The Moneymaker Effect

[Still the Spank E]

Okay, I realize that the general effect of the most recent WSOP having been won by Huckleberry Hound is to convince legions of neophytes that THEY, TOO can and should play poker for money in public casinos against professionals (and wannabees, like myself), 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). Yes, I realize that the whole point is to find fish, make money off of fish, and laugh smugly amongst ourselves about having found and taken money off of fish, but shouldn't the WORLD SERIES be only for the best?

P.S. If you think Chris Moneymaker is the world's best hold 'em player, you can and should ignore this note entirely.

[William]

P.S. If you think Chris Moneymaker is the world's best hold 'em player, you can and should ignore this note entirely

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

[LetsRock]

I think all the "real" holdem players would cringe to read this concept. Moneymaker (and about 800 other paying customers) are dead money the fund the tournament. Is he really the best poker player in the world because he won the WSOP main event last year? I highly doubt it. He's just the holder of the trophy for that tourney for the year.

If you were to limit the WSOP to those who "should" be there, you'd have about 100 players and a very limited prize pool. I think the "real" players will take their chances with 800 dead money players in order to build that kind of prize money.

And his winning has boomed the poker industry beyond belief. Do you think that the fish would be flocking to the tables if Dolly or Slim would have won? The "anyone can win" proved true is the concept that draws the masses into the card rooms.

And I don't think it's fair to be too hard on Moneymaker. I'm not saying that I was real impressed with what I saw of him on ESPN, but we have to remember that we see very few of his hands out of a 4 day event. Was he pretty lucky? I'd say so. But he had to do a few things right to get to the point that he was even on the screen to begin with.

[NLSoldier]

I agree that people like Moneymaker winning the WSOP will cause many poeple to lose some respect for past and future WSOP champions, but considering the vast majority of us will never be WSOP champions, I think Moneymakers success has had a much more positive than negative effect on poker overall by bringing so many more new players to the table.

[charlie_t_jr]

I think LetsRock makes a great point about only seeing so many hands in the TV coverage. The TV people obviously want to chose the hands that have the best drama.

Just like the author of Positively 5th Street, who finished 5th in 2000, Moneymaker played some decent poker and got lucky at the right time, and so the poker world has been lucky. Had Sammy Farha called with his pocket 2's at the final table and made his set...things could've turned out a lot differently.

[Still the Spank E]

Always--when playing craps.

[Still the Spank E]

Many of the best poker players (Brunson, Ivey, others) are said to play one another in a weekly Vegas game and, no doubt, have their own idea of who is the best amongst them. ANY tournament can be set up to accomodate enough players to make for a huge prize payout/structure, but I still wish there were one true WORLD SERIES or SUPER BOWL, or whatever you want to call it, where the best players on earth play once a year--the way the original WSOP was. It's just a different animal now, not necessarily a bad one, but one that has replaced an original concept I would love to be able to witness.

[RcrdBoy]

Same with Robert Varkonyi.

You need some luck to win tournaments. That being said, you can't win that event with out some level of skill.

Since Moneymaker is on the "rural" side and appears to be relatively well adjusted and humble, I think, leaves him open to more criticism.

-Mike

[Cosimo]

I won first place in a 274-seat MTT, in my fifth NLHE game. I was dead money in that tourney. In my first month of playing SnGs, my ROI was -34%. Negative. I sucked. I kinda knew the 'right thing' to do, but like McManus, I played scared. Calling instead of going all-in preflop saved me a number of times. I got lucky towards the end and took the trophy.

A fish will never win a big tourney, but there's a long way between fish and shark--and I think Moneymaker sits in the middle.

[bernie]

i dont necesarily think the best holdem players are the winners of tournies. the best holdem players you will rarely hear about. the tourney winners just get more press.

i read in hellmuth's(?) column about amir vahedi(?) winning with 55 in a pot he shouldnt have even been in preflop. some say he's fantastic.

cya in the trenches.

b