RGP analysis brilliance, Fossilman

[Easy E]

though I get the sense this poster was being sarcastic, given the thread author

http://tinyurl.com/5xd2f

<font color="green">Scooby Feb 21, 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: Why moneymaker has nothing to do with the poker craze


1. Moneymaker is singlehandedly responsible for the current poker boom.
2. This year's ESPN production was below par, both in production and the final result (Raymer is no Moneymaker). </font>

I know that hurts, Fossilman.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
though I get the sense this poster was being sarcastic, given the thread author

http://tinyurl.com/5xd2f

<font color="green">Scooby Feb 21, 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: Why moneymaker has nothing to do with the poker craze


1. Moneymaker is singlehandedly responsible for the current poker boom.
2. This year's ESPN production was below par, both in production and the final result (Raymer is no Moneymaker). </font>

I know that hurts, Fossilman.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing that really hurts is the production value of the commercials they are in together. I'm sure they are definitely getting paid enough that looking a bit silly in the commercials doesn't mean much to them, but those commercials are horrible.

As for the actual quotes contents:

Shrug, that is about par for RGP these days. At least the author made it to two bullets without repeating though.

[Daliman]

It's true, Raymer IS no Moneymaker. Here's why.

#1 MM was the first player ever to have such a significant portion of his play during a tournament captured with hole cards showing.
#2 His name is perfect.
#3 He had the "everyman" quality about him. Accountant from tennessee. Sure, fossilman is patent attorney from new england(?), but he's also a top foxwoods player at 100-200.
#4 MM's performance climaxed at the perfect time, 1 hand before the final shown hand. Fossilman's climax, while more satisfying for the viewer, came 3-4 episodes sooner.
#4 MM had a lot of great give and take hands shown. Fossilman had about 4.
#5 MM had David vs. Goliath going for him. Fossilman SLEW David, literally AND figuratively David.
#6 MM had a great Aw Shucks quality about him. Fossilman comes off as kind of a smart nerd who has accepted his nerdiness.
#7 MM was the first, therefore there can be only one.


The rest of the post is dumb. He had a part in it, although it was just as much/more ESPN and WPT doing so much coverage, along with the hole card cams and Positively Fifth street. If it was up to me, )and since it's my post it is..), i'd put the credit %'s as;

50% Massive WPT/WSOP coverage
30% Hole card cams
10% Chris Moneymaker.
5% Positively Fifth street.
5% Viability and availability of poker in the internet

The production levels were ok, just too much preflop allin races shown and not enough "play". Most of the nuts stuff was unnecessary and unwanted. The final result was the best man won. What more do they want?

[KennyBanya]

I agree with almost everything Daliman said. I would argue that Rounders deserves at least 5% somewhere in that breakdown by percentage, possibly more.

I think it is fair to say Moneymaker would not have been at the WSOP main event without Rounders.

One more point when comparing Moneymaker's fame to Fossilman's, I thought ESPN told a much more compelling story in 2003 than 2004. Maybe because they devoted 2 hours to the final table, or maybe the play just happened to be more interesting in 2003.

KennyBanya

[ClassicBob]

That's gold Kenny! GOLD!

[Easy E]

I think Fossilman's final table only lasted for about 40 hands or so, right? Not much to work with there.

[Daliman]

Good points. Coupla precent from WPT/WSOP to rounders, although it was 5 years or so earlier.

I'll take ya ta Mende's, BUT THIS IS DINNER!

[kutuz_off]

I'd also add that Sammy Farha has very nice villain air about him. A 27(?) year old accountant slays a persian dark character in an epic battle in the middle of a desert. This is the stuff straight from Arabian Nights.

[TimTimSalabim]

Moneymaker's story was like a Hollywood movie. Here's a kid who hasn't played in a live tourney before. He heads out to the WSOP, is intimidated by the pros at first, gradually gets more and more confidence each day until he's finally making moves on the top pros himself, culminated by the duel against Farha where he pulls off the bluff of the tournament. It was Rocky-like. And it sent every twentysomething watching to their nearest cardroom in search of fame and fortune.

[onthebutton]

Raymer's final table wasn't all that fun to watch to the uninitiated, which is what most people watching on ESPN are. It was a fantastic display of big-stack, brute force poker aggression. Raymer eliminated player after player, and was in command from the beginning.

Moneymaker's was much more of a battle, he came from behind, and someone said it best. Farha was the perfect arch-enemy lounge lizard type for the good old boy from TN playing in his first poker tournament to beat. It was like a movie script---kind of like Mike against KGB in Rounders, huh?

[toots]

Definitely.

Raymer wins points for being the professional poker shark. MM wins "Jimmy Stewart goes to the big poker match" points.

No comparing the two. Raymer's the better player, but MM was the better story.

[whiskeytown]

I agree with one part of that post in particular.

ESPN's poor production. Why in the hell would they take what was a 2 hr. final table show and reduce it to one hr? -I'm especially thinking of Raymer's all in vs Ariah that took 5 min - WTF was up with leaving that out? did we use up all the hrs. on that stupid limit holdem game instead with the homeless guy and McManus?

another hr. of fossilman kicking ass would have been cool - especially the shorthanded plays that went on.

