Why dont people like Moneymaker?

[cianosheehan]

My general impression from 2+2 is that Moneymaker is looked upon with a certain negativity. Why is this?

[Legend27]

We're jealous. He got lucky in a tourney and won millions.

[cianosheehan]

I presumed that was the gist of it!
But in some ways, isnt that a good thing for everyone, that he got lucky in a tournament and won millions?

[superleeds]

the general impression I get is the reverse. He has more defenders than attackers in these posts, at least that is how I see it

[Schmed]

he doesn't bother me at all. I just wonder why anyone would pay to go to one of his appearances. I mean I'll throw a few dollars to Howard Lederer for a seminar to try and get in that guys head but Chris Moneymaker???? I can't imagine there being enough crack in Columbia to entice me in to paying to hear his poker advice. Now those Tom McEvoy hand charts.......THERE's something worth the price......

[LetsRock]

I would guess that those who don't like him, got the impression that he's "just" a lucky SOB who was in the right place at the right time.

From what you see on the WSOP shows, it looks like hae made some pretty bad decisions and got lucky. I have to believe that there's at least a little more to his poker skill than that - you don't get to the final table on luck alone.

I'm not saying he's the best that ever was and I really don't know the guy, but he's milking his 15 minutes of fame to the max.

His win was great for poker (specifically internet poker) because it really does promote the idea that "anyone can win" (and they can do it with "any two cards").

I have to admit that watching that show got me involved in internet poker (i didn't even know that it was out there!)and started me dreaming that maybe someday....

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
he doesn't bother me at all. I just wonder why anyone would pay to go to one of his appearances. I mean I'll throw a few dollars to Howard Lederer for a seminar to try and get in that guys head but Chris Moneymaker???? I can't imagine there being enough crack in Columbia to entice me in to paying to hear his poker advice. Now those Tom McEvoy hand charts.......THERE's something worth the price......


[/ QUOTE ]

How many bracelets has Howard Lederer won? I'm asking b/c I don't know.

Chris Moneymaker also finished second at Bay 101's Shooting Star tourney last month. So he's doing something right.

[Schmed]

I don't know either. It's probably a good point meaning there probably is enough crack in Columbia. Actually I probably don't pay for Lederer either...then again I don't like to pay /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

How many bracelets has Howard Lederer won?

Zero, I think. But that in and of itself does not change the fact that he's one of the top poker players in the world.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
We're jealous. He got lucky in a tourney and won millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

More recently, he won $200,000 with a second place finish to Phil Gordon in the World Poker Tour Shooting Star Classic in San Jose.

Clearly, the guy is a decent player, but the world is filled with people who are losers and failures in their own lives and businesses. Their only source of satisfaction comes from berating and making fun of other people.

[J.R.]

How many bracelets has Howard Lederer won?

at least two

2001 5K No-limit duece to seven (http://www.pokerpages.com/tournament/result1737.htm)

2000 WSOP 5K Omaha Hi/Lo (http://www.pokersearch.com/Tournaments/wsop/event_21_omaha_hi.htm)

[dondale56]

It's not just online players who might look on him negatively. The pros do too.

I was in Vegas in Feb. and talked to some pros. I asked them to rate Moneymaker as a player on a scale of 1-10. One of them tried to be diplomatic, but the other came right out and said "A 5 and a damned lucky 5 at that". They went on to analyze his playing and you had the feeling that he may have been the winner last year, but his still considered "dead money" by the pros.

Donna

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
They went on to analyze his playing and you had the feeling that he may have been the winner last year, but his still considered "dead money" by the pros.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dead money? (http://www.pokerpages.com/tournament/result8964.htm)

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying he's the best that ever was and I really don't know the guy, but he's milking his 15 minutes of fame to the max.

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by this? I cannot think of one instance of him "milking" his fame, other than the Letterman appearance.

[Clarkmeister]

I played with him the other week in a ring game. He is better than a 5.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I played with him the other week in a ring game. He is better than a 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarkmeister,

Was that at a 20/40 game in the lower area where the keno room used to be? I saw him sitting in that game on a Saturday night a couple weeks ago.

[LetsRock]

Well, then maybe someone is milking his fame for him. Anyone who goes from accountant to poker celebrity overnight (just because he won one tournament), and then goes on WPT tour, is getting a little more attention then necessary.

