moneymaker and raymer

[PestoSauce 0]

I've noticed lately that Greg Raymer has been doing a lot with poker, more than Chris Moneymaker has done, as far as doing commentaries and representing poker. I watched the LIVE AT THE BIKE show on the internet and was impressed with Raymer's comments and general background and angles at poker. Plus his commentary on the WSOP on ESPN Fossilman special. It just seems he's representing poker better than Moneymaker did in 03-04. Anyone else agree or disagree?

[Guest XXEddie]

yes, but hes only doing for poker than moneymaker because after Moneymaker won the WSOP he kept his job as an accountant, he doesnt play poker full time. Raymer quit his job as a pattent(sp) attorney and now plays full time

[nertz 0]

Moneymaker quit his job, divorced his wife and is now playing poker full time.

[Guest XXEddie]

Moneymaker quit his job, divorced his wife and is now playing poker full time.

wow......didnt know that......well you learn something new every daybut you probably see Raymer more because Raymer is better

[PestoSauce 0]

Yea I heard Moneymaker now has a hot girlfriend. Anyway, it I wouldn't say that Raymer is "better" than Moneymaker. I will say that he seems more knowledgeable and might have more experience than Moneymaker. I might even buy one of his damn fossils!!!!

[deviper 0]

I dont think you can say fossil man is better then moneymaker because even though that may be true moneymaker has got a second place finish in a major tournament and i dont think raymer has made it to another final table.( i could be rong).

[Kendren 1]

Moneymaker quit his job, divorced his wife and is now playing poker full time.

wow......didnt know that......well you learn something new every daybut you probably see Raymer more because Raymer is better

Actually, Eddie, you were right, he kept his job for about 8 months after the big win, then quit his job and got divorced cause he promised his wife he woulsn't go pro and lied to her. But the 8 months following the WSOP he was still working as an accountant.

[KDawgCometh 2]

I dont think you can say fossil man is better then moneymaker because even though that may be true moneymaker has got a second place finish in a major tournament and i dont think raymer has made it to another final table.( i could be rong).

yes you are wrong. He placed third in 2001 at the Foxwoods 5k buy-in event and won a bracelet at Foxwoods in the late 90s in a stud event at the World Poker Finals. Raymer is much better, don't base ideas from TV. He plays high-limit games and has been for a while, he just had a real well paying job and when he made the World Series parlay he decided he could make it

[ChuckD 0]

I dont know much about Raymer personally but I am sure I read on another site (might even have been this one) that he was regularly crushing the 150/300 game at Foxwoods, prior to his WSOP Main Event win. I think going forward the WSOP will continue to be won by so called unheard of players. I dont care how good you are, against a field that size you needto play extrodinarly well for days and have plenty of luck. Yes the top players will get further in general but I think we are well past the stage where people will win 3 times in a row etc.

[BilliardsBoy 0]

I think it's because Raymer gets more respect from more players. If I remember correctly, Moneymaker won an insane amount of pots in which he should have lost, but got lucky at the right times. That beat he gave to Ivey sticks out in my mind, I was so mad :x Even though I didn't enjoy watching Raymer in the WSOP, I do know that he was just playing the highstack to perfection. In my mind, he made far fewer mistakes then Money, and is a better player than Money. Therefore, I would respect his commentary and opinion more that Money any day.

[aggyanglr 0]

This will be the last year that poker gets really big. Moneymaker and Raymer gave a lot of internet players a false hope, but it won't be long before the bad press starts to come out. ESPN does an excellent job of portraying good "reads" and "analyzing the odds" etc. etc. but bottom line, they almost always edit out the preflop all in AA vs. KK and all the luck which happens often before the final table.They have glamorized this game because they make money off of it. Lots of money. They will do their best to protect the image, but the bad press will get out. Documentaries will be made. For every one Moneymaker story, there are 20 that aren't. And, if you have read Moneymaker's book as I have, you would realize he really is a degenerate gambler. He bet money he never had on sports, racked up over 50k in debts in an offshore betting account, and once he got out of that mess.....what does he do? divorce his wife with their newborn and go hang out with prostitutes in Vegas. By the way, did anyone find it strange that on the day he won, his wife wasn't present. She wasn't even mentioned. And that night, he spends $25K at a strip club? Yeah, what a role model. They don't ever want to focus on the luck aspect or the sob stories about people going broke, divorces (ie Moneymaker), bankruptcies, and the list goes on and on.Now, as far as Raymer is concerned, he's in the majors where MM is in AAA. Raymer has an excellent ability to read and rationalize decisions. He is also a gentleman and handles himself very well....the opposite of MM. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[PokerFan 0]

