PDA

View Full Version : To the Moneyaker followers


47outs
03-12-2004, 12:57 AM
He is lucky, period. It wasn't skill, he hadn't developed it by the point of the World series. I do believe he is well on his way now though as it was a huge learning experience for him.
Before the World Series, what were the odds placed on him to win the whole thing?
If you could add up all the suckouts he did throughout the tourny - odds wise all his 22-1 11-1 ect shots he hit (and the fact that noone really sucked out on him) , I am guessing that he had just as good of a chance of winning the lottery. Now sell me on why he was a skilled player again?

OUTs

Nottom
03-12-2004, 01:05 AM
How many times do we have to do this?

BreakEvenPlayer
03-12-2004, 01:21 AM
Why did you post this? It has been discussed a million times. Is this a benefit to the 2+2 community? How the hell are you any authority on whether or not someone is a good player? Are you a top-notch pro? Shaddup already.

Daliman
03-12-2004, 01:26 AM
I have a simple reply for you; name me ONE player who consistently played better than Moneymaker that was shown. Just one......

krazyace5
03-12-2004, 02:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He is lucky, period. It wasn't skill, he hadn't developed it by the point of the World series. I do believe he is well on his way now though as it was a huge learning experience for him.
Before the World Series, what were the odds placed on him to win the whole thing?
If you could add up all the suckouts he did throughout the tourny - odds wise all his 22-1 11-1 ect shots he hit (and the fact that noone really sucked out on him) , I am guessing that he had just as good of a chance of winning the lottery. Now sell me on why he was a skilled player again?

OUTs

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all fantasy. You want some cheese with that whine?

J_V
03-12-2004, 03:19 AM
Phil Ivey.

However, Moneymaker may not be the best in the world, but he is formidable.

47outs
03-12-2004, 03:42 AM
Phil Ivey

47outs
03-12-2004, 03:47 AM
I havn't discussed this a million times... not even once. And I think he is a good player. The point of my post was the questions I asked, not to flame you people who are all horny about this guy. My questions where, what were the odds of him winning leading up to the tourny. Did you guys miss this, the point of the post? And, adding up all the odds of the beats he did... collectively would this compare to winning the lottery or something like 20,000-1... 1,000,000-1.. i have no idea, that is why I am asking.

PHIL IVEY played better consistantly, if you have to even ask that question than you have no business replying to my post.

Daliman
03-12-2004, 05:03 AM
Ok, you say Phil Ivey, yet Phil Ivey called a big bet from Moneymaker in that fateful AQo vs 99 hand, when he not only called it, but called it knowing there was a player behind him. He called a large bet for a 22-1 shot and got VERY lucky, yet all anyone ever talks about is how lucky MM got and how bad he played it when he hit his 6.5-1, like ANYONE else there is foldding top trips, best kicker.
Phil Ivey is a great player, but his propensity to overplay small/medium Pocket pairs was the ruin of him. Also, earlier in the tournament, he pissed away 90k of his ~200K stack vs sammy farha calling his bet on the end with a 9448A board, Ivey called w/ K9? Farha showed him quads. TERRIBLE PLAY. Not a single play MM made was half as bad. And don't give me the hand vs brenes; brenes tried to trap by betting small, and he got caught. MM DOES NOT CALL brenes's allin there, guaranteed, but MM DID think he could possibly win simply by coming over the top, which he WOULD have on the raise alone if brenes had ANY better hand than 88 that was less than kings, period. Try again.
The Farha hand alone was pathetic on Ivey's part. Worst part is, if he was right, he's some kinda genius. But the 19 times out of 20 he's wrong, "oh well, i had a read". Same thing Hellmuth does, calling crap Ace high on opponets allin flop bet, when he KNOWS they have to have a pair.....

Daliman
03-12-2004, 05:05 AM
and by the way, he had 2 real suckouts only. Show me a majortournament winner, and i'll show you someone who sucked out at LEAST 2 times and won at LEAST 3 coinflips.

Nottom
03-12-2004, 05:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The point of my post was the questions I asked, not to flame you people who are all horny about this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody is "horny" about MM, we are just sick of people bshing him for no reason.

Was he the best player in the field? no.
Did he get his share of good cards at the right times? absolutely.
Has any previous WSOP winner not gotten lucky a few times on his way to the winner's circle? Certainly not.

As others have stated before, winning a big tourney like that takes a combination of luck and skill, sure you need to get lucky but you need skill to even put yourself in a position to get lucky.

[ QUOTE ]
And, adding up all the odds of the beats he did... collectively would this compare to winning the lottery or something like 20,000-1... 1,000,000-1.. i have no idea, that is why I am asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an absurd statement. Its not like MM was never sucked out on or was behind in every hand he played, just not in any of the big hands they showed. This is like calculating the odds that there is a guy with a scruffy beard, wearing a grey shirt, sitting in a black chair, drinking a root bear, and typing a response on 2+2 to this topic. I'm sure if you calculated the odds of all that happening at this very moment they would be astronomical, but it doesn't matter cause I know for a fact its actually happening.

If someone were to take odds on MM prior to last years WSOP, I'm sure you could have gotten 5000-1. This year I'd be surprised if you could get 400-1.

Just give the man his due and stop the mindless MM bashing. He just went out and placed second in a WPT event, so unless he's the luckiest man alive, he has to be pretty good at this game.

Ulysses
03-12-2004, 06:14 AM
This is like calculating the odds that there is a guy with a scruffy beard, wearing a grey shirt, sitting in a black chair, drinking a root bear, and typing a response on 2+2 to this topic. I'm sure if you calculated the odds of all that happening at this very moment they would be astronomical, but it doesn't matter cause I know for a fact its actually happening.

You know for a fact some dude posting on 2+2 is drinking a bear? That is crazy.

47outs
03-12-2004, 06:30 AM
Good post, thanks. You give great arguements but what I dont agree with was the 88 hand, makes me cringe every time I see it. I will let it die, it was just on my mind so I had to put it out there.

OutsS

ScottyP431
03-12-2004, 09:47 AM
"This year I'd be surprised if you could get 400-1. "


Ummm... ill give 400-1, [censored] ill give 1000-1

Al_Capone_Junior
03-12-2004, 10:33 AM

AJo Go All In
03-12-2004, 11:13 AM
you are wrong.

moneymaker made a very small bet on the AQ vs 99 hand. ivey called the flop intending to freeze moneymaker.

why would he fold 99 on that board to a very small bet? that would be very weak.

theBruiser500
03-12-2004, 11:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
ivey called the flop intending to freeze moneymaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

what does this mean? And how many chips were gotten in preflop, on the flop and on the turn if you remember?

danny

Sloats
03-12-2004, 11:38 AM
HULL'S SKATE WAS IN THE CREASE. NO GOAL!!!







/images/graemlins/confused.gifwhat? /images/graemlins/confused.gif wrong sour grapes thread?

Gamblor
03-12-2004, 12:26 PM
Someone should shoot Hasek and get it over with. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Despite his skill, he's a detriment to the game.

Discuss.

Rushmore
03-12-2004, 12:35 PM
Hockey being what it is these days, I'd be careful what I suggest.

Next you'll be suggesting someone "break his neck."

boedeker
03-12-2004, 12:38 PM
I'm willing to give MM all those suck outs, because thats poker, but the one thing that kind of makes me sick is when he was heads up against chan and hits the nut flush on the turn he doesn't even realize he has the best hand until the river is dealt. I have watched this over and over (thank you tivo) and he doesnt react until the river.

I think MM is a much better player now, but at the time, he clearly wasn't a very good player.

ohkanada
03-12-2004, 12:42 PM
You watched him play every hand of the tourney? All 40+ hours? Or are you basing your opinion on espns coverage?

The fact he just won 200k at another tourney says he better than average. It is fairly rare to win any tourney without getting lucky once or twice.

Ken Poklitar

Stew
03-12-2004, 12:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have a simple reply for you; name me ONE player who consistently played better than Moneymaker that was shown. Just one......

[/ QUOTE ]

I can name several for you: Gus Hansen, Daniel Negreanu, Phil Laak, Paul Phillips, Phil Laak, Mel Judah and Brian Haveson.

However, Chris has shown he is a solid player, not trying to say Chris isn't among the top players in the world right now, but you can't say he's the best over the past year or so.

Sloats
03-12-2004, 12:46 PM
This whole thread smells of a Brett Favre commercial.

boedeker
03-12-2004, 12:48 PM
I'm basing my opinion based on the espn coverage and specifically the hand where he knocks out chan.

Clearly, MM has gotten better, his 2nd place finish is evidence of that.

Stew
03-12-2004, 12:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm willing to give MM all those suck outs, because thats poker, but the one thing that kind of makes me sick is when he was heads up against chan and hits the nut flush on the turn he doesn't even realize he has the best hand until the river is dealt. I have watched this over and over (thank you tivo) and he doesnt react until the river.

I think MM is a much better player now, but at the time, he clearly wasn't a very good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the hand you are talking about and your Tivo must suck b/c he had the best hand when all the money went in on the flop. He had a AX (hearts) against Chan's KX (Hearts) with two hearts and an Ace on board on the flop, all the money went in. Chris said, "I need a heart," when Chan called, thinking he was outkicked or Chan had two pair or a set, I assume. Then when the cards were turned over, he exhaled and knew that Chan was drawing dead to two runners that weren't hearts.

You seem to have your facts slightly confused, better watch that replay again.

boedeker
03-12-2004, 12:59 PM
Actually my tivo is correct, but your brain must suck, because actually Chan was not drawing dead. He had a wheel draw. Remember? After MM says "I need a heart" Chan says "Give me a 2" and MM (like a dipshit) says "No 2 No 2" and then the turn gives MM the nuts, but he doesn't realize it.

Wake up CALL
03-12-2004, 01:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Actually my tivo is correct, but your brain must suck, because actually Chan was not drawing dead. He had a wheel draw. Remember? After MM says "I need a heart" Chan says "Give me a 2" and MM (like a dipshit) says "No 2 No 2" and then the turn gives MM the nuts, but he doesn't realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he realizes it gave him the nuts? Does your TiVo have some psychic ability that a VCR does not? Give us all a break.

boedeker
03-12-2004, 01:06 PM
Ok answer me this. If you put out Chan on the turn would you cheer? MM doesn't. He stands there in with pregnant anticipation for the river then he does his fist pump macho stuff.

Wake up CALL
03-12-2004, 01:13 PM
Personally I would have cheered when the cards were turned over and I saw how few outs Chan had to win. As for Moneymaker he simply showed restraint until the hand was complete as he should. How can you conclude that after asking for a heart, then a heart comes on the turn that he did not realize he had the nuts? Penis envy on your part if you ask me.

