Not necessarily, but if Ivey wins people will say it's because he's the best in the world. If Darvin Moon wins, it's because he was hit in the head with the deck/went on a heater. I'm not saying that's how it will be in reality, but that's how people will look at it and spin it.

Over the long haul it's a game of skill, short term, any given table...

Economy issues and over saturation of BAD poker shows aren't helpful.

Right now, I think poker might be on a down swing, I don't think it matters right now who wins.

I'm hoping the Nov 9 concept gets deep sixed before I get there, I don't want to be a nervous wreck for 4 months.

In a way, yes it does.... Phil Ivey is one of the most proven poker players in the world! For him to win the WSOP ME against this large of a field, you would be an idiot to think that poker is only a game of luck and not of skill. Its called basic common sense!

Now if Darvin Moon stays on his sick heater and wins, then the argument for poker being a game of luck still stands for most people that don't have a true understanding of the game. If "Darvin Moon can get LUCKY enough to beat Phil Ivey then so can I", this will be the feeling of most people. The opinion of poker that people will have after watching Darvin win will not help in legitimising poker as a game of skill. Without poker being looked at as a legitimate game of skill, online poker will never be 100% legal in the USA. Isn't it all of our wish to have online poker legal in the USA? The answer is yes, Darvin Moon will not help things he will make it worse! If Ivey wins it will help, not much, but it will help change the opinion of some people.

in order of how good they are:

james akenhead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phil ivey > schulman > anyone else > joe cada not wearing ub stuff >>>>>>>>>>>>joe cada wearing ub stuff

lemme take another stab here...if ivey "wins",the new money at the lower stakes might be scared off because winning looks impossible.On the other hand,the super rich new money would be rushing to the high stakes games because they want to hang out with the "cool" guys even though their odds of winning no longer makes it profitable for them to call?

Since when is an accountant a blue-collar worker?

when they get in s**tloads of debt and have goobers for fathers

i hope moon wins...

Can't see him having much of an effect on the poker world. Apart from the obligatory appearances on HSP and the like.

it's a split imo between good/so-so/bad.

so basically it's 50/50/50%

don't think it will change poker much. only thing preventing the ME from exploding to 10k entrants is the uigea

Glad to see Kirby is back in action and contributing strong constructive anaylsis that 2+2 has been sorely missing. Holy crap that is bad even if it were meant to be funny.

Low skill luckboxes are annoying enough but throw in douchebagery to boot and I wanna take a 5 iron to the drywall.
Gold - ...really don't need to elaborate. O'l Mr. Top-Top has a special place in all of our hearts.
Moon - Newbie aw-shucks good o'l boy is hard to hate...at first. But I've been living in the south for the past 3 years and am so tilted by these country bumpkin, talk slow, gee whiz, golly, toothless, inbred bible thumping, pickup driving, tobacco spitting morons...that seeing this guy ride a heater from god while nuking far, far, far better players...makes me hope he takes some horrible beats at the final table and finishes 8 at best.
Am I the only one that hates Moon?

What's with all the moon hate? He keeps it real, he knows he is on a sick heater and he is not some random douchebag who thinks he is better than anyone else, he is just getting hit by the deck, do you want him to fold his aces?

*cricketcricket*

Wow, that is one seriously impressive display of stereotyping there. I'm rooting for the guy now, if only so you'll destroy your lousy house, which apparently has exposed drywall.

dunno if this thought was mentioned, but as the popularity of the game has declined from its peak a couple of years back, if he wins it seems to me we could have a poker 'rebound' of sorts. he seems like a guy youd often encounter at your 1/2NL game at your local casino: blue collar, laid back, plays for fun couple times a month but has no real interest in playing bigger stakes or any sort of glory...just there because its fun, and at the end of the night go home to wife and kids and head to work monday morning. seems like wed see a lot more of this type of genuine casual player show up to casinos.

+1. We want new people playing. Phil Ivey winning the main event may be like validating poker skill for some of us, but it isnt "good for poker" because it gives the exact opposite message from what we want to be given. We want people to think "wow, anyone can win, even me!", right?

Must be good for poker.But im holding fingers for Ivey

2004 Raymer great for poker, solid player, decent human being.

2005 Hachem, A-hole, not great for poker

2006 Jamie Gold, total douchbag and liar, about as good as Hachem.

2007 Jerry Yang, would have been better w/o his Christian posturings, pretty neutral.

2008 Peter Eastgate, typical no-personality Euro, neutral

2009 Darvin Moon, great for poker... Ivey, although unlikely, great for poker also.

I also believe that hockey strike should get more credit for causing the poker boom than Moneymaker.

I don't think it would matter a whole lot who won it.

It all comes down to the visibility of the game and it being ingrained into popular culture. Ivey winning will be best for poker because it will get much more media than if someone else wins. Anyone else winning it likely won't make as big of a headline.

I can see every media outlet whipping out their WSOP ME template for their 4th page news article. "Unknown wins World Series of Poker"....(just like every year)

WRONG!

Hachem winning caused it's own mini poker boom in Australia. Not disputing his doucheyness, but him winning was ****ing great for poker sir.

If Moon wins (which I highly doubt he will) it will help poker similar like the moneymaker win, not as huge though, it will give the average fish hope that he too has a shot at winning 8 million, also it will give the impression that poker is all about luck which is a good reason for a random fish to get interested and start playing poker.

those who have a highanded and earnest attitude of place are low imo. NWIM?

This. X10000. The entire thing for about 7 or 8 years has simply been a contest to see who can run hottest with the deck for a week's worth of 11 hour playing days.

Also, I think way too many people are drawing a direct correlation between the person who wins and the number of people who subsequently take up the game. The game grows in popularity because of it's presence on TV, which leads to people doing it themselves because it's easy to organize a game and *seems* even easier to be good at. The individual person who wins or does well doesn't make a ton of difference. People didn't go bananas wanting to play post 2003 because it was unknown accountant Moneymaker who won, they went bananas about playing because a game completely new to them was beamed into their living room and was easy to copy.

Look up VectorWega's posts.