Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield

[MonkeeMan]

Poor Robert Varkonyi. He wins the WSOP the year before Chris Moneymaker but gets no respect. We see Moneymaker and Raymer everywhere we turn, but Robert is forgotten and dissed. Please, the next time you see Robert, say "Hey Champ!". MIT geeks have feelings too.

[Daliman]

RV did nothing before, nothing since, and made several horrendous plays that he got lucky on that got him the title. I give tons of respect to most anyone who wins the WSOP, as luck is always a factor, but RV is one guy I would always welcome at my tourney table, SNG's especially.

[Francis Dollarhyde]

[ QUOTE ]
Poor Robert Varkonyi. He wins the WSOP the year before Chris Moneymaker but gets no respect. We see Moneymaker and Raymer everywhere we turn, but Robert is forgotten and dissed. Please, the next time you see Robert, say "Hey Champ!". MIT geeks have feelings too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he really wants some respect, he'd stop writing those articles for Card Player.

[Bigdaddydvo]

He's a World Champion of Poker, and as such, deserves our respect. Admittedly, he's probably the weakest player to ever win one. That doesn't matter. He has something that lots of top pros (most notably T.J. Cloutier) doesn't have.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
He's a World Champion of Poker, and as such, deserves our respect. Admittedly, he's probably the weakest player to ever win one. That doesn't matter. He has something that lots of top pros (most notably T.J. Cloutier) doesn't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I give much more respect to a guy who runs a 2:48 marathon than a guy who cosistantly won with the worst of it or cold decked his opposition. I did not see RV make a single good play at the final table, just obvious or weak ones.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
I give much more respect to a guy who runs a 2:48 marathon than a guy who cosistantly won with the worst of it or cold decked his opposition. I did not see RV make a single good play at the final table, just obvious or weak ones.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey thanks, that was in '98. I'm 30 lbs heavier now and a lot slower now so that's my Sup Bro-esque reference to the glory days when I could actually run. Haven't run one sub-3 hours since Boston 2000 (or run one, period, since Boston '02).

I've never watched the '02 World Series, so I don't know if he played as bad as everyone says. I can say without question that no one can win the thing without getting extraordinarily lucky. Some examples:

1) Doyle winning 2 straight years w/10-2o in hands where he was a huge statistical Dog. Make's RV's QT not look quite so bad.

2) When Chan won the '88 Series, he was won major coinflip decisions 14 of 14 times.

3) Chris Ferguson beating TJ on the final hand in 2000 w/A9 vs AQ.

4) I'm certain you watched the deck smack Moneymaker repeatedly in 2003.

I agree with the original poster that the most damning fact about RV is that he hasn't done squat since his WS win. To me that is much worse than the manner in which he won his bracelet, because as I've said, the amount of luck it takes to win one a World Championship is enormous.

[BuiltToLast]

[ QUOTE ]
Admittedly, he's probably the weakest player to ever win one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, most WSOP historians believe that Hal Fowler was the "weakest" player to ever win the WSOP championship, considering he was such a huge underdog (like everyone is nowadays!), but many of you don't know who he is because most of us weren't even born when he won (including me)! I've never met Hal, but I'm sure he's not a "weak" player, and I can assure you that Robert isn't either.

I met Robert in January 2003 through a friend, and back then I was heavy into WSOP memorabilia. If you don't know Robert (and I'm sure most of you don't), let me tell you that he is the nicest guy you could ever meet. He was very humble about his big win, and he signed chips, photos, and even his business card for me. I've never met a guy so down-to-earth with his kind of status in the poker world, and he was vastly more catering to the "little guys" (i.e. fans)than most pros. His play was perceived to be lucky, but give that man respect. He's a champion, he's a winner, and he's one hell of a nice guy.

[betgo]

Varkonyi and Furlong were decent players who were outclassed at the WSOP, but go lucky. Fowler was a fish who got lucky.

Varkonyi won his seat in a satellite at Binions rather than on Poker Stars, so he is not used in the promotions.

[MyMindIsGoing]

[ QUOTE ]
Varkonyi and Furlong were decent players who were outclassed at the WSOP, but go lucky. Fowler was a fish who got lucky.

Varkonyi won his seat in a satellite at Binions rather than on Poker Stars, so he is not used in the promotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't the first time Furlong was on a final table in the main event at WSOP so he is not THAT bad. I think that Varkonoyi and Moneymaker are the two worst players to have won the main event the last 10 years or so.