Stew
03-12-2004, 01:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually my tivo is correct, but your brain must suck, because actually Chan was not drawing dead. He had a wheel draw. Remember? After MM says "I need a heart" Chan says "Give me a 2" and MM (like a dipshit) says "No 2 No 2" and then the turn gives MM the nuts, but he doesn't realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he realizes it gave him the nuts? Does your TiVo have some psychic ability that a VCR does not? Give us all a break.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, yes it doesn't lose any quality after watching the same thing over and over 1 million times. Anyway, you are correct about the inside straight draw, but that's about the only thing you got right.

boedeker
03-12-2004, 01:22 PM
ok, you give MM credit for showing restraint. I'm going to say that he is a meat head that would have done all his whooping and fist pumping if he known the hand was the winner of the hand on the turn.

He goes nuts when the 8 hits giving him a set against the aces, and there was still the river to come.

However, I'll grant you this difference of oppinion.

toots
03-12-2004, 01:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Penis envy on your part if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'd say that's a fair assessment of the motivation behind all these Moneymaker threads.

slogger
03-12-2004, 02:07 PM
If all you have to offer is your ability to divine someone's inner thoughts from watching TiVo a thousand times over, you should really consider reading more and posting less. That, and get a life.

MM didn't do any fist pumping because he was ahead before he made the nuts against Chan. He did NOT need to improve and Chan was drawing VERY NEAR dead.

He pumped his fist against Brenes because he hit a freakin' 2-outer!

Why is this so hard to understand?

S

daryn
03-12-2004, 02:25 PM
ok i'll take that bet, 1000-1. put me down for $1

Daliman
03-12-2004, 02:46 PM
watch it again; tou're wrong. he knows he won on the turn. Even, IF he didn't, it's a but of a watershed event for the guy, beating(and outplaying) hus idol, so he could've been cut some slack. Impressive cll there too by "the perfect poker player; al your chips for a draw only. If MM had done the same, it'd be even more fuel for the fire...

Daliman
03-12-2004, 02:48 PM
strictly on ESPN's coverage, yes. Which is all everyone else is basing it on. I'm using the info at hand.

Taxman
03-12-2004, 02:49 PM

Daliman
03-12-2004, 02:50 PM
not a haveson fan, but i was talking STRICTLY about WSOP 2003. I'm not close to saying he's the best, or even great, but he IS solid.

Tyler Durden
03-12-2004, 03:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My questions where, what were the odds of him winning leading up to the tourny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hell are you asking me? How the ass should I know??

Easy E
03-12-2004, 03:05 PM
I thought CM had the Aces and the nut flush draw and Johnny only had the K-high flush draw and called all-in?

Were you thinking instead of the Humberto Brenes knockout when CM raised HB all-in with 88 and found out he was facing Aces?

Does CM get to balance that gaffe off with what I saw as a pretty good call with 33 against Dutch's large raise with KQoff when the flop didn't help either one?

As I find out more and more, reading followups to writeups of the various WPT and WSOP shows, there is so much more going behind the scenes that to judge the player based on the televised hands is almost pointless....

That being said, I'm still gonna rip into everyone /images/graemlins/grin.gif since I'm the only "real" expert on poker /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Tyler Durden
03-12-2004, 03:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
the one thing that kind of makes me sick is when he was heads up against chan and hits the nut flush on the turn he doesn't even realize he has the best hand until the river is dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all kinds of wrong. They got it all-in on the flop and MM didn't think he was ahead. After he made the nuts on the turn (with both their hands turned up), of course he knew he had the hand locked up.

Easy E
03-12-2004, 03:08 PM
"Just give the man his due and stop the mindless MM bashing. He just went out and placed second in a WPT event, so unless he's the luckiest man alive, he has to be pretty good at this game. "

I don't care if he IS a fish, if I could take his two tournament cash-outs.

toots
03-12-2004, 04:34 PM
Statement: "Chris Moneymaker is a poor poker player."

Translation: "I have a very small penis. Very small."

Sloats
03-12-2004, 06:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Statement: "Chris Moneymaker is a poor poker player."

Translation: "I have a very small penis. Very small."

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's trying to make us buy all of the Chinpokomon?

Your Mom
03-12-2004, 06:53 PM
We have a lot of jealous people on this message board. Pretty sad.

Stew
03-12-2004, 07:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the one thing that kind of makes me sick is when he was heads up against chan and hits the nut flush on the turn he doesn't even realize he has the best hand until the river is dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all kinds of wrong. They got it all-in on the flop and MM didn't think he was ahead. After he made the nuts on the turn (with both their hands turned up), of course he knew he had the hand locked up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tyler, as I said, MM didn't think he was ahead when the money went in, which was on the flop. But, when the cards were turned over, he exhaled and just pulled off his cap and rubbed his head, indicating to me he was clearly ahead and then started rooting against the card that could beat him, a deuce as pointed out. I agree when the heart fell on the turn, he appeared to me to know he had the hand won. I think that was also the first big player he busted out (at least how it was shown sequentially). I certainly may be wrong about that, but I think it was.

bernie
03-12-2004, 09:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you could add up all the suckouts he did throughout the tourny - odds wise all his 22-1 11-1 ect shots he hit (and the fact that noone really sucked out on him) , I am guessing that he had just as good of a chance of winning the lottery. Now sell me on why he was a skilled player again?


[/ QUOTE ]

ummm...couldnt this be stated about all of the WSOP winners?

If phil ivey won, wouldnt people be criticizing his call to the turn and hitting his 2 outer against CM trip Qs if his FH held up? Just one example of many.

b

ScottyP431
03-12-2004, 10:04 PM
wow, did u just figure out that if you bet on long shots you can bet a small amount to win a large one? that is revolutionary isnt it, perhaps you would be interested in making another bet, its called the lottery, and your 1 dollar could win you millions

Sincere
03-12-2004, 10:13 PM
Phil Ivey wasn't all-in by way of calling off all his chips in that hand. He hit a 9 then went all in if I recall correctly. Most of the big hands MM was involved in he called his chips off and was way behind. Even the 33 hand he called his chips off, he just happened to be lucky Dutch was bluffing. So, I think its different. Champs don't get all-in by calling off their chips and being behind, they get all-in by betting when they are ahead. Just my opinion.

mosch
03-12-2004, 11:01 PM
Please let me know if you decide to book this wager on any of the online betting exchanges, I'll take it for $50.

Tyler Durden
03-12-2004, 11:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Even the 33 hand he called his chips off, he just happened to be lucky Dutch was bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh man, this is funny. You're right, Chris Moneymaker was really lucky that his read was 100% on the money.

Sincere
03-13-2004, 02:41 AM
Like his read on the 88 hand against Humberto? Come on, dude likes to gamble and he showed that numerous times. I seriously doubt he had a read here. He just likes to gamble so he called. Just like when he called Humberto's AA with 88, just this time he actually happened to be ahead.

I've read a lot of posts on here about his 33 hand, and I think you guys give him way to much credit for having a "read." What is more likely is that he just likes to take chances just like he did against Humberto. I mean face it, you can't call it taking a chance when he puts his money in and he is behind, then turn around and say he has a read on the 33 hand. Both hands have the same characteristics, and he made the wrong play both times.

Nottom
03-13-2004, 03:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Just like when he called Humberto's AA with 88, just this time he actually happened to be ahead.


[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed this hand. I only saw the one where he had Humberto seriously outstacked and put him all-in with 88 when the flop came low cards.

Slingshot
03-13-2004, 08:04 AM
Just been looking over Chris' 2003 WSOP results.
End Day 1 : $60k
End Day 2 : $100k
End Day 3 : $357k
End Day 4 : $2.3m
End Day 5 : $2,499,960 richer

To any person, analyst, statistician, w/e, those figures are uncontested as far as consistency goes. Five days is a damn long time to be "lucky". Some breaks may very well have fallen his way, but name me one player in the complete history of poker who hasn't had their share of good luck.
It was only key moments of luck he had, his growing chip count from day to day only tells me he played some great poker to be the champ.
Maybe Scotty Nguyen can thank luck that his 83o never got called by (i believe!) Bruno Fitoussi with AT, or Amir Vahedi cursing luck that his 46h not catching anything but the trash can against Sam Farha. Maybe Jason Lester can thank his lucky stars he made the final table by catching a J on the river over Phil's QQ, which put him in damage control and out the very next hand!
Im a new poker player, not great, and im sure im not the worst. Put me on a golf course with the world's top ten in a skins match and i wont win a penny. Put me on a race track with the world's top ten and i'll probably finish before they have to turn on the flood lights. But put me on a poker table with the world's top ten and i just "may" finish better than last. Thats what's so appealling to a new poker face. Chris has opened the doors to any Joe Citizen with a couple of bux to burn. I hope he takes full advantage of his fame. Write a book, tell a story. The pro's will buy it for a "laugh" and the amateur will buy it because he is looked up to. At the end of the day guess what!.....more money for Chris.

I will be keenly watching his results in any tournament he may enter from late April right through to the $10k NL in May. For the simple fact that he is a Joe Citizen, that we all wish we could be.

Best of "luck" Chris (my 0.02c + a $40 PS satellite)

PS...next time my drive off the first tee is headin to the woods and smacks off some monster tree to hit the middle of the fairway, i'll chalk it up to you!)

Stew
03-13-2004, 09:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Like his read on the 88 hand against Humberto? Come on, dude likes to gamble and he showed that numerous times. I seriously doubt he had a read here. He just likes to gamble so he called. Just like when he called Humberto's AA with 88, just this time he actually happened to be ahead.

I've read a lot of posts on here about his 33 hand, and I think you guys give him way to much credit for having a "read." What is more likely is that he just likes to take chances just like he did against Humberto. I mean face it, you can't call it taking a chance when he puts his money in and he is behind, then turn around and say he has a read on the 33 hand. Both hands have the same characteristics, and he made the wrong play both times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, your factually inaccurate. He didn't "call" Humberto with 88. He bet on the flop with a board showing two kings, Humberto raised him and MM re-raised him all-in, Humberto subsequently called MM. That is way different than the way you described the hand. MM clearly thought he had the best hand in that particular instance (or if he didn't, he felt he could make Humberto lay down what he had) and was wrong.

Now, as to the 33 hand against Dutch's two high cards. Yes, MM clearly had a read on Dutch, when he called he said, "No high cards", clearly indicating he had Dutch on two overs.

