The Moneymaker Effect

[Still the Spank E]

Okay, I realize that the general effect of the most recent WSOP having been won by Huckleberry Hound is to convince legions of neophytes that THEY, TOO can and should play poker for money in public casinos against professionals (and wannabees, like myself), but does anyone else see ANY downside to the game being made to look like any GOOBER and his two cards can win it all? It would be nice if the WSOP were the province of the best poker player(s) in the world, rather than one who managed to "pull a Homer" (Simpson); wherein one "succeeds despite idiocy."

I mean, he did many things right--don't get me wrong, you'd HAVE TO to survive even one hand against THOSE opponents--but he seemed to just close his eyes and pray on any number of hands and then proceed to get mind numbing good luck on a NUMBER of different occassions (against H. Brenes, for example). Yes, I realize that the whole point is to find fish, make money off of fish, and laugh smugly amongst ourselves about having found and taken money off of fish, but shouldn't the WORLD SERIES be only for the best?

P.S. If you think Chris Moneymaker is the world's best hold 'em player, you can and should ignore this note entirely.

[William]

P.S. If you think Chris Moneymaker is the world's best hold 'em player, you can and should ignore this note entirely

Isn't the best and the luckyest often the same person?

[LetsRock]

I think all the "real" holdem players would cringe to read this concept. Moneymaker (and about 800 other paying customers) are dead money the fund the tournament. Is he really the best poker player in the world because he won the WSOP main event last year? I highly doubt it. He's just the holder of the trophy for that tourney for the year.

If you were to limit the WSOP to those who "should" be there, you'd have about 100 players and a very limited prize pool. I think the "real" players will take their chances with 800 dead money players in order to build that kind of prize money.

And his winning has boomed the poker industry beyond belief. Do you think that the fish would be flocking to the tables if Dolly or Slim would have won? The "anyone can win" proved true is the concept that draws the masses into the card rooms.

And I don't think it's fair to be too hard on Moneymaker. I'm not saying that I was real impressed with what I saw of him on ESPN, but we have to remember that we see very few of his hands out of a 4 day event. Was he pretty lucky? I'd say so. But he had to do a few things right to get to the point that he was even on the screen to begin with.

[NLSoldier]

I agree that people like Moneymaker winning the WSOP will cause many poeple to lose some respect for past and future WSOP champions, but considering the vast majority of us will never be WSOP champions, I think Moneymakers success has had a much more positive than negative effect on poker overall by bringing so many more new players to the table.

[charlie_t_jr]

I think LetsRock makes a great point about only seeing so many hands in the TV coverage. The TV people obviously want to chose the hands that have the best drama.

Just like the author of Positively 5th Street, who finished 5th in 2000, Moneymaker played some decent poker and got lucky at the right time, and so the poker world has been lucky. Had Sammy Farha called with his pocket 2's at the final table and made his set...things could've turned out a lot differently.

[Still the Spank E]

Always--when playing craps.

[Still the Spank E]

Many of the best poker players (Brunson, Ivey, others) are said to play one another in a weekly Vegas game and, no doubt, have their own idea of who is the best amongst them. ANY tournament can be set up to accomodate enough players to make for a huge prize payout/structure, but I still wish there were one true WORLD SERIES or SUPER BOWL, or whatever you want to call it, where the best players on earth play once a year--the way the original WSOP was. It's just a different animal now, not necessarily a bad one, but one that has replaced an original concept I would love to be able to witness.

[RcrdBoy]

Same with Robert Varkonyi.

You need some luck to win tournaments. That being said, you can't win that event with out some level of skill.

Since Moneymaker is on the "rural" side and appears to be relatively well adjusted and humble, I think, leaves him open to more criticism.

-Mike

[Cosimo]

I won first place in a 274-seat MTT, in my fifth NLHE game. I was dead money in that tourney. In my first month of playing SnGs, my ROI was -34%. Negative. I sucked. I kinda knew the 'right thing' to do, but like McManus, I played scared. Calling instead of going all-in preflop saved me a number of times. I got lucky towards the end and took the trophy.

A fish will never win a big tourney, but there's a long way between fish and shark--and I think Moneymaker sits in the middle.

