The hand that made MONEYMAKER a millionaire and poker star

R

Rumme1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Total posts
225
Chips
0

Once again, it proves how big the luck factor can be . It also proves how a player can do the exact WRONG play, and with good luck, become the big winner .

He did the wrong thing, at the right time and lady luck gave him 1 of his only 2 outs . He could not win with a straight draw or flush draw. Moneymaker basically put his tourney life at risk, making the worst move you can in NL hold em...getting it all in with a 2 outer and no back door draws. If moneymaker loses this hand, which he played so poorly [ and shoulda lost} he woulda not been a millionaire or a household name.

Ironically...if he had folded the hand , and played it PROPERLY, theres still a chance he would have not been a millionaire or household name, because he would not have won this huge pot with his miracle 2 outer hit. In other words, Moneymaker had to make this terrible play , and get extradorinarily lucky, in order to increase his chip stack and go to the final table.

He even admits in the hand, that he " knows hes in trouble' . My friends, this is just another piece of evidence of the luck factor. Getting it all in , and admitting you made the worse play possible..and still winning.

Welcome to NL hold em .
 
Kenzie 96

Kenzie 96

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
May 21, 2005
Total posts
13,667
Awards
9
US
Chips
125
So you are sayin that luck, can, at least once in a great while, have an effect on the outcome of a large poker tournament?
 
R

Rumme1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Total posts
225
Chips
0
So you are sayin that luck, can, at least once in a great while, have an effect on the outcome of a large poker tournament?

IMHO..much more then " once in a while' and luck can make huge outcomes in live cash games .

Furthermore, luck does not have to be just a factor in the short term { a few sessions or few week] . Good luck or bad luck can be a significant factor over a much longer period of time when it comes to different forms of gaming/ gambling. Many people will claim that poker is a SKILL game. This is truly not a accurate definition.

Moneymakers route to the final table and becoming a millionaire , wasnt based on him making the correct plays that the proper time. It was based on him making the incorrect plays, at the proper time. It is not skill to risk your whole tourney life , with all your chips , admitting that you are WAY behind or drawing dead to a 1 outer or 2 outer.
 
R

Rumme1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Total posts
225
Chips
0
I think we can all agree, that in the 2003 wsop...there were hundreds of players that were much better , more knowledgable and had way more experience, then Moneymaker. But because of the LUCK factor, Moneymaker seemed destined to win. Luck once again defeated all the pros, and all their combined skills, to ensure a no name poker player with average skills, became wealthy and a household name.

THATS NL HOLD EM, and it helps to prove that great luck can overcome any and all skills, at any given time.
 
R

Rumme1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Total posts
225
Chips
0
I also think its important to anaylize the dynamics of this hand and the luck, and admit that these types of hands happen alot in NL hold em , even though Moneymakers play was 1 of the worst plays you can make.

He checks the flop ....his opponent makes a decent sized bet , Moneymaker reraises, opponet goes all in, basically risking his tourney life ...MONEYMAKER CALLS..risking his tourney life.

The only hand that Moneymaker is way ahead of here...on the flop, is a COMPLETE bluff...and no flush draw....If his opponent has 2 overcards and the flush draw, then even that is a reckless call by Moneymaker for all in in this situation . Furthermore, there are 2 overcards on the flop to Moneymakers pocket pair...In other words, the majority of the time, when your opponent goes all in here , and risks their toruney life on that flop...Pockets 8s are gonna be a significant underdog and you may be drawing dead to a 2 outer .

One of the worst plays in NL hold em , gets hugely rewarded by lady luck. This type of occurence is not as rare as the pros would want you to think.
 
P

ph_il

...
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Total posts
10,128
Awards
1
Chips
25
Once again, it proves how big the luck factor can be . It also proves how a player can do the exact WRONG play, and with good luck, become the big winner.
...I've said it before and I'll say it again: luck is a factor in poker, especially in MTTs. There is no arguing that. However, if we're thinking in terms of short term vs long term, luck predominate the short term game while skill predominates the long term.

While more skilled players will do better than average players, no MTT is ever won without a bit of luck. It doesn't matter how good you are, a player will make mistakes sometimes because no one is perfect or ever makes the right decision 100% of the time. Do they need a bit a luck to get ahead in these situations? Sure, but if their hand has any equity, no matter how small it may be, it'll happen. I can agree that it was lucky for Moneymaker to hit the 8 at that moment, but with 8% equity to hit on the turn or river, it's going to happen eventually. Sucks for Brenes that it happened at that moment, but that's how the game goes.