Both plays aren't right or wrong. In instance Number 1, he felt he could make Humberto lay down a hand or he had the best hand, he was wrong about his analysis of the situation. But, he was the agressor, not the caller and that's the difference. Situation two, he made a great read. Again, the reason i say this is he said, "No High Cards" after making the call, clearly indicating TO ME that he had a good idea what Dutch's holdings were. And that, my friend, is a great play. With the flop out and MM having the best hand, that's where you want your money in.

Do you even play no-limit tournament poker?

bernie
03-13-2004, 01:12 PM
The point i was making was that any player winning the tourney gets lucky draws coming in at some point. Every winner could be scrutinized the same way as far as getting lucky during a tourney.

A single winning of a tourney doesnt necesarily make a player any greater than he is lucky, or vice versa.

The reason i brought up the ivey deal was because, if i remember right, he had to call a rather sizeable bet hoping to spike his 2-outer. I'd have to recheck just how much it was in relation to other factors though.

Once again, i'll defer to Majorkongs review of it, since, he was there watching in person. He mentioned that CM played pretty good during it.


b

M.B.E.
03-13-2004, 01:18 PM
On his pocket threes hand, Moneymaker was getting 2:1 pot odds at the time he called Boyd's bet all-in. Mathematically his call was correct if the probability Boyd was bluffing was greater than 35.4% (see my analysis in this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=319704&page=0&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)).

knifeandfork
03-13-2004, 02:10 PM
one might want to reference carlos mortensen if you wish to talk about draw outs in wsop is he a skill free player too? and moneymaker didnt really suck out on ivey he got trapped and drew out of a tight fix he had a great hand with the trip qs ace kicker. just a to say someone is a badplayer based on the # of times they draw out is not a good way to judge now if you say he takes the worst of it far too often he did only a few times, and anyway i remember a guy saying something about he always had the worst of it in big pots who was that he wrote some book..... yeah there was that questionable call on tomer with the A2 but if he really read him that well to put him on a weak hand hes got some monster bolas to call with A2 anyway. anyways at first i thought moneymaker was terrible and just got lucky too but thx to espn showing that series everyday 5times a day ive come to appreciate chris's aggressiveness even if its sometimes in the wrong spots he also did a lot of this drawing out with a huge stack and that can explain a bit, and one also has to wonder how he built a huge stack to start...... hes better than me( iknow this isnt saying much) and hes probably better than most posters on here and with his 1.5 million he has probably made more money than most too.......what matters in poker in the end?

Daliman
03-13-2004, 03:31 PM
Moneymaker was only once allin to a bigger stack in the tournament as shown on ESPN; during the 33 vs KQ hand vs Boyd. TO say he was "lucky" Boyd was bluffing is ludicrous. HE had a read, felt confident enough in it to risk his tourney, called, and was right. HIs only luck form there out was that dutch didn't hit. and yes, champs, DO get all there chips in allin fro mm behind. See carlos mortenson and Chris ferguson as recent examples.

jwvdcw
03-13-2004, 04:42 PM
This has been discussed so much its ridiculous, but whatever, I'll do it again...

Moneymaker made one bad play...going all in with 8s against aces..he got lucky there. Thats the only bad play he made.

The one other time when he caught a card was against Ivey, but Ivey got just as lucky on the turn, as MM was a huge favorite after the flop.But fine, I'll give you this as well...so thats 2 bad plays in 5 days.

Now how about his good plays...


calling Boyd with pocket 3s...great great call and very tough decision

Bluffing Farha out of a huge pot with absolutely nothing, while Farha had top pair, queen kicker

Getting Lester to go all in against his nut straight.

Getting Chan to go all in with only 4 outs..the 4 2s to make his straight

I could name more...MM made one mistake, and got lucky by turning an 8. However, he outplayed the 'pros' on many many hands.

All of this MM bashing is getting silly...now can we please put this to a rest. And if you really need more examples of MM's solid play, then search the archives because this has been discussed a ton.

Stew
03-13-2004, 05:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This has been discussed so much its ridiculous, but whatever, I'll do it again...

Moneymaker made one bad play...going all in with 8s against aces..he got lucky there. Thats the only bad play he made.

The one other time when he caught a card was against Ivey, but Ivey got just as lucky on the turn, as MM was a huge favorite after the flop.But fine, I'll give you this as well...so thats 2 bad plays in 5 days.

Now how about his good plays...


calling Boyd with pocket 3s...great great call and very tough decision

Bluffing Farha out of a huge pot with absolutely nothing, while Farha had top pair, queen kicker

Getting Lester to go all in against his nut straight.

Getting Chan to go all in with only 4 outs..the 4 2s to make his straight

I could name more...MM made one mistake, and got lucky by turning an 8. However, he outplayed the 'pros' on many many hands.

All of this MM bashing is getting silly...now can we please put this to a rest. And if you really need more examples of MM's solid play, then search the archives because this has been discussed a ton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much agree with this, but keep in mind, these are only the hands we saw.

SaintAces
03-13-2004, 06:19 PM
Chan had three outs, not the 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif



/images/graemlins/grin.gif

jmark
03-13-2004, 06:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
heads up against chan and hits the nut flush on the turn he doesn't even realize he has the best hand until the river is dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sheesh give the guy a break. If I was heads up against Johnny %*!@ing Chan all-in, getting close to the final table at the WSOP I'd probably forget my own freaking name.

daryn
03-13-2004, 08:23 PM
no but you offered 1000-1 odds, and i'm looking to take it. is that wrong? i think moneymaker is better than 1 in 1000 to win, that's all.

are you saying you're gonna offer bets up and not take them?

later loser.


/images/graemlins/heart.gif-daryn

Styles
03-13-2004, 08:27 PM

M.B.E.
03-13-2004, 09:08 PM
As I've posted before, Moneymaker's call of Boyd's flop checkraise was correct given the pot odds, as long as there was at least a 35.4% chance that Boyd was bluffing.

However, I wonder about Moneymaker's play on this hand preflop. Blinds were 15K-30K (not sure how much the ante was), and Boyd open-raised to 100K in the cutoff. Moneymaker held 33 on the button, with 700K in his stack. Why did Moneymaker call the raise preflop? Wasn't it a reraise-or-fold situation?

daryn
03-14-2004, 12:12 AM
well if he had that kind of a read, perhaps he wanted to see the flop to make sure it was safe? if the flop comes all rags, he's golden boy.

Sincere
03-14-2004, 01:46 PM
I've played NL poker for 6 years. There's no need to attack me personally. Calling with the 33 hand at that late stage in the tournament is just wrong. Someone else even mentioned that Dutch raised pre-flop to 100k, and MM stack was 700k and he called. I mean what the hell was he thinking?

How can people say he had a great read on the 33 hand. Then turn around and say about the 88 hand that, he was wrong about his analysis of the situation. If he is such a super good card/people reader, how can he be right one hand and way off the wall on the other. In my opinion that just tells me he is not a good situation reader and clearly likes to gamble on close situations, and that is not a good tournament strategy. I'm not saying he's not a very good player. I just think he gets to much credit for winning the thing and for his read. I mean with 800 player tournaments, some monkey is bound to win. But, I could very well be wrong too, I wasn't there. Well, I was there, but not watching. It will be interesting to see how he does this year. Only time will tell how good he is, Varkoni too.

Stew
03-14-2004, 02:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I've played NL poker for 6 years. There's no need to attack me personally. Calling with the 33 hand at that late stage in the tournament is just wrong. Someone else even mentioned that Dutch raised pre-flop to 100k, and MM stack was 700k and he called. I mean what the hell was he thinking?

How can people say he had a great read on the 33 hand. Then turn around and say about the 88 hand that, he was wrong about his analysis of the situation. If he is such a super good card/people reader, how can he be right one hand and way off the wall on the other. In my opinion that just tells me he is not a good situation reader and clearly likes to gamble on close situations, and that is not a good tournament strategy. I'm not saying he's not a very good player. I just think he gets to much credit for winning the thing and for his read. I mean with 800 player tournaments, some monkey is bound to win. But, I could very well be wrong too, I wasn't there. Well, I was there, but not watching. It will be interesting to see how he does this year. Only time will tell how good he is, Varkoni too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the pesonal attack, but your analysis didn't refelct someone who had played a good amount of NL poker.


Anyway, it's Quite simple, if you have Dutch on over's either pre or post-flop it's a good play b/c you're the favorite (althought a re-raise would have been preferrable pre-flop, IMO). He said, "NO HIGH CARDS" when he called. He had Dutch on over's quite simple. Now, you're telling me that laying down a pocket pair when you have someone on two overcards is a good play...it may be, you are right about that, but then again it wasn't here, was it?

I never said anything how good/bad of a reader he is. But, in the 33 situation, he obviously had the right read. Now, with regards to the 88 hand, I have no idea what he was thinking, i can only speculate that either felt he had the best hand or he could get Humberto to lay down the best hand, obviously he was wrong either way and got lucky for lack of a better word.

Further, as far as not being a good situation reader and likes to gamble in close situations...I can agree with this, particularly with the way the hand went down with Chan. However, if you are not a good reader and/or as skilled as your opponents, you ARE SUPPOSED to gamble in close situations, so if he isn't a good reader he played it exactly the way he should.

You're right, some monkey could win an 800 player tourney, some monkey could finish second in a WPT main event within a year, but not likely. As far as Varkonyi goes, well I think the book is in on him, he hasn't done diddly squat since his win.

Sincere
03-14-2004, 03:29 PM
Sorry for the personal attack

No problem.

Now, you're telling me that laying down a pocket pair when you have someone on two overcards is a good play

Of course, if his read was 100% then calling is the correct play, but realistically, even the greatest card/people readers in the world can't read 100% accurate. There is no tell/read that is 100%, there just isn't, and in my opinion, MM isn't a good enough "reader" to be right more than 70% of the time here. Also, when you factor in that Dutch could've just as easily had a middle pair like, 99 or JJ calling hear either makes you a BIG underdog, or a SMALL favorite and thats not a situation I want to get my money in on.

it may be, you are right about that, but then again it wasn't here, was it?

I think saying that laying down 33 here isn't the right move just because he went on to win the hand is being a little too results oriented, he could have been way behind to a higher pocket pair and he could've been easily outdrawn too. Sure, calling right here turned out to win the hand, but that don't make it the right play.


However, if you are not a good reader and/or as skilled as your opponents, you ARE SUPPOSED to gamble in close situations,

You are right here, and that is something I overlooked. So, maybe gambling in those close situations was the right move for HIM. But, I still don't think it is the right overall poker move.

