WSOP - $2500 6 max...

[left68wing]

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]

Yes.

[GTDawg]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Zybomb]

Did Varkonyi DEFINE the term lucky.... especially at the final table, my god

and he got a 'poker coach' for the next year... Ignoring how funny that is and what it says about his main event braclet....if this guy (the coach) was so good why wasnt he playing in the ME??

Funny shit

[Penguinfan]

Rarely, if ever do Chip and I agree, this won't be any different. Moneymaker beat a MUCH shorter field than Raymer or Hachem, not 2000+, and he was the very definition of LUCKY to win that tournament.

Varknonyi simply got dealt cards that wouldn't let him lose. I'll never forget the call of the match, I think it was Gabe Kaplan (maybe not) who said "And Robert Varkonyi's hard luck continues" after Varkonyi looked down at AA for the third time in 10 hands, something like that. At least we all learned that Q 10 is the nuts.

I think Hellmuth still hates him, though Hellmuth hates everyone that isn't named Phil Hellmuth.

[BrianSwa]

[quote=Windbreaker]. 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.

QUOTE]



if your saying this was a mistake on his play then you are way way way off, I dont think his call or push or whatever on this hand was bad at all. I mean he has got trip queens only like 2 or 3 hands beat him right here and Ivey could of had anything including a high pair or Q with worse kicker.

I hear this over and over how lucky he got in this hand, but I dont know many people that would lay down in this same spot. I agree Chris isnt as good as Greg or Joe but hell he is decent. I have sat with Chris on stars one time playing 3/6 NL and he isnt terrible. Id put him in the average category, did he get lucky? hell yes. Did Greg and Joe get lucky? hell yes!

anyone that says it was all lucky is clueless, anyone that says he is terrible is clueless. It took alot to get through his sattie then win it and he did it, I dont care if it was 800 people or 2000 he still deservers the respect for winning the damn main event. He also made some great plays and im sure he got sucked out once or twice too. It happens, now his track record isnt too hot since then but oh well.

[Talking Poker]

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.

[Aequitas58]

I'm not going to comment on your ranking, because how can we really debate something like that? I guess it's good you have the confidence of putting yourself ahead of two prior WSOP ME winners, but to each his own.

People hate on Varkonyi, and I think it's largely because he was (and remains) unknown at the time of his WSOP victory. I've said it before on this forum (and I'll say it again): I've watched him play very high limits against Phil Ivey in Atlantic City before and after his huge win.

Does that mean he is/was a great player? Of course not, but he at least had some kind of bankroll if he's playing 50/100 and 75/150 against seasoned professionals.

Just my $.02.

EDIT: typo.

[Aequitas58]

"Raymer is a beast" is the correct answer.

[Talking Poker]

And I've seen him playing in the $2/$5 NL game in Vegas (2004). Does that mean he is/was a gerat/average/mediocre player? Of course not..... but then again, where did that bankroll go???

As for my ranking, I think anyone who doesn't have the confidence to put themselves ahead of a number of bracelet winners shouldn't be playing big poker (sure, you can play, but save your money for small games and not the WSOP). If you really think everyone who ever won the main event(especially in 2002 and 2003) is better than you, then I don't see why you'd ever choose to play against those guys - not to mention the hjundreds and hundreds of pros who are generally considered far more talented.

[Talking Poker]

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]

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.

[Talking Poker]

5 isn't actually a huge sample size, but that's still pretty awesome.

I REALLY wanted him to Final Table the 2005 Main Event. He was well on his way too. Even after the beat he took, getting as far as he did was a huge accomplishment.

[omahilo]

because of Raymers style he will have alot of FT cashes and alot of early bustouts.

Raymer rather bust out day 1 and not make the money then play 3 days and just miss the money or barely make the money, I can respect that.

its not my style of play but I can respect anyone who can play like that and make it work for them.