The main event of the World Series of Poker ended early this morning with a whimper. New champion Jamie Gold ran over the final table, with barely an obstacle in his way. Even more amazing is that he dominated the entire tournament from like 500 people all the way down to the end. He seemed to have the right cards at the right time every time, in a manner that must have been sickening to those losing to him. If they had JJ, he had QQ, if they had TT, he played KJ and hit a K. If they had AQ and the flop came KQ6, he had Q6. Just sick.

That said, he did play a fantastic big stack, using his chips to cow opponents into folding without having to show many hands. He also tried to use his table talk to put opponents off balance. Whether it helped him, or he just got lucky, he still won. Personally I found his table etiquette to be atrocious, but what do I know? I can't even afford the buyin to that tournament, much less expect to win.

Here's what I'm really wondering. What were the ratings like? They broadcast the final table live for $24.95 on PayPerView and online. There were no hole card shots like in the usual taped and edited events you see on ESPN and the Travel Channel, obviously to avoid the chance of cheating. Phil Gordon and some random dude I never heard of hosted, along with a parade of big-name players who helped to provide analysis and play paper-rock-scissors for $100 a hand.

The show started yesterday at about 5pm EDT, and ended early this morning at 6:45. Someone somehow must have hacked a feed, because a link to a free feed started showing up on poker forums around 7 or 8, though I'd need to verify that before you can quote me. Many people picked well-known pro and four-time bracelet winner Allen Cunningham to win going in to the final table, but he went out in 4th at about 6 am. I know that's when I lost interest and decided to go to sleep. How many other people turned it off then? Were the ratings good enough to try again? Honestly, I just don't see people wanting to pay for a live feed for anything but the Main Event, but if the ratings were good, I'm sure they'll try other events. I suppose I'd be interested in seeing a final table from another event if it included a bunch of big names. I don't think I would have wanted to watch this one if not for Cunningham being in.

That's the edge poker has to maintain. Sure, it's cool to know that normal guys can make the final table and even win (FYI, one woman has made a final table of the Main Event, none have won), like Chris Moneymaker a few years ago, but at the same time, who wants to watch a final table full of people they never heard of? An interesting aspect of the poker boom is that there are a lot of really smart people out there that have gotten interested in the game. Some of these people may be absolute naturals who never would have discovered their talent if not for the hole card cam and the Moneymaker win starting the poker boom, but they'll win, and they'll win a lot, and we may not know the names of many of the winners. Will people tire of that and the boom fade away through lack of interest? Or will people get tired of losing, and the boom will fade through lack of new money coming in?