P.S. You think you could tell me how to use the quote feature. Or could anyone tell me for that matter, I still can't figure it out. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

jmark
03-14-2004, 09:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. You think you could tell me how to use the quote feature. Or could anyone tell me for that matter, I still can't figure it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either click the quote link under instant UBB Code or type blah blah (without the _)

Daliman
03-15-2004, 01:08 AM
actually, he had less, because he could have hit his straight and MM STILL had extra outs to his flush not metter what on the river

Daliman
03-15-2004, 01:11 AM
If you've been playing NL poker for 6 years, and you don't understand these concepts, you're likely not very good.


Not an attack, just an observation.

Sincere
03-15-2004, 01:54 AM
Could you elaborate a little more? Thanks.

Sincere
03-15-2004, 01:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think I got it, cool, thanks a lot!

[/ QUOTE ]

Daliman
03-15-2004, 02:59 AM
#1 Tourney NL and Cash NL are similar, but also have many striking differences. I'll give an OBVIOUS example.

Lets say 4 players are left in a tournament that pays 3 spots. If I have 100 chips, and the other 3 players all have 200,000 chips, if 2 of those players go allin in front of me, ANY hand gets mucks, including and ESPECIALLY aces. Why? Because I stand to gain very little if I win the hand, tripling up to 300 chips, which would be meaningless, but am exposing myself to getting knocked out in the same hand as a bigger stack, therefore knocking me out in 4th place, whereas i can sit out the hand, and watch as i slip into the $$$ 95% of the time just by folding and letting one knock the other out.
As I said, that's obvious.
A less obvious play would be, if you were in a 10Players tourney, paying 3 spots, and had 6000 in chips, 2nd place had 3200 in chips, and 3rd and 4th had 400 each. Blinds are at 200-400. The small stacks are not in the blinds and both fold. The 2nd place stack, in the small blind, raises your BB to 800. If i know the player has half a clue, i will goo all in on him with any 2 cards, and they will fold
most any hand worse than JJ, and I've made QQ fold in that situation also. A play I'd NEVER make in a cash game, is exceptionally profitiable in tourneys used sparingly. The call on Boyd, well, While it was a great read, i don't think it was that tough of one. If Boyd was confident in his hand, what was he trying to get info from MM for? Sure, coulda been a double-reverse, but I don't think it was that tough. Now, if you have a problem with the call for the reason that even if he was right, he could still lose; yeah, that's a possibility. Don't fall into the fallacious thought pattern of thinking making the right read and the right play is always 100% accurate. Many of the greatest "reads" in history were just crying calls that went good. Your problem, if with staking it all on a 70% shot, is analogous to a recent tourney theory question, stating;

"First hand of the 2003 WSOP main event, you are in the BB, all fold around to the SB, who raises you all-in. You, however happened to see his cards and know for a FACT that he has QJ Clubs(disregard any moral/ethical qualms), and you have AKo. You know you are a 60/40 favorite. do you call?"

If you are from the camp that doesn't call, then you will have a problem with his 33 call. If you call there every time, then you should understand it completely.
Often the difference between the person who wins a tourneys and who just cashed are the people willing to lay it all on the line in a marginal situation. Those that do are often either rewarded handsomely or swiftly gone. MM made his choice to be proactive, and was rewarded.
For a bit of perspective on soem of the play, however, i WILL tell you this; from what I've read, there have een a LOT of questionable, if not downright terrible plays made by some all-time greats at the WSOP. Case in point;

When Jack Straus and Dewey Tomko faced off for the WSOP title in 1982(?), with the blinds ONLY AT 2000-4000 they each raised and reraised until there was 1 million in the pot preflop and Tomko was allin.
What were the crusher hands they each had that seemed worthy of risking that much when the blinds were so low only 6 minutes into heads up play?
Straus: Ace-ten offsuit /images/graemlins/confused.gif
Tomko: Ace-Four diamonds.. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Not sure who popped allin when and where preflop there, but SOMEONE made a HUGE error there, plain and simple. ANd these are two of the best players of all time.

ScottyP431
03-15-2004, 07:16 AM
I think a great deal of probably bad plays that turn out alright get justified under the rubric of "i had a read", not only when people successfully call with weak hands against a non obvious bluff, but more when people make bad calls with losing hands, and then go on to catch and win.

I think from personal observation that when people say things like " i thought you had nothing", "didnt think you had IT" etc, that is a , well its a tell if you will, that this person has no idea what they are saying and that the consideration of what the other person had did not factor into their decision. People who claim to have read the other player without putting them on a specific hand or group of hands, but instead claim to know wether they are beat or not in the abstract, i believe are not reading hands, but are instead making that up post the fact. Thoughts?

M.B.E.
03-15-2004, 12:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think a great deal of probably bad plays that turn out alright get justified under the rubric of "i had a read", not only when people successfully call with weak hands against a non obvious bluff, but more when people make bad calls with losing hands, and then go on to catch and win.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you call with an underdog and then catch a card to win, you won't justify your call by saying "I had a read". You'll justify it by saying "I had pot odds".

ScottyP431
03-15-2004, 01:07 PM
ummm... an interesting non sequator... yes you COULD do that, but thats not what my post was about

although that is also very annoying, like when people in heads up or short handed play draw to inside straights and then talk about pot odds...

Daliman
03-15-2004, 01:23 PM
I wholeheartedly agree w/ this sentiment.

Sincere
03-15-2004, 02:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
#1 Tourney NL and Cash NL are similar, but also have many striking differences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about cash games, or tourneys vs cash games.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say 4 players are left in a tournament that pays 3 spots. If I have 100 chips, and the other 3 players all have 200,000 chips, if 2 of those players go allin in front of me, ANY hand gets mucks, including and ESPECIALLY aces. Why? Because I stand to gain very little if I win the hand, tripling up to 300 chips, which would be meaningless, but am exposing myself to getting knocked out in the same hand as a bigger stack, therefore knocking me out in 4th place, whereas i can sit out the hand, and watch as i slip into the $$$ 95% of the time just by folding and letting one knock the other out.
As I said, that's obvious.
A less obvious play would be, if you were in a 10Players tourney, paying 3 spots, and had 6000 in chips, 2nd place had 3200 in chips, and 3rd and 4th had 400 each. Blinds are at 200-400. The small stacks are not in the blinds and both fold. The 2nd place stack, in the small blind, raises your BB to 800. If i know the player has half a clue, i will goo all in on him with any 2 cards, and they will fold
most any hand worse than JJ, and I've made QQ fold in that situation also. A play I'd NEVER make in a cash game, is exceptionally profitiable in tourneys used sparingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I read that book too. However, I still don't get what you are talking about, neither of these two examples have anything to do with the 33 hand?

[ QUOTE ]
If you are from the camp that doesn't call, then you will have a problem with his 33 call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've won many tournaments, by NOT putting my money on the line in very close decisions and by just waiting for better spots to get it in the middle. If I'm faced with a situation where if I CALL, all my chips are in the middle and I'm a small favorite or a big underdog, I'm probably not going to risk it. There are just to many opportunities to get your money in with way the best of it, and way more opportunities to get your money in by way of being the aggressor and not the caller. Shorthanded play not applying of course.

Sincere
03-15-2004, 02:58 PM
I think this is exactly what happened in the 33 hand. He made a bonehead call which turned out ok and he won the hand. Now everyone judges this play by being a little too much result oriented and claiming he had a super read. When in reality he's not a super-reader, and nobody can read 100% perfect anyway. The fact that he couldn't possibly be 100% correct on a read, makes it wrong to put your money in on a CALL, when you are either a small favorite or a huge underdog.

EDIT: Look at his body language when he stands up. He obviously looks like a man taking a huge gamble and looks like he knows this is an intense situation. He's trying to bow up looking big and strong, when he knows he is taking a huge chance. If his read was so great, he would'nt have to act this wierd and intense.

Nottom
03-15-2004, 03:11 PM
Just to put another spin on the MM 33 hand vs Dutch. Lets say you are Chris Moneymaker and there are 20ish players left in the tourney. You are already well into the money at this point and don't consider yourself one of the best players remaining. You now have a chance to take your averageish stack and double up and be one of the chip leaders in a hand where you think you have a decent chance of being ahead.

All this crap about saving your chips for a better situation is tied to you really thinking you are one of the better players remaining. I don't have enough of an ego to think I would be one of the best players remaining in that field, and would be happy to take advantage of a close gamble. Isn't it possible MM was thinking the same way?

Daliman
03-15-2004, 03:44 PM
Very well put. Also, what i think sincere is missing is that ANYONE with a lead vs a hand that has 6 outs per street with 2 to come is going to look nervous. HE WASN'T LUCKY! HE MADE THE RIGHT READ AND WAS REWARDED. This was not a crying call by any means, maybe you're not seeing the difference. The difference is in a hand like where Hellmuth raised and Grizzle called, flop came Kxx, grizzle bet out allin a little more than the pot size, and Phil called with AQo. THAT'S and "weak read" or crying call, and Phil does it all the time. Instead of trying to beat your same point into the ground, why not try too see the other side of it. You will NEVER hear a top pro say MM played badly, because they know he didn't, so try to understand WHY it was a good play, rather than argue that it wasn't. MM figured properly that he was not the besy player left at that point, (and definitely the least experienced), therefore he knew he needed to try to make something happen. What's he gonna do, try to grind with the Nguyens, Lederer, Hellmuth, Vahedi, Harrington, and a host of other top guys? No, he took his shot, was right, and won the hand in which he had the best hand. You wouldn't argue that his allin vs farha HU was a bad play, would you, since if MM lost it, they'd be about even, if not MM a bit behind? Or, are YOU only looking at the results?

Al_Capone_Junior
03-15-2004, 06:23 PM
once again, other than 47 outs and myself (and perhaps a few others, i aint gonna waste my time reading another gigantic thread on the schmuck), the forum has generally managed to glorify to a near god like status this f*cking idiot moneymaker, who sucked out with two outs and four outs for all his money, just on the segments of the WSOP that I was unfortunate enough to watch. Tho his win may be good for poker in general, it's TERRIBLE for the forums, as otherwise intelligent people are reduced to worshiping golden BULL for YEARS on end. ALL YOU MONEYMAKER FANS (WHO THINK HE'S SUCH A GENIUS) CAN SUCK MY ASS AND GO TO HELL. SHEESH, ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!

al

CrackerZack
03-15-2004, 06:42 PM
But at least he doesn't consistently get his facts wrong. He wasn't all-in with the 88 hand and he put brenes all-in. So he didn't get all his chips in the middle. He was all-in on the 33 hand only.

And what is this 4 outer you're talking about?

