PPM self proclaimed "the greatest event in the history of Poker"

[PokerPaul]

Party kind of overmarketing themselves wouldnt you say?

however, that does bring up the question, what would be the greatest event in the history of poker?

my nominees:

- The chris moneymaker WSOP
- The very first WSOP
- WPT debut
- Partypoker reaching 50000 players online milestone
- the night i nailed shana hiatt

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
the night i nailed shana hiatt

[/ QUOTE ]
too bad it was 10 minutes after i nailed her. man sloppy seconds is a tough beat [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ttleistdci]

[ QUOTE ]
Party kind of overmarketing themselves wouldnt you say?

however, that does bring up the question, what would be the greatest event in the history of poker?

my nominees:

- The chris moneymaker WSOP
- The very first WSOP
- WPT debut
- Partypoker reaching 50000 players online milestone
- the night i nailed shana hiatt

[/ QUOTE ]

I would compare Moneymaker's win to Tiger Woods winning the Masters in 97. Maybe it wasn't the greatest moment in the history of golf (certainly top 10 though), but it definitely launched golf as a popular sport. Moneymaker did the same thing essentially. So you could make the argument that his win was the reason that Party is up to 50,000+ and allowed the WPT to get off the ground (after the boost to the poker fanbase), and may have even been the reason you had a shot with Ms. Hiatt [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[RBT]

but why isn't Varkoni's(sp?) win given the same attention? Just something I've wondered. I know the field was larger when Moneymaker did it, but wasn't it larger because of the amateur the previous year winning it.

I'd have to go with baggin' Shana though.

[jojobinks]

maybe b/c varkonyi was a douchebag.

but really, the difference was espn's coverage. it was way better as far as production values, and the 8 or 10 hours of coverage is what captured america's attention. moneymaker was just the posterboy.

[Niediam]

Moneymaker won his seat from an online satillite.... made it appear that anybody could win - they just needed a computer.

[Aceshigh7]

[ QUOTE ]
but why isn't Varkoni's(sp?) win given the same attention? Just something I've wondered. I know the field was larger when Moneymaker did it, but wasn't it larger because of the amateur the previous year winning it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Varkonyi was an embarrassment to poker. He was completely clueless about the game to a certain extent. Moneymaker was an amateur but he has some skills. Varkonyi is looked at as an absolute joke in the poker world.

[jojobinks]

on the original subject, i thought PSI was pretty awesome.

the format, of having a series of 6 (8? 9?) single table events, so that luck factored as less (despite the gus-bashing), was a great idea. and obviously the field of players was awesome.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
on the original subject, i thought PSI was pretty awesome.

the format, of having a series of 6 (8? 9?) single table events, so that luck factored as less (despite the gus-bashing), was a great idea. and obviously the field of players was awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Greenstein call these tournaments a "crapshoot"?

From what I understand, the structure made luck very important. That may be why Gus did so well.[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Link

[tdarko]

maybe b/c varkonyi talked as if he needed to blow his nose but never did?