Smasharoo 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 And I don't think too many top level pros think Dutch Boyd sucks.At poker, or for $50 chips to get an entry fee together? Link to post Share on other sites
TheSkearnel 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I dont like Moneymaker either, but I think this makes perfect sense. When you win a lot of money, you don't automatically have to make a raise in your limits. He's probably playing where he's comfortable. If I won the big one, you can be damn sure I wouldn't go play with the big boys right away. It would depend on my skill level. You think it's possible that Moneymaker knows he sucks donkey balls, and he just doesn't want to risk all of his money at a game he knows he can't win?-Shawn K. Link to post Share on other sites
Deebo 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 And I don't think too many top level pros think Dutch Boyd sucks.At poker, or for $50 chips to get an entry fee together?HA HA HA!!!!!check your pm smash Link to post Share on other sites
dpianomn 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 smasharoo rocks. Link to post Share on other sites
Heyou! 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 did we not just discuss this in the topic named 'Where is Daniel?' ?!?!?!!he is not here, he's at the bahamas or wherever! and you should type in bold when u want to get peoples attention because all caps looks obnoxious.This is INTERNET, stupid, Im sure Daniel writes alot even if/when he s ontheroad so, no sense in ur comment at all !What does "here" mean are u on another planet or wtf????!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
nopantsdance 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Yeah Raymer is really solid, did you see how good he played in the tournament of champion, going all-in with 89 twice and 9 10. REALLY solid thereYeah, he sucks. Trying to build a big stack by playing agressively in a single talbe winner take all freeroll.Crazy bastard.so in a single table sng you just sit back until you are blinded off? the only reason he called the first two all in's was because he was pot stuck. there was no game theory to any of his calls, there was too much money in the pot. he showed poor play on his last hand by going all in trying to steal the bb instead of just raising it. he's a pretty solid player and has been around for a while. his posts on rgp range back a while and are pretty informative. you should check them out. Link to post Share on other sites
koolromeo 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 this is the only place i've found where everyone is either a pro or a brown noser to the host. moneymaker wins the big one, takes a 2nd on wpt, and a tenth at this years wsop and he sucks? yeah that's a horrible year. you actually believe that he's broke and that he was up all night drinking before the main event. have u ever heard of sarcasm? i'm sure he knew what pros like the posters on here thought of him and took the main event very seriously, especially with his endorsement deals riding on his performances. i just find it funny that half of the posts on here start off i play .50/$1.00 or $1.00/$2.00 and then these people bash people like moneymaker and raymer. until you can beat a game that doesn't have your mom and half blind aunt in it, you shouldn't spout off about world champions Link to post Share on other sites
jonnyhockey 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 did we not just discuss this in the topic named 'Where is Daniel?' ?!?!?!!he is not here, he's at the bahamas or wherever! and you should type in bold when u want to get peoples attention because all caps looks obnoxious.This is INTERNET, stupid, Im sure Daniel writes alot even if/when he s ontheroad so, no sense in ur comment at all !What does "here" mean are u on another planet or wtf????!!!!!Anybody else confused by this post?The bottom line is that a large number of quote unquote poker pro's are action junkies.I have to admit, that's the first time I've ever seen anybody write "quote unquote". Use the button man, much easier. Link to post Share on other sites
looshle 6 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 The bottom line is that a large number of quote unquote poker pro's are action junkies.I have to admit, that's the first time I've ever seen anybody write "quote unquote". Use the button man, much easier.EL-OH-EL Link to post Share on other sites
SeanGagne 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Maybe Moneymaker is working on his limit game and figures to start out on a low limit table? Just a thought. I think it would dawn on me if I lost a few hundred thousand that maybe I'm not so great at this game afterall and would think twice about playing anymore.No matter what you guys say about Moneymaker (he sucks, he's lucky, etc. etc.) he has a WSOP championship bracelet and I think he is the only one that can say he has one (besides Daniel of course). So before you say this guy sucks and is lucky think about this. Don't we all get lucky sometimes when we play? Do you ever remember the good beats that you give people, you know the ones were come to find out you hit your one outter on the river to win the pot? He won a WSOP bracelet and whether he is tapped or not, no one can take that away from him. At one time he was the best player in the world and none of us can say the same.Just my 2 cents and I expect and accept all rebuttals whole heartedly. Link to post Share on other sites
Erik67 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 this is the only place i've found where everyone is either a pro or a brown noser to the host. moneymaker wins the big one, takes a 2nd on wpt, and a tenth at this years wsop and he sucks? yeah that's a horrible year. you actually believe that he's broke and that he was up all night drinking before the main event. have u ever heard of sarcasm? i'm sure he knew what pros like the posters on here thought of him and took the main event very seriously, especially with his endorsement deals riding on his performances. i just find it funny that half of the posts on here start off i play .50/$1.00 or $1.00/$2.00 and then these people bash people like moneymaker and raymer. until you can beat a game that doesn't have your mom and half blind aunt in it, you shouldn't spout off about world championsSCOML- Spit Coffee On Monitor Laughing. Link to post Share on other sites
KidKanuck 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 half blind aunt in it, you shouldn't spout off about world champions..yes but she can put a player on any hand with the other eye...and that is WHILE she does her ironing and rug hooking. Link to post Share on other sites
