moneymaker and raymer

[BigSlick05 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.

Why would Raymer have backers if he won his seat online?

[PHOENIX 0]

Both are good players (Raymer being far better), but neither are world-class. Sit either one of them down with Gus Hansen or Chip Reese and see who has more money in 2 hours.

[allinbluff35 0]

Why would Raymer have backers if he won his seat online?I don't remember the specifics but in an interview in Maxim magazine he said he sold shares of himself to friends to build his bankroll to people he knew and what not, and the fossils as card protectors hence the nickname because him and his wife agreed to give him a beginning bankroll of $1000 and if he lost that he would be done. Also in that interview he said one friend bought X amount of shares and after winning the main event this past year he sent that person a check for $360,000 i believe. He also stated that after taxes and giving back the people that invested in him he kept about 1.7 million.

[KDawgCometh 2]

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.

granted there aren't too many great situations that ESPN showed this year for Greg(I thought their main event coveragew was poor and should've had more episodes for the Main event so we could see more play), but I would like to point out his all in against Matusow knowing that Mike wasn't as strong as he put off and that he could very well have two live cards against Mike along with his live flush draw. A lot of Greg's chip stacking came on the outer tables so we weren't able to see how he amassed his stack the way we did for Moneymaker.

Why would Raymer have backers if he won his seat online?

he's had backers for years on now that have helped finance his poker game. So as part of a contract he had ith them he honored it by paying them their share for his winnings this year. This was a yearly contract that would get renewed at certian times, needless to say he doesn't use any backers now

[mays24 0]

.... and had to sell shares in himself prior to his WSOP winShareholders recieved 160K off a 2K investment from the 5 mil pot.Raymer kept just 3 mil before taxes.

[troutsmart 0]

