OK, i'm an idiot. What did Moneymaker do that was so terrible?

[Daliman]

Yes, MM played some hands badly, some too aggressively, so too passively. I defy you, however, to find a player in the WSOP that didn't misplay some hands who was shown alot. Top names I noticed, with specific instances-

Amir Vahedi- The hand that Farha had 9's full he played like crap the whole way through, from the preflop call to the turn bet out. But since Amir's a top player, he gets a pass. I realize this is part of what makes him as good as he is, but I believe he pissed away an easy shot at 3rd and a good shot at the title.

-Farha- Both on the penultimate hand,(not bad, but didn't go with his gut) and on the hand with scotty where he folded top/good on the river to scotty's 1/3rd pot raise. How can he fold this hand, yet give MM ~210,000 on the hand where MM raised w/AQ, flopped an ace, and bet 70K on every st?
-Jason lester: on the hand where he called preflop KQ, flopped top into KTT, called flop, turn came 9 and fold to sammy's bluff. TERRIBLE play. For those who think otherwise, consider how much $$$ he risked on the hand vs. Harrington's KK and MM's flopped str; all his money gone on bluffs into strength and a coordinated board.

Phil Ivey-MAN, does this guy overplay pocket pairs....He's awesome, and maybe he's onto something here, but I cant see calling some of the hands he did with 66-99. Everyone says MM got totally lucky against PI on the AQ vs. 99, but here's the facts
99 was 6/5 fave preflop
22-1 dog on flop to improve on the turn enough to call/raise another MM bet.
~7-1 fave on turn
Not like it was a 44-1 shot or anything, and overall, PI overcame MUCH bigger odds the MM did during the hand. I didn't care for PI's flop play AT ALL, yet I've seen little critcism of it.

Now, it's been awhile since i've watched the WSOP episodes, but it seems to me most of his errors were errors of aggression, which is MUCH better than passive errors. How many times did we see Farha call big bets with Aces w/ crap kicker only? I thought the hand where MM bet 300 or so on the river on his missed draw when a second ace hit was a VERY strong play, and Farha called it like a fish. Is he CAPABLE of folding Aces at any time? Not that we saw. Not saying Farha sucks or anything, but I didn't see anything from him more than MM. His final hand allin was dicey at best. MM's hand vs. Brenes is the only one i saw where he REALLY caught hard on someone, and brenes brought that on himself with the tiny raises/bets. He was trying to trap, and got unlucky. If he makes a solid preflop raise or flop bet, MM's gone. MM's play was bad, as he got fished right in, but that's the risk you take with trapping. Now, I can see people slamming Varkonyi, because he TRULY sucked, but MM, while no pro, acquitted himself admirably i feel.

[Duke]

No error is really THAT bad if you take the time to analyze it. Unless it's after the flop you're never really THAT big of a dog.

One thing about Moneymaker is that he played one hand extremely well.

Some of his monster suckouts weren't even that horrible as plays, he just got super lucky after making a strong call on a faulty read.

So, if it makes any sense... he wasn't the cripple that Varkonyi was, he just got hit in the head with the deck when it mattered.

I think people are just bitter because they usually bust out by a bad beat. Either that, or the key hand is a bad beat. And the guy that sucked otu got lucky. And that guy was Moneymaker a few times. Were his plays that bad? Not really.

~D

[Rushmore]

This has ALL been gone over, but I'll go on record again:

it seems to me most of his errors were errors of aggression, which is MUCH better than passive errors

I guess you're not referring to the call he made with 33 in the face of a huge raise on the flop. This was, to me, his worst play of the tournament. I know many have said that it transcended traditional thinking and that it was a brilliant read etc. etc., but I cannot justify this call from any perspective other than a results-oriented one, and we all know that this is that lovely, undisturbed cove, that haven in which the fishies swim unmolested.

All of this said, I must admit to softening my stance on MM a little. The first time through, I really jumped on the "Oh-My-God,-Any-Monkey-Can-Win-The-WSOP-Bandwagon," but having watched again, I think I'll go ahead and say that I was petty and jealous, and that he played better than most primates would have.

I'm kidding. I think he generally deserves more credit than he is receiving. I'll be the first to reverse myself and give him that credit.

So, I'm done now, right?

[RollaJ]

[ QUOTE ]
What did Moneymaker do that was so terrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

He made million of people jealous

[Boris]

I agree with you. In addtition to the PI plays you mentioned, I was sitting next to PI's table early in the tournament when Ivey got all in with a middling flush against the nut flush. Ivey hit a one outer to make str8 flush. Yet he is one of the greatest. MM makes that play and people will say he is Moby Dick. Also what about the year the Ferguson won the Big One. Thay guy made numerous miracle suckouts after putting in big money post-flop. Yet Ferguson is considered one of the greats. To Ivey and Ferguson's credit those guys have won a fair amount of large buy-in tournaments so they no doubt have considerable skills. But there is definitely a double standard.

[rigoletto]

OK, i'm an idiot. What did Moneymaker do that was so terrible?

He won!