Edit: and I haven't seen anyone diefy him, just say that he wasn't the run of the mill idiot fish. Seems to be in line with what Dan Harrington said. But what would he know? He doesn't post here like every other expert on the subject.

Al_Capone_Junior
03-15-2004, 08:12 PM
what the f*ck ever. It was NEARLY all the chips for both players. But thanks for mincing words, you ARE right, MM had a FEW chips left after he pushed in vs. AA with his 88. MY BAD. After all, two outs was MORE than enough for a GOD.

In addition, last time I checked, 99QQQ vs QQQ with A kicker = 4 outs. Oh yea, the hand with phil.

I was unfortunate enough to see both these incredible suckouts on ESPN.

But their coverage was TOTALLY WRONG, JUST LOOK AT THIS AND THE OTHER 15,000,000,000,000,000+ POSTS REGARDING THE NEAR GODLIKE mm.

Any half decent pro would have won, THERE WOULD NEVER BE SO MANY IDIOTS PROCLAIMING HOW GREAT THE WINNER WAS.

But one stupid FK wins a $40 satellite, then gets lucky over and over, and accidentally makes one or two decent plays (FAR after the fact), HE'S A GOD DAMN FKING GOD.

Sorry for my being SO GODDAMN WRONG about the genius of one lucky idiot who simply COULD NOT MISS NO MATTER HOW FEW OUTS HE HAD. Obviously it's MY BAD, it was PURE SKILL on the part of one fat ass moron who is now a GOD.

And thanks A BUNCH to all you morons who continue to deify him for his incredible skill. please do continue this post for about 23456938456059863098234750923847502938475203984572 09384572093847502938475203948572309485723094857230 9486340956723098461209873649182376491823764 more years, cuz mm played SO GODDAMN WELL THAT HE CERTAINLY DESERVES FOR ALL THE BEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD TO HOLD HIM IN A GOD LIKE STATE TILL HELL FREEZES THE [censored] OVER.

hell, I hear Mason and Dave and Ray are having graven images of MM carved for their front yards, complete with golden fountains and penny pitching ponds.

al

Sincere
03-15-2004, 08:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
ALL YOU MONEYMAKER FANS (WHO THINK HE'S SUCH A GENIUS) CAN SUCK MY ASS AND GO TO HELL. SHEESH, ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Lmao, I may not of use the exact same wording, but, ditto!

Al_Capone_Junior
03-15-2004, 08:35 PM

Sincere
03-15-2004, 08:37 PM
Not to bite your dick or anything, but that was the funniest sh*t I've read on this forum ever. This clown only needs to pack one pair of clothing this year because I know his dumbass isn't making it out of the first day.

Al_Capone_Junior
03-15-2004, 09:30 PM

Stew
03-15-2004, 09:43 PM
Why don't you two have sex and get it over with.


BTW, let me know the next time you make the final table of two major tournaments within a year's time-frame, and I'm not even a MM fan.

jwvdcw
03-15-2004, 10:39 PM
I stand corrected

jwvdcw
03-15-2004, 10:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I've played NL poker for 6 years. There's no need to attack me personally. Calling with the 33 hand at that late stage in the tournament is just wrong. Someone else even mentioned that Dutch raised pre-flop to 100k, and MM stack was 700k and he called. I mean what the hell was he thinking?

How can people say he had a great read on the 33 hand. Then turn around and say about the 88 hand that, he was wrong about his analysis of the situation. If he is such a super good card/people reader, how can he be right one hand and way off the wall on the other. In my opinion that just tells me he is not a good situation reader and clearly likes to gamble on close situations, and that is not a good tournament strategy. I'm not saying he's not a very good player. I just think he gets to much credit for winning the thing and for his read. I mean with 800 player tournaments, some monkey is bound to win. But, I could very well be wrong too, I wasn't there. Well, I was there, but not watching. It will be interesting to see how he does this year. Only time will tell how good he is, Varkoni too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Go watch that hand again....MM said aloud, 'Come on low cards,' before their hole cards were even exposed. In other words, he knew that Boyd had 2 overcards.

Daliman
03-15-2004, 11:31 PM
wroing yet again, (as usual)
999QQ
vs QQQ
QQQ has
3 ace outs, 1 Q out and 3 outs of whetever low card hit with the flop,(7?)
7 outs, Al
please pay attention.
Plus, the 88 vs AA allin, he still had well over 100k left b4 hand ended.
"Any half decent pro would have won, THERE WOULD NEVER BE SO MANY IDIOTS PROCLAIMING HOW GREAT THE WINNER WAS."
Too bad no Half-decent pro's were in the top 20, only Hellmuth, the nguyens, Lederer, Harrington, etc.

Does it get tiring always being wrong?

tpir90036
03-16-2004, 01:27 AM
that is the one that always gets me. i won't name the pros that i have wrote about it/or we have all heard say it, but you know who they are....they are people reading masters and they just "sense weakness" in some ESP-like way and make amazing calls that if we made would be considered lucky or stupid. OK, i am talking about phil hellmuth /images/graemlins/wink.gif anyway, that sh*t always chaps my a$$.

also, although i am not a MM fan, in his defense in the 33 hand he did say "low cards, dealer" when he called. i don't believe boyd had turned over yet so in a way he was saying "my read is overcards". i could have the scenario f**ked up though.

Al_Capone_Junior
03-16-2004, 08:57 AM
ok you're right about the trip queens.

of course that completely changes EVERYTHING tho, and now I shall have to COMPLETELY change my mind and jump on the bandwagon and worship fatboy mcluckyass just like you and all the rest.

thanks for pointing that out! boy was I ever wrong about MM!!!!! he's really a GREAT player after all! all hail fatass mcMM.

al

ScottyP431
03-16-2004, 09:46 AM
ahahahah,i dont really have any new opinions to offer on moneymakers play, but i just have to say that something about him rubs me the wrong way. Maybe its his face or the wearing stupid sunglasses, its an intangible i really cant identify. there is no other wya to say it: he is a d-bag. His father is a bigger d-bag, and the bag doesnt fall far from the douche tree

CrackerZack
03-16-2004, 10:00 AM
I love the rant. these arm my favorite parts:

[ QUOTE ]
you ARE right, MM had a FEW chips left after he pushed in

[/ QUOTE ]

a few, yeah, 80K or so, but only a couple. weren't the blinds 1,000,000/2,000,000 by then anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, last time I checked, 99QQQ vs QQQ with A kicker = 4 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we have the old Dave in Cali back? I remember him posting crazy math calculations and magoos, etc. I'm pretty sure he could count actual outs. If you really are Dave in Cali, did you go to prison or something? Nothing like a "cellmate love" to go from a friendly, helpful poster to borderline troll. Are you really him? confusing.

Kurn, son of Mogh
03-16-2004, 02:29 PM
If you ask me, unless you sweated him for the whole 5 days, how can you make a judgment one way or the other?

Put me down as someone who thinks Moneymaker is a better than average player who got the right cards at the right time.

Sure, he sucked out on Brenes, but anybody here who says they'd have laid down top trips/top kicker to Ivey had better go take up knitting.

Kurn, son of Mogh
03-16-2004, 02:39 PM
Bluffing Farha out of a huge pot

THis is the best example of how being an unknown can offset the pro's advantage in the late stages of the WSOP. Farha *can't* call that bet even if he's 90% sure it's a bluff (and he was pretty sure).

Why? He'll look like an idiot if he calls and loses, and he's not supposed to be the idiot at the table.

When guys like Moneymaker and Varkonyi are at the final table, they have precisely *zero* pressure on them. The psychology of the situation is huge. It's a no-win for the pro and a no-lose for the amateur.

Daliman
03-16-2004, 05:08 PM
"When guys like Moneymaker and Varkonyi are at the final table, they have precisely *zero* pressure on them. The psychology of the situation is huge. It's a no-win for the pro and a no-lose for the amateur."

Well, except for that small matter of the million or so $$$ difference between first and second, it's not QUITE no lose, but i'm sure ANYONE would be happy w/ 2nd place $$$.

Morbo
03-16-2004, 06:34 PM
How could you judge the play from what you get to see from the ESPN coverage? They play for like 12-15 hours a day and each day ESPN covered 45 mins (times two for day 4 and 5), and they only showed a few of his hands.

So if you go all the way and win the WSOP, how many hands have you played during the course of the tournament? And how many hands did ESPN show?

I'm not the one to decide if he is a great poker player or not. From what I saw, it looks like he got more than his fair share of lucky shots, but as I said: What the hell do I know? I only saw a few hands for gods sake!

And more importantly: Who the f#¤! cares? He won, he is rich, and there will be another WSOP soon. Nuff said.

Al_Capone_Junior
03-16-2004, 10:24 PM
as i already admitted, he had three more outs to pair the bottom card on the board, and therefore it turned a terrible call into a fantastic call, thus proving any and all doubters from here until eternity forever wrong in their folley as to ever doubting the pure genius of someone who just couldn't miss no matter how far behind they were or what pot odds they were getting.

calcuations are not needed here. he played like a lucky ass mutha, but not to worry, he will forever be held in a god like state by the otherwise normally smart players on 2+2, who will worship him forever as a god no matter how much of a schuck he really played like because the end result was that his longshots paid off every time and therefore we should all ignore the luck factor and just declare him a god and keep talking and posting about it forever and ever amen till finally the sun blows up in a giant display of fireworks for the glory of one lucky schmuck who dominated the talk on the forums for billions and billions of years etc etc etc ad infinitum bla bla bla bla bla...................

as I said... if any half decent player had won the WSOP by just buying in the $10,000 we wouldn't have 1,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000 posts hailing how f*cking great they were. Stu won it THREE times and I GUARANTEE there are at least TEN times as many posts hailing moneymaker's greatness, not even counting those few dissentors like me who thought the SOB just got dumb lucky.

In the end, once again forget it, the catholics think the pope is just under jesus and mary, and the forum will think mm is just under jesus and mary too, despite the fact it will continue to make me and a few others vomit over and over. I am not posting again on this tread. people - you can worship whatever graven images you want. I hear there's a statue of mary in south america that bleeds real blood, it's on the hill just below the moneymaker statue, just beneath the jesus statue.

al

Sincere
03-16-2004, 11:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
calcuations are not needed here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, it really doesn't matter if MM had 1 out or 25, he would still hit, because, well, hell, he's MM and MM is a God!

[ QUOTE ]
I hear there's a statue of mary in south america that bleeds real blood, it's on the hill just below the moneymaker statue, just beneath the jesus statue.


[/ QUOTE ]

True dat, All hail MM!

