Moneymaker is out on Day 1

[HPG ADMIN]

Busted out when someone rivered him. Ahh . . the irony

[acidburn]

Moneymaker had a good run lastyear. But really, what more can you expect from an internet player?

[HILSHY]

You Are Absolutely Right!

[FishyFlush]

I dissagree. I have played poker for over 5 years now, in B&M and online. And I have to say I like the online poker just as much as B&M. if not a little more so online....and lately all I play is online. And my nearest cardroom is less then 2 miles away.
2 years in a row now someone has won the WSOP from an online entry. (2003 and ,this years winner 2004) They both came from PokerStars.com which is where I play. They sent 912 paid entrants to WSOP just this year alone, all paid with $1000 spending cash. Now that is alot, and must say impressive from an online poker site. Check them out sometime. They have all limits, and in my opinion the most tournys online ANYWHERE.

Regards

[jonjonmacky]

i moneyfluker

Chris Monemaker is a descent player. However, he did get incredibly lucky in the 2003 WSOP. But how can you win the WSOP and not be incredibly lucky. Raymer was incredibly lucky. He's a good player too, but luck certainly played a huge role in his sucess. Raymer outdrew 2 all-ins about 2 or 3 times in a row.

[Alaskan]

Chris Moneymaker in my opinion is a decent player, but is no where close to the likes of Phil Ivey, John Juanda, Howard Lederer, etc. His style is solid and he can work it well. Though its nothing especially unique he's played good enough to win the WSOP 2003 and make it to the final table of The Shooting Stars tournament on WPT (where he had to have his J-J outdrawn by Phil Gordon's A-7 off in order to lose). I think people need to give the ol' boy some credit.

He still sucks for drawing out Phil Ivey though...I agree with everyone there.

I used to be one of the people who thought he was a fluke too. Lately though I have changed my tune. If you go back and watch the 2003 Main Event again...I think you'll notice as I did that he really played well. Sure he had a couple of suck outs...but EVERYONE has to suck out on somebody at one point or another to win a tournament. Watching his agression and fearlessness in that tournament was really something to behold. Since then he has finished second in the shooting stars tournament, as well as finishing in the top 10 of the PLO tournament at the 2004 WSOP. He has also had 2 cashes in other major tournaments. Damn fine year for ANY poker pro.

Plain and simple Chris Moneymaker winning the 2003 WSOP Main Event was one of the greatest instances of someone rising to the occasion and elevating their game that I have ever seen in any sort of competition.

Originally Posted by Alaskan

Chris Moneymaker in my opinion is a decent player, but is no where close to the likes of Phil Ivey, John Juanda, Howard Lederer, etc. His style is solid and he can work it well. Though its nothing especially unique he's played good enough to win the WSOP 2003 and make it to the final table of The Shooting Stars tournament on WPT (where he had to have his J-J outdrawn by Phil Gordon's A-7 off in order to lose). I think people need to give the ol' boy some credit.

He still sucks for drawing out Phil Ivey though...I agree with everyone there.

I agree. I don't understand why people won't give him credit for playing well in the 2003 WSOP. Of course he caught cards, but look at the cards Sammy Farha caught. He had an ace up his sleeve almost every hand at the final table. The thing that put him in such good position to win the tournament was his call with the pocket three's against Dutch Boyd's bluff. That is one of the greatest and guttsiest calls I have ever seen. What pro would put their entire tournament on just a pair of threes?

[Iceman37]

"What pro would put their entire tournament on the line with just a pair of treys?"

Damned few. Or with half the other cards Moneymaker decided to play in bad situations against good players. Moneymaker is a hack.

I give him full credit for his bluffing abilities, and for his lack of a visible tell when he's in a hand. Beyond that, he's a suckout who plays bad cards into dangerous situations and gets lucky. I don't mind players getting lucky...it's part of the game. Just don't tell me they're great players.

And if you ever have any doubt, watch Chris Moneymaker for an ENTIRE TOURNAMENT. I had the occasion to do just that online shortly after he won the series. He was spanked so badly Child Protective Services had to be called in. And the spanking was at the hands of a rank amateur who DOESN'T have a bracelet and who has never appeared on television.

As far as his other successes, it's like this...give me a few million dollars, a fat endorsement contract, and television cameras in my face every time I turn around and I'm gonna be entering a lot of high profile tournaments, too. Give me even marginally decent cards and I'm going to finish relatively well in them. Give me one or two major suckouts, and I'm making the final table. That's not rocket science, that's just poker. You want someone who's been a true success, look to the likes of Daniel Negreanu...not Chris Moneymaker.

Or how about Gus "the Golden Child" Hansen, who lucked his way into two or three final tables the first year of the WPT playing the absolute crappiest cards anywhere (I mean worse than any free-money player on the internet EVER plays)...what has he done lately?

And as far as why internet players are doing so well, that's just basic math. The VAST majority of tournament entries are being generated by internet poker sites. It's simply the law of averages. Doesn't make them any better, doesn't make them any worse. But you give me the best the internet has to offer and put them up against the likes of Phil Ivey, Layne Flack, or Daniel Negreanu and I promise you the live-game players are going to eat them for lunch more often than not...and they do, every day. You just don't see that action on television. One or two internet hotshots slipping through to the final table, when the field is polluted with them, isn't that impressive.

Neither is Chris Moneymaker.

[deekay140]

Some of you may have differnet opinions of certain players if you were to actually watch the tourney live. You get to see 2 hours of a 7 day event to draw your judgements. anyone who plays in large tourneys knows that it takes alot of skill and good cards to make it to the final table. There is not a single player that can make to a final table in the Wsop on luck or skill alone. Its obvious that Chris (in that tourney) had what it takes to get to the top.