Greg won't be as good as Moneymaker

[Ulysses]

As good for the game, that is.

I think Greg is an excellent NL and tourney player. And I agree given what I've read so far (both post-WSOP as well as past 2+2 contributions) that Greg will likely make a classy representative for the game.

However, I've already read in mainstream accounts of the WSOP (even when Greg has acknowledged luck as a key component to his win) two things that are major differences when compared to Moneymaker (who, btw, I believe played very well as well):

1) The fact that Greg has played in WSOP events before and has had previous tourney experience and success

2) The fact that many accounts describe Greg "wielding" his big stack to overwhelm his opponents - implying poker skill and strategy

Also, based mainly on his contributions here, I suspect that Greg is likely to come across with much more of a solid poker player and much less of an "Aw, shucks, I won the WSOP" type image than Moneymaker.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not so sure we'll see a further explosion of the game due to this win, because this story is just not as dramatic to hear as Moneymaker's win. Also, of course, there are a lot more people playing poker already, so one would expect the growth curve to flatten anyway.

Of course, he did "pay $160 and win $5m," so that in and of itself will keep a lot of dreamers dreaming!

Anyway, just some random thoughts. No point, really.

[Dynasty]

I never thought Moneymaker himself was responsible for any of the growth in poker. It was the ESPN coverage of his tournament win, the WPT, and internet poker which is responsible for 90%+ of the growth in poker. Anybody else could have won the 2003 WSOP and I think everything would be pretty much the same today.

[Easy E]

The "unknown, fairly new to poker, only played on the Internet card rooms, spent $40 to win $2.5M" player I'd BET had a larger percentage to do with the explosion of the WSOP numbers and helped pushed the poker TV ratings more than you give credit for, Dynasty

Would be interesting to see what happened if CM had miseed out with 88 vs. AA and a well-known pro had won...

[J_V]

I agree with this. He was probably in the middle of the good for game continuum of possible WSOP winners.

[MicroBob]

i think both the tv coverage AND the fact that it was a total unknown out of nowhere combined for the growth.


as a BJ dealer last year i had several players talking about the 'neat poker they saw on tv....can you believe they are betting $500,000 like that??' (many did not understand that these were 'tournament' chips and not real money).

i also had several players talking about that 'moneymaker guy who won the whole thing. did you know he made it there by playing in just a $40 tournament on the internet??'

in most situations where it was general table-talk among the BJ (or 3-card poker) players i would guess that they primarily did not know how to play hold-em.

some people saw some WPT coverage or WSOP coverage...others saw Moneymaker interviewed on David Letterman or CNN.

it seemed to me that both the WPT and the underdog-Moneymaker story carried a certain amount of interest with the non-poker players that i encountered.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
it seemed to me that...the underdog-Moneymaker story carried a certain amount of interest with the non-poker players that i encountered.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, it's not Moneymaker himself that people are interested in. It's the guy-who-won that interests them. Anybody could have filled those shoes.

[MicroBob]

if phil hellmuth or johnny chan or howard lederer or phil ivey had won it would not have commanded as much attention as 'the accountant that paid $40 and won $2.5 mil'


the fact that it was an internet player who paid just $40 and had never played a live tourney before made a big difference to the general awe that many non-poker players had.

[Losing all]

Good post. half way through I was thinking- But, "he did pay $160 to win 5mil" I think thats the key. I doubt if the foot doctor or janitor watching this are thinking "gee someday I might be able to grind out 28 bucks an hour at 20/40" It's all about that monster score.

This years coverage will play out like a lottery reality show to the uninformed.

[balt999]

On the other side, Greg could be more marketable to the "Average" person to poker. I could see ESPN really marketing the "Fossil" aspect to try to draw new users. In Marketing, it's all about drawing your audience in before you hook em.

[Peter_rus]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other side, Greg could be more marketable to the "Average" person to poker. I could see ESPN really marketing the "Fossil" aspect to try to draw new users. In Marketing, it's all about drawing your audience in before you hook em.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty much a brand new poster to these forums, but I've read some of Fossilman's posts and admire and respect him for his poker knowledge. I especially like the way he is so generous in sharing his knowledge without making the questioner feel like a stupid idiot. From what I've seen, he sounds like a genuinely nice guy.

The same could be said of the aw-shucks attitude of Chris Moneymaker. While Greg may be marketable because of the Fossilman nickname, no player will ever gain the instant fame and lifelong recognition that Moneymaker did last year. The blue collar accountant aspect, the internet buy-in, and most importantly, his last name itself will be forever linked to poker dream stories. One year from now, the average joe will have more trouble remembering the name Greg Raymer than Chris Moneymaker.

[BreakEvenPlayer]

The guy's [censored]ing last name is "Moneymaker." Of course a guy named Greg Raymer will not get the same attention.

Another factor is the extensive coverage of all the preliminary events ESPN plans on this year. Is coverage of the Razz final table with a prize of (75,000?) really going to "woo" the audiences? By the time they show the main event only the die hards are going to be tuning in, the ones already playing poker including the Moneymaker boomers.

