Thoughts on the 2003 WSOP

[larrymcg421]

I've been watching the coverage of the 2003 World Series of Poker, which ESPN has been showing quite a bit lately. I noticed on some sites/groups there has been alot of criticism about Chris Moneymaker's play, but I don't quite see it the same way as most. The criticism generally refers to three key hands that he won.

1) Moneymaker with 88 against Humberto Brenes who had AA.

Chris sucked out on the turn with an 8 for trips. Chris clearly misread his opponent on this, but he did have Brenes covered by quite a bit. My guess is that Chris was thinking Brenes was bluffing, and if he wasn't bluffing he'd still have a chance to suckout and even if that didn't happen he still would have a healthy chip stack. This is definitely not his best call but it's not as terrible as people claim.

2) Moneymaker with 33 against Dutch Boyd who had KQ.

You could tell that Moneymaker read his opponent correctly when he asked for "low cards" before Boyd flipped his cards over. People criticize Chris for putting himself all in (Boyd had him covered by a bit) with only pocket 3's. But what's the point of getting a good read on your opponent for close to a 3:1 advantage and then laying the hand down? If you want to be world champion, you have to make that call.

3) Moneymaker with AQ against Phil Ivey who had 99

People say Chris got lucky in this hand because he sucked out on the river. They forget to mention how unlucky he got on the turn. The flop was QQx. Chris bet a modest $70k to suck Phil in. Phil called and the turn brought a 9, which gave Phil a full boat. Ivey went all in and Chris quickly called. At this point he was far behind, but it took a major suckout for that to happen. Some criticize Chris for slowplaying the hand, but he was trying to get some callers. He got Ivey to go all in and eventually won the hand. To me it doesnt matter what the situation was at the turn. Who in their right mind would lay down trip queens against an aggressive opponent who you have covered?

Anyone else have any thoughts?

I'm really looking forward to this year's WSOP.

[Chubby]

People that critcize his play are mad cause he won by not "playing by the book" IMO. Did he get lucky on those hands? Sure. Was he the only won to get lucky/win hands on hunches? Of course not.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

People that critcize his play are mad cause he won by not "playing by the book" IMO. Did he get lucky on those hands? Sure. Was he the only won to get lucky/win hands on hunches? Of course not.

That's my biggest problem with a lot of poker players.

It's not a simulation being run by a computer! There are human factors involved, and sometimes you just "feel" the right things.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Logan

That's my biggest problem with a lot of poker players.

It's not a simulation being run by a computer! There are human factors involved, and sometimes you just "feel" the right things.

I just laugh when people get pissed at the table for similar things. It happens to everyone. Top 10 hands aren't going to win everytime, if you let someone draw out on you then you obviously misplayed the hand. If they want to go on tilt because their A-A got outdrawn by a 4-6 offsuit because they slow-played then so be it.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Logan

That's my biggest problem with a lot of poker players.

It's not a simulation being run by a computer! There are human factors involved, and sometimes you just "feel" the right things.

And sometimes you just "feel" the wrong things... but win anyway (the Moneymaker-Brenes hand being a prime example).

If that happens 100 times, cleary Moneymaker won't do too well... but everyone has to get lucky on multiple hands to win a tourney that large.

[cartman]

Yep, the people I see on Poker Stars complain constantly about a Top 10 hand not winning. When they get beat on the river, they complain about "River Stars does it again". Hmm, I may be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain that Poker Stars isn't the only poker room to put 5 cards on the board, and not stop on the turn just so you can win.

[JHandley]

Poor players tend to forget all the pots they won on the river as well.

[Radii]

You have to get lucky to win a big tournament like that, and Moneymaker certainly did get lucky. Thing is, you're talking about 3 hands out of the whole tournament that ESPN decided to air. Over 5 days of poker, everyone is going to make at least 3 incorrect decisions, and the guy that wins the WSOP is the one that has them all work out in his favor in the end.

I bet he makes the money again this year.

[Bonegavel]

How exciting would it be if every player always played the "proper" way? If everyone followed the book, it would just be random luck. I love it when they throw curve balls in and win when they "shouldn't" or some such. I'll bet they don't look at Moneymaker the same for a while after he plays those hands. Adds a bigger question mark to their equations.

[Logan]

When an unknown player makes a move "against the book," he'll be labeled a lucky bastard. Pros like Vegas Vic will take note of this fish, and would love to play with him in the future (as he's said in some of the posts he's made about bad beats).

When a world-famous pro makes the same move, people like the fools on ESPN/WPT call it "an amazing play, one that can only be made by someone who has been doing this for years, and can read his opponent like the back of his hands,"... yada yada yada.

[RendeR]

ok, I may get yelled at for this but..


what the F*** is poker doing on ESPN anyway? its not a fucking sport

get that boring lame ass crap off my tv and back in the casino where it belongs.

gaaah!