He did the wrong thing, at the right time and lady luck gave him 1 of his only 2 outs . He could not win with a straight draw or flush draw. Moneymaker basically put his tourney life at risk, making the worst move you can in NL hold em...getting it all in with a 2 outer and no back door draws. If moneymaker loses this hand, which he played so poorly [ and shoulda lost} he woulda not been a millionaire or a household name.
...It's one thing to see how the hand was played out, but we don't know the history between the 2 player.

In the video, we hear that Moneymaker and Brenes had been clashing a few times in pots and Brenes is known to be a very aggressive player. The point is, we don't know what is going on between both players or how past hands played out. Also, Brenes is really aggressive, plays a wide range and it's possible he had been pushing Moneymaker (a newcomer) around in a few pots and MM decided to take a stand. Of course, he picked a pretty bad spot, but sometimes that's what it takes.

MTTs is about making decisions and sometimes players make the wrong ones. I've done this many times and I'm sure plenty of other MTT players have done so as well. Once again, no one ever makes the correct decisions 100% of the time. I don't, you don't. As long as your making more correct decisions > wrong decisions, you're good.


Ironically...if he had folded the hand , and played it PROPERLY, theres still a chance he would have not been a millionaire or household name, because he would not have won this huge pot with his miracle 2 outer hit. In other words, Moneymaker had to make this terrible play , and get extradorinarily lucky, in order to increase his chip stack and go to the final table.
...What is proper poker? Is proper poker how you expect others to play? Because you can just drop that idea. Play how you wish, but don't think or expect others to play how you would/you want them to.

It's easy to see that MM should've folded because HB had AA because we can see the hand, but put yourself in MM shoes. You don't know what he have. You just know that HB is aggressive, has been pushing you around, C-betting a lot of flops, and you've been giving up a lot of pots to HB. So, now you're down in chips and now you have 2 choices: fold and give up a ton of chips and allow this player to push you around more or you can pick a spot to take a stand and play back at them.


He even admits in the hand, that he " knows hes in trouble' . My friends, this is just another piece of evidence of the luck factor. Getting it all in , and admitting you made the worse play possible..and still winning.
...Evidence? LOL.

MM just said because he knew he got making a play, that's all. HB doesn't always have AA there, or a K, or a draw. As an aggressive player, he would have a wide range of hands that would c-bet/fold to that flop.


Welcome to NL hold em .
above.
 
orsino12

orsino12

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Total posts
3,802
Awards
2
Chips
14
I can't recall who, but one of the big name poker pros once said something like "in a large field tourney no matter how well you play, to win it you will have to put at least 1 really horrible beat on someone at a critical moment somewhere along the way".

I can definitely see that.
 
R

Rumme1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Total posts
225
Chips
0
Moneymaker did not win the WSOP because he was better , or more knowledgeable or had more experience then 100s of other players, he won it largely due to his GOOD luck factor at key times , when he played poorly. Yes, I admit his all in move on Farha heads up, was a great play, that ended up taking him to 1st place probably . But prior to that , he certainly was not making plays that woulda warranted him to win it all, unless the luck factor was on his side. I will also admit that the hand he had against Chan, was a case where Chan seemed to misplay his hand and Moneymaker won that hand like he shoulda , then again , Chan could got very lucky and won it, just like moneymaker did with his 88 VS AA ..all in on flop.

Anyone disagree with this ?
 
R

Rumme1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Total posts
225
Chips
0
I can't recall who, but one of the big name poker pros once said something like "in a large field tourney no matter how well you play, to win it you will have to put at least 1 really horrible beat on someone at a critical moment somewhere along the way".

I can definitely see that.

and it goes much deeper then that , its crucial that you win ALL coin flip preflop hands where you are all in.

Theres alot of luck in this game.
 
dbchristy

dbchristy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Total posts
1,158
Chips
0
With regaurd to this win, you look at the big picture who is gathered around the final table year after year.
 