[ QUOTE ]
Stu won it THREE times and I GUARANTEE there are at least TEN times as many posts hailing moneymaker's greatness

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu ain't got nothing on the greatone MM!

[ QUOTE ]
despite the fact it will continue to make me and a few others vomit over and over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've vomited 16 times since this thread was created. I'd like to blame it on the heartburn, but I know that wouldn't be true.

CrackerZack
03-16-2004, 11:51 PM
Which is most accurate?

Sincere is to Al Capone as Elizabeth-Anne is to Eugeneel.
Sincere is to Al Capone as Damone Brown is to Hugh Grant.
Sincere is to Al Capone as Some random transexual is to Eddie Murphy.

Sincere
03-17-2004, 12:06 AM
I don't get what you mean? Are you trying to say that two people on here can't have the same opinion on something that differers from yours without being accused of being the same person? I've never met Mr. Capone in my life? Sorry, 2 people differ from your opinion.

DanS
03-17-2004, 12:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get what you mean? Are you trying to say that two people on here can't have the same opinion on something that differers from yours without being accused of being the same person? I've never met Mr. Capone in my life? Sorry, 2 people differ from your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to get involved in this thread, but you must not have done well on the verbal SAT. He's not saying you have the same thought process; he's saying you're Al Capone's bi-atch!!!

Dan

Sincere
03-17-2004, 12:33 AM
Well how am I suppose to know that? I haven't been here very long, I don't know what the deal is with the people he was talking about? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

And I never took the SAT, I took the ACT! /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

pudley4
03-17-2004, 02:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
as i already admitted, he had three more outs to pair the bottom card on the board, and therefore it turned a terrible call into a fantastic call, thus proving any and all doubters from here until eternity forever wrong in their folley as to ever doubting the pure genius of someone who just couldn't miss no matter how far behind they were or what pot odds they were getting.

calcuations are not needed here. he played like a lucky ass mutha, but not to worry, he will forever be held in a god like state by the otherwise normally smart players on 2+2, who will worship him forever as a god no matter how much of a schuck he really played like because the end result was that his longshots paid off every time and therefore we should all ignore the luck factor and just declare him a god and keep talking and posting about it forever and ever amen till finally the sun blows up in a giant display of fireworks for the glory of one lucky schmuck who dominated the talk on the forums for billions and billions of years etc etc etc ad infinitum bla bla bla bla bla...................

as I said... if any half decent player had won the WSOP by just buying in the $10,000 we wouldn't have 1,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000 posts hailing how f*cking great they were. Stu won it THREE times and I GUARANTEE there are at least TEN times as many posts hailing moneymaker's greatness, not even counting those few dissentors like me who thought the SOB just got dumb lucky.

In the end, once again forget it, the catholics think the pope is just under jesus and mary, and the forum will think mm is just under jesus and mary too, despite the fact it will continue to make me and a few others vomit over and over. I am not posting again on this tread. people - you can worship whatever graven images you want. I hear there's a statue of mary in south america that bleeds real blood, it's on the hill just below the moneymaker statue, just beneath the jesus statue.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Straight from the book "Arguing over the internet 101"

Chapter 3:

When proven wrong, resort to hyperbole and irrelevant analogies in an attempt to cloud the issue and divert the argument away from your mistake(s).

Nicely done - B+

jwvdcw
03-17-2004, 03:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as i already admitted, he had three more outs to pair the bottom card on the board, and therefore it turned a terrible call into a fantastic call, thus proving any and all doubters from here until eternity forever wrong in their folley as to ever doubting the pure genius of someone who just couldn't miss no matter how far behind they were or what pot odds they were getting.

calcuations are not needed here. he played like a lucky ass mutha, but not to worry, he will forever be held in a god like state by the otherwise normally smart players on 2+2, who will worship him forever as a god no matter how much of a schuck he really played like because the end result was that his longshots paid off every time and therefore we should all ignore the luck factor and just declare him a god and keep talking and posting about it forever and ever amen till finally the sun blows up in a giant display of fireworks for the glory of one lucky schmuck who dominated the talk on the forums for billions and billions of years etc etc etc ad infinitum bla bla bla bla bla...................

as I said... if any half decent player had won the WSOP by just buying in the $10,000 we wouldn't have 1,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000 posts hailing how f*cking great they were. Stu won it THREE times and I GUARANTEE there are at least TEN times as many posts hailing moneymaker's greatness, not even counting those few dissentors like me who thought the SOB just got dumb lucky.

In the end, once again forget it, the catholics think the pope is just under jesus and mary, and the forum will think mm is just under jesus and mary too, despite the fact it will continue to make me and a few others vomit over and over. I am not posting again on this tread. people - you can worship whatever graven images you want. I hear there's a statue of mary in south america that bleeds real blood, it's on the hill just below the moneymaker statue, just beneath the jesus statue.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Straight from the book "Arguing over the internet 101"

Chapter 3:

When proven wrong, resort to hyperbole and irrelevant analogies in an attempt to cloud the issue and divert the argument away from your mistake(s).

Nicely done - B+

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Kurn, son of Mogh
03-17-2004, 04:29 PM
as i already admitted, he had three more outs to pair the bottom card on the board

THis is where you miss the point. He makes the call because he thinks he's ahead often enough for the call to be +EV, knowing he has 7 outs *if* he's behind.

Are you honestly telling me that Phil Ivey will only make that play with a full house? He wouldn't make it with KQ or QJ?

he played like a lucky ass mutha

Who here is disagreeing with this? Who here is so naive to think that *anyone* can win the WSOP without being a "lucky ass mutha?"

otherwise normally smart players on 2+2, who will worship him forever as a god

Who here is genuflecting to Moneymaker? There's a huge difference between saying he's an above average player and deifying him.

Sincere
06-08-2004, 04:27 PM
Hate to say I told you so!

[ QUOTE ]
This clown (Moneymaker) only needs to pack one pair of clothing this year because I know his dumbass isn't making it out of the first day.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

RiverMel
06-08-2004, 04:47 PM
No one gives a [censored].

MD2020
06-08-2004, 06:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hate to say I told you so!

[ QUOTE ]
This clown (Moneymaker) only needs to pack one pair of clothing this year because I know his dumbass isn't making it out of the first day.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess Sammy Farha, Men the Master, and T.J. Cloutier only needed to bring one pair of clothing too. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Kurn, son of Mogh
06-08-2004, 07:28 PM
You are aware that he made the final table in a PLO event at the WSOP.

citanul
06-08-2004, 08:35 PM
i doubt he either knows that or would care for it as "evidence" since his mind is entirely made up already.

little things like the fact that half the field doesn't make it to day 2 don't matter to him. nor does the fact that many top level players get eliminated early on.

citanul

Sincere
06-08-2004, 09:36 PM
He finished 10th. Final tables are top 9.

FYI, He was also the chip leader with 40 players to go in the $5000 NL WSOP event and didnt even make the money. Top 27 make money and he was chip leader with 40 to go and blows it. That shows a total lack of experience, lack of basic tournament fundamentals, and complete ablility to collapse IMO.

But, for MM worshippers I doubt you all neither know that or would care for it as "evidence" since your minds are entirely made up already.

Stew
06-08-2004, 09:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hate to say I told you so!

[ QUOTE ]
This clown (Moneymaker) only needs to pack one pair of clothing this year because I know his dumbass isn't making it out of the first day.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey man, just kind of wondering, how did you do this year?

Are you a world champion?

Alright then, STFU already (and I'm not a MM worshipper or hater)!

Daliman
06-09-2004, 12:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
FYI, He was also the chip leader with 40 players to go in the $5000 NL WSOP event and didnt even make the money. Top 27 make money and he was chip leader with 40 to go and blows it. That shows a total lack of experience, lack of basic tournament fundamentals, and complete ablility to collapse IMO.



[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, with all these things he STILL was able to win WSOP in 2003, and add a 2nd place in a WPT event, two things that a few people with a little experience, namely

Scotty Nguyen
TJ Cloutier
Men Nguyen
Phil Hellmuth
Daniel Negraneu
Annie Duke
Phil Ivey
Jennifer Harman
Ted Forrest
Amir Vahedi
Doyle Brunson
Chip Reese
John Hennigan
Dan Harrington
David Sklansky
Mike Matusow
Erik Seidel
Johnny Chan

Cannot say for themselves in the past 5 years. Sure, WPT hasn't been around the whole time, but IT's played enough that those "Experienced players" should be able to show better than MM, who you seem to think plays badly. You should ever play so badly, or have a hundredth of his success.

[ QUOTE ]
FYI, He was also the chip leader with 40 players to go in the $5000 NL WSOP event and didnt even make the money. Top 27 make money and he was chip leader with 40 to go and blows it

[/ QUOTE ]

This part of your statement alone shows a TOTAL lack of poker tournament knowledge. Chip leader at 40 left means little more than 2 bad hands can EASILY KO you in 40th, butI guess you're saying he should have just curled up in a little ball with his stack and finished somewhere in the middle of the money. Is that what you would do? CUz that's bad poker. Instead he probably kept pressure on people, maybe pressed too hard a couple times, got caught, got hit with a couple bad beats like in WSOP 2004, or maybe even made a couple mistakes. EVERYONE does. At the WPT event in France this past year, Daniel Negraneu had more than twice as many chips as the rest of the final table, yet didn't even make the top 6, as he made some hyper-aggressive high level plays that were right, had a high level of risk to them, got his money in with the best hand, and lost. [censored] happens.
Course, i guess you'd say he lacks experience...

Man, I'd love to have you across a tourney table with me...

P.S. I don't worship MM. I think he's a solid tourney player, and average ring player, a decent NL/PL player, and a great guy, both for poker, and in real life.

MrDannimal
06-09-2004, 11:58 AM
Kind of like how Amir Vahedi (sp?) went from huge stack to gone in the span of like two hands last year? He must be a big chump, too.

Sponger15SB
06-09-2004, 12:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Kind of like how Amir Vahedi (sp?) went from huge stack to gone in the span of like two hands last year? He must be a big chump, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was nothing compared to olaf thorson, he went from the honeymoon sweet to the outhouse in two hands. err, yeah. but the difference is that olaf actually is a big chump

fsuplayer
06-09-2004, 12:29 PM
MM is an okay player who got very lucky at key points last year, and most of all is great for the overall game. Most importantly, making the games we play in much more +EV than before that WSOP.

