What would Jesus Do....

[Tyler Durden]

...if he hadn't been so lucky at the final table in 2000?

Lots of people enjoy ripping into Chris Moneymaker and saying how lucky he was in the 2003 WSOP, but what about Chris Ferguson??

Final table play was 6-handed back then. Jesus had the chip lead, with T2,853,000. His closest competitor was James McManus with T554,000. TJ Cloutier came back from being the shortstack w/ T216,000 to battle Jesus in heads up play.

Heads up play with Cloutier sitting behind 500K, and Jesus had all the rest, 4.6 million. And it didn't take long for Jesus to lose the chip lead.



They got it all-in preflop: AK for TJ, A7 for Jesus. Chopped pot.

And again: A7 for TJ, A2 for Jesus. Chopped pot.

The grand finale: A9 for Jesus, AQ for TJ. The result: A rivered nine and TJ is runner up for the second time in the Big One.


So how come nobody ever brings this up and mentions Chris Ferguson's name when we discuss who got really lucky at the final table of the WSOP?

I think it's b/c Jesus is a "pro" while Moneymaker was an internet qualifier whose brilliant play is clouded by the envy and contempt many have for him.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Schaefer]

He also spiked a 6 against Jeff Shulman while he was all-in with 66 vs 77. Shulman was chip leader, bullying the table. Jesus took a stand with 66 and doubled up by getting......lucky.

However, I think Jesus gets more respect than MM because he has had success over a long period of time and has proven that he's a great player. Even if he hadn't won in 2000, people would call him a great player. If MM hadn't won last year, no one would know him from Adam. However, MM is gaining a lot of respect and who knows, one day he may be mentioned as one of the top tourney pros.

I normally don't care about these issues but this is my .02 anyway.

Schaefer

[Tyler Durden]

Oh yea, I forgot about that.

Three hands later, Jeff raises $200,000 from the button. Kaufman ponders defending his $15,000 small blind for a moment, then passes, leaving Chris, in the big blind, to reflect on his options for another thirty seconds. "What would Jesus do?" a shrill railbird wonders aloud, getting laughs. The answer is: move all seven of His tidy stacks toward the pot, reraising $650,000. Hasan and the rest of us scram. Jeff stares at Jesus for maybe ten seconds, then shrugs almost meekly and calls. When he turns over 7h7c--not really much of a hand to be calling a big stack all-in with--there are whispers and cries of astonishment. Then Chris shows us 6c6s! In absolute crunch time, the twenty-three-year-old Shulman has somehow made a veteran read of his opponent, leaving Chris with two outs. As auto-advance cameras fire away and the railbirds go silent, the flop comes 10 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] ... 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]!


So Jesus made a stand with 66?? I don't think even Christopher Reeve would make a stand with that hand....(get it.....)

[Sundevils21]

Good point about Fergie. I believe it's DanNeg, who says that he is one of what he likes to call "Mis's"(Move in specialists). Players that develop(mathematically) good preflop starting requirements and then like to go all in with whatever hands meet those requirements. Of course these players hate the early rounds of tournaments when the stacks are deep in relation to the blinds, but near the end when blinds are high in relation to the stacks, these players thrive.

[EWillers]

Maybe the fact that Ferguson has a PhD in artificial intelligence or somethin' like that from MIT has somethin' to do with it. (not to mention the ability to slice a banana from 30' usin' a card AND his card aiming in2 a hat)

But seriously, I think that as u mentioned, him being a "pro" (however one defines that) has something to do with it. I know that I gave him a lot of (probably undue) credit when I heard about his educational background.

Just cuz one might b a genious doesn't mean one can be a world class player (though it prolly doesn't hurt much).

Reading the play at the final table at the 2000 WSOP in Positively Fifth Street definately dropped my opinion of him some--whatever that's worth.

[James282]

Gretzky scores on the rebound!
-James

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
...if he hadn't been so lucky at the final table in 2000?

Lots of people enjoy ripping into Chris Moneymaker and saying how lucky he was in the 2003 WSOP, but what about Chris Ferguson??

Final table play was 6-handed back then. Jesus had the chip lead, with T2,853,000. His closest competitor was James McManus with T554,000. TJ Cloutier came back from being the shortstack w/ T216,000 to battle Jesus in heads up play.

Heads up play with Cloutier sitting behind 500K, and Jesus had all the rest, 4.6 million. And it didn't take long for Jesus to lose the chip lead.



They got it all-in preflop: AK for TJ, A7 for Jesus. Chopped pot.

And again: A7 for TJ, A2 for Jesus. Chopped pot.

The grand finale: A9 for Jesus, AQ for TJ. The result: A rivered nine and TJ is runner up for the second time in the Big One.


So how come nobody ever brings this up and mentions Chris Ferguson's name when we discuss who got really lucky at the final table of the WSOP?

I think it's b/c Jesus is a "pro" while Moneymaker was an internet qualifier whose brilliant play is clouded by the envy and contempt many have for him.

Discuss amongst yourselves.





[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no doubt that Chris got extremely lucky on two specific hands at the 2000 WSOP final table, the one you mention and the other one with pocket sixes against Jeff Shulman's pocket sevens. However, on the Shulman hand, Chris felt that Shulman would fold to a re-raise as he didn't appear to be strong. On the final hand, he openly admits that he knew he was beat but wanted to "get lucky" and take TJ out.

Now, the reason why noone gives Jesus any static for being a one-off lucky world champion is because he has five WSOP Bracelets and that ends that debate.

Also, of interest, check this page out:

http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/chris.html

[Cosimo]

CM, an internet unknown, makes a number of bad reads and bad plays yet proceeds to hit some very long odds to suck out on his opponents, time and time again. Some people resent what he represents--the short-term luck factor that is ever-present in Holdem. Other people point out that it takes a lot of skill to get to the final table of a WSOP, ignoring points about luck being involved.

CF, a known and respected tournament player, gets a few lucky hands on some decent plays where he was behind, proving that short-term luck in Holdem (especially NL tournament Holdem) can produce wild swings.

So, uh, luck was involved in both cases, therefore CF is a n00b and CM is the best player evar?

I'm missing your point.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
So, uh, luck was involved in both cases, therefore CF is a n00b and CM is the best player evar?



[/ QUOTE ]

You misspelled 'ever'.

[jstnrgrs]

This is the fourth of fifth thread that I've seen about how moneymaker was better than people think, and it wasn't all luck. Oddly enough I've not seen a thread claiming the other side (that Moneymaker was just lucky).