I don't deny that he's lucky. But I've watched him a play a few tournaments and sit-n-gos on pokerstars and he does win more than his fair share of them... some skill involved, I suppose.
From what I saw of Moneymaker on the WSOP coverage, I thought he make a few very good plays: bluffing Farha out of a big pot heads-up, calling Dutch Boyd for a lot of chips with a small pocket pair which was good. True he also got lucky a couple of hands too, but good players can (and need to) get lucky sometimes too. (One of my favorite players Scotty Ngyuen won with KT vs JJ. Does he suck because of this? No.) You have to take some chances in tournaments.
But Moneymaker more lucky than good? It's not even close.
I just checked out the results from the WPT $5000 buy-in NLH event at the Bay 101 Casino in San Jose, and Moneymaker won $200,000 by finishing second to Phil Gordon. I'm no great fan of Moneymaker but the fact he outlasted a field of over 800 to win the WSOP and now finished 2nd in a field of 220 for a WPT event indicates that the man has a certain degree of skill.The one thing I'm curious about is the number of events he's played in since his WSOP win.
The one thing I noticed most about him, was that he had balls.... I think he played well - sure, he hit his hands in keys spots, but tell me a champion who hasn't? You can't win the WSOP without getting the cards, no matter who you are.
You think Doyle isn't a great champion? He's won twice with T 2 because he's hit his hands.
I have asked both Howard Lederer and Paul Phillips what they feel Moneymaker's EV was. The both felt it to be between 1.5 and 2. A positive expactation player. Anybody who boasts a plus EV at the WSOP can't be that bad...
The more that poker becomes a spectator sport(thank you WPT) the more I think we will be seeing biased opinions about players. It is going to become like other 'sports' in this aspect. People will choose players on many other factors besides EV, facts will not sway the argument. It should be interesting!
Television coverage of poker differs a lot from other sports in that it is heavily edited. For example, the 2003 WSOP is a 4 or 5 day tournament which is condensed into about 6 or 7 *hours* of TV coverage, some of which is filler and commercials. In regular sports, you generally get to see the entire game.
Since a poker broadcast is so selective, it's pretty easy for the television director to sway your opinion of any player any way the director wants. He could show the 1 out of 100 hands where Moneymaker makes a 9-to-1 suckout, and not the other 99 where he plays solidly. He can show you the 5 minutes that Phil Helmuth is whining like a baby and not the other 3 days when he behaved like a perfect gentleman. They want to make a TV show that sells, so extreme bad beats and eccentric player behavior are going to be grossly over-represented.
So, your point about the "facts" is well taken. It's hard (for the average viewer) to get a good sense of the actual facts because they are not seeing the whole story.
I'm a moneymaker fan (Not as much as Johnny Chan or Scotty Nguyen), but he gives me hope that another rookie down the line can enter and win the entire thing.
Whether it's luck or not, he had to play a lot of poker to get there. And just as djw said, Dolly had T 2 and won the WSOP twice, so you'll always need some luck along the way
I'm a moneymaker fan (Not as much as Johnny Chan or Scotty Nguyen), but he gives me hope that another rookie down the line can enter and win the entire thing.
and that makes him and his "story" very media-friendly.
I have asked both Howard Lederer and Paul Phillips what they feel Moneymaker's EV was. The both felt it to be between 1.5 and 2. A positive expactation player. Anybody who boasts a plus EV at the WSOP can't be that bad...
Normally you say a play has +EV if it is a play that will make money in the long run.
For example, if you are betting on a (fair) coin toss, if someone is willing to offer you a payout of 2:1, then accepting this bet is a +EV decision.
In the context you quoted
I have asked both Howard Lederer and Paul Phillips what they feel Moneymaker's EV was. The both felt it to be between 1.5 and 2. A positive expactation player. Anybody who boasts a plus EV at the WSOP can't be that bad...
I think this means that Moneymaker was expected (by the other two guys) to win a prize about 1.5 to 2 times the tournament buy-in. It's unclear to me what the numbers mean exactly in this example; namely, I'm not sure whether the convention is that a break even player has EV equal to 0 or 1. The geneal idea of the comment here is that Lederer & Phillips thought that Moneymaker was better than the average player in this tournament.
Moneymaker did have a lot of luck in the WSOP, especially the hand where he knocked out Ivey, but he is also pretty skilled if he got that far on his own. He did make some nice reads and bluffs. I respect him.
Comments
hork.
But Moneymaker more lucky than good? It's not even close.
ScottyZ
You think Doyle isn't a great champion? He's won twice with T 2 because he's hit his hands.
I'm just saying he played well... that's my opinion and I am a poker nobody.. dead money, a fish. So take it with a grain of salt.
Since a poker broadcast is so selective, it's pretty easy for the television director to sway your opinion of any player any way the director wants. He could show the 1 out of 100 hands where Moneymaker makes a 9-to-1 suckout, and not the other 99 where he plays solidly. He can show you the 5 minutes that Phil Helmuth is whining like a baby and not the other 3 days when he behaved like a perfect gentleman. They want to make a TV show that sells, so extreme bad beats and eccentric player behavior are going to be grossly over-represented.
So, your point about the "facts" is well taken. It's hard (for the average viewer) to get a good sense of the actual facts because they are not seeing the whole story.
ScottyZ
Whether it's luck or not, he had to play a lot of poker to get there. And just as djw said, Dolly had T 2 and won the WSOP twice, so you'll always need some luck along the way
and that makes him and his "story" very media-friendly.
What is EV? :?: :?: :?: thanks :?
Normally you say a play has +EV if it is a play that will make money in the long run.
For example, if you are betting on a (fair) coin toss, if someone is willing to offer you a payout of 2:1, then accepting this bet is a +EV decision.
In the context you quoted
I think this means that Moneymaker was expected (by the other two guys) to win a prize about 1.5 to 2 times the tournament buy-in. It's unclear to me what the numbers mean exactly in this example; namely, I'm not sure whether the convention is that a break even player has EV equal to 0 or 1. The geneal idea of the comment here is that Lederer & Phillips thought that Moneymaker was better than the average player in this tournament.
ScottyZ
oh i see
but that didn't make sense
i kinda understand it now ...i guess :?