BTW In the 2004 WSOP MM went out on when his set of nines got overset on the turn by pocket kings. But I guess the any of the other tourney "pros" like yourself would have just pushed in on the flop and avoided the king on the turn, right Al? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

FsuPlayer

Sincere
06-09-2004, 04:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Instead he probably kept pressure on people, maybe pressed too hard a couple times,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel Negraneu had more than twice as many chips as the rest of the final table, yet didn't even make the top 6, as he made some hyper-aggressive high level plays that had a high level of risk to them,

[/ QUOTE ]

At a late stage of a tournament you think its right to press to hard and make hyper-aggressive plays with a high level of risk?

Now thats bad tournament poker.

Yes you have to keep pressure on people, but patience is a weapon too. You dont constantly try to get your money in the middle on coin flips, something I think MM does way to much.

[ QUOTE ]
Man, I'd love to have you across a tourney table with me...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that? You dont even know me. Sounds like you are making a bold statement based on emotion. Its not wise to play poker against somebody else based on emotions, IMO.

Sincere
06-09-2004, 04:47 PM
He certainly played like one during that stretch of the tourny. What was he thinking with that 4,6?

Daliman
06-09-2004, 07:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
At a late stage of a tournament you think its right to press to hard and make hyper-aggressive plays with a high level of risk?

Now thats bad tournament poker.



[/ QUOTE ]
Please refer to the CardPlayer magazine "Player of the Year"
point standings. I think you'll find the person who I was referring to at the top of the list. Not that that matters, as YOU have deigned him a player of "bad tournament poker".
Daniel Negraneu has forgotton more than you will ever know about poker, and probably has won more in a single blind steal than you have in your so-far likely short poker career.
[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man, I'd love to have you across a tourney table with me...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why is that? You dont even know me. Sounds like you are making a bold statement based on emotion. Its not wise to play poker against somebody else based on emotions, IMO.




[/ QUOTE ]
Because your comments show an utter lack of tournament knowledge. It's best to comment on something you at least have a clue about. That and, well a great simpsons quote comes to mind.

Homer's work softball team has brought in a bunch of major league baseball ringers, and Homer is called in from right field to be replaced by Darryl Strawberry

(quoting from memory, may not be exact)
Homer:Hey you're Darryl Strawberry.
Darryl: Yes, I am.
Homer: Do you think you're a better right fielder than me?
Darryl: Well, I don't know you, but yes.


[ QUOTE ]
You dont even know me

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Sincere, I don't know you, but yes.

Sincere
06-09-2004, 08:26 PM
Assumptions, emotions, arrogance, and opponent under-estimation all have been the downfall to many great poker players.

[ QUOTE ]
your so-far likely short poker career.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can make all the assumptions and under-estimations that you want, but, not to get into a dick showing contest, I've been playing poker for 8 years. I own 34 books on poker and all of them have been studied multiple times, and I've been visiting and posting on these 2+2 boards since 1997 under various aliases. So, to me your arragance only makes you seem ignorant.

As for your Simpsons quote. Well, it was pretty much gay.

As for your Negraneu comments. His abilities are far different that MM's and most other folks. I wasnt saying it was wrong for him particulary to play that way. Having met and spoken with him before I for one know that is his style and he is an aggressive player. My point was that it is wrong for most people, MM included to play that way. Even TPFAP advices a style totaly opposite to Dan's aggressive style. Take a basketball analogy. Kobe Bryant may have the abilities to drive to the basket and convert a dunk or lay-up. But, I wouldnt advise MM to try it. Sure, if he tried it 1000 times he would probably make 1 or 2, but many other tries would get swatted away, just like he got swatted away in the $5000 event and on the 1st day of this years event.

[ QUOTE ]
Because your comments show an utter lack of tournament knowledge. It's best to comment on something you at least have a clue about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you think about it rationally and not emotionally and even ask any good tournament player if the correct strategy late in a tournament is to press hard, make hyper aggressive high risk plays, trying to get your money in there on coin flips, they would tell you that is wrong.

If you cant come to grips with that maybe you are the one showing a lack of tournament knowledge?

M.B.E.
06-09-2004, 11:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I've been visiting and posting on these 2+2 boards since 1997 under various aliases.

[/ QUOTE ]
What other handles have you posted under?

Sincere
06-09-2004, 11:34 PM
I've had 5 or 6, but would rather not say, if you don't mind.

Daliman
06-10-2004, 02:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Assumptions, emotions, arrogance, and opponent under-estimation all have been the downfall to many great poker players.



[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's funny how you keep referring to emotion in my posts, when they are not emotional responses. I'm not arrogant, I'm just very good, and given your pathetic tourney analysis skills, most assuredly better than you. I only underestimate you because you sound like an idot in your posts on this subject.

[ QUOTE ]
You can make all the assumptions and under-estimations that you want, but, not to get into a dick showing contest, I've been playing poker for 8 years. I own 34 books on poker and all of them have been studied multiple times, and I've been visiting and posting on these 2+2 boards since 1997 under various aliases. So, to me your arragance only makes you seem ignorant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.
68 poker books.
5 years
since 2000
7.5 inches

[ QUOTE ]
If you cant come to grips with that maybe you are the one showing a lack of tournament knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right. The $200 an hour I average playing tournament poker is probably an abberation over the past 1600 i've played.

I don't even know why I waste my time playing troll with you.

Sincere
06-10-2004, 03:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just very good, most assuredly better than you

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arrogant

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Sounds like when someone yells, I AM CALM, but they really aren't.

If you aren't arrogant, why are you so vocal and adamant about saying and proving how good you are?

[ QUOTE ]
5 years
since 2000

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you can't even count. Its only 2004.

[ QUOTE ]
68 poker books.

[/ QUOTE ]

The complete John Patricks collection doesn't count.

[ QUOTE ]
7.5 inches/$200 an hour

[/ QUOTE ]

Stretching the truth a little?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even know why I waste my time playing troll with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you? Oh wait, its that arrogance thing again.

B-Man
06-10-2004, 03:24 PM
Sincere, from reading your posts it is pretty clear you have some serious self-esteem issues (based on your apparent need to make yourself feel better by putting down MM and others).

I suggest you think about this.

For the record I am neither a MM fan or hater, and I don't understand why you (and others) keep beating a dead horse by rehashing this topic which has been discussed repeatedly for over a year.

Sincere
06-10-2004, 04:27 PM
Hey, B-Man. I didnt feel like I was putting MM down. He is a public figure now and is a lightningrod for critics. All I was doing was critiqing his play, and I made a prediction a few months ago. Then I came on here to say I was right, thats all. It would be no different than, if 3 months ago I predicted the Lightning to win the Stanley Cup, then came back on here and said told you so. Also, dont think I've ever said, and I certainly dont think MM is a bad player. I think in some of the older posts in this thread I've even stated on the record that I beleive MM to be an good player. I just think in a game that is determined in a big part by luck, that he gets WAY to much credit for his play in 03 and his win. I think he repeatedly played very poorly in some critical spots and got very lucky, thats all.

What others have I put down intentionally who didn't insult me first?

Also, it seems funny that Daliman defends MM's play, and defends an aggressive high risk style of play here. But, in the WPT forum, he attacks Phil Gordons and Ron Rose's play and attacks their aggressive high risk strategy. It seems almost contradictory and the fact that he defends MM and attacks proven players like PG and RR seems ludicris. Plus the fact that he makes outlandish statements about his ability compared to mine, when he knows 0.000001% of my game is foolish.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you (and others) keep beating a dead horse by rehashing this topic which has been discussed repeatedly for over a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a very popular topic. MM is almost an enigma and his win will be debated for years and years.

B-Man
06-10-2004, 04:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
All I was doing was critiqing his play, and I made a prediction a few months ago. Then I came on here to say I was right, thats all. It would be no different than, if 3 months ago I predicted the Lightning to win the Stanley Cup, then came back on here and said told you so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know what your prediction was, and I don't have the motivation to go back thru the thread to check, but if you predicted something to the effect that he would go out on Day 1, I don't think that's really going out on a limb, since half the field was eliminated day 1 (including some top pros).

There is no question that MM got lucky on some key hands; that means he has something in common with every other person that has won the WSOP. I doubt anyone has ever won the WSOP without catching some breaks. Is he the best player to win the WSOP? Definitely not; but there's also no question he is a decent tournament player, based on his WPT 2nd place and 10th place in the PLO at the WSOP. This isn't chess, this is poker, and as Gabe Kaplan pointed out in an article I read yesterday, a decent player can sit with the best in the world and only be a 2-1 dog (while a chess player playing a player 1 level above him would have virtually no chance of winning).

I just don't see the need to bash MM, and I see a hell of a lot more people bashing him than I do worshiping him (in fact, I don't remember seeing any worshipers--I don't think many people (if anyone) think that this guy is the best player around, but many people were certainly happy for him and are fans.; there is a difference between liking someone and worshiping him.)

As for the personal attacks with the other posters, you may be right that they started it, I'm not sure and I don't feel like going back to check who said what first.

In summary, and don't take this as a personal attack, I think that most people are sick of this thread, most people could care less that MM got knocked out on Day 1, and the personal insults are certainly adding nothing of value to this board.

Al_Capone_Junior
06-10-2004, 05:26 PM
this thread is older than fking dirt and i dont care anymore - for any further responses to this thread are merely an attempt to resurrect the very useless and tiresome "glory days of MM."

why dont you talk about greg, at least he IS a pro.

Dynasty
06-10-2004, 05:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
why dont you talk about greg, at least he IS a pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

To my knowledge, Greg Raymer has never been a professional poker player.

Ulysses
06-10-2004, 05:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
an attempt to resurrect the very useless and tiresome "glory days of MM."
...
why dont you talk about greg, at least he IS a pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked this question in another thread and am still waiting. I'd love for someone to show me examples of how Greg played markedly better than Moneymaker. I think both are excellent players and Moneymaker's skill was showcased once again with his excellent play in the WPT event. Is Moneymaker a great NL tourney player? Who knows, maybe. Is he a very skilled tourney player? I just can't see how you can keep arguing against that.

I really would hope that by now you've realized how many of your thoughts about tourneys, the impact of the Internet on poker, the state of the WSOP, etc. were just plain wrong. And that extends to your unfounded rips on players like Moneymaker.

Look at the final table this year. Harrington. McClain. Arieh. Raymer. Krux. I guess you were right that this year was going to be a complete luckfest and nine random idiots were likely to end up at the final table.