I have nothing against him - I'd probably do the same if $3 million landed in my lap and I got the chance to live the life for a while. But for the WPT to be pushing his name around so much is a little absurd.

[B Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, then maybe someone is milking his fame for him. Anyone who goes from accountant to poker celebrity overnight (just because he won one tournament), and then goes on WPT tour, is getting a little more attention then necessary.

I have nothing against him - I'd probably do the same if $3 million landed in my lap and I got the chance to live the life for a while. But for the WPT to be pushing his name around so much is a little absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't win "one tournament" he won the highest visability tournament there is. More over, it didn't "fall in his lap" he won it, against the best players in the game.

Like it or not- he's probably the biggest name in poker to the people who don't follow the game. So if you're the WPT- you'll promote the one name that people will recognize.

Hate the game, not the player.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't win "one tournament" he won the highest visability tournament there is. More over, it didn't "fall in his lap" he won it, against the best players in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but he also just finished second in another tournament against another large field, including many top tournament pros.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I played with him the other week in a ring game. He is better than a 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarkmeister,

Was that at a 20/40 game in the lower area where the keno room used to be? I saw him sitting in that game on a Saturday night a couple weeks ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

We played about 5 hours of 40-80 together. He played well.

[M2d]

I don't think there's much if any crack in Columbia. Then again, those ivy leaguers are often rich and do know how to party...
BTW, There's probably not much crack in Colombia (the country) either.

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not just online players who might look on him negatively. The pros do too.

I was in Vegas in Feb. and talked to some pros. I asked them to rate Moneymaker as a player on a scale of 1-10. One of them tried to be diplomatic, but the other came right out and said "A 5 and a damned lucky 5 at that". They went on to analyze his playing and you had the feeling that he may have been the winner last year, but his still considered "dead money" by the pros.

Donna

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are a 10 but considered a 5, then you have a damn good persona going for you. You can forget about playing up the drunk/youth/noob facade.


I won't put him on anything. I can not base my opinion on the footage EOE showed. I was HIGHLY subjective. I would say EOE was trying to sell poker to America and I will say they did the job. I personally have set up a $100 bankroll for Party, bought 5 books, a table, and a chips.

[J.R.]

You do realize that crack is just a more refined form of powdered cocaine?

"A coca leaf typically contains between 0.1 and 0.9 percent cocaine. If chewed in such form, it rarely presents the user with any social or medical problems. Indeed coca-chewing may be therapeutic. When the leaves are soaked and mashed, however, cocaine is then extracted as a coca-paste. After the organic solvent used has evaporated, the coca-paste is 60 to 80 per cent pure. It is usually exported in the form of the salt, cocaine hydrochloride. This is the powdered cocaine most common, until recently, in the West.

Yet old-fashioned cocaine hydrochloride still wasn't good enough... Yet there are very strong cultural prejudices against injecting recreational drugs. So a smokeable form was developed.

Since the hydrochloride salt decomposes at the temperature required to vaporise it, cocaine is instead converted to the liberated base form. Initially, "free-base" cocaine was typically produced using volatile solvents, usually ether. Unfortunately, this technique is physically dangerous. The solvent tends to ignite. Hence a more convenient method of producing smokeable free-base became popular. Its product is crack. To obtain crack-cocaine, ordinary cocaine hydrochloride is concentrated by heating the drug in a solution of baking soda until the water evaporates. This type of base-cocaine makes a cracking sound when heated; hence the name "crack". Base-cocaine vaporises at a low temperature, so it can be easily inhaled via a heated pipe."

source (http://www.cocaine.org/)

[M.B.E.]

LetsRock -- I really don't understand what you're driving at. Are you criticizing Moneymaker, or not?

Yes he became a poker celebrity overnight, but why do you consider that a bad thing? (By the way he still is an accountant, as far as I know.)

I just don't understand why you think the WPT should not "pay attention" to him if he chooses to play a WPT event.

If he were making appearances calling himself the best player alive, or issuing books and tapes with strategy advice, and whatnot, then you might have reason to be critical. But he isn't doing any of that!

As for whether he played well in last year's WSOP, I've seen three of the hands debated on 2+2, and much of the time it turns out that the people criticizing his play didn't really understand how the hand went down. (For example, people criticize him for calling a big raise from Brenes with 88, when in fact Moneymaker was the one raising.)

