I watched Chris Moneymaker play for about an hour at one of his STG's today.

I was pretty impressed with his attitude and his play.

He came in 3rd, but seemed very cordial and talkative.

He lost two fairly sizable pots on the river when he had a pair and his all in opp hit their over card on the river. Said "nice hand" every time. Never seemed to tilt at all.

I think this guy is a lot better player then when he won it in '03.

It's funny like that. Raymer and Hachem seemed to be stupid lucky when they won it all, but have since shown (at least to me) that they can both play. I don't think Gold or Yang will ever amount to anything in poker, but time will tell.

Just wanted to share.

Qwikls1 said:

I was pretty impressed with his attitude and his play.

He came in 3rd, but seemed very cordial and talkative.

He lost two fairly sizable pots on the river when he had a pair and his all in opp hit their over card on the river. Said "nice hand" every time. Never seemed to tilt at all.

I think this guy is a lot better player then when he won it in '03.

It's funny like that. Raymer and Hachem seemed to be stupid lucky when they won it all, but have since shown (at least to me) that they can both play. I don't think Gold or Yang will ever amount to anything in poker, but time will tell.

Just wanted to share.

Click to expand...

While I agree with your assessment of Raymer and Hachem, I've seen Moneymaker play several times, and he's never impressed me much. As for being talkative and cordial, it's a lot of what pokerstars pays him to do

Gold's mom lasted longer in the MEthis year than he did; the verdict is def. still out on Jerry Yang.

In trhe enormous fields that the ME attracts, no one will ever win without being "stupid lucky" in key spots, no matter how solid their game is otherwise.

Qwikls1 said:

It's funny like that. Raymer and Hachem seemed to be stupid lucky when they won it all, but have since shown (at least to me) that they can both play.

Click to expand...

I haven't actually watched the '05 Main Event footage (I know, it's terribly un-Australian of me) so I can't comment on Hachem's win, but what makes you say that Raymer got stupidly lucky?

Sure, he probably got lucky to survive a few times on the earlier days, but that's tournament poker for you. On the final table I thought he just played great big-stack poker, and he was rarely getting his money in as a big dog. The way he added three million to his stack on the final table bubble was quality as well.

moneymaker never impressed me one way or another......average player who got lucky in the right spots in 1 wsop........flash in the pan read my quote below.

given the nature of the wsop, every single winner from here on in will be seen as incredibly lucky, mainly because to win against a field of thousands one has to get incredibly lucky.

Thanks for Sharing. Very Interresting.

Qwikls1 said:

I was pretty impressed with his attitude and his play.

He came in 3rd, but seemed very cordial and talkative.

He lost two fairly sizable pots on the river when he had a pair and his all in opp hit their over card on the river. Said "nice hand" every time. Never seemed to tilt at all.

I think this guy is a lot better player then when he won it in '03.

It's funny like that. Raymer and Hachem seemed to be stupid lucky when they won it all, but have since shown (at least to me) that they can both play. I don't think Gold or Yang will ever amount to anything in poker, but time will tell.

Just wanted to share.

Click to expand...

Thanks for Sharing.

I would have loved to have been there.

angie

It's easy to be cordial and talkative when your bank account is already stuffed.

quads said:

It's easy to be cordial and talkative when your bank account is already stuffed.

Click to expand...

who says moneymaker is loaded?
all he won was 2.5million, minus taxes and other expenses
subtract all those tourny buy ins that he does not cash in, losses in csh games

i think hed be lucky if he still had 500K and that is by no means a hefty sum

pantin007 said:

who says moneymaker is loaded?
all he won was 2.5million, minus taxes and other expenses
subtract all those tourny buy ins that he does not cash in, losses in csh games

i think hed be lucky if he still had 500K and that is by no means a hefty sum

Click to expand...

you forgot "add other winnings" and more importnatly "add money from sponsorship and endorsement deals". i'd hazard a guess that he's still pretty loaded, he doesn't seem like the type to throw a bankroll around recklessly, whatever you think of his poker skills (fwiw i think he was pretty poor at the time he won the WSOP but has improved leaps and bounds since).

Dorkus Malorkus said:

you forgot "add other winnings" and more importnatly "add money from sponsorship and endorsement deals". i'd hazard a guess that he's still pretty loaded, he doesn't seem like the type to throw a bankroll around recklessly, whatever you think of his poker skills (fwiw i think he was pretty poor at the time he won the WSOP but has improved leaps and bounds since).

Click to expand...

maybe u might what to read thisPoker Player Net Worths Are Rarely What you Think They Are, really good stuff in here
i think moneymaker falls into those that are worth less but i probably put him in that category because i dont like him

Moneymaker may not be loaded, but he's prolly doing okay. Nevertheless, I'd change jobs with him. Seriously, I don't think he was that good a player when he first won it either, but the guy is a polarizing image in poker (like him or not) and his job now consist of making appearances and playing poker. Who here wouldn't trade their day job for a gig like that?

Dorkus Malorkus said:

you forgot "add other winnings" and more importnatly "add money from sponsorship and endorsement deals". i'd hazard a guess that he's still pretty loaded, he doesn't seem like the type to throw a bankroll around recklessly, whatever you think of his poker skills (fwiw i think he was pretty poor at the time he won the WSOP but has improved leaps and bounds since).

Click to expand...

