The Moneymaker Effect

[Still the Spank E]

RcrdBoy is right--I had no business making an issue of Moneymaker's Southern origins, down to earth manner, or any of the rest of it in referring to him as Goober, Huckleberry Hound, or whatever. In fact, he seems like a perfectly cool guy who is NOT a schmuck like A LOT of the people getting air time on ESPN and Travel Channel. He did win despite idiocy, however, in my opinion--strictly as a criticism of a good deal of his play, not what part of the country he's from. Thanks for pointing this out, RcrdBoy.

[bernie]

i think majorkong gave a nice review after he was there watching the WSOP live. i cant find his post, but it was favorable to moneymaker. ill take kongs' word for it.

b

[Still the Spank E]

I should have qualified this by referring to the best hold 'em tournament players--certainly NOT completely identical with "best hold 'em players." Thanks for pointing this out.

[MrDannimal]

I was thinking of this too, reading this thread. ESPN set up Moneymaker to look like "Dead Money Gets Lucky" the way they cut 50+ hours of play into ~6 hours of TV. For every strong play he made, it seemed like they had to show a lucky one. Of course he got lucky in spots, every winner does. But from live reports and common sense, you have to be playing pretty well overall to beat 800+ other players, including the best in the world for 5 10+ hour days.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
but does anyone else see ANY downside to the game being made to look like any GOOBER and his two cards can win it all? It would be nice if the WSOP were the province of the best poker player(s) in the world, rather than one who managed to "pull a Homer" (Simpson); wherein one "succeeds despite idiocy."

I mean, he did many things right--don't get me wrong, you'd HAVE TO to survive even one hand against THOSE opponents--but he seemed to just close his eyes and pray on any number of hands and then proceed to get mind numbing good luck on a NUMBER of different occassions (against H. Brenes, for example).

[/ QUOTE ]

So should we take your opinion on Moneymaker's abilities, which is based on a few edited hours of TV; or should we take former WSOP champ Dan Harrington's, who happened to sit at at least two separate tables with Moneymaker during this year's WSOP?

I don't think he's quite the "Goober" you think he is. See this

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't the best and the luckyest often the same person?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a saying in chess: "The good player is always lucky". Not sure it applies to poker though.

[harboral]

What exactly is your point here? Moneymaker, from what I saw (on film and in a live $100/200 game) made a number of very good plays. Like EVERY SINGLE PLAYER that got past 800 others to close in on the final few tables he did need to "draw-out" a few times when coming in with the worst hand. However, you would need to point out to me where he "succeeded despite idiocy". When was he an idiot?
IMHO you are jealous of someone that won two online tournys to get to the WSOP in the first place, then lasted five days to win. Question is, why are you unhappy? Have you personally ever won even a single tournament?

[under242]

I am new here and this is probably going to be a highly unpopular opinion but while there is a great amount of skill involved in hold'em, tournment play also has a huge degree of luck twisted into it. If you didn't know any of the players and had the sound off...all of them would most likey look like they play like Homer..
Jenn

[stupidsucker]

Moneymaker needed some luck.. He got an extra dose of luck. ANyone that wins any major tourney needs some luck. Moneymaker was good enough to win..You can say whatever you want to, or protest it was uncanny luck, but the proof is in the puddin. He won.

Its great for poker, (unless you are tired of watching people slowplay in your local 2-4 game with their sunglasses)

As for asking for a tourney for only the best...

Think of each tournament throughout the year as a regular season game. The WPT keeps stats/points on everyone. There may not be a game for only the top people(there might be)Perhaps one in the future will emerge.. The only real reason would be for ego. A good poker player plays for $$ not ego imo.

[Ed Miller]

I watched the whole final table from beginning to end. I left that day (obviously without having seen any hole cards) thinking that Moneymaker was actually pretty good. But either way... enough already. How many threads are we gonna have about this exact same dumb topic?