Greg won't be as good as Moneymaker

[Ulysses]

As good for the game, that is.

I think Greg is an excellent NL and tourney player. And I agree given what I've read so far (both post-WSOP as well as past 2+2 contributions) that Greg will likely make a classy representative for the game.

However, I've already read in mainstream accounts of the WSOP (even when Greg has acknowledged luck as a key component to his win) two things that are major differences when compared to Moneymaker (who, btw, I believe played very well as well):

1) The fact that Greg has played in WSOP events before and has had previous tourney experience and success

2) The fact that many accounts describe Greg "wielding" his big stack to overwhelm his opponents - implying poker skill and strategy

Also, based mainly on his contributions here, I suspect that Greg is likely to come across with much more of a solid poker player and much less of an "Aw, shucks, I won the WSOP" type image than Moneymaker.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not so sure we'll see a further explosion of the game due to this win, because this story is just not as dramatic to hear as Moneymaker's win. Also, of course, there are a lot more people playing poker already, so one would expect the growth curve to flatten anyway.

Of course, he did "pay $160 and win $5m," so that in and of itself will keep a lot of dreamers dreaming!

Anyway, just some random thoughts. No point, really.

[Dynasty]

I never thought Moneymaker himself was responsible for any of the growth in poker. It was the ESPN coverage of his tournament win, the WPT, and internet poker which is responsible for 90%+ of the growth in poker. Anybody else could have won the 2003 WSOP and I think everything would be pretty much the same today.

[Easy E]

The "unknown, fairly new to poker, only played on the Internet card rooms, spent $40 to win $2.5M" player I'd BET had a larger percentage to do with the explosion of the WSOP numbers and helped pushed the poker TV ratings more than you give credit for, Dynasty

Would be interesting to see what happened if CM had miseed out with 88 vs. AA and a well-known pro had won...

[J_V]

I agree with this. He was probably in the middle of the good for game continuum of possible WSOP winners.

[MicroBob]

i think both the tv coverage AND the fact that it was a total unknown out of nowhere combined for the growth.


as a BJ dealer last year i had several players talking about the 'neat poker they saw on tv....can you believe they are betting $500,000 like that??' (many did not understand that these were 'tournament' chips and not real money).

i also had several players talking about that 'moneymaker guy who won the whole thing. did you know he made it there by playing in just a $40 tournament on the internet??'

in most situations where it was general table-talk among the BJ (or 3-card poker) players i would guess that they primarily did not know how to play hold-em.

some people saw some WPT coverage or WSOP coverage...others saw Moneymaker interviewed on David Letterman or CNN.

it seemed to me that both the WPT and the underdog-Moneymaker story carried a certain amount of interest with the non-poker players that i encountered.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
it seemed to me that...the underdog-Moneymaker story carried a certain amount of interest with the non-poker players that i encountered.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, it's not Moneymaker himself that people are interested in. It's the guy-who-won that interests them. Anybody could have filled those shoes.

[MicroBob]

if phil hellmuth or johnny chan or howard lederer or phil ivey had won it would not have commanded as much attention as 'the accountant that paid $40 and won $2.5 mil'


the fact that it was an internet player who paid just $40 and had never played a live tourney before made a big difference to the general awe that many non-poker players had.

[Losing all]

Good post. half way through I was thinking- But, "he did pay $160 to win 5mil" I think thats the key. I doubt if the foot doctor or janitor watching this are thinking "gee someday I might be able to grind out 28 bucks an hour at 20/40" It's all about that monster score.

This years coverage will play out like a lottery reality show to the uninformed.

[balt999]

On the other side, Greg could be more marketable to the "Average" person to poker. I could see ESPN really marketing the "Fossil" aspect to try to draw new users. In Marketing, it's all about drawing your audience in before you hook em.

[Peter_rus]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other side, Greg could be more marketable to the "Average" person to poker. I could see ESPN really marketing the "Fossil" aspect to try to draw new users. In Marketing, it's all about drawing your audience in before you hook em.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty much a brand new poster to these forums, but I've read some of Fossilman's posts and admire and respect him for his poker knowledge. I especially like the way he is so generous in sharing his knowledge without making the questioner feel like a stupid idiot. From what I've seen, he sounds like a genuinely nice guy.

The same could be said of the aw-shucks attitude of Chris Moneymaker. While Greg may be marketable because of the Fossilman nickname, no player will ever gain the instant fame and lifelong recognition that Moneymaker did last year. The blue collar accountant aspect, the internet buy-in, and most importantly, his last name itself will be forever linked to poker dream stories. One year from now, the average joe will have more trouble remembering the name Greg Raymer than Chris Moneymaker.