New Moneymaker Book --- Guy deserves credit

[PokerPaul]

I just finished reading his new book detailing his background and his adventure to the wsop championship.

I was always a bit skeptical of his performance, based on limited TV clips, and general gossip being passed around. He has often been berated among poker circles as "lucky" and other negative things.

Well, after reading the book, which i thought was great,
i must say that i have changed my opinion somewhat.

First off, give credit to MM for portraying himself as the degenerate gambler he is (or was before WSOP), and not using the book to give himself a better image given his now celebrity status.

I kept hearing how he was "lucky" and his performance was of the weakest WSOP winning performances when compared to all the great champions prior to internet age.

Well, not only do i think his performance was at least as good as other memorable champions, i think it may be the best ever.

When you take into account that he had to win a $40 sattelite with 25 people in it, followed by winning another sattelite with close to 2000 people in it, and then follow it up by winning the 876 person wsop tourney all in a row, i find it very hard to chalk it all up to luck.

You gotta play well to make it throug that many people and stages and win all of them outright.

Yes he was probably not the best player in the world when the WSOP started, but he learned quickly as the tournament progressed and adjusted his strategy.

The funny thing is, for all the "luck" people claim he had, every champion must get lucky a few times and draw the card they need to get through. However, when you look at it he was almost never in a position where he was allin and needed to draw from behind to stay alive.

Many of the big hands when he was trailing to 2 or 3 outs (brenes, ivey) surely would have cut his chances down significantly, but he wasnt allin and still would have been around.

I only recall 1 or 2 spots where he was allin and trailing and get the draw.

And those hands were more than offset by some of the great reads he made on people to take down huge pots.

For instance, taking on the only other stack bigger than his at table Dutch Boyd, hes sitting with small PP on something like T25 board and dutch pushes.

He had both the proper read, and the guts to take him on and risk losing 5 days worth of work and a multimillion dollar payout on that weak hand, but one he knew he was ahead regardless.

See for me, even if i had the proper read, i still don't think i would have the guts to follow it up in that situation with calling him down, which is probably why MM turned into the champion, and i likely would just make it far but not top spot.

For all us WSOP champion wannabes or WSOP virgins, i thought it was a great read on what goes on in the head of a newbie WSOP player, and how it feels to build a stack and survive from day to day.

I'm seriously thinking of buying into main event after that....

[Iplayragstoo]

I thought he pushed on Dutch, and dutch called him???

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought he pushed on Dutch, and dutch called him???

[/ QUOTE ]

Dutch pushed, he called.

[Fat Nicky]

I agree with everything in your post.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything in your post.




[/ QUOTE ]
me too. he made some excellent decisions in the tourny and when he didn't make the correct one (against brenes) he didnt make excuses he comes out and says he got lucky.

and the hand against ivey, everyone on this board would have played it.

[Tyler Durden]

It should be noted that it's incredibly difficult to win the big one on your first try. You're not used to the pressure, the long hours, the stress, etc.

[dogmeat]

Thanks for posting. I don't know anything about MM other than seeing him win the WSOP. Honestly, that's enough for me. I've laughed at some of the plays I've seen on TV, but anybody that makes a televised final table has been playing good poker for several days.

The posters here that point out why they hate player X or player y are more than likely VERY jealous. I know I'm even jealous of Tyler D who came in 125. Admit it, that's [censored] awesome!

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[billyjex]

I read the book as well.

He played very, very aggressive. He didn't let the pros bully him around and constantly put them at a test for their chips, which was hard for them to deal with. He got incredibly lucky on the AA vs. 88 hand where he turned a set, but even against Ivey, Ivey got lucky on the turn and MM resucked.

In the book they also describe a hand where Moneymaker made a stonecold bluff late in the tourney (it wasn't on camera because they weren't filming at that moment, MM believes) in a large pot with just A high. I don't think I'd have the balls to make half the moves he did with what was at stake.

MM knew he was against better players and make the adjustments accordingly.

[PokerPaul]

exactly.....

and like i said...even on the hands against brenes when he made incorrect read and was left with only 2 outs.....he wasnt even the one allin..brenes was.

But also keep in mind, the whole reason the big pros had to start respecting him is because he had built an enormous stack. Even if they knew they had more skill and experience, one false move against that "fish", and they're toast.

