Chris Moneymaker

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: new2AMD

Originally posted by: fumbduck
moneymaker is a decent amateur player at best, the amount of times he called hands in the WSoP that he should have lost but lucked out on the turn or the river was rediculous, he won a few hands he was only favored by like 7% to win.

thats the nature of cards..why do you think the top guys dont continue to win? for a tourny of that size you need to get lucky as well as play smart. its like 5 days long and we only get to see the highlights.

I'd like to see fumbduck qualify for the WSOP and win it. Decent amateur my ass. Yes he got lucky, but Poker is both skill and luck...

So how come all the other good poker players and poker critics agree with me? Who would honestly put 500,000 in chips on the line on a 7% margin that you will win the hand? Chris Moneymaker, because he is stupid, but very lucky. He has only been playing the game for 3 years, compared to the skill level of those who have been in the series for the last 30? Yeah right.

Backoff Bucko.

I never said he played a flawless game, but a win is a win. He'll have plenty of time to hone his skills even further, but he beat out the best people in the world.

Then why the hell did you have to bring my poker skills into it? And my name into it? He beat out the best people in the world only because he was very lucky with the cards, not because he should have statistically. Also, you say he'll have plenty of time to hone out his skills, but earlier you said "Decent amateur my ass", since he just won, that would make him the poker master, he wouldn't need any skill honing at all according to you.

I stand by the fact that no one having only played for 3 years can become a world series winning card player without pure luck on their side. Decent amateur at best.

 

[Ynog]

Ok, I won't say Chris Moneymaker is the greatest poker player ever.
And yes poker is about skill and luck. But 838 other people were eliminated.
I'm thinking luck can only take you so far. And for those that just watched
the WSOP on television. There were many many hands they left out. So
its really hard to figure out how he was playing the whole time.
ESPN just loves to show the dramatic ones.

And Farha was thrown off by Moneymaker being an amateur (having trouble reading
him), but Moneymaker did get those chips somehow. And like I said, luck only takes
you so far.

And as for sunglasses. Alot of players wore sunglasses. I don't understand why someone
would criticize that. I see no one criticizing Farha for the unlit cigarette. Or many of the others
who had odd outfits. Its just part of the game.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: fumbduck
No, it wasn't Phil Helmuth that hid in the jacket. I don't remember who it was, but I know it wasn't that wussy crybaby phil. And it wasn't Dutch Boyd either.

It *WAS* Helmuth!

no, it wasn't, unless my memory is totally gone awry.. which is definitely a possibility since I am very sick right now.

Just to make sure I am not spewing trash, remind me... is Phil Helmuth the guy with sunglasses (Oakley's I think)...he is the youngest champ to ever win (late 90's) and his father is the co-dean of Universifty of Minnesota? And he dropped out of that college to play professional poker? If so, that was him!

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: Ynog

And as for sunglasses. Alot of players wore sunglasses. I don't understand why someone
would criticize that. I see no one criticizing Farha for the unlit cigarette. Or many of the others
who had odd outfits. Its just part of the game.

Why would we criticize him for the unlit cigarette? You aren't allowed to smoke at the World Series, and he isn't a smoker anyway. It is just his superstition.

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: fumbduck
No, it wasn't Phil Helmuth that hid in the jacket. I don't remember who it was, but I know it wasn't that wussy crybaby phil. And it wasn't Dutch Boyd either.

It *WAS* Helmuth!

no, it wasn't, unless my memory is totally gone awry.. which is definitely a possibility since I am very sick right now.

Just to make sure I am not spewing trash, remind me... is Phil Helmuth the guy with sunglasses (Oakley's I think)...he is the youngest champ to ever win (late 90's) and his father is the co-dean of Universifty of Minnesota? And he dropped out of that college to play professional poker? If so, that was him!

Phil Hellmuth was the guy that after he got knocked out he went and cried to his parents. I believe he was the youngest to ever win the tournament, I do not know about that other stuff. But Phil is a stick in the mud. It wasn't him, I guarantee you.

 

[new2AMD]

It was NOT Phil who hid in his coat. It was a relatively unkown player.

