Cream Continues to Rise to the Top (WSOP Results)

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that speaks of this guy being good is that he cashed in the main event and then won a big event that nobody outside the poker world has heard of. (Does the average ESPN viewer even know the NL part of the WSOP is more than one tourney?)

But OK, he got lucky twice...look at the final tables. The pros are dominating, not close, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the OP in general, I'm just questioning what we know of the caliber of one player.

[billyjex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly i seriously doubt you know what you're talking about.

moneymaker is a solid, aggressive player. he got lucky but everyone does to win a tournament.

i dont remember a 54o hand like that.

the final hand of the tourney was when money had 54, but that was heads up and he flopped two pair.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly i seriously doubt you know what you're talking about.

moneymaker is a solid, aggressive player. he got lucky but everyone does to win a tournament.

i dont remember a 54o hand like that.

the final hand of the tourney was when money had 54, but that was heads up and he flopped two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand I'm talking about was fairly early in the tournament. I wish I had the exact hand history. I remember thinking it was a pretty bad hand and a pretty bad way of playing it.

[riverdance]

i always win with asenine, especially sooooted

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only we had solid evidence like this back in 2000 for those pesky Florida recount investigations...

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're pulling this out of your ass. ESPN didn't show a hand like that. And ESPN didn't show any hands of Moneymaker's early in the tournament.

To say Moneymaker played that tournament like a fish is just idiotic jealousy. Standard tho. You belong in the WPT forum.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Did you think Moneymaker played the 2003 ME like a fish though? Because I sure do. Sure, he made a couple of plays...but in general his play was mediocre...no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Played like a fish? He maybe played one televised pot poorly (the 88 vs. Humberto Brenes).

Please back up your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're pulling this out of your ass. ESPN didn't show a hand like that. And ESPN didn't show any hands of Moneymaker's early in the tournament.

To say Moneymaker played that tournament like a fish is just idiotic jealousy. Standard tho. You belong in the WPT forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

You people sure are dictatorial when it comes to opinions.

[Tyler Durden]

ok i'm sorry. but please tell me more about the 54 hand, if it really happened, and i'm pretty sure it didn't.

[Hauser_III]

[ QUOTE ]
And ESPN didn't show any hands of Moneymaker's early in the tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious how you define "early"? They had coverage of him at the table where he zoned out when the action came to him, and somebody (I recall that it was either Lederer or Chan) finally asked him if he knew he was still in the hand. I thought that table was fairly early in the tournament. Then, again, this is from two years ago, so my memory could be faulty.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, I seem to remember him playing 54 off, hitting bottom pair and continuing to just call with the hand until he caught either two pair or trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I don't think I'm a better player than Moneymaker.
I don't think I could win or even place at any event at the WS of poker.
I don't think I'm a better player than you.
I don't think I'm a better player than anyone on this forum.

Can we get off of the defensive now, people?

As a hack, I watched the WSOP in 2003 and I saw Moneymaker as being a mediocre player in my opinion who I thought didn't play very well in my opinion, and saw him get extremely lucky and make a couple of great plays. I'm sorry I don't remember all the details.