I've always tried to avoid the Moneymaker discussions that have come up on various boards in the past. Then Raymer won, and again I avoided it. To me, most of the discussions have been meaningless, with more argueing on personal feelings of like or dislike, all this with little understanding of either player. I saw the tv coverage like everybody else, and felt that it gave me no foundation on which to classify Moneymaker or Raymer a great player or poor player.All I knew is that both of these guys won the most sought after title in tournament poker against the largest fields ever assembled. However, I recently read Moneymaker's book, in which he takes the reader through that fateful week. We read about him nervously sitting down at his first table on opening day, just hoping to last out the first day. Dan Harrington sat on that table and Moneymaker had no clue that he was playing with a former champion until several hours into the day. He describes his first hand, and his first bluff. A couple of key hands propelled him to the top of the leaderboard, where he easily could have tanked, now being a large target for the more experienced to take chips from. If you look at tournaments, it is possible for a player to get the luck of the draw, and continually play on weaker tables. However, Moneymaker didn't get that kind of luck. He continually found himself on tables stacked with name pros, and the toughest competition. Despite this, he held onto his chips and won, bringing upon himself the criticism of every poker player in the world. Did he get lucky? Hell yes! But did he not play for 5 days, contanstly sitting on tables with name pros gunning for his stack? And he survived. He gets my respect for that reason. I gained some extra insight into the Moneymaker story from his book. I learned that he was gambler in the purest sense of the word. He had lost large amounts of money in the sports betting world. Alchohol could get the best him. He readily and openly admitted his shortcomings. Moneymaker also realized that he was playing against players far more experienced, and he needed to catch some breaks. I got one more thing from the story: though he did get lucky on a few hands, and though he wasn't basing his decision on finite calculations of odds, his thinking sets him apart from a typical amatuer. Three hands stand out in my mind. Two have recieved major coverage and discussion, and the third has not. 1) The hand in which Moneymaker turned the set of 8s against an all-in Humberto Brenes with AA. Moneymaker readily admits that he completely misread Brenes' hand. However, he didn't rashly come to the conclusion that a pocket pair of 8s was the best hand. He took into account previous hands that he had seen Brenes play, and Brenes' demeaner. Brenes in fact, plain out played Moneymaker, which Moneymaker also admits. He should have lost a large chunk of his stack, if that miracle 8 didn't hit. Brenes should have doubled up and likely been a force at the final table. However, I may be wrong in this, but it isn't hard for me to imagine several pros we celebrate finding themselves in the same spot Moneymaker was.2) Ivey's last hand. Moneymaker has AQ and raises. Ivey and Lester call. Everybody is tired and wants the day to be over, and just make the tv final table. Flop comes QQ6. When Ivey and Moneymaker see the turn after Lester folded his TT, Moneymaker correctly believed his was far in front. The turn is a 9 and we all know that Ivey has hit a two outer for a monster fullhouse. The money goes goes in and Moneymaker hits his ace for a higher fullhouse. Sorry, all of you who cringe at this hand, and talk of Ivey being robbed, but I have a hard time believing that this hand doesn't end the same way with 99.9% of all players in that situation. Either it was going to be a tough beat for Moneymaker, or a tough beat for Ivey. I feel for Ivey, as he is easily one of my favorite players, and one I wish we saw more of. Plain luck of the draw was the deciding factor on this hand. That 9 was the best card and worst card Ivey could see. If it doesn't come off, he likely folds his hand and likely does some damage at the final table.3) This hand wasn't shown on ESPN. It occured against Chuc Hoang, a respected tournament veteran. In it, Moneymaker plays A high in such a way that Hoang is convinced that his straight is beat by what he believes is a higher straight held by Moneymaker. Multiple raises occur in this hand, with Moneymaker convinced that Houng holds a hand that he will fold. Houng does indeed fold. I encourage you to read about this hand in Moneymaker's book, as it gives extra insight into this so called "amatuer." Chris played the player, sensed relative weakness, and by aggression, moved a player off a strong hand. That is a pro move. He was certainly aided by the fact that Hoang had little information about Moneymaker, and I'm sure Hoang thinks about this hand often. In the end, my analysis of Chris Moneymaker is that he lacks overall experience to be anywhere in the leauge of the top pros. He does however possess "raw talent", a guy who will gamble, and play the opponent. He holds a coveted bracelet, and a 2nd place finish in a respected WPT event. He gets my respect.As for Raymer, he has experience. In my mind, he is a completely different type of winner than Moneymaker. He played a pro game. He did appear to win an absurd amount of coinflips, but he was correct to be in most pots he was in. I believe Raymer exemplifies what our typical Champions will be like in the future. There are countless players out there with great talent, who can shine under the right circumstances. Isn't that what is most beautiful about the Champion Event, it allows players that opportunity, to shine.

[jogsxyz 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).

Think you're right. Raymer has made no other final tables. Dont know if he has entered very many events.Raymer seems very personable on TV. It's natural for him to say nice things about other players. Can you imagine Hellmuth saying something nice and not sounding phoney. Moneymaker would not make a good commentator.

[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).

Think you're right. Raymer has made no other final tables. Dont know if he has entered very many events.Raymer seems very personable on TV. It's natural for him to say nice things about other players. Can you imagine Hellmuth saying something nice and not sounding phoney. Moneymaker would not make a good commentator.

read my post right below viper's as I'm not gonna answer this one twice.

[ArseneLupin3 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?

Greg Raymer is a genius with excellent interpersonal, promotional, business, legal, analytical, and creative skills. He is a very good poker player who is capable of beating 75-150 LHE games.I cannot say the same across the board for Moneymaker.-adam

[ArseneLupin3 0]

I believe Greg won a $150 double shootout satellite on stars to get in. His sharing deal was relative to his total poker profits. All of this is explained on 2+2's forums in the archives if you have some time to do some hardcore creative searching.-adam

[ArseneLupin3 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).

