|
|
#21
03-09-2005, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
[ QUOTE ]
I stand by my comments about Varkonyi and Furlong. You could probably group Moneymaker along with those two as decent players who got lucky. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sure if you ask Moneymaker, he'll admit he got lucky. I was in Barnes and Noble the other day, and just skimmed the first couple pages of his book. He basically expected to get his ass beat, but oh well...it was an all-expense paid trip to Vegas. If you watch the 2004 and 2003 main events, Raymer and Moneymaker both had one thing in common: they both won a lot of crucial hands where it was either a coinflip or they were actually a little behind going into the flop. One wrong card and we'd be talking about how the great cash player Sam Farha took down the 2003 WSOP instead of the internet player Moneymaker. 
|
|
#22
03-09-2005, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
I disagree with a lot of you on Varkonyi. He went through 600+ people to win, although he isn't all that great of a player he did go through a larger field than all prior to 2002. It's funny how people say Moneymaker, Raymer, Varkonyi were all lucky based on about 15-20 hands you saw for the ENTIRE tournament. How about the hands we didn't see. Or how about the hands they played properly, like Moneymakers call against Dutch Boyd with 33, or Raymers' push against Mike the mouth or the hand against Dan Harrington with AJ vs Q9, or Varkonyi who got a caller with JJ vs AJ for most of the chips at the final table. Everyone gets lucky, its a part of poker, I'm sure all three of these players made good decisions to win that were not shown on TV.
|
|
#23
03-09-2005, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
Say what you will about Moneymaker, he made the big bluffs/calls with tons of chips on the line under the pressure of TV cameras at the World Championship, which by itself seperates him from many more technically proficient players who will never get the chance to get that lucky, because they don't have the nerve.
Frank
|
|
#24
03-09-2005, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] They are both world champions, and deserve to be treated as such. [/ QUOTE ] Yes both won. Does that mean they are very good players who automaticly gets respect? Varkonyi might be a good guy and Moneymaker might have boosted poker intrest alot but that does not mean they are good players who will earn other poker players respect. [/ QUOTE ] Why don't you just respect them for their accomplishments?
|
|
#25
03-09-2005, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
[ QUOTE ]
Say what you will about Moneymaker, he made the big bluffs/calls with tons of chips on the line under the pressure of TV cameras at the World Championship, which by itself seperates him from many more technically proficient players who will never get the chance to get that lucky, because they don't have the nerve. Frank [/ QUOTE ] Don't get me wrong, I was in awe of a lot of the plays Moneymaker made. A couple that come to mind are his pair of 3s (or was it dueces?) against Dutch Boyd's KQ. Moneymaker put him on high cards, but not a pair, and made a ballsy call where a lot of other people woulda mucked that hand. The other is the huge bluff heads up against Farha. Unreal play... He played some good poker under that kind of pressure. I definitely won't take that away from him.
|
|
#26
03-09-2005, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
[ QUOTE ]
Say what you will about Moneymaker, he made the big bluffs/calls with tons of chips on the line under the pressure of TV cameras at the World Championship, which by itself seperates him from many more technically proficient players who will never get the chance to get that lucky, because they don't have the nerve. Frank [/ QUOTE ] Why do you guys keep saying Moneymaker won in 2003? I'm pretty sure that Phil Ivey won. I have the DVDs and I watched just up to the point with about 30 players left, and Phil gets Freddy Deeb all in the flop with KK against his set of nines. I didn't watch the end of the hand because I had to leave, but Deeb was down to two outs so I'm pretty sure that hand made Ivey the chip leader. When I came back, I lost my place and just watched the ten handed final table where they are trying to knock out one last person before the final day. Ivey once again gets it all in on the turn this time, with his nines full of queens full house way ahead of Moneymaker's trip Queens. I mean Moneymaker only had like 4 outs with one card to come! Once again I had to leave before they rolled the river card, but I'm pretty sure this hand gave Phil such a big chip stack that he was able to roll over the rest of the table from then on...
|
|
#27
03-09-2005, 09:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you guys keep saying Moneymaker won in 2003? I'm pretty sure that Phil Ivey won. I have the DVDs and I watched just up to the point with about 30 players left, and Phil gets Freddy Deeb all in the flop with KK against his set of nines. I didn't watch the end of the hand because I had to leave, but Deeb was down to two outs so I'm pretty sure that hand made Ivey the chip leader. When I came back, I lost my place and just watched the ten handed final table where they are trying to knock out one last person before the final day. Ivey once again gets it all in on the turn this time, with his nines full of queens full house way ahead of Moneymaker's trip Queens. I mean Moneymaker only had like 4 outs with one card to come! Once again I had to leave before they rolled the river card, but I'm pretty sure this hand gave Phil such a big chip stack that he was able to roll over the rest of the table from then on... [/ QUOTE ] Maybe I'm wrong then. I was just saying hypothetically if Moneymaker won, he would have made some great plays along the way and most likely would've made a great bluff at the final table. While we're at it...Aaron Boone, Bucky Dent, and Bill Buckner never happened either. This should clear up a lot of misconceptions (or open a whole other can of worms. One or the other).