Make sure your house is clean before you go after Moneymaker. We will never know his complete story off the felt nor do I want to. As for Raymer, I have been impressed by his commentary and he makes it clear he is/was competent to win the Big one. Raymer may be the exception on winning the big one and disappearing, ie.. Robert Varkony, what happen to this stiff?...I also don't belive the likes of Annie Duke whos say a top Pro will not win the big one again...suck it up Annie ajust your game and quit crying. You have gotten rich off these stiffs and should be grateful. oh yeah and Danny N. why and the world would you go to a Quizno's in Ca. when they have Togo's....

[KDawgCometh 2]

There were many pros at this year's final table:Al Krux, David Williams(seriously he was a 23 year old already having a good BR for 15/30, he was no amateur), Dan Harrington, Mike McClain(at least that's what I've heard), Josh Arieh, Greg Raymer(ok semi-pro, but he was a high stakes player with a good day job), and I think that Glenn Hughes is a semi-pro type(from what I'v heard). So the only real amateurs at the final table were Mattias Andersson and Matt DEan. I think that we're gonna see more localized pros that make it to the final table then big name pros. Josh Arieh is a localized pro in Atlanta and Raymer is one in the North East. There will be unkowns winning it, but they won't be some all out amateur like Varkonyi or Moneymaker all that often in the Big one.

[Emptyeye 0]

This is a post that's going to be long and go in all sorts of directions, so bear with me.Moneymaker vs. Raymer: As I recall, both said after winning the WSOP Main Event that they were going to keep their "real jobs"; both then eventually went pro. As far as raw skill level goes, I agree that Raymer is probably the better player--watching the Final Table with Fossilman special plus his Live at the Bike commentary last night convinced me that he clearly knows what he's talking about (Not that my game is at a level where I can criticize his anyway)--but I also think that Moneymaker has at least some game, and that Varkonyi the year before is a better representation of the fluke champion. If we take the WSOP we got on ESPN as a reasonable sample of his play throughout the series as a whole, was Moneymaker lucky? Sure. But he also made two great moves during the coverage--calling Dutch Boyd's all-in with his pair of 3s (And some will debate whether putting his WSOP life on the line in a coin flip is a good idea...that's fine, but to put Boyd on overcards as opposed to the overpair and make the call is a great read if you ask me), and of course the bluff against Farha heads-up, which from what I've read he was confident would work.Moneymaker as degenerate gambler: Okay, if that stuff is true, then that's just...low. But I also bet it's more common in the pro poker world than people really want to believe..more on that in a bit. Also, if he was a gambling addict before the WSOP, then again that's terrible, but isn't a professional poker player effectively a gambling addict by definition? Yeah, we can say "It's not gambling if you know what you're doing" all we want, but the fact is that there's an element of luck to the game, and if the cards aren't coming for you, it's a hard way to make a living when you're going through one of those downswings (I think it was Al Krux that said that).On pros winning the WSOP Main Event again: I agree with a previous poster that the days of someone going 1-1-2 (Or similar) in three consecutive years are likely over. But Annie Duke's statement that a professional player will never win it again is simply ludicrous...it'll be interesting to see in the next few years whether these so-called "top pros" are capable of adjusting their game to the new breed of poker players who enter these events...Annie's being mad when a bluff she tried didn't work was amusing, mainly because I'm not sure the person who knocked her out was even aware she was bluffing. At least in the early stages of a tourney, this "I'm probably beat but I'll call you anyway oh hey look you were on a stone bluff and I win with my bottom pair" mentality is going to become commonplace (Daniel mentioned that he kept trying to bluff people who were unbluffable, and should probably have adjusted for this), if it isn't already, and either the pros whose game doesn't need a lot of adjusting anyway (Harrington's tight image, regardless of how well it correlates to reality, is probably a factor in his 3-4 finishes the last two years) will continue to flourish while the rest repeatedly strike out in these tournaments, or the rest of the pros will adjust.On how television presents poker: I do agree that TV as a whole represents poker differently than how it's generally played (The fact is that 90% of poker hands are boring as hell), but people blasting Tilt for being unrealistic somewhat amuses me as well. I realize that the world of poker exactly as Tilt presents it (Is it me or is all of Vegas in on the Matador's scheme?) is farfetched, but there's definitely a seedy underside to the world of professional poker. If it's not pro players walking around flat broke either due to poker or other gambling, it's pros with other vices, alcoholism or what have you. Then there's the fact that a lot of pros are staked in many events, which means their net profits when they win are greatly reduced (Didn't Raymer actually end up taking home closer to $2 million after he paid his backers?), a fact no one on TV tells you. I think that's everything.