You can say that raymer is better, however, because he has about ten years of experience in cash games and tournaments. I guarantee you that RaymerHow many times did you see moneymaker have between 50% and all oh his chips in the pot drawing to 4 outs or less in 2003? The number was 2 or 3, I believe. Raymer played the bully stack as well as anyone and, when he was a big dog, it was typically preflop for a small fraction of his chips. There is no way you can convince me that MM is a better player than Raymer, even if you only include NLHE tourneys. His greatest strength may very well be his reading abilities.-adam

[Guest]

I don't think you (guys&girls) watched the WSOP invitational which Annie Duke won. Greg Raymer played real poor in that one calling all ins preflop with 9 8os?? I don't know if he was intiminated by the others at the table or what but I felt that the amature came out of him in that one. I think that the commentators said that he had did alot of the same in WSOP main event but he was getting lucky, I guess he thought that he could do the same against the pro's.. WRONG !!!!! :roll:

[epistemic 0]

Total agreement here with Adam's comments on the MM v GR issue.GR is a portly sage, and it'll be matter of time before he adds significantly to his palmares. He's certainly an asset to poker.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

.... and had to sell shares in himself prior to his WSOP winShareholders recieved 160K off a 2K investment from the 5 mil pot.Raymer kept just 3 mil before taxes.

Aight, the long and short of it from a couple of respected 2+2 posters.Raymer lost a large amount of his bankroll before the 2003 wsop and made an offer on the 2+2 forums relative to selling shares in all of his poker play. He had made the decision that he could beat the bigger foxwoods games and be +EV in tourneys. He also didn't want to cut into his own personal funds, as he considered poker to still be partly a hobby, but one that he wished to make worth his time. Overall, he handled the sharing/staking very professionally.He was a slight loser for a year and offered people a chance to take their shares back or 'let it ride' for another year shortly before the 2004 wsop. Some took them back--others bought more. He won his sat on stars, etc. You know the rest.There was one guy in the 2+2 chat room who let us know the day his check came from Greg. He was happy.-adam

[ArseneLupin3 0]

I don't think you (guys&girls) watched the WSOP invitational which Annie Duke won. Greg Raymer played real poor in that one calling all ins preflop with 9 8os?? I don't know if he was intiminated by the others at the table or what but I felt that the amature came out of him in that one. I think that the commentators said that he had did alot of the same in WSOP main event but he was getting lucky, I guess he thought that he could do the same against the pro's.. WRONG !!!!! :roll:

Freeroll. His call was nowhere near as bad as some say. This is a freeroll event with ONE SPOT PAID. The loss of tournament equity by folding and, hence, sacrificing chips in this spot was an even worse play than his call. His stack would have been large enough for him to continue his standard bully-style play. Greg was channeling Gus Hansen here, plain and simple.You'd be surprised at how often an expertly reasoned play is blasted as being amateur by... amateurs!-adam

[ArseneLupin3 0]

Just a disclaimer...I never said MM wasn't all of those things. I simply said that I have enough information to conclude that Greg is. I think MM is a pretty good player with great talent for reading, amazing aggression and counter-play ability. Aside from that, I can't say I know much more about the man. I just think Greg could wipe the floor with him at most poker challenges, especially cash games.-adam

[Emptyeye 0]

He won his sat on stars, etc. You know the rest.

I believe Raymer has also said that he would have bought into the event directly if he didn't win the seat.Just throwing that out there.

[Guest]

Freeroll. His call was nowhere near as bad as some say. This is a freeroll event with ONE SPOT PAID. The loss of tournament equity by folding and, hence, sacrificing chips in this spot was an even worse play than his call. His stack would have been large enough for him to continue his standard bully-style play. Greg was channeling Gus Hansen here, plain and simple. <<ARSENE LUPIN WWROTE..When the show aired I believe raymer was chip leader,cant see why making calls with 8 9 os pre flop makes any sence to anyone? I think he made another one also then he was a short stack and had to play the all-in or nothing game.If he just continues his aggresive play with blinds steals ect. couldnt he avoid losing a big portion of his stack to very low % calls?? :?

[ArseneLupin3 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).

Think you're right. Raymer has made no other final tables. Dont know if he has entered very many events.Raymer seems very personable on TV. It's natural for him to say nice things about other players. Can you imagine Hellmuth saying something nice and not sounding phoney. Moneymaker would not make a good commentator.

