WSOP - $2500 6 max...

Talking Poker · #1 07-02-06, 11:28 PM

Rules?
Pshabi is a horrible poker player?

Pshabi wasn't trying to attack you (nor was I). He was just pointing out that the majority of your posts seem to be one liners that don't really add much to the threads they are posted in. That's fine now and then, of course (and NO, you don't have to be some sort of poker expert to contribute around here - questions are contributions too), but at some point, enough is enough. At least that was my interpretation of his post. And I never "attacked" you. I just didn't know what this crap was all about:

Speaking of "rules" or suggestions, your posting part of your post in the title section of each thread and then the rest in the normal part is getting annoying too. It makes quoting you (like this) very difficult, and makes some replies to your posts make less sense that they would if you would just type in the post box like everyone else.

Lastly (one more suggestion), in the future, if you have completely new information that you'd like to talk about, start a new thread instead of hijacking a perfectly legitimate one.

New Guy · #2 07-02-06, 11:31 PM

got it captian. So sorry

left68wing · #3 07-03-06, 01:06 AM

So, Hachem makes it back to the final table of a WSOP event, somewhat legitamizing his win of last years ME. Raymer makes an incredible run last year in the ME after winning the year before. Did Moneymaker just get VERY lucky?

Talking Poker · #4 07-03-06, 01:07 AM

Yes.

GTDawg · #5 07-03-06, 02:17 AM

Considering how "badly" Moneymaker has been running since he won the tournament...yes...he just got extremely lucky.

He's just some average joe with standard poker ability that was amazing for a week.

Raymer is an unbelievable big stack player that will push and push and push and it works. Hachem seems to be just a solid good player that does well given a break or two (he did get pretty lucky as shortstack last year).

===========
To add...

I've seen Raymer do really stupid things and play awful...and I don't understand how he just goes in to races and pushes people around over and over again

ChipFish · #6 07-03-06, 03:05 AM

As much as people would like to say that MoneyMaker just got "lucky".
I don't buy it.

His field was what 2000+ people?
No matter how hard the deck hits you, you don't just get "lucky" to win a field of that size.
It just can't happen. Skill must have played a part in that. And to deny that fact is simply wrong.

Zybomb · #7 07-03-06, 03:21 AM

835 or so

Luck was certainly part of it -- as was his aggression at times

The sad truth is very bad players can get very far in tournaments if they are overly aggressive and know how to play a big stack well. Sure they'll make tons of mistakes along the way, but they also get to be in situations where if they get lucky theyll have a lot of chips... situations a more careful player wouldn't be in.

Even take Raymer for an example.... early on in a tournament (not the WSOP, another event, I remember TP posting about this) reraising all in with a flush draw, being called and losing when he didn't hit. Not saying he's a very bad player, as his record speaks for itself, but just giving an example of these types of aggression. If you ask me it was a bad move on his part -- but I bet it's one he'll make everytime

The reason moneymaker gets a lot of bad rep is for two main reasons....the first is because of making incorrect decisions on several occassions (yet drawing out) and having players give him gifts on several occassions at the 03 ME. The 2nd is because of his track record post 2003 ME

Windbreaker · #8 07-03-06, 03:24 AM

He didn't beat 2000 people...he beat like a little over 800 players. There's no question that every poker has to have both luck/skill to win a tourney of this nature....but the way he got there and his record shows....he's not as skilled as most poker players out there.

He put the money in bad at least twice in the tourney. The 88 vs AA against Bernes where they both miss the flop and he called the all in only to catch his set on the turn. And the hand against Ivey where he made trip queens and top pair vs the full house of iveys, only to river the A for bigger full house.

He made a few amazing calls like the one against Dutch Boyd with 33 vs overcards.....but his record since the wsop win has shown he's now where the level as other pros. One of the shows that clearly shows this is the Poker Superstars II....he never had a chance to win anything...and was totally outplayed most of the time.

I don't know....I would put Varkonyi and Moneymaker in the same category as one year miracles.

Talking Poker · #9 07-03-06, 12:05 PM

Now hold on a secon here. No one asked if Moneymaker had any skill. The question was "Did he get VERY lucky," to which the answer was YES. Now ask me if Raymer or Hachem got very lucky and again I'll say YES. You HAVE to get lucky to take down one of these huge field tourneys. That's all there is too it.

People always look at luck as sucking out, but it also comes in the form of not being sucked out on. If you get your money is as a 4:1 favorite 10 times in a tourney, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LOSE 2 OF THOSE!!! So, if you manage to not go broke in that spot after 10 times, you got VERY lucky.

With all that said, yes, Chris Moneymaker is a decent player - he's much better now than he was at the 2003 WSOP (IMO, anyway). But quite frankly, if I had to rank myself against the champions in question, I'd rank us like this:

Raymer
Hachem
Me
Varkonyi
Moneymaker

I'm trying to be objective when I do this too. And I haven't seen Varkonyi play enough to know exactly where to rank him - he could certainly be ahead of me, but I decided to give myself the edge.

Talking Poker · #10 07-03-06, 12:11 PM

I agree with pretty much this entire post. Raymer plays a much different game than I do, and sometimes, like you, I don't "get it," but I don't think the "awful" plays you are seeing are NEARLY as awful as you think. Remember, he's playing an ultra-aggressive style and he's more than willing to take chances to build that stack early in hopes of going DEEP in the tourney (or busting out early). He's not a "try to get into the money" kind of guy. He's playing to win, and once he does get that big stack - look out.

I play a lot more like Hachem. I love Greg's game and I have a LOT of respect for him (I think he's a better player than Hachem), but I'm not comfortable with it... It's just doesn't mesh with my natural style.

PShabi · #11 07-03-06, 12:25 PM

In regards to Raymer, I was reading a thread about him (that he actually posted in) on 2+2 last night.

There have been 5 live tournaments w/ 2000+ players. Ever.

Guess who's the only person to play in and cash in all 5? Best big field tourney player ever?????????? I think you can say that.