|
|
#28
03-09-2005, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I was in awe of a lot of the plays Moneymaker made. A couple that come to mind are his pair of 3s (or was it dueces?) against Dutch Boyd's KQ. Moneymaker put him on high cards, but not a pair, and made a ballsy call where a lot of other people woulda mucked that hand. The other is the huge bluff heads up against Farha. Unreal play... [/ QUOTE ] This was definitely a case where I beleive Dutch was right.. calling Moneymaker's play "desperation call.". I'm sure Dutch would have still made this raise if Moneymaker's cards were turned up.. because anyone with 1/2 of a brain would not have called. Dutch made a mistake for sure, since you can't bluff a sucker. We've all tried before and then afterwards shake our head knowing we made a bad move trying to make a dumb player "think" beyond "I have an underpair to the board, lets just call hoping he's on a stone cold bluff". Brilliant call? Well I guess of all the hands Dutch could have held.. this was the only one where it would work out for him. Without knowing for sure what Dutch had I think it's a really poor decision. I'm sure this has been discussed to death in the past. About his huge bluff versus Farha.. I'm sure any one of thousands could have done this. Chris turns a straight and flush draw and has a lot of chips in the pot already that got in there with the worst of it. Now he has a hand with a lot of outs and decides to bluff. He forces himself to make a large bluff on the river because of his play up til this point. He knows he must play lucky to beat Farha and when his draw misses he knows that his only chance is to push. King high can't win. Again, if Farha has any other hand (top 2, set, even 9K or 9A) I expect him to call and there is a different champion of poker. As it stands Chris paints himself into a corner, forced to bluff all his chips, and is fortunate that his opponent is good enuf to make the laydown. Everything had to go exactly right. (of course he could have made his flush and busted Farha which would have made a lower flush) I spoke with several pros at the event and they all thought it was a joke. Perhaps it was sour grapes, that some $40 satelite kid took the big prize instead of one of the main horses who "deserved" it more.. No longer would it be a given that one of the top pros would take this event. With Varkoni and Moneymaker winning it all back to back, the biggest prize in poker could now be won by anyone. I'm sure it's a great thing for poker in general, but you can't blame the pros for wanting it to mean something more.
|
|
#29
03-09-2005, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
[ QUOTE ]
About his huge bluff versus Farha.. I'm sure any one of thousands could have done this. [/ QUOTE ] Any one of thousands could sit in there with $2.5 mil on the line and push that much into the pot with King high? Most people would have trouble making that play in a regular no limit ring game nevermind heads up at the final table of the WSOP.
|
|
#30
03-09-2005, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robert Varkonyi = Rodney Dangerfield
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Don't get me wrong, I was in awe of a lot of the plays Moneymaker made. A couple that come to mind are his pair of 3s (or was it dueces?) against Dutch Boyd's KQ. Moneymaker put him on high cards, but not a pair, and made a ballsy call where a lot of other people woulda mucked that hand. The other is the huge bluff heads up against Farha. Unreal play... [/ QUOTE ] This was definitely a case where I beleive Dutch was right.. calling Moneymaker's play "desperation call.". I'm sure Dutch would have still made this raise if Moneymaker's cards were turned up.. because anyone with 1/2 of a brain would not have called. Dutch made a mistake for sure, since you can't bluff a sucker. We've all tried before and then afterwards shake our head knowing we made a bad move trying to make a dumb player "think" beyond "I have an underpair to the board, lets just call hoping he's on a stone cold bluff". Brilliant call? Well I guess of all the hands Dutch could have held.. this was the only one where it would work out for him. Without knowing for sure what Dutch had I think it's a really poor decision. I'm sure this has been discussed to death in the past. About his huge bluff versus Farha.. I'm sure any one of thousands could have done this. Chris turns a straight and flush draw and has a lot of chips in the pot already that got in there with the worst of it. Now he has a hand with a lot of outs and decides to bluff. He forces himself to make a large bluff on the river because of his play up til this point. He knows he must play lucky to beat Farha and when his draw misses he knows that his only chance is to push. King high can't win. Again, if Farha has any other hand (top 2, set, even 9K or 9A) I expect him to call and there is a different champion of poker. As it stands Chris paints himself into a corner, forced to bluff all his chips, and is fortunate that his opponent is good enuf to make the laydown. Everything had to go exactly right. (of course he could have made his flush and busted Farha which would have made a lower flush) I spoke with several pros at the event and they all thought it was a joke. Perhaps it was sour grapes, that some $40 satelite kid took the big prize instead of one of the main horses who "deserved" it more.. No longer would it be a given that one of the top pros would take this event. With Varkoni and Moneymaker winning it all back to back, the biggest prize in poker could now be won by anyone. I'm sure it's a great thing for poker in general, but you can't blame the pros for wanting it to mean something more. [/ QUOTE ] Sheesh, i thought idiocy of this kind had been educated out by now... Yep, Dutch was right, and Farha was right. Moneymaker sucks, and the pros are mad now. Among the most misinformed posts I have ever read on here.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