I think its even tougher to be up against an unpredictable fish who's libel to go allin on anything versus a well known pro whom you could kind of put on a hand.

[buriedbeds]

As a side point, I really liked his commentary on the Rounders soundtrack. With the other people he was commenting with (Johny Chan, Phil Helmuth and Jesus), and knowing how he's often put down in poker circles, I thought he'd come off badly, but he really comes off very well. He's very humble, talks about still having a lot learn, and talks about a lot of things that lower-level players can relate to (the degenerate "worm"-like friend he has, for instance). I really thought that he came off well, and I'd be interested in checking out the book because of it. I think he's a good player, one way or another, and that, with his long path through 2 satellites, just to get into the money would have vindicated him as a very strong player. He drew out a few times, sure, but you have to win races to win tournaments.

-bb.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its even tougher to be up against an unpredictable fish who's libel to go allin on anything versus a well known pro whom you could kind of put on a hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i hate playing against fish. I can only beat good players because they are....predictable? that makes sense.

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its even tougher to be up against an unpredictable fish who's libel to go allin on anything versus a well known pro whom you could kind of put on a hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i hate playing against fish. I can only beat good players because they are....predictable? that makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The truth might actually be that none of the players knew him, and probably viewed him as an "unpredictable fish". To some extent he probably leveraged this image, and the fact he was an unkown (but actually decent player). In contrast, all the other players knew each other well, and were probably well aware of each others foibles & strategy. Maybe his brilliance was playing his "fishy" table image.

[PokerPaul]

exactly..thats what i meant.

Not saying people generally prefer to play against tougher players, but i think even toppros will have a tough time putting someone like MM on a hand, and furthermore how he will react to a tough decision....like one where a supposed top pro would safely push and force someone else off a better hand just because its not god enough to call allin with....like dutch....but MM took him up in that situation and took him out.

[Punker]

I think what this book showed me more than anything was that even though some of the other players might gamble higher in terms of real dollars, Moneymaker had more experience gambling with higher percentages of his money. Lets say Farha makes a 100K bet on something out of his net worth of 10M, and Moneymaker is firing off 1K bets out of his BR of 10K. To the world, Farha looks like a bigger gambler...but in reality, isn't Moneymaker?

His willingness to gamble and go broke with big moves came across several times in this book. I will say the book doesn't forbode well for his financial future, but who can say for sure?

[BusterStacks]

I'm sure you find it difficult to chalk anything up to luck, aren't you the guy who was beating 10/20 SH for like 16bb with a 50% vpip?

[TStoneMBD]

some of moneymaker's moves in that tournament were impressive yes. the 33 call still has me stunned every time i see it. however, sometimes your decisions end up being right for all the wrong reasons, and that is just a sign of luck. just because moneymaker made the right decisions in that tournament doesnt mean that it wasnt all just a fluke. everything is probability. dutch boyd could have had a bigger pair than moneymaker in that situation 85% of the time, and this just happened to be that 15%. results dont prove much.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
some of moneymaker's moves in that tournament were impressive yes. the 33 call still has me stunned every time i see it. however, sometimes your decisions end up being right for all the wrong reasons, and that is just a sign of luck. just because moneymaker made the right decisions in that tournament doesnt mean that it wasnt all just a fluke. everything is probability. dutch boyd could have had a bigger pair than moneymaker in that situation 85% of the time, and this just happened to be that 15%. results dont prove much.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~mgiesler/hateradebottle2.jpg

[AceHigh]

And some of his mistakes work, like when he thought Humberto Brenes was weak and raised all-in on a K-x-x flop w/88 and Brenes had AA. Moneymaker caught an 8 on the river and won the hand.

[el kang]

I just read the book. Light and good reading. A good tale of a degenerate gambler who made good. I met Moneymaker in person in a NYC poker room and the book seems a good expression of who is is. Meanwhile, I was trying to identify the "worm" character from the circle of friends he listed.

Anyway, praise to Moneymaker for helping explode this growth in poker. All winning players are recipients of the overlay.

[zuluking]

I found the book a good, light, one session read. Very refreshing and candid, expecially about the gambling and drinking problems.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

My favorite thing was that he describes the exact same hand that Harrington describes in "Harrington on Hold'em."

Pretty neat to read the same hand from 2 different participants.