I've played against him a bit on PokerStars, and based on his chat he doesn't have an overblown opinion of his own abilities. But he is a very good poker player. Not the best in the world by any means, but certainly in the top 100.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
But in some ways, isnt that a good thing for everyone, that he got lucky in a tournament and won millions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's a good thing. But it would have been a much better thing if *I* had won the 2.5 million.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Cosimo]

Sorry to pick on Rock here, but the arguement I usually see is "you don't get to the final table on luck alone." That's a really weak argument. That divides players into two camps: those that think Moneymaker is a very good player, and those that think he got there on luck alone. The latter is obviously bogus, so obviously anyone that doesn't think that Moneymaker is a good player must be a crackpot. This way of arguing is a false alternative--to present two sides and say that there is no middle ground.

There is a middle ground, and I stand there. I agree that one can't get to the final table on luck alone; Moneymaker had to have a good bit of skill and experience to last that long. However, he got a lot of luck handed to him. He made some bad calls and some questionable bets, and then drew out on his opponents.

There is no 100% accurate record of the event, however, so really all I'm talking about is an impression that I weight as strongly as the evidence that I have. If I sat down at a table with him and watched him play for five days, I'd have a much stronger opinion.

Finally, I think some of the pros that have said good things about him have done so for political reasons--because it is good for the sport, because it brings out the fish, in order to stay friends with the whales, to avoid pissing off friends, etc.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
There is no 100% accurate record of the event

[/ QUOTE ]


are you serious? like it's a mystery what happened at the wsop.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to pick on Rock here, but the arguement I usually see is "you don't get to the final table on luck alone." That's a really weak argument. That divides players into two camps: those that think Moneymaker is a very good player, and those that think he got there on luck alone. The latter is obviously bogus, so obviously anyone that doesn't think that Moneymaker is a good player must be a crackpot. This way of arguing is a false alternative--to present two sides and say that there is no middle ground.

There is a middle ground, and I stand there. I agree that one can't get to the final table on luck alone; Moneymaker had to have a good bit of skill and experience to last that long. However, he got a lot of luck handed to him. He made some bad calls and some questionable bets, and then drew out on his opponents.

There is no 100% accurate record of the event, however, so really all I'm talking about is an impression that I weight as strongly as the evidence that I have. If I sat down at a table with him and watched him play for five days, I'd have a much stronger opinion.

Finally, I think some of the pros that have said good things about him have done so for political reasons--because it is good for the sport, because it brings out the fish, in order to stay friends with the whales, to avoid pissing off friends, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

great post

[Cosimo]

What I meant was that we don't have hand histories for every single table, every single day. The ESPN coverage was edited, and I don't doubt that they played up Moneymaker's luck factor in order to pump up the drama. We can't look at hole cards and play for the entire event and say whether ESPN's coverage was biased toward or away from his lucky hands.

I won my first big tournament, a 170-person event. The blinds crept up faster than B&amp;M, but it was still hundreds of hands before it was over. I had a lot of luck on my side, and I know the same amount of luck plays into the big one.

There's a reason why many of the same names appear at the final few tables every year, and there's also a reason why dark horses get there, too.

[HiatusOver]

Clark, how well do you think he played? I have played with him online in some big games and thought he was usually a spot in the game, though definitely not a huge one. A little too loose-aggressive IMO, I also think his starting hand selection was ok, but definitely had holes. Do you think he could make around a BB/hour playing 30/60 at the Bellagio for 2000 hours?

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
We played about 5 hours of 40-80 together. He played well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last night, there was a guy from Tennessee playing at my table, and he went on and on about what a horrible player that Moneymaker was. As he's in the middle of trashing Moneymaker, he loses a pot to my UTG AK after cold-calling a raise with ATo.

I'm normally very polite to the other players, but I wasn't feeling well and I had a bad headache, so I decided to call it a night shortly thereafter. The guy had resumed his trashing of Moneymaker. I probably shouldn't have said this, but I couldn't help myself. "Sir, Moneymaker folds AT offsuit to an early raise", then I got up and left.

