fluke?

As soon as Moneymaker and Raymer won the WSOP they were both deemed flukes. Raymer is obv. not a fluke and…. never mind. When Hachem won he was not labeled as a fluke

What is a fluke?
Is a fluke someone who has no poker skill or never wins?
Everytime I saw Hachem at the 05 WSOP ME he seemed to always be holding KK, AA, the virtual nuts(after the flop). He seemed to flop a flush agasint Andrew Blacks QQQ. Flop trips agaisnt Phil Ivey. Everytime I see him he is holding a good hand. If I was to get dealt KK or AA everytime I played a hand in a tourney, I would prbly win like 90-95% of the time.
When I watched him in the 06 ME he seemed to be holding a great hand. He had KK vs AQ, Aq vs 1010, etc. Then when he isnt getting dealt aces or kings, hes raising preflop with 24 and turning quads agaisnt QQ. I never see this guy making bluffs or great calls.

Hachem made a circuit FT and got knocked out when his KK lost to J10 all in preflop. That would be the other 5-10% when you wont win.

So what do you consider a fluke? Someone who sucks at poker? Someone who never wins at poker? Someone who never loses cause he is always getting good hands? Is hachem a fluke?

The fact that all you're seeing from Hachem is premium hands is a sign that he's playing a TAG (and therefore solid) style of game. You only see a small percent of the hands played after the producers get their hands on poker footage, so you have to realize that obviously all the hands aren't happening one after the other (he's not on some great lucky card streak). Saying that he raised with 24 and beat QQ makes him look bad; maybe the situation was perfect for a steal, and he didn't give a thought to what he was holding. I don't know how the hand played out, but it could have been alot better than "he raised with 24 and put a horrible beat on QQ". You say you never see him making great bluffs or calls, and maybe he's not a great like Brunson, Chan, Hellmuth and so on (I really wouldn't say he's one of the top players in the world), but he played a solid game and took the tourney down nonetheless. That's not a fluke in my books.

Moneymaker is a whole different monster; I didn't see the exact hands, but heard that he pulled several bad beats and backdoor beats that were the results of him putting his money in as 2nd best on his way to his WSOP bracelet. He got pretty lucky, and his 2003 win was a fluke in my books; he was a relatively new online player, and it took alot of luck for him to win that year's WSOP.

I'm no Moneymaker fan,but I won't stomp on what he accomplished either. ( I am not insinuating anyone else is either)

Fluke he may be in several peoples opinions, but didn't he finish second at the Bike a year or 2 ago and have a couple top tens in the WSOP tour series.

He doesn't play as many tournies as most of those other guys as I don't think he ever really considered himself all that much of a player.

If pokerstars was thowing me checks to do lame comercials to promote their site and sponsor my buy ins when I played major events, I'd be a fluke just like him well probably without the bracelet.

Just think if Sammy Farha called that bluff and crushed him at that final table. Would poker have been so big as it is now?

The fluke in my opinion is Robert Varkony. He wins and as I recall hasn't monied in a wsop event since. I've seen him on the ppt, and out takes here and there, but always leaving or settling down to watch his wife (who is a pretty decent player) continue on.

According to norman chad during 06 ME, moneymaker has done nothing in the WSOP since winning and has only cashed twice

In Main events yes......but is that the only measuring stick there is?

There's the WPT, PPT, Poker Superstars, the EPT, and soon there's a league type event.

The WSOP now has the circuit events to add to the series championships as it's now a road event.

I'm pretty sure I saw him finish in the money in one of those recently.

WPT- never FTed
PPT- havent seen him
Psuperstars- didnt make the round of 16
EPT- Doubt it

Oh I get it now this isn't a discussion it's an argument.

I don't want to do that. I really don't want to research Moneymaker's career either.

I still think Varkony is the fluke.