Al_Capone_Junior
06-10-2004, 07:14 PM
you're fking right, moneymaker is GOD, way the fk better than doyle, stu, raymer, lederer, annie, chris, et al combined from cradle to grave etched in stone forever and ever amen.

sheesh is fking mm going to be the topic of nearly every fking thread for ANOTHER year?

al

Stew
06-10-2004, 07:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
you're fking right, moneymaker is GOD, way the fk better than doyle, stu, raymer, lederer, annie, chris, et al combined from cradle to grave etched in stone forever and ever amen.

sheesh is fking mm going to be the topic of nearly every fking thread for ANOTHER year?

al

[/ QUOTE ]

probably as long as dipshilts like you and Sincere continue to seriously hound Moneymaker as being no good at all, then people will continue to say he's a decent player.

BTW, why the phock is Annie Duke in your list of "poker gods", I guess that shows your skewed sense of all-time greats.

Ulysses
06-10-2004, 07:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
you're fking right, moneymaker is GOD, way the fk better than doyle, stu, raymer, lederer, annie, chris, et al combined from cradle to grave etched in stone forever and ever amen.

sheesh is fking mm going to be the topic of nearly every fking thread for ANOTHER year?


[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, what's your problem?

Ulysses
06-10-2004, 07:36 PM
Please feel free to address my previous post in a well-reasoned adult manner.

I'd sincerely like to hear on what basis you consider Greg to have played better in his WSOP win than Chris did in his WSOP and WPT finishes.

I'd also love to hear what your thoughts are about this year's final table after your countless posts pre-WSOP about how the Internet players were all ruining the tourney, how it was a complete luckfest, and how the top finishers were likely to be complete idiots getting there through sheer luck. Many people provided you with well reasoned explanations as to why you were wrong, but you always seem to just dismiss them without any logic or reasoning, just baseless pronouncements, as you just did again to my post in this thread.

toots
06-10-2004, 08:18 PM
See, the thing that always gets me about conversations about this is that everyone argues for weeks, yet no one ever challenges the underlying assumption that there really is some inherent value in having a bigger penis.

Personally, I don't see it. Everyone lies about how big theirs is, yet in the end, it really doesn't matter anyway (except to those with excessively fragile egos and equally large pickup trucks or SUVs).

Ulysses
06-10-2004, 08:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
yet no one ever challenges the underlying assumption that there really is some inherent value in having a bigger penis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's what all the guys with small penises say. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Aloysius
06-10-2004, 10:04 PM
Agreed. (I found that post saying Phil Ivey overplays medium pairs odd too.) Anyway, the implied odds are enormous when Ivey calls Moneymaker's weakish flop bet. I thought it was a very solid play. I doubt that Ivey continues with the hand if Moneymaker comes out firing on the turn, and Ivey doesn't have the set.

Daliman
06-11-2004, 12:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 years
since 2000


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dude, you can't even count. Its only 2004.


[/ QUOTE ]
The resaon they dont add up is that they are seperate responses.

PLAYING for 5 years
POSTING since 2000

WHat was that you said about underestimating...

P.S. I love what John Patrick does for the gambling community.

Daliman
06-11-2004, 12:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Also, it seems funny that Daliman defends MM's play, and defends an aggressive high risk style of play here. But, in the WPT forum, he attacks Phil Gordons and Ron Rose's play and attacks their aggressive high risk strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice pickup, however not true.

I was speaking of Daniel Negranu's play as hyper-aggressive, not MM, and I never said it was right, I only said that Negraneu is a KNOWN top player, and was illustrating a point about why being chip leader late and not cashing doesn't mean a player sucks.

Sincere
06-11-2004, 12:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I was speaking of Daniel Negranu's play as hyper-aggressive, not MM, and I never said it was right, I only said that Negraneu is a KNOWN top player, and was illustrating a point about why being chip leader late and not cashing doesn't mean a player sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, my mistake.

SaintAces
06-12-2004, 03:03 PM
keep it up Daryn and Daliman /images/graemlins/smile.gif

SaintAces
06-12-2004, 03:31 PM
Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

Kurn, son of Mogh
06-13-2004, 09:57 AM
In addition, last time I checked, 99QQQ vs QQQ with A kicker = 4 outs.

7 outs, Al. 7. There was a 6 on the board. Pairing that 6 would make MM a higher boat than Ivey.

That's not the issue. I don't see how anybody here can say laying down top trips/top kicker against a very aggressive player would be the right play here.

Even if you're so sharp as to think Ivey only makes that bet with 4 hands (99, 66, KQ, QJ), you're ahead 8/14 of the time, with 7 outs when you're behind.

Sorry. But if I think I'm a 3-2 favorite with 1 card to come to bust Phil Ivey. I make this call 100% of the time. maybe Howard Lederer or Phil Hellmuth fold here, but I don't. And I don't think you fold here either.

Al_Capone_Junior
06-13-2004, 02:23 PM
You are not going to draw me into a flame fest, but you did convince me to notify mat "the axe" sklansky of your pointless personal attack on me.

al

Sincere
06-14-2004, 12:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you're so sharp as to think

[/ QUOTE ]

Its funny because in the heat of the moment I seriously doubt that MM 'thought' anything. All he saw was 'I got 3 queens' You saw the tape, he didnt even stop to 'think' about anything.

Kurn, son of Mogh
06-14-2004, 08:49 AM
His whole thought process may have been - I'll underbet the pot here on the flop, Ivey will probably call and try to bluff me on the turn.

B-Man
06-14-2004, 08:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Its funny because in the heat of the moment I seriously doubt that MM 'thought' anything. All he saw was 'I got 3 queens' You saw the tape, he didnt even stop to 'think' about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how nobody mentions Phil Ivey's TERRIBLE call on the flop. MM was better than a 90% favorite on the flop, and I doubt there is anyone on this board who would have mucked MM's hand to Ivey's raise on the turn. Anyone who says otherwise is full of [censored].

Phil Ivey was the one who played this hand poorly (because of his call on the flop), not MM.

But what I really wonder is when you are going to get tired of rehashing this...

Sincere
06-14-2004, 02:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Funny how nobody mentions Phil Ivey's TERRIBLE call on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, does the term implied odds mean anything to you? If I remember right MM's bet was not very big at all. Plus, the fact that there were 2 Q's on board makes it less likely that someone else held one. MM couldve made that same bet with AK or AJ or something to trying to steal. So, theoretically Ivey could've easily been in the lead and if he wasnt, it didnt cost him very much to call. So either he was ahead or behind with huge implied odds to call.

[ QUOTE ]
and I doubt there is anyone on this board who would have mucked MM's hand to Ivey's raise on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wont dispute that, there are probably very few people in the world who would lay down right here. The point I was trying to make was that MM didnt even stop to think and evaluate anything about the situation, he just called blind. My point is even though most people still wouldnt lay down, most all very good players would have atleast stopped to think about and evaluate the situation.

At that point in the hand an expert would've thought about what his opponent had, what his opponent thought he had, and what his opponent thought he thought he had. The fact that MM only thought on one level and what his own two cards were showed his immaturity as a player. IMO.

B-Man
06-14-2004, 03:47 PM
It's because he probably plays better than you.

[ QUOTE ]
Um, does the term implied odds mean anything to you? If I remember right MM's bet was not very big at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on a quick search, Ivey was getting about 4-1 pot odds on the flop bet; depending on the suits (which weren't listed), Ivey was anywhere from an 8-1 to a 12.6-1 dog. Even if he somehow won the hand and doubled up (a little better than double (but less than triple) considering 3 players stayed for the flop plus the dead money pre-flop), Ivey wasn't getting anywhere near the implied odds he would have needed to make this call. Furthemore, when you consider that there are 10 players left at the WSOP, and Ivey is considered to be one of the two best players remaining (if not #1), why would he even consider a call on this board, where he might be a favorite, but also might be a gigantic underdog (or even drawing dead)?

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, the fact that there were 2 Q's on board makes it less likely that someone else held one. MM couldve made that same bet with AK or AJ or something to trying to steal. So, theoretically Ivey could've easily been in the lead and if he wasnt, it didnt cost him very much to call. So either he was ahead or behind with huge implied odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Yup, calling a flop bet with an underpair to that type of board is a good tournament strategy, in case the preflop raiser is "trying to steal." I suggest you try this strategy for a while and let us know how you do. As stated above, Ivey did not have "huge implied odds."

Ivey made a terrible call on the flop. Ivey was a much bigger dog on the flop than MM was on the turn.

P.S. I think Phil Ivey is a great player, but even great players make mistakes. This was a big one.

charlie_t_jr
06-14-2004, 06:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]

At that point in the hand an expert would've thought about what his opponent had, what his opponent thought he had, and what his opponent thought he thought he had. The fact that MM only thought on one level and what his own two cards were showed his immaturity as a player. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't have much to add, and don't really care....I just get tired of this crap....look at that quote..."an EXPERT"...and the quote..."immaturity as a player"....do we forget the background of MM? He's a guy who got lucky on line to win a seat...and went on to play some pretty good poker, with some lucky breaks along the way...he was not, and as far as I know, he or no one else has ever claimed him to be an expert. And your surprised a guy playing his 1st live tourney at the WSOP showed immaturity as a player?

Chris Moneymaker is the 2003 WSOP champ...its not going to change....folks please...please....get over it.

Daliman
06-14-2004, 07:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny how nobody mentions Phil Ivey's TERRIBLE call on the flop.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Um, does the term implied odds mean anything to you? If I remember right MM's bet was not very big at all

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm almost positive it was a pot sized bet on the flop. Iplied odds would have been VERY limited, and nonexistant if opponent has a Queen.


[ QUOTE ]
The fact that MM only thought on one level and what his own two cards were showed his immaturity as a player. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think that was exactly how it happened, but
#1 He said in earlier shows he let Ivey and Chan outplay him. He may, and probably did, actually decide that he was going to call no matter what Ivey did while Ivey was debating HIS play. Many people forget that the playerr waiting to act doesn't have his brain turned off. JUsr because yo utake little/no time to call when action is on you doesn't mean you hadn't thought about your action LONG before then. It's called thinking ahead.
#2 MM would tell you himself in a second that at that time, he was immature as a player. When overmatched, however, you want to get all your chips in vs the better player in decent shape whenever possible. NOw, obviously, 7 outs isn't exactly decent shape, but he couldn't be NEARLY sure. Even if he DID know what Ivey had, it's not a terrible play to call there really,(not positive of this statement though, i'd have to see the stack sizes/bets exactly to judge.) This is similar to what Ferguson did vs cloutier. He didn't think he could counterpunch with him, so he put it all out there on one hand. Now, the scenario started bad for Jesus, but the result was good. This is higher-level thinking which Jesus used to his advantage,(luckily) and I personally think MM just kinda stumbled upon, (again, luckily).

MM was a solid player, and is even better now, and, again, is -EV to ANY tournament pool overall.