[PokerPaul]

which one are you referring to?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The hand where Farha flops the set of nines and turns a boat after Harrington, Moneymaker and Vahedi all call his preflop raise.

[B K]

[ QUOTE ]
I know I'm even jealous of Tyler D who came in 125...

[/ QUOTE ]

He busted out 126. Tyler could never make the top 125 /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[KneeCo]

I haven't read the book in question, and honestly I don't plan to anytime soon.
I give him credit for winning the WSOP, I'm happy he did. Not only did he play well enough to deserve it, I think his win did great things for the game.

However as far as his talent is concerned I do have to question it. Not because of his one or two suckouts during the WSOP, but because of his failure to follow up his big win with other strong performances.

Every time I've seen or read reports of MM play since the 2003 ME he's been far from world class.

Of course, I'm not saying he has to win another main event, but I think consistency is necessary to be considered a great poker player, and IMO MM has no exhibited that.

[Punker]

He's finished top 20 in at least 2 other WPT events since then. Yourself?

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
He's finished top 20 in at least 2 other WPT events since then. Yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm tired of this response. My unwillingness or inability to pay $10000 to enter a WPT event doesn't render me incapable of observing and inferring things.

Do you think no one is allowed to comment on anything unless they themselves can do better? Am I not allowed to say that Vince Carter is not a great player because, I, personally, have never been in the All-Star Game?

(Remember, it may be that I'm financially incapable of entering a WPT event rather than just unwilling. Even if it were otherwise, the point would stand.)

[Martin Aigner]

Most 2+2ers who had been around long enough on this forum considered Greg Raymer an extremly tough or even world class player long before his win of the WSOP. Now ever since his victory he didn´t make a final table in a 10k event. (To my knowledge this is) Still most wouldn´t change their mind and say that Greg isn´t as strong as they thought him to be.

On the other side there is MM. Didn´t he just finish 2nd in a WPT event last year? Guess one could say that this is a pretty impressive feat, isn´t it? So how can you say that he has no consistency?

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[Chiron]

I am also greatly enjoying this book... it's definitely worth a read. I've gained some respect for Moneymaker because of how he has carried himself through this. Modest guy.

[invisibleleadsoup]

yeah i just finished reading it too,it certainly makes for a good story...
as for the arguement as to how good a player he is,it seems that technically when he was playing in the WSOP he mightnt have been the best player,but he seems to have had a very good instinct and feel for the game..
he came across well in that he is willing to own up to his own shortcomings as a player at the time,and at the same time he evidently took advantage of them and played to his strenghts and image very well...

[DVO]

Read the book, liked it. Very straight forward. I view MM as the John Daly of poker. Likeable, lots of heart. But with demons that may drag him down.

"the 33 call still has me stunned every time i see it. "

This has to be one of the most amazing plays I have ever seen, given what was at stake. You just have to give the guy credit for having huge conojes.

How many of us could make that call, even if we made that read? Not me. And I've got lots of gamble in me.

He also made a ballsy final table bluff of Farha with absolutely nothing ( not sure if they were heads up or 3 handed; the board was King high) for a big pot.

I say, viva MM and the day he had in the sun. It was good for him, and all of us.

[Jules22]

i dont begrudge him, but i would have like to have seen humberto brenes win that aa hand, hes more exciting of a player to me, also would have like to see phil ivey at the final table of the wsop instead of him, but he played well and it couldnt really happen to a nicer guy as they say

[RunDownHouse]

Money's got an interview with Playboy (http://www.playboy.com/features/dotcomversation/moneymaker/02.html) online that's interesting.

I've met him out at a bar here in Nashville. He bought me and my group of friends a few rounds of shots, then we went back to his friend's near-by apartment for a $50 freeze out. Unfortunately there was some dude there waiting to play him HU for $1k, and they didn't finish until maybe 5am, so no freeze-out for us.

He was really nice about answering our questions and did seem soft-spoken. He even let my drunken friend's comment, "Where are your sunglasses?" roll right off his back. His friend, on the other hand, was a loud, obnoxious idiot. I haven't heard the DVD commentary, but this friend of his tried to talk me and a buddy into starting a book. He'd put up part of the money, take a cut of the profits, and we'd try to tap into the Vanderbilt student market. All those kids with money just itching to find a bookie, or something. I could definitely see that guy as a "Worm" type, as he just wouldn't stop bugging us about how great it would be.