Moneymaker, Raymor, Hachem and especially Varkony, are in themselves the definition of fluke. This is true IMO because:

1. They are/were/maybe always will be amateurs.
2. Anyone can play tight and aggressive and play "good cards." These four players don't combine to even come close to the amount of true skill needed to read a player which a Negreanu or Ivey possesses.
3. With the exception of Varkony and maybe Moneymaker, due to the time of the boom, people hang on just to make the final table, which allows for huge cheap leads whether it be by good play or catching cards. Taking of a huge chip lead favors the amateurs due to the vast more amount of amateurs entering the tournament and final table compared to pros.
4. It's NLH'em Poker.

Just in case, this is a fluke:


As opposed to a flounder:


But both are different than fish:

Moneymaker has very few cashes since his ME win. He only has 2 WSOP cashes and the second occured this year in the Limit Hold 'Em Shootout.

Varkonyi has 1 cash since his ME win and that was earlier this year at the Bellagio.

Raymer had a cash in the WSOP before he won the ME. Since he won he's had 5 more.

Hachem had a cash 10 days before he won the ME, and added 4 more WSOP cashes this year.

It's easy to see who is the real deal and who is a pretender. It will not surprise me if PokerStars drops Moneymaker in the next year or so. Honestly I'm shocked they built a promotion around him when he hasn't done anything since he won. But I guess they are trying to squeeze a few more ounces out of him before they ship him back to Tennessee.

Hacem plays a lot of high limit cash games as well, and does well in those too. Unlike varkony, helmuth, moneymaker,etc

There are a lot more deserving players that haven't won the ME.. that's for sure. Negraneau, Ivey, Esfandiari, Boyd, Flack, Laak, Vaheidi, etc.

I agree with you on these guys: Ivey, Esfandiari, Laak
but not the rest. While I do admire Daniel's reading abilities, I think he gambles WAY too much. Same for Vahedi and Flack. Boyd, I don't know. My one friend knows him and while I was glad to see him finally get a bracelet this year, I just don't seem him as a deserving ME champ.

Flack and Vahedi really make it an art to watch. In between the gamble-ness of hansen and a normal TAG player like, Raymer, for instance. They fall into the same category of great players as other ones like Seidel, Lucske (sp?), Greenspan, McCvoy (or however you spell it), Juanda. Moreso that they dont deserve to win, but... the community would be more 'open arms' to them, than to a player like moneymaker.


One player that really would have been interesting to have win this year would have been Masden....

The hand he hit quads on was, IMO, based on circumstances. At the point of this hand, he had a monster stack in front of him, and was definately the table general. Everybody else at the table was playing like they were in awe of him, and alot of the raises he made ended up isolating one other player. Sure, raising PF with rags like that doesn't normally seem like a good play, but the way the rest of the table was playing, I can see why he was willing to gamble with a big stack and less than stellar cards.

Is the insinuation here that you might possibly have to get lucky to beat a field of thousands in a game filled with marginal edges?

In other news, did you know that bears poop in the woods?

Bears poop in the woods!? I've never seen any bear shit...seriously. lol Are you sure they don't poop in there cave, hole, or wherever they hibernate?

hachem was the bigstack at the table and it was the hand before the end of day 1. everyone was clapping about making it to day 2. perfect spot for a steal. who wants to bust out on the last hand of day 1?

as for the comments on the recent winners

varkoyni is a donk

raymer is a hell of a player, i'd put him in the top 10 in the world

moneymaker was just an above avg player who got lucky in the big pots. remember when he sucked out on Ivey when Ivey turned 9's full to chris' trip queens and got it all in, moneymaker instacalls and hits his 4 outer on the river, and this was right before the final table. I think Ivey wins the tourney if that doesnt happen and Moneymaker doesn't even FT it.

from what i've seen with Hachem, he seems extremely solid, doesn't get his money in bad, overall good player

So here are my simple opinions on the winners starting with the pseudo-millenium change.

