Why does God hate Lee Watkinson?

[Kurn]

Still better to see Jerry Yang, his family, and some good charities get $, instead of Jamie f'n Gold.

No its not. What the winner does with the money is completely irrelevant.

[Reel Deal]

I don't really agree with that when there is an effort out there to ban internet gambling/poker. If someone who wins a major poker tournament gets good press (ie, Yang and his charitible contributions) as opposed to bad press (ie, Gold and his legal battles), I think that helps the cause. Might not help it a lot but I wouldn't call it completely irrelevant.

[Kurn]

I don't think how much the winner of a B&M poker tournament gives to charity will effect legislation on internet gambling (which is more about sports betting to most people) one bit, but I guess every little bit helps.

Being realistic, though, how many Frist/Goodlatte supporting social conservatives even watch the WSOP? And even if they did would they be more likely to soften on poker because of Jerry Yang, or be more likely to criticize Jerry Yang because of poker?

That being said. I meant my comment to mean it is irrelevant to me as a spectator what the winner will do with his money? I mean, this whole judgmental "do good with the money" mentality reinforces the flawed "the collective is its brother's keeper" mentality that leads to Frist/Goodlatte/Frank (yes- HE wants to tell you how to live, too) mentality.

-rant off.

[drewjax]

Ummmm, ok.

Its not better for some worth charities to get some money, as opposed to that tool (originally from f'n Jersey, hmmm)

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Kurn]

Uh, I believe Gold gave a sizable sum to some cancer charities. But that's not the issue. Whoever wins, its his money. What he does with it is none of my business.

BTW, I'm from NJ.

[Talking Poker]

Can't say I really get Kurn's stance on this. I mean, being indifferent is one thing, but who in their right mind wouldn't rather see ANY money (whether it be from poker, Bill Gates' back pocket, or whatever) go to good causes rather than to _______?

For the stories they showed on ESPN, I would have rather seen Tuan Lam win, since I think he would have put the money to better use (building a temple in Viet Nam and feeding hungry people) than Yang will. But Yang's "plans" for the money are certainly much better than someone who wouldn't give any of it to charity.

[Kurn]

But indifferent is exactly what I am to what the winner does with the money. Remember, my original statement was that what he does with the money is irrelevant. That offers no value judgment one way or the other.

*Good causes* is the tough part. Maybe what person x thinks is a good cause, person y thinks is terrible.

It's also not a bad thing to use the money to make yourself and your family happy and not give to charity. I would never assume to say someone who took that route was a bad person, nor would I root against a guy just because he didn't have altruistic plans for his winnings. It's very tough for me to be swayed one way or the other, especially when the only information I have comes from TV sound bites.

So, no. I don't care one iota what he does with it. In fact, I'd find it refreshingly honest if some guy at the final table was asked what he'd do with his winnings would simply answer "hookers and blow, baby."

[melioris]

ok, everyone stop for a minute, take a deep breathe and clear your mind. Kurn has said something really interesting and each of us has to take a minute to appreciate it in our own terms.


You can imagine the 'hookers and coke' bender that a WSOP paycheck could support?

Got that image in your mind? Good. That is why Ungar was so great, 'cause he did it.

[Reel Deal]

You wouldn't have to pay for the first part of that equation... the gold-digger-hos would be lined up at your door.

[drewjax]

I respectuly disagree with you here Kurn. Its just differing opinions. But your last post made me actually LOL.