[Army Eye]

It blows me away that ESPN is showing the RAZZ event but none of the Omaha Hi/Lo events. WTF?

If there's one thing that could end the poker boom as we know it, it's the televising of a razz tournament.

[Daithi]

I pretty much agree with Dynasty here.

I'd say the #1 thing that spurred the growth was the WPT.
#2 is ESPN coverage of last years WSOP
#3 is poker available on the Internet
#4 I'd give to Chris Moneymaker

Before Moneymaker ever won the WSOP my local B&M (Foxwoods) was selling out their weekend tourneys with people showing up at 7 and 8 in the morning so that they could get in the 10:00am tournament. This was all attributed to the WPT.

If Phil Ivey had won last year, the story would have been about Phil being the Tiger Woods of Poker, and how a young man had risen so quickly in the ranks (and you can too). Moneymaker may have had an impact, but I think it was small compared to TV and the Internet.

Greg also has the skill to appear in future events. Poker is probably on the verge of attracting corporate sponsors that would probably work like golf sponsorship (e.g. adding on to the prize pool, and/or covering the entry fees of top pros). If a sponsor needed help being convinced to 'gamble' on poker -- I'd rather have Greg help make that arguement than Moneymaker.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
It blows me away that ESPN is showing the RAZZ event but none of the Omaha Hi/Lo events. WTF?

If there's one thing that could end the poker boom as we know it, it's the televising of a razz tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never played razz, but Omaha/8 is pretty boring to play unless you are a maniac, let alone watch. I can't imagine anyone watching it for more than about a minute if they didn't know the game well. Can you imagine some announcer like Phil Gordon trying to explain to total newbies why a player with pocket quad 9's just threw away his hand in disgust?

Texas Holdem works on TV because it is conceptually simple. Mike Sexton's line is that holdem takes a minute to learn, a lifetime to master. More to the point, it takes a couple minutes for someone with zero expereince to think that they understand how the game is played, and to think that they understand what the players are doing.

Razz is conceptually simpler than O8. I would think that a random audience could be made comfortable with razz a lot quicker than with O/8. Hell, O/8 is confusing to holdem players. The audience wants to see a couple guys shove all their chips in and stand up and pace while the turn and river are dealt. They aren't ready for talk about scooping and quartering and counterfeiting. I'd love to see a well done high-level O/8 game on TV, but a general audience isn't going to watch it for an hour or two.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Greg also has the skill to appear in future events.

[/ QUOTE ]

No argument there.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather have Greg help make that arguement than Moneymaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget that not only has Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP, he has also finished second in a WPT event. At some point, you have to give this guy some credit.

[Daithi]

I do think Moneymaker deserves credit for being a very good player. I don't know if he belongs in the top tier, maybe he does and maybe he doesn't, but time will tell. In any event, I hearby give the man his due.

[theBruiser500]

I'm pretty sure Fossilman just plays on PokerStars, not UB and not PP, right? I hope so, YAY for Pokerstars!!!!!! I hope pokerstars grows and those other stupid lame companies go banrktupt.

[Sadat X]

I would have liked to have seen more coverage of the main event and less deuce to seven lowball, personally. Nothing against games like razz and lowball, but I think they may turn the prospective fish away from poker b/c those games are a bit more complex and they have to wait months for the end of the NL event.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd say the #1 thing that spurred the growth was the WPT.
#2 is ESPN coverage of last years WSOP
#3 is poker available on the Internet
#4 I'd give to Chris Moneymaker


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, talking to non-poker player (or kitchen table poker player) friends of mine, I'll have to disagree. Most of them don't know what the World Poker Tour is. It's on the Travel channel for god's sake. If they've seen it, it's because myself or some other poker afficianado has turned them onto it. No slight at the WPT which is *by far* the best televised poker show available.

The WPT may have had the biggest impact on people who were already card-room poker players of some sort, but in terms of what my "regular" friends talk about in terms of the growth of poker:

1. Chris Moneymaker. I mentioned his story in a speech I gave for public speaking class and people who had never heard of him were endlessly facinated. He's a great story, with the name, the background, and everything.

2. Celebrity poker. Yes, the poker is terrible. Yes the commentators are awful. But many more of my 'non-poker' friends have watched it and gotten into poker that way. People are into celebrities. Lord knows I can't figure out why, but there you go.

3. The ESPN WSOP coverage. Not the greatest coverage in the world, but it gets to piggyback on the Moneymaker story and it's on a common american "browsing channel". I mean, I've probably seen 10 or 15 episodes of "The World's Strongest Man Competition". How many do you think I would have seen if it was on the Travel channel?

I don't know Daithi's background, but Dynasty lives in Vegas and probably has friends who play poker at the same level he does. As for me, I am the only person in my circle of friends who would dream of sitting in even a 6-12 cash game at a local card room (SF bay area, fwiw). The poker boom has not come from the people who were already playing poker, it's come from everyone else. The people who, until I told them, didn't even know poker was *legal* in CA, much less that there were poker rooms 10 minutes from their front door.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
The people who, until I told them, didn't even know poker was *legal* in CA, much less that there were poker rooms 10 minutes from their front door.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting point. Just about everyone I meet nowadays knows about poker and is a fan of some degree and has seen it on TV - at my Memorial Day BBQ a lot of people were talking about the latest Celebrity Poker. Many have also seen it on WPT, ESPN, etc. But almost everyone who mentions poker in that kind of context is very surprised to find out that legal cardrooms exist a few minutes from the city.

