Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth
The Raymer impact was not permanent in the sense that people are still talking about him as they do with Moneymaker. But when it happened it was very strong.
Mason
I would argue what you call "the Raymer effect" (a phrase no one has ever used before) was basically caused by this:
1) Me, a casual, watches Moneymaker win in 2003
2) Me, a casual, starts playing poker because if that redneck hick can do it I can too
3) Me, a casual starts doing ok and telling my friends all year how fun poker is and how I'm winning money
4) My friends, all casuals, get intrigued
5) We, all casuals, watch 2004 WSOP. The Raymer-Matusow feud is entertaining as hell and comes to an incredible conclusion with brutal raw emotion with the "bad guy" losing. Raymer's at least has something memorable with his goofy glasses. The final comes down to a sort of everyman in Raymer, a POC in Williams and a cool pro in Arieh - something for everyone
6) We, all casuals, really pick up poker seriously, tell all our friends, and it just multiplies from there
2004 WSOP was a great log to put on a fire that was just starting to really burn. Had 2004 been some random schmo winning, it wouldn't have been as cool, but I don't think it would have really hindered the growth of poker that much.