[Guest XXEddie]

calling Dutch Boyd's all-in with his pair of 3s (And some will debate whether putting his WSOP life on the line in a coin flip is a good ideat wasnt a coinflip, he called the all-in post flop he was about a 3-1 favorite

[Emptyeye 0]

Was it post-flop? I honestly couldn't remember.If so, then that only increases my opinion of that particular play.

[KDawgCometh 2]

Was it post-flop? I honestly couldn't remember.If so, then that only increases my opinion of that particular play.

it was post flop, I don't like the play at all as there is just too much that can beat you there, in fact I think that there was a broadway card on that flop, I think

[epistemic 0]

Raymer is beyond poker a really brilliant guy considering he was a patent attorney. He's articulate (okay to the point of dweebery) and personable, from the Northeast, which I think gives him more of an edge in self-promotion. On other hand Moneymaker is southern, inarticulate, awkward socially, and was not involved in live poker before his win. He was an everyman playing sit and gos and multis on pokerstars. So Raymer certainly has the goods, and is giving to poker with his erudite analysis and play. This is going to serve him well in the long run.Moneymaker is going to be around, but he's going to get swallowed up somewhere between Vegas and TN.

[KDawgCometh 2]

I have a question where is Hal Fowler, exactly, that's what everyone is gonna be saying about Moneymaker in 10 years

[Guest XXEddie]

I have a question where is Hal Fowler, exactly, that's what everyone is gonna be saying about Moneymaker in 10 years

who is Momeymaker?

[Jtmaroon84 0]

I have a question where is Hal Fowler, exactly, that's what everyone is gonna be saying about Moneymaker in 10 years

who is Momeymaker?

My sentiments exactly.

[deviper 0]

I dont think you can say fossil man is better then moneymaker because even though that may be true moneymaker has got a second place finish in a major tournament and i dont think raymer has made it to another final table.( i could be rong).

yes you are wrong. He placed third in 2001 at the Foxwoods 5k buy-in event and won a bracelet at Foxwoods in the late 90s in a stud event at the World Poker Finals. Raymer is much better, don't base ideas from TV. He plays high-limit games and has been for a while, he just had a real well paying job and when he made the World Series parlay he decided he could make it

yea i knew about most of that stuff like the playing highlimit games dident no he won a bracelet a foxwoods. learn something new every day

[21gambit 0]