P

ph_il

...
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Total posts
10,128
Awards
1
Chips
25
Moneymaker did not win the WSOP because he was better , or more knowledgeable or had more experience then 100s of other players, he won it largely due to his GOOD luck factor at key times , when he played poorly. Yes, I admit his all in move on Farha heads up, was a great play, that ended up taking him to 1st place probably . But prior to that , he certainly was not making plays that woulda warranted him to win it all, unless the luck factor was on his side. I will also admit that the hand he had against Chan, was a case where Chan seemed to misplay his hand and Moneymaker won that hand like he shoulda , then again , Chan could got very lucky and won it, just like moneymaker did with his 88 VS AA ..all in on flop.

Anyone disagree with this ?
I agree, MM wasn't the best player but he wasn't the worst player either.

I don't get why you can't understand that luck plays a huge part in MTTs. Nobody who has won an MTT has ever won it without getting lucky at some point or another. Name anyone and I 100% guarantee they got their money in bad some point in the MTT and had to get lucky to win the hand. You don't win MTTs without getting lucky a few times. With that said, players who have skill + luck > luck alone in MTTs.

That's why you see a lot of the same familiar faces making it deep in MTTs. They have the skill to out play their weaker opponents. However, a bad opponent is going to pick up strong hand sometimes. A good player is going to make a mistake at one point or another and get their money in bad. Its inevitable. The only difference between a good and bad player is that good players will make more +EV decisions in the long run.

It's a simple formula for winning MTTs: Make more +EV plays + make less -EV plays + win flips. A dash of 'run good' doesn't hurt either.

Look at J.Duhamel. He's definitely on another level over MM as a poker professional, but in the 2010 (i think) WSOPME, he got his money in bad with JJ vs AA vs Matt Affleck. The way Affleck played was obvious that he was really, really strong, especially with 6 players left before the FT.

Duhamel himself said that he knew he was way behind, but called anyway because he was tilting at how poorly he played the hand.

So, just like the MM hand, we have a player who got their money in bad when they knew they were behind, got lucky, and then went on to win the WSOP ME.

So, it proves that it doesn't matter where your skill level is at, amateur or pro, you have to get lucky at some point in order to win.
 
P

ph_il

...
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Total posts
10,128
Awards
1
Chips
25
and it goes much deeper then that , its crucial that you win ALL coin flip preflop hands where you are all in.

Theres alot of luck in this game.
Winning them all would be good, but winning all of them isn't crucial.

It's only crucial to win the ones that can bust you.
 
detroitjunkie

detroitjunkie

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Total posts
826
Awards
4
Chips
0
Wow, this thread seems so familiar. Moneymaker played pretty good, and his move here was not all that bad, and was not the determining factor in this tournament by any means. His bluff of Farha was probably the most significant move he made all tourney, and is the move that won him 1st place in my mind, and was absolutely brilliant . If you watch it all (as much as they have on tape) you will see his play was pretty solid most of the way.

In large tourneys yes luck is a factor but it is that way for everyone. Its a very rare case where you win a tourney and do not outdraw someone at some point. But again, if you base your play on predicting these outcomes you will never be a good player

Again, I agree that luck is never exactly equal between players, BUT it still is a very very very rare breed that has luck determine their whole career of poker
 
PershingSt

PershingSt

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
792
Awards
6
Chips
0
Chris Moneymaker vs Humberto Brenes WSOP 2003 - YouTube

Once again, it proves how big the luck factor can be . It also proves how a player can do the exact WRONG play, and with good luck, become the big winner .

He did the wrong thing, at the right time and lady luck gave him 1 of his only 2 outs . He could not win with a straight draw or flush draw. Moneymaker basically put his tourney life at risk, making the worst move you can in NL hold em...getting it all in with a 2 outer and no back door draws. If moneymaker loses this hand, which he played so poorly [ and shoulda lost} he woulda not been a millionaire or a household name.

Ironically...if he had folded the hand , and played it PROPERLY, theres still a chance he would have not been a millionaire or household name, because he would not have won this huge pot with his miracle 2 outer hit. In other words, Moneymaker had to make this terrible play , and get extradorinarily lucky, in order to increase his chip stack and go to the final table.

He even admits in the hand, that he " knows hes in trouble' . My friends, this is just another piece of evidence of the luck factor. Getting it all in , and admitting you made the worse play possible..and still winning.

Welcome to NL hold em .