[Tuds75]

I was at Binions on the 3rd day of the WSOP championship and the tournament director annouced over the loud speaker all the former champions still alive. He mentions the obvious, Brunson, Hellmuth, Ferguson, Harrington, Baldwin and a couple more. He doesn't mention Varkonyi even though Robert is 6 feet away from him during the announcment. Varkoyni's table point out the error to Matt Savage and everyone has a small laugh, while probably Varkoyni cries a little inside.

Talk about getting "No Respect"

[ttleistdci]

[ QUOTE ]
He was very humble about his big win, and he signed chips, photos, and even his business card for me. I've never met a guy so down-to-earth with his kind of status in the poker world, and he was vastly more catering to the "little guys" (i.e. fans)than most pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that as though he's some kind of celebrity or something. Was anyone actually asking for his autograph?

[riffraff]

[ QUOTE ]

It wasn't the first time Furlong was on a final table in the main event at WSOP so he is not THAT bad. I think that Varkonoyi and Moneymaker are the two worst players to have won the main event the last 10 years or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and it's not even close. (To use an overused 2+2 cliche)

[Vee Quiva]

Hey you guys are forgetting the best part of Varkoni's win. He got to shave Phil Hellmuth's head after Phil bet his hair that an "amateur" couldn't win it all at that final table.

I wonder if anyone actually bought that hair that Phil said he was going to auction off for charity?

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if anyone actually bought that hair that Phil said he was going to auction off for charity?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be added to spaghetti sauce to cure bad beat curses.

[chet]

The fact that both Varkonyi and Moneymaker won is what makes poker great. They are both world champions, and deserve to be treated as such.

If there were no luck in poker, the vast majority (99.9+%) of 2+2 posters would have absolutely no chance of ever winning any WSOP event let alone the Main Event. It would be akin to entering the World Chess championship--realistically, only the top few players in the world have any kind of chance of winning at all, and the #1 ranked player would be a prohibitive favorite.

[MyMindIsGoing]

[ QUOTE ]
They are both world champions, and deserve to be treated as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes both won. Does that mean they are very good players who automaticly gets respect? Varkonyi might be a good guy and Moneymaker might have boosted poker intrest alot but that does not mean they are good players who will earn other poker players respect.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Varkonyi and Furlong were decent players who were outclassed at the WSOP, but go lucky. Fowler was a fish who got lucky.

Varkonyi won his seat in a satellite at Binions rather than on Poker Stars, so he is not used in the promotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are transposing "Fowler" and "Furlong".

Fowler won in 78 or so, Furlong in 2000, and while Fulong is not considered a top player, it wasn't his first main event final table and he is considered a very good player.

As far as Varkonyi goes, he seems like a very nice, likeable down to earth nerd, which ain;t at all bad. He's just not much of a poker player.

[Hauser_III]

Varkonyi is not the Rodney Dangerfield of poker. Dangerfield was a talented comedian who claimed to get no respect as part of his act, while Varkonyi is a lucky amateur who truly gets no respect.

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Varkonyi and Furlong were decent players who were outclassed at the WSOP, but go lucky. Fowler was a fish who got lucky.

Varkonyi won his seat in a satellite at Binions rather than on Poker Stars, so he is not used in the promotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are transposing "Fowler" and "Furlong".

Fowler won in 78 or so, Furlong in 2000, and while Fulong is not considered a top player, it wasn't his first main event final table and he is considered a very good player.

As far as Varkonyi goes, he seems like a very nice, likeable down to earth nerd, which ain;t at all bad. He's just not much of a poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Varkonyi won another event with pro's in the caribbean later that year. (fact)

2. I heard some people who play with Furlong at his club in England say that he isn't even close to the best player at the club. He is very aggressive and can get lucky. (1st hand hearsay/speculation).

[betgo]

I stand by my comments about Varkonyi and Furlong. You could probably group Moneymaker along with those two as decent players who got lucky.

[ttleistdci]

[ QUOTE ]
I stand by my comments about Varkonyi and Furlong. You could probably group Moneymaker along with those two as decent players who got lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure if you ask Moneymaker, he'll admit he got lucky. I was in Barnes and Noble the other day, and just skimmed the first couple pages of his book. He basically expected to get his ass beat, but oh well...it was an all-expense paid trip to Vegas.

