WSOP of Poker Who do like better ( possible spoiler)

[Lathum]

Chris Moneymaker vs. Greg Raymer

I think Raymer is a better player but he is so dry and somewhat smug. Moneymaker definantly got luckier but had so much more personality.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Moneymaker definantly got luckier but had so much more personality.

More personality is not necesarily better, especially when that personality is bad. Noone would accuse Arieh of having no personality, but noone seems to like him.

Moneymaker was SO annoying, because he considered his repeated miracle rivers to be skill.

I started disliking Raymer a few weeks ago, but would take him over Moneymaker in a heartbeat.

[mauchow]

I've yet to decide if Luske is annoying.. I kinda like him.

Now Mattais Anderson on the other hand.......

[Calis]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

I've yet to decide if Luske is annoying.. I kinda like him.

Now Mattais Anderson on the other hand.......

You know I hated Luske the first couple times I saw him on the WPT and such, but I have to admit..the guy is growing on me.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Chris Moneymaker vs. Greg Raymer

I think Raymer is a better player but he is so dry and somewhat smug. Moneymaker definantly got luckier but had so much more personality.

didn't watch the whole thing last night but nobody got luckier than Raymer early on at the final table.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Calis

You know I hated Luske the first couple times I saw him on the WPT and such, but I have to admit..the guy is growing on me.

Huzzah!!!

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

More personality is not necesarily better, especially when that personality is bad. Noone would accuse Arieh of having no personality, but noone seems to like him.

Moneymaker was SO annoying, because he considered his repeated miracle rivers to be skill.

I started disliking Raymer a few weeks ago, but would take him over Moneymaker in a heartbeat.

Could you please specify which "repeated miracle rivers" you're talking about?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

Could you please specify which "repeated miracle rivers" you're talking about?

All in on 66 v Humberto Brenes' AA...pulled a 6 on the river....

As far as Raymer's "luck" goes, you act like it was a near statistical impossibility for him to win those hands...as the big stack he made the right plays. Don't forget, heads up, even AA loses to any random two cards 3 out of 10 times...

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Subby

All in on 66 v Humberto Brenes' AA...pulled a 6 on the river....

As far as Raymer's "luck" goes, you act like it was a near statistical impossibility for him to win those hands...as the big stack he made the right plays. Don't forget, heads up, even AA loses to any random two cards 3 out of 10 times...

I was kind of hinting at the "repeated" part - Samdari is clearly grossly exaggerating (sp?) the luck factor in Moneymaker's win.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Subby

All in on 66 v Humberto Brenes' AA...pulled a 6 on the river....

As far as Raymer's "luck" goes, you act like it was a near statistical impossibility for him to win those hands...as the big stack he made the right plays. Don't forget, heads up, even AA loses to any random two cards 3 out of 10 times...

He made the right plays in retrospect but it was indeed luck to repeatedly catch as the underdog.

I don't say there is anything wrong with it but the man was fortunate and played well.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

He made the right plays in retrospect but it was indeed luck to repeatedly catch as the underdog.

I don't say there is anything wrong with it but the man was fortunate and played well.

I see what you are saying, although I remember Krux getting him on one hand...

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Subby

I see what you are saying, although I remember Krux getting him on one hand...

He did. Again, I didn't see the whole show last night. Overall to win you need good fortune and skill. Raymer and Moneymaker had both the last two years.

Judging by the reactions of felllow players Raymer was somewhat well liked at the table.

[Butter]

Marcel Luske is awesome.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

I was kind of hinting at the "repeated" part - Samdari is clearly grossly exaggerating (sp?) the luck factor in Moneymaker's win.

There were 4 or 5 times in last year's WSOP where Moneymaker was all in and less than 20% to win the hand - including 2 where he was 5% or less.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Marcel Luske is awesome.

He has really grown on me...Josh Fucking Arieh should have been taking notes...

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Samdari

There were 4 or 5 times in last year's WSOP where Moneymaker was all in and less than 20% to win the hand - including 2 where he was 5% or less.

Really? Id like proof of that one.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Subby

All in on 66 v Humberto Brenes' AA...pulled a 6 on the river....

Just details but it was 88 and on the turn, not the river.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Really? Id like proof of that one.

The one in the example above - plus when he put Phil Ivey out, during the show going from 18 to 9, there was exactly one card that would help Moneymaker (he was shaking everyone's hand and packing up to leave) and it came on the river. They were about even, so Moneymaker would have been left with enough for maybe two rounds of blinds.

As for proof, there are no hand histories, so I can offer none. I remember him winning hand after hand where he was behind and someone was all in. If you remember differently, fine, but niether of us can offer proof.