I have never posted on the forum, I just browse it every now and then but I couldnt help myself when I saw the way people were ragging on money maker. First off, money maker made some huge calls that alot of people couldnt. I dont know if I could. We all know the dutch boyd case of calling the all in with pocket 3s. Unbelieveable read+the guts to make that call knowing that your opponnent could catch one of those cards or the board could pair twice leaving you with 3 high, and yet, with the odds in his favor(he correctly judged that they were, god only knows how) he made the correct choice to call, yes, its a risk, but any time the odds are in your favor its the correct choice. He made the play on johnny chan with a pair of aces and a nut flush draw, granted, he had the hand locked up on the flop, but he didnt know that, and chan was representing something very strong, he represented something stronger against him and chan called him since the pot was so big, thinking that his flush draw was live.He continuously battered and swung at Farha with bluffs which ultimately set him up for his final downfall, a good way to trap a player. I dont know if you recall money maker bluffing at farha when he missed his straight/flush draw and farha had trip aces, yet he still promptly put 500K into the pot in a steal attempt, it obviously didnt work THAT TIME, but it seared a image of chris into farhas mind. He bluffs alot, I have to take a stand against him at some point is probably something that was running through farhas head, it runs through just about everyones when they encounter a superagressive player, which is the advantage of playing like one.About the beat against Ivey, cant we all understand this situation? the guy flopps trips and bets it agressively, a known super-agressive player bets at the pot, I think just about anyone would have thoughts running in their head of "this pro is trying to run circles around me and yank this big pot away from me." It was a bad call, but against a specific player known for stealing with a pretty strong hand. If you want to talk about bad beats, talk about the one with Freddy Deeb and Phil where all deeb had was pocket kings and went all in after two players bet and raised the flop. He only had a over-pocket pair whereas MM had trips, a very strong hand.Raymer, why is he so great?The only "reading" I saw raymer do was pre-flop where he was deciding wheter or not he was in a coin-flip situation. There was no noticeable strategy or misdirection in his play, he just, as someone said before, played the big-stack perfectly. After Arieh was knocked out in one of the many coin flip situations that raymer just couldnt seem to lose in David WIlliams just handed the title over to him on a silver platter. I love David and when I first saw it I was rooting for him to win, but come on, he was a calling station that last hand. They was no raise or play-back at raymer to slow him down or figure out what he had, just call call call with middle pair. Raymers final competition was cake compared to what moneymaker had to play against. The reasons I believe moneymaker is given much less respect in the poker world, and when I say that I mean the general poker crowd who watches it on TV and plays 3-6 at the local casino is 1. Because he is a southerner with a country accent, its a natural tendency for people to discount the intelligence of anyone with a country accent. I dont know why exactly, but we all know its true.2. Because he does not state things about poker as eloquently as raymer does. When raymer speaks about the final table in detail it all comes across as very logical and deductive, he explains his decisions quite well, but just because he does so, or that money maker does not, does not mean that either are a better or worse player, some can reason and deduce things quite well and some just have that heart and instict, that natural ability to play the game that you cannot learn.Anyways, the way moneymaker set the stage for the win was much more impressive than the joke of a heads up match that raymer had to win. About him being a degenerate gambler, most of the greats were, Stu Unger, Nick the Greek, the list should go on and on but thats all I can think of at the moment. Its an addictive, thought provoking, blood pumping game and thats why we all cant get enough of it, Im not a religious man, but the phrase, let he who is with out sin cast the first stone, I believe any serious poker player is at some level a degenerate gambler.. Other than that it sounds like money maker is just a guy with some problems in his life that occur when you suddenly find yourself bumped up 20 income brackets..In the immortal words of Puff Daddy, or as I like to call him, P-Dizzle"Mo Money Mo Problems"

[aggyanglr 0]

Moneymaker as degenerate gambler: Okay, if that stuff is true, then that's just...low. But I also bet it's more common in the pro poker world than people really want to believe..more on that in a bit. Also, if he was a gambling addict before the WSOP, then again that's terrible, but isn't a professional poker player effectively a gambling addict by definition? Yeah, we can say "It's not gambling if you know what you're doing" all we want, but the fact is that there's an element of luck to the game, and if the cards aren't coming for you, it's a hard way to make a living when you're going through one of those downswings (I think it was Al Krux that said that). On how television presents poker: I do agree that TV as a whole represents poker differently than how it's generally played (The fact is that 90% of poker _____________________________________________________________Okay, maybe using the word degenerate was a little harsh. But, if you read his book, 95% would think the same. I just think if you have a lifestyle similar to his with NO foundation, I don't think he will be around long. He'll be able to make money endorsements until the next World Series, but just like Varkony, 2 years and out and you won't hear a thing about him.Read his book, and then you tell me this guy didn't totally screw over his family......and friends......on multiple occasions. Hell, he even says it himself. He will implode soon. Raymer will not. There is a night and day difference between the two. Raymer: treated his gambling as a business, learning his trade for years, being extremely successful in high limit, taking on investors, bettering himself and playing very consistentMM: treated his gambling like an addiction, constantly going back to the well on his internet accounts (we all do), taking on investors(that's a laugh, it was only cuz he had no money that his dad bailed him out once again), and playing very consistent that is....until you are so hungover you bomb it within the first few hours. MM's 15 minutes are about over.

[KingAnt 0]

I dont think you can say fossil man is better then moneymaker because even though that may be true moneymaker has got a second place finish in a major tournament and i dont think raymer has made it to another final table.( i could be rong).

yes you are wrong. He placed third in 2001 at the Foxwoods 5k buy-in event and won a bracelet at Foxwoods in the late 90s in a stud event at the World Poker Finals. Raymer is much better, don't base ideas from TV. He plays high-limit games and has been for a while, he just had a real well paying job and when he made the World Series parlay he decided he could make it

Sorry, but Ramer and Moneymaker both suck i think. They just got the horseshoe at the right time :twisted: