Moneymaker explains his play
 

anyone see this last night on tv? It was the main event explained by moneymaker. He went throught the final table and explained what he was thinking on each hand.

Didn't see it but let me guess....

"See now, here's what I was doing...I had a dice under the table and right before the action got to me I would roll the dice. If it came even, I raise all in. Odd, I call and if it is neither, I fold."

Am I close??? :D

honestly
 

honestly it was actully very good and made good sence. He must of read some books in last 2 years. "chris we want you to explain yourself"....."wait I have to finish reading this stack of books 1st".

Let's be honest, outside of the heads up bluff against Sammy Chris did nothing but get lucky several times, catching the 8 when he was way behind against Brenes, catching the Ace against Ivey when he was again way behind, etc... not to mention surviving several coin flips. He got as lucky as he had to be to win that tournamnet. With creative wording I can justify any play that I make and have it sound like professional logic.

yep
 

I never said he didnt get lucky as hell, just saying this time around he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. I agree he got lucky as hell a bunch of times.

I honestly think Raymer got luckier than Moneymaker. Raymer simply won every single coin flip, and in addition won hands where he had an underpair, or when he was dominated (AJ vs A10 ex). Lets also not forget his all in flush dra against The Mouth, in which he could of been eliminated.

Moneymaker made some tough decisions that were correct (ie the call f Boyd's all in raise on the flop with just pocket threes) Granted both got lucky (and u need to be EXTREMELY lucky to win a tournament of that size) I think Raymer was by far the luckier one

Completely disagree. Raymer had outs when he went all in against Matusow who actually made a horrible call in that spot. Moneymaker was the one calling all-in bets with inferior hands and catching up. Calling against Brenes's AA with 88 and 2 over cards on the board was just inexcusable, he had to be pretty sure he had 2 outs at best. If you cite Raymers play against Matusow then you have to equally hate Moneymakers play that knocked Chan out of the tournament, Chris CALLED an all in with nothing but a draw. I totally agree you have to get lucky to win a tournament these days, but Chris played FAR worse and got FAR luckier than Raymer did. Raymers good cards held up in coin flip situations, Moneymaker was content to call on the short end of things and catch.

There will never, ever, be another WSOP Main Event Champion who people won't criticize for getting lucky. You HAVE to get lucky to win. It's simply not possible to not win without getting lucky. Playing solid poker day in and day out for that long, getting lucky along the way or not, these guys have my respect.

I'm not saying you guys are saying they don't deserve it or anything... I just think it's weird when people point out that the winner won a lot of coinflips and even some hands when they were behind. To me, that's so obvious. Of course that is going to happen. It has to.

Agree completly TP, I'm just saying that Raymer was the agressor in most coin flips and yes he got/stayed lucky to win them. Moneymaker CALLED from behind and caught up, big difference in my opinion. That hand against Brenes just sticks out in my mind, I would love to hear Chris explain that one, especially after he commented about knowing he was in big trouble during the actual play of the hand. If he knew he was in big trouble then that had to mean he had 2 outs at best and put the majority of his stack at risk knowing this, horrible play and caught a 2-outer, hard to defend. Being the agressor with the cards Raymer did is much different than calling with the cards Moneymaker did.

Also Raymer had about 15 million in chips so he could do pretty much anything he wanted to do.

The most Moneymaker or Farha had at 1 time was 4 mill and change.

Exactly, Raymer did what he was supposed to do with his big stack. They also had him do this 'running commentary' thing on his win like a couple months ago.

I agree 100%. People have made judgments on the quality of play of these guys after watching about 2% of the hands they played. Yeah, Moneymaker got luck against Brenes, but he had a bigger stack. Did it ever occur that he must have played reasonably competent prior to that point to even have that big a stack?

Last year there was a huge debate on 2+2 about Moneymaker calling Ivey's all-in with 10 left, with a bunch of know-it-alls saying it was a stupid call. The problem was, it wasn't a stupid call, it was a good call. Anybody who says they'd lay down top trips/top kicker to a player as aggressive as Ivey doesn't deserve to even make the comment. Even if you compltely discount Ivey making that play with JJ or TT, the range of hands is 99 (3), 66(3), KQ(4), AQ(3), QJ(4) and QTs (1). Add in pure bluff (10%), and even assuming that Ivey is twice as likely to make the move while ahead, Moneymaker is ahead better than half the time *and* has 7 outs when he's behind. Now consider that a) he's still alive if he loses and b) he already stands to make more than 200% his annual salary if he busts out 10th.

Ridiculously easy call.

To win a 800+ player tournament you have to both play well and get lucky. One of the two won't cut it (which is why with these size fields, Hellmuth is a huge dog to ever win again).

I agree with Kurn. Sure he had to get lucky, but he needed a lot more than just luck to get to the final table. He played aggressively throughout the tournament, and wound up with a nice chip stack to work with. By the time he got to the final table he was already a winner. His house was going to be paid for and his new baby's college fund was going to be paid in full. That made some of his decisions an awful lot easier.

The only thing I wonder about is that Moneymaker kept talking about tells--specifically, when he said that Farha bet with one hand when he was weak and the other when he was strong. To me, that sounded an awful lot like a guy who hasn't played much high stakes live poker. That sounded like a home game player to me. I mean, I'm not ruling out tells, but Sammy Farha is one of the top cash game players in the world. Does anyone really think he could do that if every time he was bluffing he grabbed his chips with his left hand and when he had the nuts he used his right? That just struck me as nonsense.

bullshit
 

not saying either greg or chis are good players is bullshit, they had to beat a feild of a couple hundred then turn around and beat a feild of a couple thousand. As anyone knows that is alot easier said then done, we all play MTT so we know it is hard just to get past the 1st step in that. They both deserve the win!

I completely forget this hand... can you possibly give details? Chip stacks, cards, suits, who made what move, etc etc?

10 players left, one more elimination until the final table....Moneymaker was the chip leader at this point, I dont recall Iveys chip position but it wasnt in the top 3. Ivey had pocket 9s, Moneymaker had AQ. Another player had 10,10. Moneymaker opened the pot preflop and the two players called. The flop landed QQx. Moneymaker bet 70,000, Phil Ivey called with 9s, and the player with 10s folded. The turn came a 9, giving Ivey a full house. Moneymaker lead out and bet again, Ivey pushed in, Moneymaker instantly called. He became disgusted once Ivey showed his hand, and then on the river an Ace came giving Moneymaker the bigger fullhouse

Absolutely correct. BTW, Greg won a 'Stars double shootout for his entry in '04, and '04 was not the first time he made the money in the WSOP main event.

That's it. :) Thanks for the refresher.

To fill in the blanks, Jason Lester was the player with TT, I believe, and the flop was Q-Q-6, and on the turn, Chris again bet $70,000.

I remember seeing this hand. I don't remember what Ivey's stack size was compared to Chris', but the call sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You have to think Ivey could make they play with a lot of hands worse than Chris'. Realistically, only 99, 66, anf Q9 beat him. He's ahead of everything else.

With Moneymakers chip stack and facing a player as aggressive as Ivey , I make this call 100% of the time

I understand that there are certain times criticism is necessary, but do u realized how easy it is to criticize this amazinly players when we can see EVERYONES hole cards and they can't. Also, we see probably 2% of the hands and of course they show all the big suckouts- I hate when ppl critisize their play so much because then i feel if i would ever win the big tourny, I would just have to deal with tons of critisism soon after.

wow, your wrong again here. Moneymaker had a pair of aces and the flush draw w/ two cards to come. Also Moneymaker is better than you will ever be.

He actually talks about this hand in his book. I will post it later.

it does sound like nonsense, but this was moneymaker's first live tournament, and he probably was just trying to pick something up even though it is pretty obvious Farha wouldn't be successful if he had that tell.