If you watch the 2004 and 2003 main events, Raymer and Moneymaker both had one thing in common: they both won a lot of crucial hands where it was either a coinflip or they were actually a little behind going into the flop. One wrong card and we'd be talking about how the great cash player Sam Farha took down the 2003 WSOP instead of the internet player Moneymaker.

[TheJackal]

I disagree with a lot of you on Varkonyi. He went through 600+ people to win, although he isn't all that great of a player he did go through a larger field than all prior to 2002. It's funny how people say Moneymaker, Raymer, Varkonyi were all lucky based on about 15-20 hands you saw for the ENTIRE tournament. How about the hands we didn't see. Or how about the hands they played properly, like Moneymakers call against Dutch Boyd with 33, or Raymers' push against Mike the mouth or the hand against Dan Harrington with AJ vs Q9, or Varkonyi who got a caller with JJ vs AJ for most of the chips at the final table. Everyone gets lucky, its a part of poker, I'm sure all three of these players made good decisions to win that were not shown on TV.

[TransientR]

Say what you will about Moneymaker, he made the big bluffs/calls with tons of chips on the line under the pressure of TV cameras at the World Championship, which by itself seperates him from many more technically proficient players who will never get the chance to get that lucky, because they don't have the nerve.

Frank

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are both world champions, and deserve to be treated as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes both won. Does that mean they are very good players who automaticly gets respect? Varkonyi might be a good guy and Moneymaker might have boosted poker intrest alot but that does not mean they are good players who will earn other poker players respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you just respect them for their accomplishments?

[ttleistdci]

[ QUOTE ]
Say what you will about Moneymaker, he made the big bluffs/calls with tons of chips on the line under the pressure of TV cameras at the World Championship, which by itself seperates him from many more technically proficient players who will never get the chance to get that lucky, because they don't have the nerve.

Frank

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, I was in awe of a lot of the plays Moneymaker made. A couple that come to mind are his pair of 3s (or was it dueces?) against Dutch Boyd's KQ. Moneymaker put him on high cards, but not a pair, and made a ballsy call where a lot of other people woulda mucked that hand. The other is the huge bluff heads up against Farha. Unreal play...

He played some good poker under that kind of pressure. I definitely won't take that away from him.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Say what you will about Moneymaker, he made the big bluffs/calls with tons of chips on the line under the pressure of TV cameras at the World Championship, which by itself seperates him from many more technically proficient players who will never get the chance to get that lucky, because they don't have the nerve.

Frank

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you guys keep saying Moneymaker won in 2003? I'm pretty sure that Phil Ivey won. I have the DVDs and I watched just up to the point with about 30 players left, and Phil gets Freddy Deeb all in the flop with KK against his set of nines. I didn't watch the end of the hand because I had to leave, but Deeb was down to two outs so I'm pretty sure that hand made Ivey the chip leader.

When I came back, I lost my place and just watched the ten handed final table where they are trying to knock out one last person before the final day. Ivey once again gets it all in on the turn this time, with his nines full of queens full house way ahead of Moneymaker's trip Queens. I mean Moneymaker only had like 4 outs with one card to come! Once again I had to leave before they rolled the river card, but I'm pretty sure this hand gave Phil such a big chip stack that he was able to roll over the rest of the table from then on...

[ttleistdci]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you guys keep saying Moneymaker won in 2003? I'm pretty sure that Phil Ivey won. I have the DVDs and I watched just up to the point with about 30 players left, and Phil gets Freddy Deeb all in the flop with KK against his set of nines. I didn't watch the end of the hand because I had to leave, but Deeb was down to two outs so I'm pretty sure that hand made Ivey the chip leader.

When I came back, I lost my place and just watched the ten handed final table where they are trying to knock out one last person before the final day. Ivey once again gets it all in on the turn this time, with his nines full of queens full house way ahead of Moneymaker's trip Queens. I mean Moneymaker only had like 4 outs with one card to come! Once again I had to leave before they rolled the river card, but I'm pretty sure this hand gave Phil such a big chip stack that he was able to roll over the rest of the table from then on...

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm wrong then. I was just saying hypothetically if Moneymaker won, he would have made some great plays along the way and most likely would've made a great bluff at the final table.

While we're at it...Aaron Boone, Bucky Dent, and Bill Buckner never happened either. This should clear up a lot of misconceptions (or open a whole other can of worms. One or the other).

[riffraff]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I was in awe of a lot of the plays Moneymaker made. A couple that come to mind are his pair of 3s (or was it dueces?) against Dutch Boyd's KQ. Moneymaker put him on high cards, but not a pair, and made a ballsy call where a lot of other people woulda mucked that hand. The other is the huge bluff heads up against Farha. Unreal play...