While this hand did play a large factor in the hand , there is also this hand
. Where Chris completely owned Sam HU, all Sam has to do is put the money in and he wins it all . But Chris goes with his read and makes Sammy who had been destroying up until this point (read wise) fold the winning hand . . .

Sure there is some luck , but there is more skill and guts are what it takes to win over time . . .
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
Luck is huge in almost all competitive activities. That's why they bother playing. The best player doesn't always come out on top. In fact, it is often only over a fairly large sample that the edge can be seen. Take baseball for example, where the teams are all finishing around the .500 level after 162 games. The best teams win, what, like at a .600 level and the worst teams around the .400 level. You can't say any one game proves who is better or who is luckier.

The problem with looking for luck is you only notice the times when it's huge and obvious. They make an impression. You totally gloss over all the other times you may have been totally lucky or unlucky because they didn't have much consequence. There's a term for that -- I can't remember.
 
detroitjunkie

detroitjunkie

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Total posts
826
Awards
4
Chips
0
Luck is huge in almost all competitive activities. That's why they bother playing. The best player doesn't always come out on top. In fact, it is often only over a fairly large sample that the edge can be seen. Take baseball for example, where the teams are all finishing around the .500 level after 162 games. The best teams win, what, like at a .600 level and the worst teams around the .400 level. You can't say any one game proves who is better or who is luckier.

The problem with looking for luck is you only notice the times when it's huge and obvious. They make an impression. You totally gloss over all the other times you may have been totally lucky or unlucky because they didn't have much consequence. There's a term for that -- I can't remember.

Luck is not just in all competitive activities, its in everything! Life is a series of luck based events; do you cross the street when a drunk is driving by, do you win the lotto, do you meet your wife at a bar, do you hear about the right job opening, do you win with pocket 6's, does it snow the day you have to take a test you didnt study for, is the chef sick today, did your chess opponent just recently have a bad sexual experience, did your parents have sex the right day, etc.....

There is nothing to prove here, we all know luck is everywhere and in everything, You can not try to factor it into anything, doing so is meaningless because it can change at anytime in either direction, we still must strive to be the best we can be, and most of us will prevail over those who are not as good, and just because we got lucky does not mean we are not good, and vise-versa. EVERYTHING in this universe has elements of luck and skill, they both must exist in everything otherwise there would be neither
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
Luck is not just in all competitive activities, its in everything! Life is a series of luck based events; do you cross the street when a drunk is driving by, do you win the lotto, do you meet your wife at a bar, do you hear about the right job opening, do you win with pocket 6's, does it snow the day you have to take a test you didnt study for, is the chef sick today, did your chess opponent just recently have a bad sexual experience, did your parents have sex the right day, etc.....

There is nothing to prove here, we all know luck is everywhere and in everything, You can not try to factor it into anything, doing so is meaningless because it can change at anytime in either direction, we still must strive to be the best we can be, and most of us will prevail over those who are not as good, and just because we got lucky does not mean we are not good, and vise-versa. EVERYTHING in this universe has elements of luck and skill, they both must exist in everything otherwise there would be neither

So true! We don't even know the smallest fraction of luck that occurs all around us everyday. I gotta ask, though, about your frustrated chess opponent.
 
Slav4obaby

Slav4obaby

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Total posts
363
Awards
4
Chips
0
You can't win a tournament without luck :)
 
detroitjunkie

detroitjunkie

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Total posts
826
Awards
4
Chips
0
So true! We don't even know the smallest fraction of luck that occurs all around us everyday. I gotta ask, though, about your frustrated chess opponent.

Hah just an example of luck in chess so no ones says there isnt any
 
tocloc238

tocloc238

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Total posts
2,084
Chips
0
Thats why I enjoy tournaments more than playing ring games. A lesser skilled player can still bink a huge tourney.
 
R

Rumme1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Total posts
225
Chips
0
With regaurd to this win, you look at the big picture who is gathered around the final table year after year.