[bernie]

i dont necesarily think the best holdem players are the winners of tournies. the best holdem players you will rarely hear about. the tourney winners just get more press.

i read in hellmuth's(?) column about amir vahedi(?) winning with 55 in a pot he shouldnt have even been in preflop. some say he's fantastic.

cya in the trenches.

b

[Still the Spank E]

RcrdBoy is right--I had no business making an issue of Moneymaker's Southern origins, down to earth manner, or any of the rest of it in referring to him as Goober, Huckleberry Hound, or whatever. In fact, he seems like a perfectly cool guy who is NOT a schmuck like A LOT of the people getting air time on ESPN and Travel Channel. He did win despite idiocy, however, in my opinion--strictly as a criticism of a good deal of his play, not what part of the country he's from. Thanks for pointing this out, RcrdBoy.

[bernie]

i think majorkong gave a nice review after he was there watching the WSOP live. i cant find his post, but it was favorable to moneymaker. ill take kongs' word for it.

b

[Still the Spank E]

I should have qualified this by referring to the best hold 'em tournament players--certainly NOT completely identical with "best hold 'em players." Thanks for pointing this out.

[MrDannimal]

I was thinking of this too, reading this thread. ESPN set up Moneymaker to look like "Dead Money Gets Lucky" the way they cut 50+ hours of play into ~6 hours of TV. For every strong play he made, it seemed like they had to show a lucky one. Of course he got lucky in spots, every winner does. But from live reports and common sense, you have to be playing pretty well overall to beat 800+ other players, including the best in the world for 5 10+ hour days.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
but does anyone else see ANY downside to the game being made to look like any GOOBER and his two cards can win it all? It would be nice if the WSOP were the province of the best poker player(s) in the world, rather than one who managed to "pull a Homer" (Simpson); wherein one "succeeds despite idiocy."

I mean, he did many things right--don't get me wrong, you'd HAVE TO to survive even one hand against THOSE opponents--but he seemed to just close his eyes and pray on any number of hands and then proceed to get mind numbing good luck on a NUMBER of different occassions (against H. Brenes, for example).

[/ QUOTE ]

So should we take your opinion on Moneymaker's abilities, which is based on a few edited hours of TV; or should we take former WSOP champ Dan Harrington's, who happened to sit at at least two separate tables with Moneymaker during this year's WSOP?

I don't think he's quite the "Goober" you think he is. See this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=gossip&Number=484866&Forum =All_Forums&Words=3&Match=Username&Searchpage=2&Li mit=25&Old=allposts&Main=484866&Search=true#Post48 4866)

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't the best and the luckyest often the same person?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a saying in chess: "The good player is always lucky". Not sure it applies to poker though.

[harboral]

What exactly is your point here? Moneymaker, from what I saw (on film and in a live $100/200 game) made a number of very good plays. Like EVERY SINGLE PLAYER that got past 800 others to close in on the final few tables he did need to "draw-out" a few times when coming in with the worst hand. However, you would need to point out to me where he "succeeded despite idiocy". When was he an idiot?
IMHO you are jealous of someone that won two online tournys to get to the WSOP in the first place, then lasted five days to win. Question is, why are you unhappy? Have you personally ever won even a single tournament?

[under242]

I am new here and this is probably going to be a highly unpopular opinion but while there is a great amount of skill involved in hold'em, tournment play also has a huge degree of luck twisted into it. If you didn't know any of the players and had the sound off...all of them would most likey look like they play like Homer..
Jenn

[stupidsucker]

Moneymaker needed some luck.. He got an extra dose of luck. ANyone that wins any major tourney needs some luck. Moneymaker was good enough to win..You can say whatever you want to, or protest it was uncanny luck, but the proof is in the puddin. He won.

Its great for poker, (unless you are tired of watching people slowplay in your local 2-4 game with their sunglasses)

As for asking for a tourney for only the best...

Think of each tournament throughout the year as a regular season game. The WPT keeps stats/points on everyone. There may not be a game for only the top people(there might be)Perhaps one in the future will emerge.. The only real reason would be for ego. A good poker player plays for $$ not ego imo.

[Ed Miller]

I watched the whole final table from beginning to end. I left that day (obviously without having seen any hole cards) thinking that Moneymaker was actually pretty good. But either way... enough already. How many threads are we gonna have about this exact same dumb topic?

[Ulysses]

People who think that either:

a) expert players are winning 800+ entrant tourneys w/out a lot of luck along the way

or

b) idiots are winning 800+ entrant tourneys thanks only to lots of lucky hands

are both pretty misguided.

I would submit that it is very unlikely that you'll be able to win such a tourney without both being very lucky and making a lot of good plays along the way.

[Cosimo]

Hmmm, that's what I was trying to say, but you said it much more plainly. =)

But... I also doubt that someone can be a truly great player without also having a lot of experience.