You may have forgotten that he did spend a ton of money at a strip club after he won. I believe I read it was somewhere around $25,000 and that he was not allowed on his flight home because he was still showing the effects of too much partying from the night before/ day of the flight.

Point taken, but I'd probably spend a ton of money at a strip club after winning the WSOP, and I'm a bankroll nit.

OzExorcist said:

I haven't actually watched the '05 Main Event footage (I know, it's terribly un-Australian of me) so I can't comment on Hachem's win, but what makes you say that Raymer got stupidly lucky?

Click to expand...

I haven't watched it in a while, but I don't remember him losing a single key pot at the final table (most being coin flip situations). One hand with about 9 players left, he goes all in with pocket 10's against a guy with pocket aces. He caught a 10 in the flop.

He did play great big stack poker though.

I seen Moneymaker on a $1/2 table last night with bout $1200.

I saw him too. People weren't playing really smart against him.

He pretty much let people give him money.

That hand did not end well.
PokerStars Game #15044338439: Hold'em No Limit ($1/$2) - 2008/02/03 - 23:08:56 (ET)
Table 'Panopaea' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: TBiggums23 ($167.60 in chips)
Seat 2: Langer29 ($99.80 in chips)
Seat 3: lumpers ($164.60 in chips)
Seat 4: z-bolt33 ($239.25 in chips)
Seat 5: onesqueak ($75.75 in chips)
Seat 6: Money800 ($1292.30 in chips)
Langer29: posts small blind $1
lumpers: posts big blind $2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
z-bolt33: folds
onesqueak: raises $4 to $6
Money800: raises $10 to $16
TBiggums23: folds
Langer29: folds
lumpers: folds
onesqueak: calls $10
*** FLOP ***
onesqueak: checks
Money800: checks
*** TURN ***
onesqueak: checks
Money800: checks
*** RIVER ***
onesqueak: bets $10
Money800: calls $10
*** SHOW DOWN ***
onesqueak: shows (a pair of Nines)
Money800: shows (two pair, Jacks and Nines)
Money800 collected $52.35 from pot

A short time late the person was all-in on the turn with a Qd Jd on a 5d Ad 6c Qs board.
Moneymaker had Ah/Qh, and the river was the last Q.

Interesting link Pantin, although one sentence in it jarred a little:

After that, you have Uncle Sam, who is going to take his cut.

Click to expand...

So, does this imply that all poker pros are American, or do they deduct taxes from poker winnings in the US before they hand them over?

He pretty much let people give him money.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you?

Greg raymer doesnt get the credit he deserves, to win one year where he just outplayed a large majority of the field and had his bit of luck which everyone needs, but he proved how good he was when he finished in what i beleive was the top 100 the year after.

Also hachem was seen as one of australia's best players before the ME that he won. He didnt get lucky on his way to the final table either, he just played hyper aggro poker

NoWuckingFurries said:

So, does this imply that all poker pros are American, or do they deduct taxes from poker winnings in the US before they hand them over?

Click to expand...

I believe the latter is the case.

Switch: As for Hachem being one of Australia's best players before he won... I dunno. He certainly wasn't one of the best known at the time and it'd still be arguable who the best Australian player is (I'd certainly pick Jeff Lisandro or Gary Benson over Hachem in non-hold 'em games, and guys like Mark Vos or any number of others give him a run too).

That said, he's proven since that he's a top quality player. I've gotta get hold of the '05 Main Event footage some time, seems it's just far too un-Australian of me not to have seen it

Moneymaker is ok in my book. I think he has played well in everything I have seen after his wsop win (esp. see the tournament vs. Phil Gordon and an amateur player in the final three).

Raymer was a fairly regular 200/400 player before his win, and clearly backed up his success the following year by going deep again. He is obvioulsy a professional level player.

The same can not be said of Yang, who really actully played poorly and won (although you might argue that is pre-flop 'kill phil' aggression was the correct overall strategy). He made some of the worst calls I have ever seen, however.

Hachem is a good player. If you don't think so, just ask your calling station idol, Daniel Negreanu.

pantin007 said:

maybe u might what to read thisPoker Player Net Worths Are Rarely What you Think They Are, really good stuff in here
i think moneymaker falls into those that are worth less but i probably put him in that category because i dont like him

Click to expand...

His endorsement/sponsorship deal with PS alone would keep him out of the bread line. While he's probably not uber loaded, I'd venture most of us would gladly trade net worth with him.

AFAiK, I've never heard much rumbling about him being a gambleholic ala Matusow, who had 5 cashes at this year's WSOP, and left town owing everybody money.

here is a link to an article about matusow
he had a pretty good year if u ask me in tournies that is
Mike Matusow Quietly Put Together an Impressive Year in 2007
but it is kind of incomplete because who knows how much he lost in cash games and how much he was staked and how much he debt to pay off and how much he lost sports betting

aliengenius said:

I think he has played well in everything I have seen after his wsop win (esp. see the tournament vs. Phil Gordon and an amateur player in the final three).

Click to expand...

Was that the Bay 101 WPT tournament? I thought he played pretty well in that one too.

I'm bumping an older thread because I can't find a better one:

Currently watching the 2004 nlhe event, and they showed an interview with Moneymaker and credited him as the 2004 main event winner.

Even better was that this episode was broadcast BEFORE the actual 2004 main event. People must've been pretty surprised when he got knocked out day one

moneymaker

Yes he seems like a very nice guy,and i like watching him play also. He talks to everyone and is always very professional