[miajag81]

To answer the original question:

Because he won the WSOP and &lt;insert Moneymaker-hater's name here&gt; didn't. It's pretty simple, I'd say.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Clark, how well do you think he played? I have played with him online in some big games and thought he was usually a spot in the game, though definitely not a huge one. A little too loose-aggressive IMO, I also think his starting hand selection was ok, but definitely had holes. Do you think he could make around a BB/hour playing 30/60 at the Bellagio for 2000 hours?

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that it was a small number of hours, so who knows what a player is getting dealt. He limped in from EMP a few times when it wasn't appropriate, and was slightly too passive postflop with hands that may-or-may-not be best but needed protecting either way. Could he make a BB/hr in the Bellagio 30-60? I don't know, I haven't played that game very often. I'd guess he'd do a little worse than that but the games have been so good, I'd guess its possible if he had good game selection. Its really not fair to judge off a mere 5 hours though.

[LetsRock]

Hmmmmm....

I'm not criticizing Moneymaker. He's probably a decent poker player who had a good amount of luck in last year's WSOP. I don't know, that's just my impression.

I'm guessing, that WPT did some recruiting to get him involved in the WPT to take advantage of the fresh celebrity. I wouldn't be surprissed to find out that they are covering his WPT poker expenses. Do I care? Not really.

I just get a little sick of the way society/media take a story like his and drive it into the ground until you can't stand to hear the name associated with whatever their pushing at the time. It's not usually poker, but this time it is.

It was a fun story for a few months. If he really has the poker skills to be a "regular" member of the poker elite, then good for him. (I really don't believe he does.)

Do I care that he's participating in the WPT? No. What bugs me is that his name is used to draw crowds just because of his quick rise to fame. IMO, he's just not a "headliner", he's in the "also to appear..." category.

But I really don't care - I was just stating an opinion and you all decided to take issue with my comments -as if they were really important to begin with. (I sure hope this isn't MY 15 minutes of fame. /images/graemlins/wink.gif)

[JohnG]

People prefer the well known players to get lucky.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

because there are 234,537,998,840,099 posts about him all over the forums. Every forum, every day gets a new moneymaker post, and each posts gets at least a hundred replies.

It turns out that MM is really NOT jesus's brother, but the ignorant masses refuse to believe it. The shroud of turin is also really an image of moneymaker, just ask the masses. And the virgin mary - looks amazingly like MM. Probably bleeds on a hilltop in south america too.

he is looked at with negativity because he played a very lucky game with several stupid suckouts and now he's a frigging GOD to 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the poker world. There are lots of champs who played WAY better than him and they are now just forgotten icons of the past, the days before MM.

al

[toots]

Quit beating around the bush. What are you really trying to say?

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
It turns out that MM is really NOT jesus's brother

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Ferguson?

Now this has gotten ridiculous they look nothing alike.


/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[The WET BEAVER]

[ QUOTE ]
My general impression from 2+2 is that Moneymaker is looked upon with a certain negativity. Why is this?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because those people are jealous. Even if he isn't skilled and got lucky, is that a logical reason to hate him?

If someone gets lucky and wins the lottery, are you going to hate him? If you get lucky and win the multi-state powerball, are you going to hate yourself?

[toots]

Seems like hate, contempt and hostility are baseline emotions among poker players.

[ZeeJustin]

You make some good points Al including one I've never thought of before:

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of champs who played WAY better than him and they are now just forgotten icons of the past

[/ QUOTE ]

The average friday-night poker player knows who Moneymaker is, but doesn't know who Jonny Chan, Doyle Brunson, and Stu Ungar are. Hearing about Moneymaker, instead of the real stars can be enough for some to hate him.

[rigoletto]

I agree that one can't get to the final table on luck alone

Nah.. you also to get good cards!

[Bill Murphy]

Every post &amp; interview I've seen, he's been quite gracious &amp; humble. The Brenes hand was horrendous, but everything else was just normal NLHE tourney bidness. He BBQ'D Sam &amp; Dan when it got 3-handed.

Ferguson is one of the best tourney players ever, but he got far luckier than MM, and MM's runnerup at Bay 101 proves he wasn't a total fluke, anyway.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

if you hurry, you might be able to touch the hem of his robe.

al

[HUSKER'66]

Howard L has not won any bracelets. The best finish he had was last year when he got knocked out in 17th (I think it was 17th).