[/ QUOTE ]

This was definitely a case where I beleive Dutch was right.. calling Moneymaker's play "desperation call.". I'm sure Dutch would have still made this raise if Moneymaker's cards were turned up.. because anyone with 1/2 of a brain would not have called. Dutch made a mistake for sure, since you can't bluff a sucker. We've all tried before and then afterwards shake our head knowing we made a bad move trying to make a dumb player "think" beyond "I have an underpair to the board, lets just call hoping he's on a stone cold bluff". Brilliant call? Well I guess of all the hands Dutch could have held.. this was the only one where it would work out for him. Without knowing for sure what Dutch had I think it's a really poor decision. I'm sure this has been discussed to death in the past.

About his huge bluff versus Farha.. I'm sure any one of thousands could have done this. Chris turns a straight and flush draw and has a lot of chips in the pot already that got in there with the worst of it. Now he has a hand with a lot of outs and decides to bluff. He forces himself to make a large bluff on the river because of his play up til this point. He knows he must play lucky to beat Farha and when his draw misses he knows that his only chance is to push. King high can't win. Again, if Farha has any other hand (top 2, set, even 9K or 9A) I expect him to call and there is a different champion of poker. As it stands Chris paints himself into a corner, forced to bluff all his chips, and is fortunate that his opponent is good enuf to make the laydown. Everything had to go exactly right. (of course he could have made his flush and busted Farha which would have made a lower flush)

I spoke with several pros at the event and they all thought it was a joke. Perhaps it was sour grapes, that some $40 satelite kid took the big prize instead of one of the main horses who "deserved" it more.. No longer would it be a given that one of the top pros would take this event. With Varkoni and Moneymaker winning it all back to back, the biggest prize in poker could now be won by anyone. I'm sure it's a great thing for poker in general, but you can't blame the pros for wanting it to mean something more.

[ttleistdci]

[ QUOTE ]

About his huge bluff versus Farha.. I'm sure any one of thousands could have done this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any one of thousands could sit in there with $2.5 mil on the line and push that much into the pot with King high? Most people would have trouble making that play in a regular no limit ring game nevermind heads up at the final table of the WSOP.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I was in awe of a lot of the plays Moneymaker made. A couple that come to mind are his pair of 3s (or was it dueces?) against Dutch Boyd's KQ. Moneymaker put him on high cards, but not a pair, and made a ballsy call where a lot of other people woulda mucked that hand. The other is the huge bluff heads up against Farha. Unreal play...

[/ QUOTE ]

This was definitely a case where I beleive Dutch was right.. calling Moneymaker's play "desperation call.". I'm sure Dutch would have still made this raise if Moneymaker's cards were turned up.. because anyone with 1/2 of a brain would not have called. Dutch made a mistake for sure, since you can't bluff a sucker. We've all tried before and then afterwards shake our head knowing we made a bad move trying to make a dumb player "think" beyond "I have an underpair to the board, lets just call hoping he's on a stone cold bluff". Brilliant call? Well I guess of all the hands Dutch could have held.. this was the only one where it would work out for him. Without knowing for sure what Dutch had I think it's a really poor decision. I'm sure this has been discussed to death in the past.

About his huge bluff versus Farha.. I'm sure any one of thousands could have done this. Chris turns a straight and flush draw and has a lot of chips in the pot already that got in there with the worst of it. Now he has a hand with a lot of outs and decides to bluff. He forces himself to make a large bluff on the river because of his play up til this point. He knows he must play lucky to beat Farha and when his draw misses he knows that his only chance is to push. King high can't win. Again, if Farha has any other hand (top 2, set, even 9K or 9A) I expect him to call and there is a different champion of poker. As it stands Chris paints himself into a corner, forced to bluff all his chips, and is fortunate that his opponent is good enuf to make the laydown. Everything had to go exactly right. (of course he could have made his flush and busted Farha which would have made a lower flush)

I spoke with several pros at the event and they all thought it was a joke. Perhaps it was sour grapes, that some $40 satelite kid took the big prize instead of one of the main horses who "deserved" it more.. No longer would it be a given that one of the top pros would take this event. With Varkoni and Moneymaker winning it all back to back, the biggest prize in poker could now be won by anyone. I'm sure it's a great thing for poker in general, but you can't blame the pros for wanting it to mean something more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sheesh, i thought idiocy of this kind had been educated out by now...

