WSOP champ ... can he help change the image of poker?

[The Buzz]

Casino City's own Ryan McLane wrote an excellent column about WSOP Main Event champion Jerry Yang, who openly thanked God (at least a thousand times) after winning $8.25 million at the World Series of Poker.

Ryan makes a great argument that Yang could very well help change the image of the poker player, based on his faith and his charitable nature (Yang has pledged to give 10 percent of his winnings to charity).

In the story, he notes that the Annie Duke helped organize a charity event to raise money for Darfur, and the Phil Gordon organizes a "Bad Beat on Cancer" drive, where players donate 1 percent of their winnings to cancer research.

Ryan argues that these types of generosity can help change the face of poker for those who think it is played by selfish, unethical folks. It's a good story, so give it a read and let us know what you think.

Can Yang save poker's face?

[The Buzz]

And then there's the alternate view ... The Poker King is saying that Jerry Yang is the WORST possible WSOP Main Event champ ... Buzzy won't tell you his opinion, but he can tell you that McLane thinks he's dead wrong.

http://www.poker-king.com/poker-king...hp?article=210

[GPWA Ryan]

Let me tell you why that guy's wrong...

He argues that Hevad Khan, the "hero" of the WSOP Main Event final table for the avid online poker players, would have been good for the game because he's a multi-tabling, high flying, trash talking, talented young player.

True, online players would have loved him. He's the poster boy of the online stereostype, the young gambler who risks it all and doesnt think twice about the consequences.

And that is why this arguement fails.

We, meaning the online poker community, don't need another flamboyant superstar. We're not trying to convince more players to play at the moment, we're trying to make this industry legal and regulated in the United States...so that in the future, thousands, even millions of players will come play in a safe profitable environment.

Khan is the type of person the stuffy U.S. regulators hate. To them, he's a young cocky punk, someone who didn't "work hard" to earn his money, and a bad example for today's youth. To the decision makers, Khan is the person they're trying to prevent (I dont know why, I'm a big fan of diversity and different types of attitudes in life, but some people have tunnel vision. I think Khan is amusing and worth watching).

Yang on the other hand, is the antithesis of this stereotype. He's a god-fearing family man who plays poker RECREATIONALLY. He's proof that you can enter the so-called evil realm of gambling and still come out clean, perhaps cleaner than the so-called moral leaders who think it's their mission to protect everyone from themselves.

Yang will scare them. They can't point to Yang and say, "look, a degenerate." They can't because he's not. The funny part, however, is that most gamblers ARE recreational and more online poker players are like Yang than Khan...it just doesn't seem that way because columinists, like this guy, won't stop promoting the "more interesting" lives of drug users, high rollers and financially unsound young players.

Championing Yang, a person who can win 8.25 million, donate large chunks, take care of his family and step away from poker for a while, is proof that this is possible. Maybe, by following his example, poker players can prove that most of us are responsible, yet fun loving people, and not a threat to the dense moral fabric cloaking our current lawmakers.