First, keep in mind that different pros enter different amounts of tourneys.Raymer has been in the following majors [$1500+] that I know of in the past years: commerce lapc, foxwoods wpf, stars c.a., ept copenhagen.I can't list Daniel's majors because it would be absurdly long to compile such a list.I don't know about moneymakersSecond, and far more importantly, keep in mind that tourney variance is the highest in poker. The 'average' player will cash 1 time out of 10. Over the course of even 10 tourneys, which I can assume is about the amount of majors both MM and GR have entered over the past 18 months, you really can't assign any statistical weight to final table appearances as far as the long run is concerned. There are simply too many ways to lose while making the correct plays and vice versa. The luck factor predominates.Again, this is not a criticism of MM, merely an observation that you can't call MM a better player using this logic. I could say that Raymer beat a field with 1700 more players than MM, but this really wouldn't confer all that much info as to their relative abilities. Nevertheless, they both beat the largest fields in 10k event history, having to double up at least 10 times in the process:10k 20k 40k 80k 160k. 5 double ups.320k 640k 1280k 2560k 5120k. 10 double ups.10m 20m 40m. 13 total.So CM had to double up a total of 9-10 times, while GR had to double up just over 12. Compare this to some of the older or smaller events [bay 101 fits this description, but this is hardly relevant] where the total players are 200-400.. you have to win a significantly smaller number of pots against the best of the best (i.e. more selective events breed more selection and more selected survivors, see darwin or punctuated equilibrium theories, lololol). Additionally, you can't double up every hand at a certain point, especially with a bully stack. Crap, getting tangential.Beating 2570 or 840 players in the premier event of poker is an amazing accomplishment. GR and CM are both above-avg NLHE players but there isn't a significant case for CM's dominance when similar arguments can be made for GR.-adam

[ArseneLupin3 0]

Freeroll. His call was nowhere near as bad as some say. This is a freeroll event with ONE SPOT PAID. The loss of tournament equity by folding and, hence, sacrificing chips in this spot was an even worse play than his call. His stack would have been large enough for him to continue his standard bully-style play. Greg was channeling Gus Hansen here, plain and simple. <<ARSENE LUPIN WWROTE..When the show aired I believe raymer was chip leader,cant see why making calls with 8 9 os pre flop makes any sence to anyone? I think he made another one also then he was a short stack and had to play the all-in or nothing game.If he just continues his aggresive play with blinds steals ect. couldnt he avoid losing a big portion of his stack to very low % calls?? :?

Any play that increases the odds of winning first place more than anything else has a huge amount of unseen value.Increasing your chips also increases your chance of getting 2nd-5th significantly, but when you multiply these chances by the prizes for those spots [$0] the value of that gain is 0. You are only playing for first and to increase your chances of getting first.His calls were low percentage, yes, but the amount in the pot made them only slightly negative in terms of the number of chips he will return on average from the call. His initial raise, whatever you think of it, made the call correct compared to throwing away chips by folding. Folding makes his odds of getting first even smaller than calling.This is what we call 'having two ways to win' and the fact that people don't understand it makes it so profitable.-adam

[KDawgCometh 2]

I don't think you (guys&girls) watched the WSOP invitational which Annie Duke won. Greg Raymer played real poor in that one calling all ins preflop with 9 8os?? I don't know if he was intiminated by the others at the table or what but I felt that the amature came out of him in that one. I think that the commentators said that he had did alot of the same in WSOP main event but he was getting lucky, I guess he thought that he could do the same against the pro's.. WRONG !!!!! :roll:

I'm gonna explain something to you, Greg's all in calls taking the 60/40 dog three times was actually part genius. He is only gonna lose them all three times 18% of the time. He was using what's known as negative progression and it does work. Greg outlasted a bunch of other pros so what does that say about them? Greg is much better than MM, but that doesn't mean MM isn't a good player. I forgot the mathematical equation to prove the negative progression play, but I had seen it done by someone who knows their shit, Raymer will make another TV final table, I garuntee that

[ArseneLupin3 0]

I forgot the mathematical equation to prove the negative progression play, but I had seen it done by someone who knows their censored, Raymer will make another TV final table, I garuntee that

A) can you find a link to an explanation of this? I'm too lazy to google.B) you know better than to make such a bold guarantee! what if I kill Greg?!