[Still the Spank E]

I was actually not leaving it to the forum readers to go by MY opinion, as everyone who watched the ESPN shows could see that some (not ALL) of his plays were some real head-scratchers. This said, Dan Harrington, when asked, seemed to be saying that he thought Farha to have the advantage in what was a high-pressure situation Moneymaker had not (to his knowledge) experienced before. I didn't hear any real endorsement of Moneymaker's abilities in what he said, though maybe I missed it.

[Still the Spank E]

Your insight into my character and motivation is uncanny. I greatly revere you and everything you stand for now.

[Sloats]

Personally, I believe that EOE manipulated the hands that they choose to show to make the WSOP appear to be "Anyone Can Win" and build the drama around a virtual rookie/no name who came in and "shocked" the Poker world. They tried to sell it (and I think they did) as a Poker version of the 1980 Olympics USA hockey.

Also, what better way to promote the game than to have a soft spoken accountant who loves his job win the game's highest honor. That is a far cry from the "smokey back room full of grifters" image that poker had before. This will draw more people and more money (more fish, bigger pots). They are even making a gambling channel on the wings of the show.


And, yes, we was very lucky, he played a bunch of marginal hands, but so did the other finalist. He also made a couple of great calls.

[stupidsucker]

I dont think anyone manipulated hands...

But it is not unlikely that they intentionally ONLY show on TV the hands that make Maker look like the""virtual rookie/no name who came in and shocked the Poker world""

I could put together reel of Michael Jordan footage to make him look like the worst basketball player ever. To someone that doesnt know, they may believe they to can win the MVP award.

Dont get me wrong.. A) I am not a Jordan fan, but he seemed a good example.. B) I am not comparing the two...

But its very possible that Moneymaker isnt as BAD as they might have shown on TV.. They dont telivise every hand.. but we sure see the bad ones over and over and over again.

Bravo I say... Is winning a million dollars worth reading about yourself and how much you suck? I say YES..Give me a cool million and you too can step on my blue seude shoes.

He won, he must have donre something right... For all of you that dislike him and feel you are a better player... You didnt win, stop pining like a no name dramaqueen actor that always feels they could have done a better job.

Crap.. I dont have a large enough post count, or an good enough understanding of spelling to be chastising anyone...
Carry on

[pudley4]

Did you even read the post I linked to?

Here's what Mason wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
He (Dan) told me (Mason) that by chance he was at Moneymaker's table on the first day of the tournament. Dan said that he was so impressed with his game that he went and told several top players who were nearbye that this was a kid they needed to watch. Well, obviously Dan was right.

Also, Dan had only compliments for Moneymaker's ability and performance at the final table.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Still the Spank E]

Okay, I'm sure it was my fault, but the idea I get is that many, many respondents overlooked my having said I consider ANYONE able to get past even one hand against THAT competition to be a very good player, and only noticed my having referred to Moneymaker as "Huckleberry Hound" and "Goober." Most of even what ESPN shows is reasonably acceptable play, its just that I came to the conclusion that, after CONSECUTIVE YEARS of amateurs none of us has ever heard of (and likely will never hear of again), I came to the conclusion that what I would like to see is a true World Series pitting the best against the best ONLY. Not the best against the "okay," or the "not bad" nor even the "very good." Just one event that calls itself the game's "World Series" or its "Super Bowl" is what I'd like to see. That was the WSOP's original purpose, is all. I am of the sincere opinion that we can let this drop now.

[Still the Spank E]

No, I didn't have a chance, as I do this from work. Thanks for cueing me in.

[SheridanCat]

Spank,

In answer to your interest in having only the best tournament players contending for a title of some kind, here's a link you might want to look at.

CardPlayer Player Of The Year Criteria (http://new.cardplayer.com/tournaments/poycriteria.php)

While not a tournament to decide the best, this may or may not show who "the best" is.

Also, keep in mind that tournament poker is not the same as ring game poker. Some of the best poker players in the world likely never bother with tournaments.

Regards,

T

[charlie_t_jr]

Has anybody heard what Moneymaker's been up to over the last year? does he plan to play the WSOP this year? does anybody care?

[Sloats]

I heard that he is in Aruba laying on the beach drinking fruity alcoholic drinks (instead of Red Bull) and finally working on a tan for the past 8 months.







Mind you, I heard it after I read the above to myself, but I DID hear it.





and by manipulated, I meant EOE carefully editted what they showed, not that the game itself was manipulated.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anybody heard what Moneymaker's been up to over the last year? does he plan to play the WSOP this year? does anybody care?

[/ QUOTE ]

He still works at the same job he had before the WSOP.