RB

[pokerpairs]

Poker is where it is at now for 2 reasons pocket cams and rounders. Everything now is a direct result of pocket cams. The 50% you gave for tv coverage is a direct result of poket cams. And I would give 10% to moneymaker, 10% to rounders,and the rest to pocket cams. (Possibly more to rounders). Raymer is a excellent player and better than moneymaker, but just because he posts here lets not worship him. Lets be honest he was boring, nerdy, and lucky. I found his play interesting, but it got a little repetitive seeing him win every race again and again. He just got extremely lucky which got a little boring.

[GFtheMamba]

I agree that another hour of Fossilman's total ass kicking of the final table would've been great, but nothing, and I mean NOTHING, beats the most memoriable line of the 2004 WSOP, "He called me with....JACK HIGH" lol

[youngin20]

No way. Sammy is the freaking man. I was so mad when he laid down his nines. He was a straight pimp, and I wish he had won.

[mojorisin24]

I agree: Farha was a character straight out of central casting...in fact, if the 2003 WSOP was a movie, I would have laughed at the cliches and dismissed it as B.S.

[whiskeytown]

you're disrespecting the game, man. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

RB

[istewart]

You heard it here first. The poker boom was started by Patty Gallagher. The Chinese ape.

[Jurollo]

You all realize rounders didnt do great in the theatres, and that much of the sales have been from DVDs AFTER the poker boom.
~Justin

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
You all realize rounders didnt do great in the theatres, and that much of the sales have been from DVDs AFTER the poker boom.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

Very easy to believe. I just don't see the appeal of Rounders outside a rather limited collection of poker fanboys.

And, since an oft-quoted statistic says that half (or more) of the motion picture industry's revenue comes from video sales/rentals, I guess this might be true of a lot (maybe even most) movies.

[JoeTable]

[ QUOTE ]
You all realize rounders didnt do great in the theatres, and that much of the sales have been from DVDs AFTER the poker boom.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a self fulfilling cycle. The movie created more interest, which created more poker players, which created more DVD sales.

It's difficult to argue against the roll of Rounders when the single player most responsible, moneymaker, said he took the game up after watching it.

[toots]

For the life of me, I don't get that. In Rounders, the Damon character made the wrong choice at almost every opportunity:

Don't read the following if you're the one person in the world who hasn't seen the movie and doesn't want it spoiled

Taking his entire BR to one game, lying to his girlfriend, not dumping Worm as soon as it was clear that Worm was on his way down and willing to take Damon with him, vouching for Worm when it's clear that Worm's completely unreliable, not getting up from the cop game as soon as Worm sat down, letting himself get trash-talked back into a game when he'd managed to save his butt.

This is what people aspire to? Only reaffirms my faith in poker players.

[JoeTable]

[ QUOTE ]
For the life of me, I don't get that. In Rounders, the Damon character made the wrong choice at almost every opportunity:

Don't read the following if you're the one person in the world who hasn't seen the movie and doesn't want it spoiled

Taking his entire BR to one game, lying to his girlfriend, not dumping Worm as soon as it was clear that Worm was on his way down and willing to take Damon with him, vouching for Worm when it's clear that Worm's completely unreliable, not getting up from the cop game as soon as Worm sat down, letting himself get trash-talked back into a game when he'd managed to save his butt.

This is what people aspire to? Only reaffirms my faith in poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

And they didn't exactly improve their story telling skills with TILT either.

[toots]

OTOH, it was one of the all-time great Malkovich parts, even if it was the stupidest tell in all creation.

[JoeTable]

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, it was one of the all-time great Malkovich parts, even if it was the stupidest tell in all creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

btw, I just want to thank you for probably ruining a film I used to enjoy watching...making me think about how bad a story it really was. Jerk!! ;-)

[toots]

Just doing my job.

TYVM.

[Knightmare44]

[ QUOTE ]
Raymer's final table wasn't all that fun to watch to the uninitiated, which is what most people watching on ESPN are. It was a fantastic display of big-stack, brute force poker aggression. Raymer eliminated player after player, and was in command from the beginning.

Moneymaker's was much more of a battle, he came from behind, and someone said it best. Farha was the perfect arch-enemy lounge lizard type for the good old boy from TN playing in his first poker tournament to beat. It was like a movie script---kind of like Mike against KGB in Rounders, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no question Raymer is the better player, he wielded his big stack like an atomic bomb, crushing player after player after player - yea he won races but so what, races are supposed to go one way or the other - so yea - this final table was fun to watch (just should've showed more!!") to watch a big stack tear up the little ones

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is where it is at now for 2 reasons pocket cams and rounders. Everything now is a direct result of pocket cams. The 50% you gave for tv coverage is a direct result of poket cams. And I would give 10% to moneymaker, 10% to rounders...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also suggest that having the majority of live poker rooms go non-smoking a few years ago helped bring in players who don't wish to get lung cancer while drawing to a gutshot...

[Easy E]

Lets be honest he was boring, nerdy, and lucky. I found his play interesting, but it got a little repetitive seeing him win every race again and again. He just got extremely lucky which got a little boring.

Sure, that's how he won- all he did was win every race on every hand he played....

Unlike Phil Hellmuth, who wins only through his skill, right?

Judge not based on ESPN telecasts- they might not even have the accurate hands displayed!