[KDawgCometh 2]

I forgot the mathematical equation to prove the negative progression play, but I had seen it done by someone who knows their censored, Raymer will make another TV final table, I garuntee that

A) can you find a link to an explanation of this? I'm too lazy to google.B) you know better than to make such a bold guarantee! what if I kill Greg?!

as far as B goes, yes its a bold statement, but I feel that he is more than good enough to do it. as far as A goes, I think it might be in the depths of cardplayer's forum or this forum. I really forget where I saw it, but someone did mathmatically prove how the negative progression theory worked in what greg did, I'm not trying to make some claim to sound all big( I know your not accusing me of this, but I know that someone will try to challenge me). I think I saw it in the People in Poker or Poker on TV section of Cardplayer, I really think it was there, in fact I'm gonna try to search right now, it was pretty far back though when I saw the equation

[murphy77 0]

I don't think you (guys&girls) watched the WSOP invitational which Annie Duke won. Greg Raymer played real poor in that one calling all ins preflop with 9 8os?? I don't know if he was intiminated by the others at the table or what but I felt that the amature came out of him in that one. I think that the commentators said that he had did alot of the same in WSOP main event but he was getting lucky, I guess he thought that he could do the same against the pro's.. WRONG !!!!! :roll:

I'm gonna explain something to you, Greg's all in calls taking the 60/40 dog three times was actually part genius. He is only gonna lose them all three times 18% of the time. He was using what's known as negative progression and it does work. Greg outlasted a bunch of other pros so what does that say about them? Greg is much better than MM, but that doesn't mean MM isn't a good player. I forgot the mathematical equation to prove the negative progression play, but I had seen it done by someone who knows their censored, Raymer will make another TV final table, I garuntee that

Thats not true at all. The third time he's a 60/40 dog he's still gonna lose that hand 60% of the time. Put it this way, if you flip a coin and it comes heads 99 times in a row, what is the probability that it will come heads the 100th time? It's the same probability that it will come heads the first time, the second time, and the 99th time, the events are compeltely independant. Say you have 22 and you absolutly know 100% that your opponent has AA, your in a MTT and both have the same size stack and your on the bubble for the money. Do you call or fold? Now lets say that the last 10 times you were in this situation you lost... do you all of the sudden call because for some reason your now a favorite as you lost the last 10 times?As for the actualy topic I think that Moneymaker is a better player than Raymer, based on what I've seen. You can point to bad beats that Moneymaker dished out, but you can also point out bad beats that Rayemer dished out. However I think that Moneymaker made some exceptional plays, moreso than Raymer (like the bluff against Farha). That said Raymer could have also made some brilliant plays that weren't on TV, but Moneymaker could have as well. Just because the guy didn't play in cash games at foxwoods before he won the WSOP doesn't mean that he's not a great player. Hell Moneymaker came in 2nd at a WPT event (Shooting Stars), and he took a bad beat to lose it, that certainly has to weigh more than Raymer's 3rd place or whatever at a foxwoods event a few years ago right?I find it funny how most of you idolize Stu Ungar for his "great poker play" yet criticize Chris Moneymaker for former cashgame play (or lack thereof, anyone know how he does in cash games now?), and placing sports bets.

[KDawgCometh 2]

Thats not true at all. The third time he's a 60/40 dog he's still gonna lose that hand 60% of the time. Put it this way, if you flip a coin and it comes heads 99 times in a row, what is the probability that it will come heads the 100th time? It's the same probability that it will come heads the first time, the second time, and the 99th time, the events are compeltely independant.

look, I know that there is a equation that statisically shows the compouded 60/40 hands that you will lose all three in a row only 18% of the time. If anyone is adept at game theory or of the like please settle this for my own peace of mind. I am dead certain I saw someone do this equation somewhere and I've been searching for the past 1/2 hour all over the net but haven't found the post. I know what I saw with my own two eyes and am not making this up to sound cool or anything like that. Someone either prove me wrong mathmatically or right mathmatically. Jsut someone please prove it. I don't want blanket statements, just the cold hard facts and written out, no coinflip examples. Math that's all I want is hard math. happy 1000 to me