[BBP Guru]

As the Poker community congregated for the annual showdown at Binion’s, lots of big questions came up before the cards were dealt; Would the record attendance growth continue? Could the pot really be much bigger than last year’s $2.5 million? Would the established live players re-assert their hold on the game? Would the march of online players continue? Turns out the answer to all four would be yes. Attendance skyrocketed, the pot was an enormous $5 million, the top professionals were out in full force, and finally, when it was all said and done another online qualifier had taken home the big prize.

Read full article at http://www.blindbetpoker.com/wsop/2004wsop.html

[ryntur11]

Another unknown wins! This just shows that poker isnt dominated by pros. This openss the floor for many other unknown to get their peice of the money.

[Ra2005]

its going to be mighy interesting seeing how the poker trend continues in the next few years. First moneymaker got people going and the poker craze started and then with the records of people watching raymer win the next year its just amazing to see the amount of growth with this years turnout ..i think the next few years poker will be everywhere from advertising and promotions to events all over the world.


(juss testing)




hopefully the trend will continue

[W4ll4by]

Do you think greg raymer was worth winning the WSOP. I personaly think that he was a very lucky one. Won an all in with AT against the Swedes AK and won an all in with TT against AA he sure had a lot of luck

[W13rd0W]

maybe u're right but he was the leader the whole time at the final table and this year he managed to get in the last 50...don't remember what position exactly but i think in 30-31th...so you can't say he is a lucky player like moneymaker who won a tournament in his whole life...he has played very well this year..and maybe he didn't deserve to win the 2004 WSOP but a place in the top 10 is deserved...and let's not forget that poker is a sport where luck is a bigger part of the game then other sports..


Cheers,
W13rd0W

[W4ll4by]

Yes i do know that luck is a big factor and i might not think he should have won the WSOP 2004 but i think he has improved a lot since then and he is a far better player now. I wouldnt call poker a sport realy its more of a hobby or a proffesion. Greg recently was heads up against the Swedish player Ken Lenaard but he didnt won that one. Swedes are the best=) Kidding

[W13rd0W]

yes but think a little he was the chip leader so even if he lost a hand or two he wouldn't be out ...he would have remained in the tournament but with fewer chips...and after all 10 10 and A 10 aren't such bad hands...

Cheers,
W13rd0W

[W4ll4by]

no youre right they are good hands but when someone else has AA and AK its not so big percantage of winning. But i like the fact that he showed the others that anybody can win. There were alot of bullying going on at the tables. Especially one guy that taunted him all the way untill greg took him out=)

[W13rd0W]

i like his glasses lol

Cheers,
W13rd0W

[Phoenix29]

I think Greg Raymer is very well deserving of that bracelet he got in 2004 unlike Chris Moneymaker, who i still think is a fluke.

He played very well throughout the whole tourney and handled himself with class the whole time.

Altho, i was rooting for Dan Harrington to win actually coz of what hes accomplished.
3 final tables in 3 different decades, wow.

The only thing about Greg Raymer that bothered me was the Tournament of Champions.
He actually had a real good shot of winning that and yet he played so careless, like his mindset was "Well, i already won $5 million, its not like i need more".

But he almost got to the final table again this year, very very impressive.