sadly, i think i agree w op. kinda hard to replicate the wild-west 'start' of the internet again.

Apart from some poor chap who made an incorrect assumption, nobody has said ITT that Vanessa is unmarketable.

Wow, I don't even know where to start with this

Glad were finding our way to meet in the middle...

As for that.....I guess I just meant the people that are openly against gays (westboro) or someone that would look down upon someone for being gay. I'm not saying if you dislike gays don't play poker, just keep it to yourself. Same with any other race, religion, etc. There are groups of people that to be honest are not my favorite people but at the poker table we are just there to play poker and unless you do something that makes me thing otherwise of you I just view you as another poker player.

I also know what you are saying has some weight because there are some people in this world that are ignorant and wouldn't find appeal to VS simply because of how she looks.

I still think Jason Sommerville is a good example of this and it shows, to me anyways, that perhaps we are advancing as a society.

Been fun discussing this with you. No hard feelings we just have different views.

First it's cynical and I'm not sure how I'm being cynical here but since you can't spell it I don't expect you to actually know the proper use of the word. Or were you referring to the rock band "synical"? If you were I'm not interested as rock music isn't really my thing. I'm confused?

Second I'm glad you get tilted by reading some words on the internet.

Third I'm glad you agree about the gay but honestly it sounds like you just don't like her which is fine. I don't see the compassion between her and gold at all. Are you drawing this conclusion from a few tv appearances or do you actually have first hand experience? Surely you wouldn't judge a person from something you saw on an edited TV program?

Vanessa Selbst is so smart it is scary.

Freddy Deeb is also Lebanese, and it hasn't hurt his marketability.

Hi poor chap here

please re-read the OP where he says "but especially VS because shes quite unmarketable" now granted he didn't say she was completely unmarketable but especially because she's quite unmarketable is pretty much the same thing.

also you should go read, although him and i have come to agreements, some of YappingYoda's post on the first page.

perhaps comprehension is different on your side of the pond but please tell me how they were not implying she wasn't marketable?

Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't referring to you...

He was implying that she isn't as marketable as Moneymaker.

she probably isn't...
*ducks and covers behind the trenches*

No hard feelings at all Fish Taco, it's actually nice to have a discussion and disagreement on 2+2 with someone who isn't calling me every insult in the book when they disagree with me. Unfortunately that's rare on this site. As for comments from others, I never said she was unmarketable, I just believe that as an openly gay poker play, this limits her marketability. However, as I acknowledged in a previous post, the poker community in general is more liberal than society as a whole, so she'd probably be more marketable to that subgroup of the population than the general population. Hope that clears up my opinion for anyone else who has an issue with it.

What Pete blow said Fish Taco, i said VS wont produce another poker boom like some seem to think she will regardless of what she wins.

FWIW ....i didnt even know she (or Somerville) were gay until ITT, so that shows how much such things interest me or how relevant they are. VS is quite unmarketable because of the somewhat foul way she acts in those edited moments. What she is *actually like* is basically irrelevant. Ducy

I don't mean this as a hate on VS thing btw, i have no problem with her and think loads of pros are sour and unmarketable because poker has a way of giving basically nice people ugly frustrated demeanors. (Check out 90% of the full time grinders at your local casino for examples)

^ Tis true, I was thinking the exact same thing when I was looking at the RunItOnce adverts on this site recently, every single picture of the RIO pro's made them look miserable. You'd think that the photographer would have told them to smile. Maybe they've grinded so hard that they're incapable of smiling and thus permanently have that dour poker face.

I don't think this is true at all. It's probably the toughest it has ever been.

Harrah's Philly has some of the softest games I've ever played in. I can't comment on anything other than that or AC (still soft but not as soft as Harrah's Philly) .

Guess its different everywhere but logic would dictate its gotten harder surely. We have one casino in auckland which ran 8-10 very soft tables weekdays around 2007. Now its 2 tables normally and only 2-3 real marks at each one. If you are lucky.

In his first post, that's pretty much exactly what he said - that was the whole point of my post. He used an estimate of 10% of the population being gay, and then said "It's pretty hard to start a new poker boom by influencing at most 10% of the population" (emphasis mine).

LOL, what? Do you know what out of context means?

Rather than quoting your entire posts and highlighting the contradictions, I simply quoted those portions. Had I then used those snippets to mean something other than what you intended, I'd have been using them out of context. If that's what I did, please let me know how I did so.

And I was in no way implying that everything you said was false, just that you had changed your stance - I'd say the second post I quoted was pretty accurate, aside from the first sentence.

There will never be a boom like the one we saw when the stars aligned to bring us chris moneymaker, online poker, hole card cams, etc. in the u.s. I think a global or regional poker boom is certainly possible, for instance if california legalizes online poker, if you don't think those games will be soft as butter, you've never played at the commerce

While there may never be another poker boom, at least the boom of ****ty boom threads will never die.

Also a normal marketable guy (ala chris moneymaker before the fame) to win the main event would sure help alot. I'm not talking about a college kid who talks about 4 betting air, a guys "range" etc. The public doesn't relate to this, they relate to sammy farha, moneymaker, or hell even total lucksack nerds who are horrible like varkonyi.

I don't know about unmarketable, but i wouldn't exactly call a girl with zero sex appeal, an abrasive know it all personality, exactly the kind of thing marketing companies and execs would drool over when trying to market poker to the masses, or moreso to females. In fact im not sure really any of the pro women (even the attractive ones) would be a real star (though surely more marketable than vanessa). An amateur attractive female with a midwest personality is a completely different story...

Trust me it's not the fact that shes gay, its the fact that she's unattractive and also the fact that her personality is a know it all personality (because she is highly intelligent, and this helps her obviously with reads, but that crap doesn't market to normal people).

What if the winner of the 2016 main event was female, reasonably hot and gay? I think she *could* be marketable

i think we'll have another huge boom if the conditions are ideal...

BUT,

i don't think you'll find large % of the player pool very clueless like it was from 2003 to 2007 or so... i think everyone knows basic strategy these days. mostly old guys with money i see that just bleed money these days.

lolz

What if moneymaker satellites into the one drop and wins