the average non poker player. Doyle is debatable but comes in second. Ivey is the most recognizable face to the average non poker player.

I disagree about your disagreement. I think that if many Americans realized that poker IS indeed a game of skill, the games would dry up. Many would fear playing against the so called pros. And those who would play would probably become students of the game, which in turn would make the games much more difficult to beat. It is much better to have most people believe that the game is mostly luck.

I understand your point about the Frank legislation getting passed, however I think that there is a trade off there.

The illusion of poker being a game of mostly luck is what makes it profitable for the pros.

I didn't think about this earlier, but if you are talking strictly non-poker fans, Annie Duke beats Ivey, Hellmuth and Doyle because of the Apprentice IMO.

definition of luckbox.

I disagree with your disagreement about me disagreeing. Wat? I think that the Moneymaker win as well as numerous other donkament wins by amatuers is enough for the general public to continue with the belief that "it could happen to me." The lotto mentality is alive and well. That is all that is really required to keep new blood coming into the game. That and a fun and competitive atmosphere.

Most people are morons and despite the overwhelming amount of literature available and the ability to improve your play exponentially very quickly, the tables are still filled with terrible players. More players is better for poker. Period. Yes, some will educate themselves but the vast majority will continue to blindly donate and at the very least have a much steeper learning curve than those of us already with years of experience and millions of hands under our belts.

The fact is that for poker to take the next step and gain even wider spread acceptance, the final hurdle is the exact opposite of what you are endorsing. Only when it is truly viewed as a game of skill with an element of luck, by both the politicians and the masses, will poker become what I hope it can be.

Oh and people don't hate "playing with the pros." All one needs to do is look at the waiting list on low limit tables for people waiting to donate their money to Full Tilt "pros" to realize this is false.

Not so Starvin' Darvin

Ivey winning would be good for the Vegas economy. Not so much the poker economy though

Pretty sure Ivey is doing whatever the **** he wants right now as it is. Don't think a few more million is going to change that. If you really don't think Ivey winning is good for the overall poker economy than you aren't paying attention.

i meant in the actual money that is paid out.

Clarify this statement please. Are you saying the money paid to Ivey will benefit the Vegas economy? I highly doubt that 1st place prize money is going to have Ivey living any differently than he does right now. Maybe craps dealers will get tipped a little better but that is about it.

I am confused about what you are saying and even more confused that after I present what I believe is a great arguement on the benefits of Ivey winning, people still seem to think it is better if he doesn't.

I would love to hear some real logic to that statement that I haven't already debunked in my previous posts.

I've got one quick question for the people who are saying that one of the reasons DM winning would be bad is that he wouldn't put the money back into the "poker economy"

If Ivey is the best player in the world, then that means he is at the very tippy-top of the poker pyramid/food chain. The money he wins, for the most part, stays his, because he's the best, right? So how would Ivey winning benefit the "poker economy" any more than Darvin winning?

Either way, none of us closer to the bottom of the food chain will ever get our grubby little hands on any of it.


Now if you want to talk about Ivey's winning benefiting the "craps economy", or the "sports betting" economy or the "crazy insane prop betting" economy, then you may be on to something.

Okay, fair point. I retract vis-a-vis your pointing out this is just the "usual 7%" and nothing more.

LOL

good jokes in heeerrrr its a prediction piece on all 9 of them. Lol @ Cada being on shrooms for the FT

Sorry, but this is just wrong. Ask random non poker playing people, and they not only know Hellmuth, they think he is widely recognized as the game's best player. Ivey is not nearly as well known to the general public, sadly. This could change somewhat with the exposure he's getting as we approach the final table.

yeah i even said wow he played it good.

He is def. a smart guy, maybe not the best poker player, but he will do alright. He just wants to play it out himself, and is a very humble guy.

You are contradicting yourself. People cannot believe it is a game of skill with element of luck and need Ivey to win at the same time. Ivey will need a great deal of luck to win and has already needed a great deal of luck to get to where he is now. Meanwhile if the public is to believe it is a game of skill, Moon and all the others must have a great deal of skill to make the final table already. If Ivey has so much more skill than everybody else that he needs to win to prove how important skill is, he should have won already in a prior year, or at least have final tabled.

According to this article, Hellmuth is the most widely known player. His Q score falls below Negreanu and Ivey because of his lack of likability.

This is basically what I was trying to say. That money is out of play as far as winning it from him playing poker is concerned. At least Ivey is a spender, so it will do someone else some good also.

Granted it might be better if one of the young tourny guys won it but they will win enough anyways to play the cricuit anyways.

I don't play big tournies so I will be happy if it stays in town and the more the person spends, the better. I know Ivey has a ton of money anyways but surely a 8.5 million add on might provide for some added spending around town.

It's all different in the US than here in little 'ol Aus.
I'd say 95% of Australians wouldn't even know who Joe Hachem is let alone Phil Hellmuth or Phil Ivey and wouldn't even know there was such a thing as the WSOP.

I'll always remember when I first saw that Poker was going to be on TV (about 4 years ago). I thought I was being levelled....or that is was some sort of joke. I found it hilarious.

20,000 sng's on Stars later I can't get enough of it.

If he doesn't have a plan for the money, his wife will hold it down for them. I got a plan for win i hit the mega millions nxt month. btw how do you reserve a hotel room/rental car without a credit card, and how do you get the online confirmation# sent to you without email. This is not right! He's a Saints fan, and he's an american dammit- everybody is required to have some credit card bills here. That's not right and 6 footer Drew Brees is too short to be a QB in the NFL! True dat.