I do....and what I have noticed, is the final table of the main event for the last 15 years or so , DOES NOT consistently have the pros that are regarded as the best in the world...phil ivey, phil helmuth , daniel negraenau , tom dwan , doyle brunson , etc....

many have never even made it to the final table in the last 15 years, let alone won it.

more proof of the luck factor.

all that skill and knowledge possessed by those numerous pros, is still not enough to overcome the luck factor, the variance factor and the " ALL IN COIN FLIP CRAP SHOOT " factor.
 
detroitjunkie

detroitjunkie

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Total posts
826
Awards
4
Chips
0
I do....and what I have noticed, is the final table of the main event for the last 15 years or so , DOES NOT consistently have the pros that are regarded as the best in the world...phil ivey, phil helmuth , daniel negraenau , tom dwan , doyle brunson , etc....

many have never even made it to the final table in the last 15 years, let alone won it.

more proof of the luck factor.

all that skill and knowledge possessed by those numerous pros, is still not enough to overcome the luck factor, the variance factor and the " ALL IN COIN FLIP CRAP SHOOT " factor.

the only two you listed that would be considered the best in the world are Daniel and Phil H...Doyle too old to hang, Dwan sux at tourneys, and Ivey just doesn't care

BUT, there has not been a true amateur at the FT in many years, in fact its been mostly pros in the final 50 as of late- if luck was more a factor then a true amateur like Moneymaker or Raymer would have come close again - and they haven't. The reason they did in the first place was because the boom was so new that there were not that many pros out there, now there are thousands that make a living at the game, so the field is so much harder to navigate.

Even though MM did get a little lucky, he still played solid most of the way, if he was a complete donk he would have never won
 
R

Rumme1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Total posts
225
Chips
0
Even though MM did get a little lucky, he still played solid most of the way, if he was a complete donk he would have never won


Im not sure, moneymaker putting all his chips in on the flop, drawing dead to a maximum of 2 outs, is what I call " getting a little lucky" . In that hand, Moneymaker made one of the worst plays a person can make in NL hold em and he hit the miracle. I wish I could have that type of " little lucky" when I need it most. :)

Also, we arent even mentioning the fact that moneymaker called off all his chips drawing dead to a 2 outer. His play would have been a bit more understandable or admirable if he made the big bluff with such a weak hand , and got called by the AA . The fact that moneymaker CALLED the all in bet, proves he was not aware of what his opponent had or that he was drawing dead to a 2 outer . But good luck can overcome all. ..in life or in poker.
 
Last edited:
P

ph_il

...
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Total posts
10,128
Awards
1
Chips
25
Im not sure, moneymaker putting all his chips in on the flop, drawing dead to a maximum of 2 outs, is what I call " getting a little lucky" . In that hand, Moneymaker made one of the worst plays a person can make in NL hold em and he hit the miracle. I wish I could have that type of " little lucky" when I need it most. :)

Also, we arent even mentioning the fact that moneymaker called off all his chips drawing dead to a 2 outer. His play would have been a bit more understandable or admirable if he made the big bluff with such a weak hand , and got called by the AA .
Are you judging MM's full WSOPME game play based on one hand? That's a bit silly.

Did he get lucky there? Sure, I think we can all agree to that, but if we have to look at MM's tournament as a whole, not just a specific hand.

If a specific hand like this, where a player gets their money in really bad spots and gets lucky makes them a bad player/undeserving of a win, then that must mean all MTT players, pros and amateurs alike, who have ever won a tournament are bad players/undeserving of their win. I mean, if that's the logic behind MM's win and he got lucky, then it has to apply to everyone else, right? Everyone who has ever won an MTT has been in the exact same situation of getting their money in behind, getting lucky, and then going on to win. In fact, it happens multiple times in MTTs.

I've won 10 MTTs and have gotten my money in way behind a number of times throughout the tournament. Yes, most of the time I lost, but the times I did win worked in my favor. However, I played many hands that contributed to my wins, not just one hand. So, I got lucky sometimes, does this mean I don't deserve my 10 wins?

As far as MM calling off the rest of his chips with 88, I believe after his 3bet on the flop, he had committed himself to the pot. Sure, he could've folded and left most of his chips in the middle, but if he believed that he had the best hand a certain % of the time (can't be exact because I don't know stack sizes + blinds), then his call wouldn't be that bad.

Finally, getting your money in with only a 5% chance to win is pretty bad, but MM had some equity. A tiny amount, but equity nonetheless, so he had a chance to win. And, mathematically, he will win a small percent of the time.
 
Last edited:
Real Money Poker - Real Money Casinos Starting Hands - Poker Hand Nicknames Rankings - Poker Hands
Top