MarcBrown 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Whoever mentioned that he just working on his limit game is wrong. The guy is just an action junkie. Moneymaker was playing $40 buy in events online before he won the "Big One", and from what I heard he was into a guy for almost 40k before he went out there in 2003. The guy couldn't even afford airfare to make it out to the WSOP.What has happened is that he had his hands hold and even got extremely fortunate on many hands to win the WSOP. He is not one of the top players around, I can see him on E in a few years broke with a True Hollywood Story being written about him. You don't go from $40 buy in events to playing 200/400 limit hold em with the big boys just because you won the big one. What he should have done is put that money away and play in events where he was sponsored to play or got in on a satellite like he did for the 2003 WSOP. Link to post Share on other sites
Foulky 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Money is a solid player.. far from the best... but solid... so is ramer. If you look at his play in 03 WSOP, he rarely got lucky (except against Ivey), but rather had his odds hold up, on good reads (Dutch Boyd and Sammy fake flush). As for going broke, his face is all over, ads for this and that. I am sure he has spent all his WSOP earnings, but he now has the money worth Millions and the endorsements to match!! I am so sick of every saying these guys suck! unreal, he read Johny Chan, he Dutch Boyd(who might actually suck), he read sammy varha, he played a solid game, and had his odds hold up. Obviously he got some luck (ivey), but that is part of tournies, look at some of Daniel N. wins, 99 US champ (luck -- thoughtful, and risk adjusted). But all of poker is a mix between short term luck(how the cards fall) and long term skill.Let's get something straight right now. Moneymaker got insanely lucky more than once in that tourney. You mentioned the Ivey hand but there was also the pocket 8's all-in vs. Humberto's pocket aces which Moneymaker won when the eight hit the turn. Also there was the hand where he called Jason Lester's 350,000 raise before the flop with QJ and flopped the nut straight. That was a very skeptical play, and he called an all-in by David Grey with 5-4 offsuit, granted David was shortstacked, but calling 90,000 with 5-4 is not a real solid play. However, Moneymaker did make several good plays in the tourney as well like knocking out Chan, and his hand with Boyd.In conclusion, Chris is a very aggressive good player. He got very lucky to win the main event in 03 but to win a tourney with that many entrants you have to get lucky in many different situations. So I think we should all just accept this scenario as it happened, and whether he's broke or not it doesn't matter. He will always be the 03 World Champ, so he will forever be honored no matter if he has money or not. Remember Stu Ungar guys. He won over 30 million in his lifetime, but when he died he was completely broke, and he is known as one of the best poker players who ever lived. That's just the way this game is. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest XXEddie Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Yeah Raymer is really solid, did you see how good he played in the tournament of champion, going all-in with 89 twice and 9 10. REALLY solid thereYeah, he sucks. Trying to build a big stack by playing agressively in a single talbe winner take all freeroll.Crazy bastard.so in a single table sng you just sit back until you are blinded off? the only reason he called the first two all in's was because he was pot stuck. there was no game theory to any of his calls, there was too much money in the pot. he showed poor play on his last hand by going all in trying to steal the bb instead of just raising it. he's a pretty solid player and has been around for a while. his posts on rgp range back a while and are pretty informative. you should check them out.Ill responed to you and Smash. No you dont sit back and get blinded off, but you also dont move in with 9 10 offsuit from the SB. Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Ill responed to you and Smash. No you dont sit back and get blinded off, but you also dont move in with 9 10 offsuit from the SB.Really?Why not? Can you explain to me what you think the fold equity is there compared to the size of the pot at the time and the likelyhood of being called and then the odds of likely calling hands and show me how it's a -EV situation in a winner take all situation?I'm sure you can, as you've decided it shouldn't be done, so educate me if you would.Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest XXEddie Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Ill responed to you and Smash. No you dont sit back and get blinded off, but you also dont move in with 9 10 offsuit from the SB.Really?Why not? Can you explain to me what you think the fold equity is there compared to the size of the pot at the time and the likelyhood of being called and then the odds of likely calling hands and show me how it's a -EV situation in a winner take all situation?I'm sure you can, as you've decided it shouldn't be done, so educate me if you would.Thanks.Its stupid cause his play had "bluff" written all over it. Kinda like you have "dumbass" written all over you Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Its stupid cause his play had "bluff" written all over it. Kinda like you have "dumbass" written all over youSorry you're not capable of understanding the complexity of high level play.Good news is that "Tilt" is on tonight, so there's something for you to watch and learn from. Link to post Share on other sites
KKsuited 0 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I understand the moves Raymer made as well. Think about this....maybe he thought he wasn't the best player and needed to gamble to build a stack. I doubt he thought that, but I could see that being a strategy. If you think sitting back waiting for huge cards and think you would get paid off with them, uh..you've probably never played with good players. Link to post Share on other sites
kook04 0 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Its stupid cause his play had "bluff" written all over it. Kinda like you have "dumbass" written all over youThis guy may not have won the argument, but he had the best line by far. I actually laughed out loud. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now