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
This has ALL been gone over, but I'll go on record again:

it seems to me most of his errors were errors of aggression, which is MUCH better than passive errors

I guess you're not referring to the call he made with 33 in the face of a huge raise on the flop. This was, to me, his worst play of the tournament. I know many have said that it transcended traditional thinking and that it was a brilliant read etc. etc., but I cannot justify this call from any perspective other than a results-oriented one, and we all know that this is that lovely, undisturbed cove, that haven in which the fishies swim unmolested.

All of this said, I must admit to softening my stance on MM a little. The first time through, I really jumped on the "Oh-My-God,-Any-Monkey-Can-Win-The-WSOP-Bandwagon," but having watched again, I think I'll go ahead and say that I was petty and jealous, and that he played better than most primates would have.

I'm kidding. I think he generally deserves more credit than he is receiving. I'll be the first to reverse myself and give him that credit.

So, I'm done now, right?



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that 33 hand was a bad play at all. It wasn't like he drew out on that hand. He was in the lead when he called. He made a read that his opponent was bluffing and called. That's great poker, not a sucker play.
I remember reading about Stu Unger calling with 10-high once cause he put his opponent on a busted str-draw with a 6-high. Turns out he was right and this was held out as an example of what a great player Unger could be. Let's give Moneymaker the same credit.

[Rushmore]

Can't we just agree to disagree on this?

IMO, that is a terrible spot to risk your entire tournament. He has to be right, and then he has to avoid six cards.

My opinion has been wrong before, and it might be wrong here. But I stand by it, and remind you that I brought it up in response to the notion that his mistakes were those of aggression (which are always more permissible).

[Depraved]

If you don't think this was retarded, I don't know what is. He called Humberto Brennes' all-in bet with 88 on a board with two overcards including a King. I forgot the preflop action, but Brennes bet the flop, Moneymaker checkraised him, and Brennes went all-in. For some reason, Chris called. There didn't appear to be any draws if I remember correctly.

This was not some aggressive move by Moneymaker - it was a very foolish call.

Brennes had AA, but Moneymaker hit his set on the turn.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

I haven't seen that episode of the espn coverage yet, but I seem to recall hearing that MM raised all-in and Brenes called. If so, that's a huge difference in terms of the validity of the play.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[J.R.]

FYI: MM check-raised all-in and Brenes called to close the action.

[Depraved]

Wow - I could have sworn it actually occured that way when watching ESPN. After looking at the actual action in an archive, I was indeed totally wrong... Moneymaker did set Brenes all-in.

That was the only absolutely horrible play (I thought) I saw Chris make on ESPN. Can't think of any others off the top of my head.

[M.B.E.]

Greg is right; Moneymaker was the aggressor on his 88 vs. AA hand where he got lucky on the turn.

Howard Lederer describes the hand like this in his WSOP diary (http://www.gutshot.co.uk/Roadtrips/howardledererwsop.htm):

"Meanwhile, at another table, I hear a loud cry of pain. Humberto has just been knocked out, and it doesn't get any uglier. The flop came K92 off suit. Humberto bet and Moneymaker put him in for about 200,000. Humberto called with AA and Moneymaker had 88. An eight on the turn and Humberto had failed to implement my bathroom advice regarding the best hand holding up."

Obviously if it had been the other way around, Humberto moving in and Chris calling, Chris's play would have been horrible. But it was Chris who moved Humberto all-in.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that 33 hand was a bad play at all. It wasn't like he drew out on that hand. He was in the lead when he called. He made a read that his opponent was bluffing and called. That's great poker, not a sucker play.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I posted a mathematical analysis of Moneymaker's play on the hand here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=319704&page=0&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1

[Rushmore]

I'm swayed slightly by the fact that there is more in the pot than I had originally thought, but...

This changes the math as MM was getting 2:1 pot odds to call. Of course I'm approaching it as if it were a ring game (or to put it another way, I'm assuming the goal is to maximize your EV in tournament chips).


...this is my main problem with it. He is risking his tournament LIFE with this hand. This is too tenuous a situation on which to be staking the entirety of your WSOP, IMO.

OTOH, it really WAS a great read.

Anyway, I suppose it's a matter of style, and his style won the WSOP, so there's the end of THAT, right?

[Daliman]

I too will have to disagree with you on this hand. He even said "big cards" after he called. He had a great read on dutch, who was acting like someone who wanted his opponent to believe he had a great hand, but just didn't want to risk a suckout. I personally think this was probably the best hand of the tournament by MM, if not anyone. Contrast this with a similar play by Olaf Thorsen where he called allin with Ace high on the flop. He WAS leading, but he was risking much more at that point, given he was chip leader at the time and there was only 12 left, whereas i think there were still~40 players left when MM made his play and his "slot" for cashing was not too much different if he went out then or 5 places higher after being shortstacked from the fold. Thorsen fold that AK to fight another day, he only drops T40K or so, is still chip leader w/ ~T1.2M, and may win the next hand where he had KK preflop vs. Farha by putting in a significantly bigger preflop raise. Either way, he'd have survived the confrontation w/ Farha , although he played it like a fish anyways by mini raising preflop and going allin vs. Ace flop,(absolutely HORRENDOUS play).