2000: Chris Fergusson - 512 entries in M/E - Excellent Player, top level player.
2001: Carlos Mortensen - 612 entries in M/E - fluke (ish) LAP, above avg at best, but more lucky than good.
2002: Robert Varkonyi - 631 entries in M/E - FLUKE, his record speaks.
2003: Chris Moneymaker - 839 entries in M/E - FLUKE, above avg player with the lion's share of dumb luck. Lowsy showings since. But he was huge for poker.
2004: Greg Raymer - 2576 entries in M/E - Excellent player. Yeah luck is needed to beat this large field, but he earned it. Solid performance since, especially for a new comer.
2005: Joseph Hachem - 5619 entries in M/E - Excellent player. Yes he has a lot of luck and cards to beat this field, but still a top notch player. And seems like a very personable guy. And good results since last year.
2006: Jamie Gold - 8773 entries in M/E - No opinion. I only just now heard his name because of the controversy. I haven't finished watching the M/E yet. It is still airing. Wish I didn't know who won. I buffered myself from it so well, too, up until the story broke.

I dont think mortensen is a fluke. He dominated PokerSupstars II and has a wpt title.

jamie gold was a beast at the final table of this year's ME

Jesus is a great player, but I just wanted to note something. He was heads up with TJ Cloutier, IMO one of the world's best tourney players, and was getting eaten away by his shortstack. TJ would have dominated and won the tournament had he not lost the last hand. Jesus knew he had to get lucky with an all in to get rid of him, and that's how he did it: AQ vs A9 all in preflop, and he hit his 9 on the river to win a massive pot.

I wouldn't say his play at the ME was a fluke, but his HU play definitely was. He was getting dominated by an initially short-stacked player, and would have lost were it not for that hand. TJ woulda whooped his beardy ass

I hear ya Chuckts, but making HU in WSOP M/E regardless of what happens next aint bad.

Moneymaker got a 2nd at a WPT event if I remember correctly. I'm a big fan of calling moneymaker a shitty player but he really isn't that bad at all. He plays better then most of the players here i'm sure (including me probably). I've played with him at pokerstars once before he played some solid poker. He doesn't play nearly as many tounreys as the other players do.

Only bigtime fluke IMO lately was Robert Varkyoni. If you see the first hand of that final table you had to be thinking wow this guy sucks. Thanks to that guy dumping his chiplead to him with bluffs even though Varkyoni never folds is how he won. I honestly think I was a better player than Varkyoni the first week I learned the rules of NLHE.

i'm sure he's learned much more since his ME win. 2.5 mil goes a long way in the ways of poker tutors.

Johnny Moss in the 1st WSOP is a more of a fluke than others since they didn't actually finish playing. Claiming someone a fluke in a game of skill or luck, whichever you think it is, possibly both, is hard to claim, IMO, unless it's Varkonyi or someone who didn't actually enter the tournament, sat down expecting something like dinner or a cocktail, then somehow won it. Or possibly that monkey that they might let enter next year!

Just a reminder is all.

LOL...Chuck, I completely understand what you meant, but reading this sentence was really funny to me so I had to comment. I think most tournaments work this way. Really, if you don't win the last hand of the tourney, well, then you've lost.

Correct, it was 2nd place at the Shooting Start event.

Now this is funny. ROTFLMAO

I think Moneymaker is pretty bad. I'd call him an above average player in general, but as far as professionals go, I think he's not very good at all, and I'm not basing that assessment only on his 2003 WSOP.

I certainly don't think Hachem or Raymer are flukes. I think Raymer has proven this to most people and that there are probably more who are skeptical of Hachem's play, but Hachem has shown to me he's a consistently great player.

I have no idea how good Moneymaker is as a pokerplayer. I've seen a few hands from the ME that he won, and his plays looked fine to me. What hands is it you've seen that he's played poorly?

I dont know how accurate this is because it came from the PPT host

1982 WSOP ME champ Tom mcevoy has not cashed in the ME since winning it

That's why he sells videos on infomercials at 12:30 AM.

I'm not really a fan of Tom McEvoy for the most part (take him or leave him really). But as far as a fluke goes, even if he hasn't cashed in the ME since he won it, his overall record isn't that bad. At least it isn't bad enough to call him a fluke.

Cashes: 86
Total Winnings: $1,861,012
First Place Finishes: 6
WSOP Bracelets: 4

I'm sure everyone knows by now that McEvoy cashed this year in the ME...