Yep, Dutch was right, and Farha was right. Moneymaker sucks, and the pros are mad now.

Among the most misinformed posts I have ever read on here.

[ZBTHorton]

when your among the chip leaders, how is that 33 hand a "desperation" call?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
when your among the chip leaders, how is that 33 hand a "desperation" call?

[/ QUOTE ]

TO be fair, I'm not positive he was a chip leader heading into the hand, but Boyd did have him covered in that hand.

[ttleistdci]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when your among the chip leaders, how is that 33 hand a "desperation" call?

[/ QUOTE ]

TO be fair, I'm not positive he was a chip leader heading into the hand, but Boyd did have him covered in that hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it might've been that hand that gave him the chip lead.

[Hauser_III]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with a lot of you on Varkonyi.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is it that I said that you are disagreeing with? I said

1. He's an amateur (hard to argue with that; he wasn't playing poker for a living at the time he won, so he was by definition an amatuer)

2. who got lucky (and he did get lucky, as does everyone who wins one of these things at some point, and you even admit that)

3. and truly gets no respect (I'll use your words to back this up: [ QUOTE ]
he isn't all that great of a player

[/ QUOTE ] ).

I said nothing about whether he deserves any respect, nothing denigrating his play and nothing singling him out as having been the only person that ever got lucky to win.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
He's an amateur (hard to argue with that; he wasn't playing poker for a living at the time he won, so he was by definition an amatuer)


[/ QUOTE ]

On the TV broadcasts of the 2002 WSOP, they kept referring to Varkonyi as an amateur, but when they interviewed him he said he had taken off the last 1 1/2 years from work to play poker.

[Hauser_III]

[ QUOTE ]
when they interviewed him he said he had taken off the last 1 1/2 years from work to play poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I honestly didn't remember that.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

when they interviewed him he said he had taken off the last 1 1/2 years from work to play poker



[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I honestly didn't remember that.


[/ QUOTE ]

They kept repeating that Varkonyi was an amateur to generate interest that an amateur won the WSOP, so you may not have noticed what he actually said.

[JohnG]

Maybe being a 'poker champion' isn't worth much respect. I think varkonyi gets the respect he deserves and the other champions get too much respect.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe being a 'poker champion' isn't worth much respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been watching too much "Tilt."

[riffraff]

[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh, i thought idiocy of this kind had been educated out by now...

Yep, Dutch was right, and Farha was right. Moneymaker sucks, and the pros are mad now.

Among the most misinformed posts I have ever read on here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to explain why? Besides just calling me an idiot and misinformed?

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
You've been watching too much "Tilt."

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't get that show in Britain.

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't get that show in Britain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! The Colonies have finally taken the lead in culture!

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've been watching too much "Tilt."




[/ QUOTE ]
We don't get that show in Britain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Typical American telly.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe being a 'poker champion' isn't worth much respect. I think varkonyi gets the respect he deserves and the other champions get too much respect.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
We don't get that show in Britain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose "Devilfish" is not going to be knighted by the queen.

[JohnG]

Poker is neither popular enough, nor Devilfish corrupt enough, for him to get a knighthood. But who knows, maybe one day.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh, i thought idiocy of this kind had been educated out by now...

Yep, Dutch was right, and Farha was right. Moneymaker sucks, and the pros are mad now.

Among the most misinformed posts I have ever read on here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to explain why? Besides just calling me an idiot and misinformed?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's just way too much to even go over with you, and I doubt you'd change your mind anyways.

I've gone over these things often in the past. Do some searches if you really care what I think. Otherwise, just open your mind up a bit and listen to what many people more experinced than you and I hav said regarding these players/plays.

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]

If he really wants some respect, he'd stop writing those articles for Card Player.

[/ QUOTE ]

it looked like he got fired there for a while then.. BAM! writing that crap again.

[riffraff]

I express a different opinion than yours, you call me an idiot and misinformed, and then tell me to "open my mind".

I'm pretty opened minded and will admit if I'm wrong, reguardless of your assumption. I'll do a search and try and figure out where you're coming from.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I express a different opinion than yours, you call me an idiot and misinformed, and then tell me to "open my mind".

I'm pretty opened minded and will admit if I'm wrong, reguardless of your assumption. I'll do a search and try and figure out where you're coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never called you an idiot. I said the post had idiotic content, a major differnce. I am trying to be a kinder, gentler Daliman.