[baggins]

yeah. Omaha (8 or Hi) is way better for TV than Razz.

Community Cards, IMHO, account for a significant degree in the 'watchableness' of televised poker (along with the holecards cams...).

[Ralph Wiggum]

Pokerstars accounts for four of the players at the final table. They also account for about 12% (1-in-8) players in the tournament. I'm sure they'll get a tremendous boost, when their players are seen everywhere w/ their Stars' gear at the WSOP on ESPN.

[Daithi]

I'm just glad I normally play at Paradise, and not PokerStars.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Is coverage of the Razz final table with a prize of (75,000?) really going to "woo" the audiences?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah. It will.

You know those pool tourneys they show where the winner gets $25,000? "Normal people" think that $25,000 is a ton of money. Normal people can't understand poker or the relatively large sums of money trading hands in the poker world.

You hear people saying things like... "That Doyle Brunson must have a great job to be able to play in poker games that big... I wonder what he does?"

~D

[theBruiser500]

You suck, shut up.

[AaronO]

This is a pretty cool thread. Lots of interesting ideas. The thing that hasn't been mentioned is the editing factor. Rememebr that ESPN will craft the storylines just like they did last year. Clearly Moneymaker was the star they were looking for and he had the story to tell. Does Fossilman? What play will they give Harrington and Furgeson? What about all the starts that went out early? It will be intersting to see how this year's story shapes up and how audiences will receive it.

[CubsWinIn04]

To go a step farther, I think the actual name "Moneymaker" adds tremendous zeal to the aura of his win.

[jacki]

Nobody has mentioned the size of the first prize as a huge lure to new fishies...

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
I never thought Moneymaker himself was responsible for any of the growth in poker. It was the ESPN coverage of his tournament win, the WPT, and internet poker which is responsible for 90%+ of the growth in poker. Anybody else could have won the 2003 WSOP and I think everything would be pretty much the same today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure Fossilman just plays on PokerStars, not UB and not PP, right? I hope so, YAY for Pokerstars!!!!!! I hope pokerstars grows and those other stupid lame companies go banrktupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but didn't Moneymaker just play for Stars as well? That didn't seem to stunt Party's growth.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have liked to have seen more coverage of the main event and less deuce to seven lowball, personally. Nothing against games like razz and lowball, but I think they may turn the prospective fish away from poker b/c those games are a bit more complex and they have to wait months for the end of the NL event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they're cutting back on their coverage of the main event, though. Rahter they're just adding on more programming.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd say the #1 thing that spurred the growth was the WPT.
#2 is ESPN coverage of last years WSOP
#3 is poker available on the Internet
#4 I'd give to Chris Moneymaker


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, talking to non-poker player (or kitchen table poker player) friends of mine, I'll have to disagree. Most of them don't know what the World Poker Tour is. It's on the Travel channel for god's sake. If they've seen it, it's because myself or some other poker afficianado has turned them onto it. No slight at the WPT which is *by far* the best televised poker show available.

The WPT may have had the biggest impact on people who were already card-room poker players of some sort, but in terms of what my "regular" friends talk about in terms of the growth of poker:

1. Chris Moneymaker. I mentioned his story in a speech I gave for public speaking class and people who had never heard of him were endlessly facinated. He's a great story, with the name, the background, and everything.

2. Celebrity poker. Yes, the poker is terrible. Yes the commentators are awful. But many more of my 'non-poker' friends have watched it and gotten into poker that way. People are into celebrities. Lord knows I can't figure out why, but there you go.

3. The ESPN WSOP coverage. Not the greatest coverage in the world, but it gets to piggyback on the Moneymaker story and it's on a common american "browsing channel". I mean, I've probably seen 10 or 15 episodes of "The World's Strongest Man Competition". How many do you think I would have seen if it was on the Travel channel?

I don't know Daithi's background, but Dynasty lives in Vegas and probably has friends who play poker at the same level he does. As for me, I am the only person in my circle of friends who would dream of sitting in even a 6-12 cash game at a local card room (SF bay area, fwiw). The poker boom has not come from the people who were already playing poker, it's come from everyone else. The people who, until I told them, didn't even know poker was *legal* in CA, much less that there were poker rooms 10 minutes from their front door.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely for this one reason: Do you think the average guys really watches Bravo or the Travel Channel at all? I sure don't excpet for their poker shows. Most guys don't even know about these shows. However, I'd say that at least 75% of men in America watch ESPN at least once a week.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
To go a step farther, I think the actual name "Moneymaker" adds tremendous zeal to the aura of his win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never thought about this really, but I definitely agree.

[brassnuts]

Did anyone see the latest Poker Player journal thing? The main headline was "Wacko wins WSOP!" That was great.