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The one in the example above - plus when he put Phil Ivey out, during the show going from 18 to 9, there was exactly one card that would help Moneymaker (he was shaking everyone's hand and packing up to leave) and it came on the river. They were about even, so Moneymaker would have been left with enough for maybe two rounds of blinds.

As for proof, there are no hand histories, so I can offer none. I remember him winning hand after hand where he was behind and someone was all in. If you remember differently, fine, but niether of us can offer proof.

Why does everyone forget how lucky Ivey got to catch his 9 on the turn? Moneymaker got lucky that hand tis true, but on the turn, he had no reason to suspect he was behind.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Subby

He has really grown on me...Josh Fucking Arieh should have been taking notes...

Josh Arieh was like Phil Hellmuth without the pathos and with twice the amount of nastiness. Luske did skew dangerously close to rubbing it in a bit, but he never crossed the line from just humorously eccentric for me.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Malificent

Why does everyone forget how lucky Ivey got to catch his 9 on the turn? Moneymaker got lucky that hand tis true, but on the turn, he had no reason to suspect he was behind.

They were both roughly equally lucky to have a set after the turn - remember, Moneymaker got hugely lucky to catch a set on the flop as well.

I did not say he played it terribly (I think most of the pros would have played it the same) just that it was an example of another miracle river catch for him. Regardless of how they got there, it was a miracle river.

[AnalBumCover]

of course, the miracle rivers are more likely to make the cut in the editing room.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by AnalBumCover

of course, the miracle rivers are more likely to make the cut in the editing room.

Good point.
.

[pjstp20]

Neither Raymer or Moneymaker got lucky at the final table. They both had huge stacks and were more willing to take coin flip risks, or even 30-70 risks. Had they missed a couple they probably wouldn't have tried the others. Everyone knows you need to lean a little when your the big stack, it's poker 101. Plus both are aggressive players to begin with. They're willing to take more chances and it seems like it's worked out well for them.

[rkmsuf]

Right but overcoming 30/70 odds is kind of the definition of luck. Even winning multiple coin flips involves an element of luck. The skill is identifying the time to lean; the luck is repeatedly coming out on top.

[pjstp20]

I should say that winning each individual hand as the dog was luck, but the fact that they were willing to apply pressure on everyone at the table was skill. If you go all in with 6-6 or even 10-10, you dont want a call from two overcards. Raymer could of played conservativly knowing he was gonna be in the final 2 or at least 3, but he continued to apply pressure. That was skill.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by pjstp20

I should say that winning each individual hand as the dog was luck, but the fact that they were willing to apply pressure on everyone at the table was skill. If you go all in with 6-6 or even 10-10, you dont want a call from two overcards. Raymer could of played conservativly knowing he was gonna be in the final 2 or at least 3, but he continued to apply pressure. That was skill.

that I would agree with

[pjstp20]

Hey, we agree on something, someone should document this.

[rkmsuf]

It's an uneasy feeling. The world may explode.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The one in the example above - plus when he put Phil Ivey out, during the show going from 18 to 9, there was exactly one card that would help Moneymaker (he was shaking everyone's hand and packing up to leave) and it came on the river. They were about even, so Moneymaker would have been left with enough for maybe two rounds of blinds.

As for proof, there are no hand histories, so I can offer none. I remember him winning hand after hand where he was behind and someone was all in. If you remember differently, fine, but niether of us can offer proof.

Moneymaker was all-in on NEITHER of those hands. His opponents were. Basically, you are just wrong on your claim.

[Desnudo]

I didn't particularly care for either one. I would have liked to have seen that black guy with the sun glasses win it. Or that Murphy guy that overslept one day.

[Malificent]

I like Raymer quite a bit. He posts fairly regularly at the 2+2 forums and has always seemed like a class guy there, and his TV image has done nothing to change that opinion for me.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Samdari

...Moneymaker was SO annoying, because he considered his repeated miracle rivers to be skill.
...

This I can agree with IF you are bothered by situations where he participates in betting after the turn while behind, and then pulling the miracle river card. A number of his river card pulls that I saw, occured with an early "all-in" situation. In these cases it isn't "luck" when someone hits a card on the river, it is just the order of the cards. It may well have been a "race" situation before the flop. In these situations it can't be written off as luck just because the winning card came on the river, instead of the flop for instance.

I draw a distinction between the guy who stays in while behind, only to draw out, and the guy who commits his cards early to an all-in situation. I didn't watch enough to put Moneymaker in the category of a guy who continually "sucks-out". I did see him eliminate some folks by catching a break on the river, but I think that is different.

EDIT to say that I didn't realize I was treading on ground already covered. Teach me to respond before reading the whole thread.

[larrymcg421]

There are three major hands where Moneymaker has received criticism. I will go into those in a moment. However, everyone seems to forget that Moneymaker built himself a nice stack prior to this point. When he knocked Johnny Chan out, he held the best cards at the time. He slowly built up a nice stack that gave him an edge when he got into these tight situations.

