Why "should" two, or more bracelets mean something, and to whom? Some players don't care about accumulating bracelets, and in fact prefer to fly under the radar. Stop telling other people what their preferences should be.
I did not claim that no players before the poker boom were entertainers, or that those players weren't good for the game. Some enjoyed the spotlight, or found it to be in their self interest. Many did not. None were obliged to.
I did not claim that online poker was the "sole reason" for the poker boom.
I did not claim that online poker was a more important factor than television. Instead, I suggested that the two factors worked together, and that one largely caused the other. The primary motivating factor for there being much more poker on television than before was the desire of online poker companies to buy ads to promote their product. If you watched a baseball game in the USA in that era, you'd see ads for beer, snack food, and cars. If you watched poker, almost all of the national ads were for poker sites or the network. Non-poker brands were reluctant to be associated with gambling (many still are, though the trend has been away from stigmatizing the game).
I did not claim that television hasn't benefited poker players's bottom line. My claim is that these players had no obligation to prioritize entertaining viewers over their own self-interest, and that viewers who are angry at them are acting unreasonably.
Congratulations on your sound rhetorical victory over your entirely imaginary opponent who claimed all of these things. I award you one invisible bracelet, which I have decided you should care about very much.