 

[MattCo]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: fumbduck No, it wasn't Phil Helmuth that hid in the jacket. I don't remember who it was, but I know it wasn't that wussy crybaby phil. And it wasn't Dutch Boyd either.

It *WAS* Helmuth!

no, it wasn't, unless my memory is totally gone awry.. which is definitely a possibility since I am very sick right now.

Just to make sure I am not spewing trash, remind me... is Phil Helmuth the guy with sunglasses (Oakley's I think)...he is the youngest champ to ever win (late 90's) and his father is the co-dean of Universifty of Minnesota? And he dropped out of that college to play professional poker? If so, that was him!

You are right about most of the background, but it wasn't him hiding his head. My wife watches WSofP with me (for the drama) and loves to hate Phil because of his antics. She would have had a field day if it had been him covering up his head with his jacket. Phil was the one driving Sam Drizzel crazy before knocking him out of the tourney.

-MC

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Heh I saw the WSoP and as it for being Helmuth it was him with the jacket. I seem to remember pretty well because ever since I saw his head get shaved in another WSoP I'll never forget him.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: new2AMD

Originally posted by: fumbduck
moneymaker is a decent amateur player at best, the amount of times he called hands in the WSoP that he should have lost but lucked out on the turn or the river was rediculous, he won a few hands he was only favored by like 7% to win.

thats the nature of cards..why do you think the top guys dont continue to win? for a tourny of that size you need to get lucky as well as play smart. its like 5 days long and we only get to see the highlights.

I'd like to see fumbduck qualify for the WSOP and win it. Decent amateur my ass. Yes he got lucky, but Poker is both skill and luck...

So how come all the other good poker players and poker critics agree with me? Who would honestly put 500,000 in chips on the line on a 7% margin that you will win the hand? Chris Moneymaker, because he is stupid, but very lucky. He has only been playing the game for 3 years, compared to the skill level of those who have been in the series for the last 30? Yeah right.

Backoff Bucko.

I never said he played a flawless game, but a win is a win. He'll have plenty of time to hone his skills even further, but he beat out the best people in the world.

Then why the hell did you have to bring my poker skills into it? And my name into it? He beat out the best people in the world only because he was very lucky with the cards, not because he should have statistically. Also, you say he'll have plenty of time to hone out his skills, but earlier you said "Decent amateur my ass", since he just won, that would make him the poker master, he wouldn't need any skill honing at all according to you.

I stand by the fact that no one having only played for 3 years can become a world series winning card player without pure luck on their side. Decent amateur at best.

Statistically he couldn't win by pure luck asshat, and it's obvious he had enough skill to beat out all the pros. If you win the WSOP you are a pro. No one's game is flawless or the pros would be able to win it every year.

 

[sygyzy]

Man, I wish I had it on my replay tv so I could verify it for you guys. *Someone* here has to know for sure. I really think it was Hellmuth!

 

[MattCo]

With all of the technology owned by ATOT ppl, you would think someone could grab a mpg, avi, or mov of that scene.

-MC

 

[new2AMD]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Man, I wish I had it on my replay tv so I could verify it for you guys. *Someone* here has to know for sure. I really think it was Hellmuth!

I guarantee it wasnt.

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: Mill
Statistically he couldn't win by pure luck asshat, and it's obvious he had enough skill to beat out all the pros. If you win the WSOP you are a pro. No one's game is flawless or the pros would be able to win it every year.

Why couldn't he win by pure luck? If he had gotten pocket over cards through the whole tournament, would that not have been winning by pure luck?

How is it obvious he had enough skill to beat out the pros? He did win the tournament, some of it was skill, but most of the part to do with taking out the big players of the tourney had a lot to do with luck and making amateur moves.

I will put money on it that he will not win one of the next 10 World Series, or make the final table.

 

[SuperFreaky]

I went to college with Moneymaker, in fact he was a brother in my fraternity. I didn't know him very well, but I remember beating in pool game one time. He was all about some gambling in college too.

