The Moneymaker Effect - Page 3

Ulysses · #21 02-21-2004, 06:51 PM

People who think that either:

a) expert players are winning 800+ entrant tourneys w/out a lot of luck along the way

or

b) idiots are winning 800+ entrant tourneys thanks only to lots of lucky hands

are both pretty misguided.

I would submit that it is very unlikely that you'll be able to win such a tourney without both being very lucky and making a lot of good plays along the way.

Cosimo · #22 02-21-2004, 08:35 PM

Hmmm, that's what I was trying to say, but you said it much more plainly. =)

But... I also doubt that someone can be a truly great player without also having a lot of experience.

Still the Spank E · #23 02-23-2004, 11:49 AM

I was actually not leaving it to the forum readers to go by MY opinion, as everyone who watched the ESPN shows could see that some (not ALL) of his plays were some real head-scratchers. This said, Dan Harrington, when asked, seemed to be saying that he thought Farha to have the advantage in what was a high-pressure situation Moneymaker had not (to his knowledge) experienced before. I didn't hear any real endorsement of Moneymaker's abilities in what he said, though maybe I missed it.

Still the Spank E · #24 02-23-2004, 11:54 AM

Your insight into my character and motivation is uncanny. I greatly revere you and everything you stand for now.

Sloats · #25 02-23-2004, 12:03 PM

Personally, I believe that EOE manipulated the hands that they choose to show to make the WSOP appear to be "Anyone Can Win" and build the drama around a virtual rookie/no name who came in and "shocked" the Poker world. They tried to sell it (and I think they did) as a Poker version of the 1980 Olympics USA hockey.

Also, what better way to promote the game than to have a soft spoken accountant who loves his job win the game's highest honor. That is a far cry from the "smokey back room full of grifters" image that poker had before. This will draw more people and more money (more fish, bigger pots). They are even making a gambling channel on the wings of the show.

And, yes, we was very lucky, he played a bunch of marginal hands, but so did the other finalist. He also made a couple of great calls.

stupidsucker · #26 02-23-2004, 03:20 PM

I dont think anyone manipulated hands...

But it is not unlikely that they intentionally ONLY show on TV the hands that make Maker look like the""virtual rookie/no name who came in and shocked the Poker world""

I could put together reel of Michael Jordan footage to make him look like the worst basketball player ever. To someone that doesnt know, they may believe they to can win the MVP award.

Dont get me wrong.. A) I am not a Jordan fan, but he seemed a good example.. B) I am not comparing the two...

But its very possible that Moneymaker isnt as BAD as they might have shown on TV.. They dont telivise every hand.. but we sure see the bad ones over and over and over again.

Bravo I say... Is winning a million dollars worth reading about yourself and how much you suck? I say YES..Give me a cool million and you too can step on my blue seude shoes.

He won, he must have donre something right... For all of you that dislike him and feel you are a better player... You didnt win, stop pining like a no name dramaqueen actor that always feels they could have done a better job.

Crap.. I dont have a large enough post count, or an good enough understanding of spelling to be chastising anyone...
Carry on

pudley4 · #27 02-23-2004, 03:52 PM

Did you even read the post I linked to?

Here's what Mason wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
He (Dan) told me (Mason) that by chance he was at Moneymaker's table on the first day of the tournament. Dan said that he was so impressed with his game that he went and told several top players who were nearbye that this was a kid they needed to watch. Well, obviously Dan was right.

Also, Dan had only compliments for Moneymaker's ability and performance at the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still the Spank E · #28 02-23-2004, 03:59 PM

Okay, I'm sure it was my fault, but the idea I get is that many, many respondents overlooked my having said I consider ANYONE able to get past even one hand against THAT competition to be a very good player, and only noticed my having referred to Moneymaker as "Huckleberry Hound" and "Goober." Most of even what ESPN shows is reasonably acceptable play, its just that I came to the conclusion that, after CONSECUTIVE YEARS of amateurs none of us has ever heard of (and likely will never hear of again), I came to the conclusion that what I would like to see is a true World Series pitting the best against the best ONLY. Not the best against the "okay," or the "not bad" nor even the "very good." Just one event that calls itself the game's "World Series" or its "Super Bowl" is what I'd like to see. That was the WSOP's original purpose, is all. I am of the sincere opinion that we can let this drop now.

Still the Spank E · #29 02-23-2004, 04:02 PM

No, I didn't have a chance, as I do this from work. Thanks for cueing me in.

SheridanCat · #30 02-23-2004, 05:45 PM

Spank,

In answer to your interest in having only the best tournament players contending for a title of some kind, here's a link you might want to look at.

CardPlayer Player Of The Year Criteria

While not a tournament to decide the best, this may or may not show who "the best" is.

Also, keep in mind that tournament poker is not the same as ring game poker. Some of the best poker players in the world likely never bother with tournaments.

Regards,

T