1) Moneymaker v. Brenes

Moneymaker held 88 vs. Brenes AA and had Brenes covered by quite a bit. Even if he lost this hand, he would've still been in play at the tournament, so he took a risk, thinking maybe Brenes was bluffing. He did get lucky when the 8 hit the turn, but it isn't as bad a play as everyone makes it out to be.

2) Moneymaker v. Boyd

Moneymaker held 33 vs. Dutch Boyd's KQ. The flop came 952 rainbow. Boyd goes all in. Moneymaker got alot of criticism for calling all in here, but he was a huge favorite at this point. He had a great read on Boyd, which is clear because he asks for low cards before Boyd even flips his hand over. If anyone should be criticized, it should be Boyd who went all in with nothing. Seems like people want to criticize Moneymaker for making a bad call against Brenes and criticize him when he makes a great call against Boyd. It doesn't make sense.

3) Moneymaker v. Ivey

Moneymaker AQ vs. Ivey's 99. Moneymaker hits a set on a QQx flop. At this point, Moneymaker is a huge favorite. On the turn Ivey hits a fullhouse and bets all in. Now, Moneymaker had an all in bet coming to him with trip queens, top kicker. Is anyone here suggesting they would have been able to lay that down? Also, Moneymaker was already over 1 million at this point due to the hand against Boyd. Sure he got sucked out, but Ivey shouldn't have even still been in the hand. With one more person to go for the final table, Ivey should've folded when Chris bet the QQx flop.

Chris did get lucky, but he also played well. He bluffed Sammy Farha out of a key pot on the final hand, and actually got Sammy tilting a little, resulting in Sammy going all in with top pair in the final hand. People want to point out his lucky hands and ignore his good play on other hands. If he wasn't an amateur at the time, no one would've been making the same accusations. Also, Chris finsihed 2nd in the Shooting Stars WPT tourney and made the final table in the 2004 WSOP Omaha Pot Limit tournament. The guy can play.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

...a lot of stuff...

I agree completely. You can't win the tourney without a bit of luck.

[Subby]

Great post, larrymcg...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

He bluffed Sammy Farha out of a key pot on the final hand, and actually got Sammy tilting a little, resulting in Sammy going all in with top pair in the final hand. People want to point out his lucky hands and ignore his good play on other hands. If he wasn't an amateur at the time, no one would've been making the same accusations. Also, Chris finsihed 2nd in the Shooting Stars WPT tourney and made the final table in the 2004 WSOP Omaha Pot Limit tournament. The guy can play.

Here's the thing. Everyone can come up with multiple examples of Chris sucking out on the river, but when it comes time to point out great plays he made, there is always the same hand.

If you define good poker play as getting an opponent to put in a lot of money when you are ahead of him, or getting him to fold when you are behind, then Moneymaker did not "play well."in 2003 WSOP. He won more hands when behind with a lot of money committed than he did making either of the good plays above (at least, on the hands I remember, which is a small subset of the small subset of hands which were on the shows).

I don't think he has no skill, I just think his 2003 WSOP win was more attributable to luck than skill. It is commonly thought that you need both to win, but if you are going to only have one, then in the short run (such as a single tourney) give me luck over skill.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Samdari

If you define good poker play as getting an opponent to put in a lot of money when you are ahead of him, or getting him to fold when you are behind, then Moneymaker did not "play well."in 2003 WSOP.

How in the world can you make that claim having seen less than 1% of the hands he played? Besides I can name at least one hand he played pretty well for every suckout you can name, and this is just out of the hands shown on TV, where they lean towards showing major suckouts on allin hands over mundane hands where everyone folds to a raise (a major skill in these types of tournaments is picking up pots uncontested -- and these are nearly NEVER shown on TV).

[MJ4H]

To follow-up my above post here are a few examples.

Moneymaker A8h vs Chan K4h (I think). Moneymaker eliminates Chan by getting him to call off all his chips on what looks like a pretty good draw but is drawing nearly dead.

Moneymaker has AA vs. Lederer AK. I believe MM raises preflop, and Lederer re-raises. MM calls, and allows Lederer to bluff at the flop then goes all-in. Lederer folds.

Moneymaker AQ vs Farha Ax (9 I think). Moneymaker bets 70k on every street and takes quite a chunk from Farha on the Ace high flop.

Moneymaker calls several desperation all-ins at the final table, including a bluff by Jason Lester (course, MM flopped the nuts, so it was easy, but still played it right ), an all-in by Tomer Benvinisti with JT. He was ahead each time.