*end of rant for the day*

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RendeR

ok, I may get yelled at for this but..


what the F*** is poker doing on ESPN anyway? its not a fucking sport

get that boring lame ass crap off my tv and back in the casino where it belongs.

gaaah!

*end of rant for the day*

Would you rather see World's Strongest Man? Or billiards? Or the table-tennis championship?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by RendeR

ok, I may get yelled at for this but..


what the F*** is auto racing doing on ESPN anyway? its not a fucking sport

get that boring lame ass crap off my tv and back in the sticks where it belongs.

gaaah!

*end of rant for the day*

Dude, I totally agree.

[RPI-Fan]

But what's the point of getting a good read on your opponent for close to a 3:1 advantage and then laying the hand down? If you want to be world champion, you have to make that call.

I don't know where you got that statistic, but it's totally wrong. 33 vs. KQ is basically a coin flip.

With regard to your general point, though, I agree; the Phil Ivey thing bothers me, because Phil Ivey came right back to almost screw Moneymaker over just as bad.

That said, I hope we see a legitimate champion this year, not some punk who wins big-time coin flips on more than one occasion to take the tournament.

[larrymcg421]

I don't know where you got that statistic, but it's totally wrong. 33 vs. KQ is basically a coin flip.

With regard to your general point, though, I agree; the Phil Ivey thing bothers me, because Phil Ivey came right back to almost screw Moneymaker over just as bad.

That said, I hope we see a legitimate champion this year, not some punk who wins big-time coin flips on more than one occasion to take the tournament.

They didn't go all in until after the flop. After the flop 33 is a huge advantage over KQ without a K or Q on the board. CardPlayer.com's calculator lists 33 as a 73.5% to 26.5% favorite over KQ at this point.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

They didn't go all in until after the flop. After the flop 33 is a huge advantage over KQ without a K or Q on the board. CardPlayer.com's calculator lists 33 as a 73.5% to 26.5% favorite over KQ at this point.

Ahhh, my apogolies. I thought it was preflop, where it would be a race.

Thanks for the correction.

[tucker342]

I loved watching Chris Moneymaker during that tournament. You have to have a little bit of luck to win that big of a tournament...

[larrymcg421]

I'd like to point out that Chris Moneymaker placed 10th in the Pot Limit Omaha event at the WSOP. This along with his 2nd place finish at the Shooting Stars WPT event certainly sounds like he's no fluke.

I'm not so sure about Robert Varkonyi, though.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'd like to point out that Chris Moneymaker placed 10th in the Pot Limit Omaha event at the WSOP. This along with his 2nd place finish at the Shooting Stars WPT event certainly sounds like he's no fluke.

Chris Moneymaker is a solid player. You don't win the WSOP AND finish 2nd in another large professional tournament AND finish 10th in another WSOP event by just being a lucky bastard.

He plays 20/40 and 40/80 limit holdem at the Mirage when he's in town, and the local professionals that I've talked to all say that he plays well (I haven't had the opportunity to play against him yet).

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Logan

Would you rather see World's Strongest Man? Or billiards? Or the table-tennis championship?

honestly? yes, they're all far more entertaining than watching a bunch of gambling addicts smoke and toss cards at each other =)

Poker is fun, I enjoy it now and then, but why the hell would ESPN choose to cover this? The leader in sports coverage must be getting desperate for viewers.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Dude, I totally agree.

its a cute edit, but frankly, you can't compare poker to motorsports for the level of "sports"

poker has none. Auto Racing IS one, try again shitty, err schmidty

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RendeR

honestly? yes, they're all far more entertaining than watching a bunch of gambling addicts smoke and toss cards at each other =)

Poker is fun, I enjoy it now and then, but why the hell would ESPN choose to cover this? The leader in sports coverage must be getting desperate for viewers.

Actually you aren't allowed to smoke at the WSOP. And if ESPN is desperate for viewers so must the Travel Channel and Fox sports, and oh yeah, the WPT was on NBC this year as well.

Face it, poker is mainstreem now, and if you don't wanna watch oit no problem, I'm sure there are reruns of the golden girls or a WNBA game on Lifetime.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Actually you aren't allowed to smoke at the WSOP. And if ESPN is desperate for viewers so must the Travel Channel and Fox sports, and oh yeah, the WPT was on NBC this year as well.

Face it, poker is mainstreem now, and if you don't wanna watch oit no problem, I'm sure there are reruns of the golden girls or a WNBA game on Lifetime.

not sure where the lame feminism crack is coming from, I'm simply annoyed as hell that ESPN is showing this fluff, I could gives a rats hairy ass if its mainstream, and those others can show it all they want. It just annoys the shit out of me when I'm looking for sports coverage and I get hairy fat men with gambling problems instead. Cards are fun to play, I'd be more entertained by GOLF than poker on tv and I don't think GOLF is even a sport.

[Lathum]

Well what would you consider a sport? You can only watch so many Barry Bonds homeruns. No feminism intended, just poking fun. There is obviously a market for coverage of the WSOP. And the network is going to show what makes money.