I'm refering to the "big one"....I forgot he has won some of the lower entry tournys at the WSOP.

Sorry for any misinformation. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Howard L has not won any bracelets. The best finish he had was last year when he got knocked out in 17th (I think it was 17th).

I'm refering to the "big one"....I forgot he has won some of the lower entry tournys at the WSOP.

Sorry for any misinformation. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

He finished fifth the first time he played in the big one, 1987, that's is best finish in the big one.

http://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/wsop/winners1980s.htm

[daryn]

this post is full of incorrect/inconsistent info.


if he has won lower buy in wsop tourneys then he has won bracelets. if one is true the other is.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
this post is full of incorrect/inconsistent info.


if he has won lower buy in wsop tourneys then he has won bracelets. if one is true the other is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct and he has two WSOP bracelets with a win in 2000 in the Omaha 8HILO event and in 2001 deuce to seven draw.

[BassMasterK]

I think that a lot of the feelings about MM are due to the way it was covered on TV. ESPN kept stressing how it was MM first real tourney and how he won the seat for less than $40. It makes for exciting TV and lots of dreamers thinking "that could be me!" Have you watched all seven hours of the ESPN coverage of 2003? It has a high porportion of lucky draw outs plain and simple. It makes for more excitement that way.
In 2000, Jesus won the final pot on an A9 vs. AQ when a 9 hits on the river. He had hit several lucky draws the day before where he could have been bounced but got lucky. However, since he has a doctorate in math and a father who has theorized on game theory then for him it is "in the genes".

I'm not saying MM is the best player in the world, but to make it through over 800 players by just being "lucky"....it's rediculous. He has some skill, and was played up as "the-average-guy" by ESPN for some extra ratings. Many people obviously bought into this as I think you will see by record numbers at this years tourney, many of them average, and less than average, players.

[XlgJoe]

Al

You complain far to much about MM. I'm starting to think you actually like him. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Al

You complain far to much about MM. I'm starting to think you actually like him. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

One four letter word and it starts with an e and ends with a y or it starts with a j and ends with a y (8 letters).

[HUSKER'66]

Ok, ok, OK!!!! I said that I was wrong in saying that he (Howard L) had never won a bracelet, and that his best finish was 17th as far as the 10K NL tourny. If you watch the tape of the 2003 WSOP, they (commentators) state that 17th is the best that he has ever done....I should have known better, because they also mention that no woman had ever made it to the final table. (I'm sure that Barbara E would disagree)

You two act like you have never made a frickin mistake.

[daryn]

i assume i was included in this when you speak of "you two".

no hard feelings, and of course i've made mistakes.. just pointing it out, no real beef here.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, ok, OK!!!! I said that I was wrong in saying that he (Howard L) had never won a bracelet, and that his best finish was 17th as far as the 10K NL tourny. If you watch the tape of the 2003 WSOP, they (commentators) state that 17th is the best that he has ever done....I should have known better, because they also mention that no woman had ever made it to the final table. (I'm sure that Barbara E would disagree)

You two act like you have never made a frickin mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry dude, didn't mean it to sound so personal, I wasn't trying to be insulting, I was just posting factual information. Again, no personal offense meant. I've surely made mistakes and will again. I'm sorry, if you took it personally, it certainly wasn't meant to be that way.

[MilesDavis]

[ QUOTE ]


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

But in some ways, isnt that a good thing for everyone, that he got lucky in a tournament and won millions?


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



Of course it's a good thing. But it would have been a much better thing if *I* had won the 2.5 million.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)


[/ QUOTE ]

A Classic - Have to bump it.

[Tom Bayes]

I wonder how much larger Fossilman's win is this year BECAUSE Moneymaker, rather than some known pro, won last year's event? While the field would certainly have been a record this year, I don't think we have 2600 if a "pro" had won last year.

[citanul]

best bump ever.

i guess that this is the exact opposite of "be careeful of what you ask for."

citanul

[jdl22]

I think it's exactly be careful what you wish for considering that 2.5m was the prize for third and he had such a huge chip lead going into the final 3.

[Dieter01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in some ways, isnt that a good thing for everyone, that he got lucky in a tournament and won millions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's a good thing. But it would have been a much better thing if *I* had won the 2.5 million.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]


And so he did...

[jwvdcw]

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[citanul]

touchee