These are only off the top of my head. Im positive I've forgotten some (obviously he played the final hand well). I don't really agree with most that say that bluff was great. I think he was actually pretty fortunate. But that counts I guess. Also the 33 vs KQ hand against Boyd was VERY gutsy. In my opinion he had to make the move to have a chance to win. He did, was AHEAD in the hand, and it held up. Strategically, I think this move (given his skill level and the number of people in the tournament) was great for him. I don't think he has a chance to win the tournament if he doesn't make a stand like that at some point. I can understand people criticizing it because it is a big risk. But the reward in this case was huge. It put him in contention to win the whole thing. Big time play in my book.

In summary, I do NOT think that Moneymaker is an ELITE player. I think he is a pretty solid player that played really well in WSOP 2003 main event.

[tucker342]

Moneymaker is one of my favorite players to watch, I don't really know why, but it's probably because WSOP 2003 was the first time I really got interested in Texas Hold 'Em.

My least favorite player that was in WSOP 2004 was the guy who would just go crazy every single time he won a hand. He was so fuckin annoying

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Besides I can name at least one hand he played pretty well for every suckout you can name.

Go ahead. EDIT: OOps, missed your second post above.

And as far as "How can I base my opinion of Moneymaker on the 1% of hands that I saw on tv". Do you have inside information on the other 99% that we are not privy to, or aren't you doing the same thing?

Look, I am not trying to get into a pissing match here. I simply answered the question about which guys I liked/disliked. I left watching last year's WSOP with the impression that Moneymaker won primarily due to luck, rather than skill (and him very much confusing the two). If you were left with a different impression, that does not bother me. Why does me having that impression seem to bother you so much?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Here's the thing. Everyone can come up with multiple examples of Chris sucking out on the river, but when it comes time to point out great plays he made, there is always the same hand.

People point to two plays where he sucked out on the river. The play with Ivey (which was a re-suckout anyways) and the play against Brenes. I pointed out at least two different strong plays he made (against Boyd and Farha). I also pointed out how he built a nice stack before he got into all of these confrontations. No one can point to any lucky play he made while building up his stack early in the tournament. It was just good, solid play.

If you define good poker play as getting an opponent to put in a lot of money when you are ahead of him, or getting him to fold when you are behind, then Moneymaker did not "play well."in 2003 WSOP. He won more hands when behind with a lot of money committed than he did making either of the good plays above (at least, on the hands I remember, which is a small subset of the small subset of hands which were on the shows).

But you have only pointed out two hands where he caught miracle rivers. I pointed out one hand where bluffed someone out of a pot while behind, and another hand where he got someone to bet into him when he was ahead. Others have pointed out the hand where he knocked out Chan and his play on several hands at the final table.

[hhiipp]

You can argue luck/skill all you want, but the fact of the matter is they are both now millionaires from winning. And to even get to that point it takes a huge degree of skill and luck.

I'd say Raymers win was more impressive though because he beat out 4x the amount of people Moneymaker did, but personally I don't care for either one of them.

The most skilled guy at the final table was Dan Harrington, and like the commentator said it was pretty amazing that he made 2 final tables in a row. Have to admit I was rooting for the black guy toward the end, but I cannot feel bad for him after he won his 3.5 million

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Why does me having that impression seem to bother you so much?

It doesn't necessarily bother me, it just bothers me that so many people have this impression based on factually incorrect information. Information like

"there was exactly one card that would help Moneymaker (he was shaking everyone's hand and packing up to leave) and it came on the river. They were about even, so Moneymaker would have been left with enough for maybe two rounds of blinds."

Just plain old wrong (on every count). There were 7 cards I believe that could help him, not one (the case Q, any of three Aces left in the deck, and the third flop card pairing). Also I believe Moneymaker had him covered by at least half a million chips. I'm not 100% on that, but I'd be TOTALLY shocked if I were wrong. In fact I'd wager it is closer to 700k. I think I have the episode on my laptop at home so I'll check tonight.

Also

"There were 4 or 5 times in last year's WSOP where Moneymaker was all in and less than 20% to win the hand - including 2 where he was 5% or less."

Another one. There were exactly ZERO of these hands shown on TV. Not 4 or 5.

Then the selective memory about hands, and claiming he got his money in more when behind than ahead which I provided counter-examples to.

Anyway, it really isn't just you. A LOT of people have these misconceptions about that tournament and use them as reasons for their poor opinion of his play. I'm just trying to point out that the reasons you are giving for thinking he got exceptionally lucky are factually inaccurate. If you want to still think that about him, be my guest.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Samdari

And as far as "How can I base my opinion of Moneymaker on the 1% of hands that I saw on tv". Do you have inside information on the other 99% that we are not privy to, or aren't you doing the same thing?

No, I am not the one claiming he did not "play well" (or otherwise) in the 2003 WSOP. I am only claiming that your reasons for saying he was very lucky and did not play well are not accurate.