 

[Syringer]

Hmm, I originally didn't think it was Hellmuth..but looking through picture, this seemed to be what the guy was wearing..

http://www.thegoodgamblingguide.co.uk/spotlight/wsop2003/pictures/players9.htm (scroll down)

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: Syringer
Hmm, I originally didn't think it was Hellmuth..but looking through picture, this seemed to be what the guy was wearing..

http://www.thegoodgamblingguide.co.uk/spotlight/wsop2003/pictures/players9.htm (scroll down)

There were several players wearing jackets and hats and glasses. I know it wasn't Phil.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Mill
Statistically he couldn't win by pure luck asshat, and it's obvious he had enough skill to beat out all the pros. If you win the WSOP you are a pro. No one's game is flawless or the pros would be able to win it every year.

Why couldn't he win by pure luck? If he had gotten pocket over cards through the whole tournament, would that not have been winning by pure luck?

How is it obvious he had enough skill to beat out the pros? He did win the tournament, some of it was skill, but most of the part to do with taking out the big players of the tourney had a lot to do with luck and making amateur moves.

I will put money on it that he will not win one of the next 10 World Series, or make the final table.

I think anyone beating a pro is not just luck.

 

[eber]

Originally posted by: bolomite
it wasn't Hellmuth who hid in his jacket, it was some other guy. The name Kenna James comes to mind.

Yep...it was Kenna James. 100% sure.

 

[new2AMD]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Mill
Statistically he couldn't win by pure luck asshat, and it's obvious he had enough skill to beat out all the pros. If you win the WSOP you are a pro. No one's game is flawless or the pros would be able to win it every year.

Why couldn't he win by pure luck? If he had gotten pocket over cards through the whole tournament, would that not have been winning by pure luck?

How is it obvious he had enough skill to beat out the pros? He did win the tournament, some of it was skill, but most of the part to do with taking out the big players of the tourney had a lot to do with luck and making amateur moves.

I will put money on it that he will not win one of the next 10 World Series, or make the final table.

Did you see last years winner? He was an unkown rookie and he got lucky. Just like every other winner. Saying moneymaker wont win again in 10 yrs is the statistical good bet. Its harder and harder to win that thing cuz the number of players keeps going up.

Getting pocket over cards does not guarantee a win. You can be out drawn or lose to pocket pairs all day long. Cards = luck. The 2 in your hand are as only good as the other 5 on the borad.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: Mill
Statistically he couldn't win by pure luck asshat, and it's obvious he had enough skill to beat out all the pros. If you win the WSOP you are a pro. No one's game is flawless or the pros would be able to win it every year.

Why couldn't he win by pure luck? If he had gotten pocket over cards through the whole tournament, would that not have been winning by pure luck?

How is it obvious he had enough skill to beat out the pros? He did win the tournament, some of it was skill, but most of the part to do with taking out the big players of the tourney had a lot to do with luck and making amateur moves.

I will put money on it that he will not win one of the next 10 World Series, or make the final table.

Pros like Federer hadn't made the final table in 16 years..

 

[95SS]

Originally posted by: bolomite
it wasn't Hellmuth who hid in his jacket, it was some other guy. The name Kenna James comes to mind.

I think we have a winner! I KNOW!!! that it wasn't Helmuth.

 

[fumbduck]

Originally posted by: 95SS

Originally posted by: bolomite
it wasn't Hellmuth who hid in his jacket, it was some other guy. The name Kenna James comes to mind.

I think we have a winner! I KNOW!!! that it wasn't Helmuth.

Yep, it was kenna James, just googled it.

 

[Metalloid]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
We were just talking about thost on Polerrooom.com. How did you know?

I was saying that he would have lost to Farha if they banned sunglasses and hats

good poker players dont need the sunglasses or hats,


when some one stares me down at the table i just make kissie faces at them which flusters them enough for me.

I usually do the opposite of what you would think. Like if I have a nice hand and I raise them and they are debating, I'll say "come on, it's just a few bucks" or "raise me back", then they think I am bluffing so they throw some money down and I take it all away.

 

[TreyRandom]

I'm from Spring Hill, where Moneymaker lives. I'd love to meet him someday.