The hand that made MONEYMAKER a millionaire and poker star

[detroitjunkie]

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.

The worst play ever - that's a stretch, as far as he knew he could have been good there - even though he felt he wasn't, but as above commenter said he was pot committed at that point, if he lost the pot he was dead out of tourney for sure - he really had no choice but to call and pray, otherwise he really had 0 chance to further through - I think it was the best play in that situation - if you cant see that then so be it

 

[Rumme1]

The worst play ever - that's a stretch,

no..I did not say it was the worst play ever...

I said it is one of the worst plays a person can make...

calling off all your chips , drawing dead to a MAX of 2 outs...he had no winning flush draw ..he had no winning straight draw...and theres a chance, he only had 1 out { if another player folded a 8 preflop} .

Furthermore, Im not saying he was a terrible player , but he surely wasnt in the top 200- 300 players for that years tourney when it comes to experience , skills, earnings, etc.

Yes, he got VERY lucky...and he got that luck at the key moment that decided whether he goes bust, or moves on .

Its not just about hitting the miracle card, when youve misplayed the hand badly....its about WHEN you hit the miracle card......in other words, if his bad call had only cost him 20% of his chip stack, then hitting the miracle 8, is not that important. He hit the miracle, EXACTLY when he needed to hit it..and because of that, he went on to become a millionaire and a household name.

DESTINY ? PERFECT LUCK WHEN ITS NEEDED WHEN ONE MAKES THE WRONG PLAY ? SKILL ?

it all plays a part.

Lets also keep in mind, that if moneymaker had lost this hand, like he was statistically suppose to , he would have never made big money or become a household name that year { he would not have been plastered all over the television for the main event } AND...most players would then look at the hand differently and say what a improper mistake he truly made. The fact that he got very lucky, makes many people look at it and say, his COMPLETE play of that hand, was understandable or even acceptable. Just because he got very lucky, does not validate the way he played that hand IMHO , ..and maybe thats one reason why NL hold em, will never be a staple of my cash poker games that I use to earn a living .

 

[detroitjunkie]

no..I did not say it was the worst play ever...

I said it is one of the worst plays a person can make...

calling off all your chips , drawing dead to a MAX of 2 outs...he had no winning flush draw ..he had no winning straight draw...and theres a chance, he only had 1 out { if another player folded a 8 preflop} .

Furthermore, Im not saying he was a terrible player , but he surely wasnt in the top 200- 300 players for that years tourney when it comes to experience , skills, earnings, etc.

Yes, he got VERY lucky...and he got that luck at the key moment that decided whether he goes bust, or moves on .

Its not just about hitting the miracle card, when youve misplayed the hand badly....its about WHEN you hit the miracle card......in other words, if his bad call had only cost him 20% of his chip stack, then hitting the miracle 8, is not that important. He hit the miracle, EXACTLY when he needed to hit it..and because of that, he went on to become a millionaire and a household name.

DESTINY ? PERFECT LUCK WHEN ITS NEEDED WHEN ONE MAKES THE WRONG PLAY ? SKILL ?

it all plays a part.

Lets also keep in mind, that if moneymaker had lost this hand, like he was statistically suppose to , he would have never made big money or become a household name that year { he would not have been plastered all over the television for the main event } AND...most players would then look at the hand differently and say what a improper mistake he truly made. The fact that he got very lucky, makes many people look at it and say, his COMPLETE play of that hand, was understandable or even acceptable. Just because he got very lucky, does not validate the way he played that hand IMHO , ..and maybe thats one reason why NL hold em, will never be a staple of my cash poker games that I use to earn a living .

But thats where you fall short - it was not a mistake to call the bet - if he folds there he is a relative super short stack and faces a very very very VERY difficult time in going further - which is why he had to call - that is what pot committed means (people over-use this term and mostly in the wrong way). Plus if he thinks he is good then the play was correct as well, just because someone shoves does not mean you are automatically beat.

Plus this was a tourney - not a cash game where the variance is much lower and so is the need for luck - why you dont play it, probably because you fear the variance and cant play around it, dont blame your lack of understanding of how to control the game (pot control, bet sizing, range reading, etc...) to it just being a luck fest.

Again, another example of you confusing luck with variance, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

To carry on more...after I actually think about it I stand by the notion that if luck determines the outcome more in poker it would be in limit and pot limit games where more people see more streets because the bets are smaller giving luck more of a chance to prevail

 

[Rumme1]

But thats where you fall short - it was not a mistake to call the bet - if he folds there he is a relative super short stack and faces a very very very VERY difficult time in going further - which is why he had to call - that is what pot committed means (people over-use this term and mostly in the wrong way). Plus if he thinks he is good then the play was correct as well, just because someone shoves does not mean you are automatically beat.

Plus this was a tourney - not a cash game where the variance is much lower and so is the need for luck - why you dont play it, probably because you fear the variance and cant play around it, dont blame your lack of understanding of how to control the game (pot control, bet sizing, range reading, etc...) to it just being a luck fest.

Again, another example of you confusing luck with variance, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

Question "

many pros claim that luck averages out equally for all poker players over the course of years. you know I disagree with that claim and I think you do also.

How about variance ? Does variance equal out the same for all poker players over the long term ?

 

[detroitjunkie]

Question "

many pros claim that luck averages out equally for all poker players over the course of years. you know I disagree with that claim and I think you do also.

How about variance ? Does variance equal out the same for all poker players over the long term ?

It can but may not. Poker is too situational...maybe someone plays less or quits or for whatever reason stops playing...either way you will never know. But if all things play the same it will become more likely over time. Where I feel luck falls short of beong equal is because of this as well...but do stand by the more you play the closer to even you will get

 

[detroitjunkie]

But thats not the point. You can control the variance effect to a degree and is something that those who cry alot do not understand how to do. If you not want high variance in a high variance game you can achieve this and still profit...not ad much but more consistently.

Your whole point is that nlh is too lucky and i say that is not true...if anything luck controls games more where more people see extra cardd like in limit and pl games

 

[Rumme1]

It can but may not. Poker is too situational...maybe someone plays less or quits or for whatever reason stops playing...either way you will never know. But if all things play the same it will become more likely over time. Where I feel luck falls short of beong equal is because of this as well...but do stand by the more you play the closer to even you will get

If we were to take a sample of :

1000 players of around the same skill levels and deal them each 500,000 hands , and each player played the hand the same way , do you think the variance and luck factors would be so close, that we can claim it all equals out about the same in the long run { 50/50...48/52...51/49 } . I still feel the numbers would more then likely be way more lopsided then we have been taught to believe.

 

[Rumme1]

Your whole point is that nlh is too lucky and i say that is not true...if anything luck controls games more where more people see extra cardd like in limit and pl games

but then one could reply : skilled players in pl omaha, understand that a jack hi flush , is no longer as strong of a hand on a unpaired board on the river, in a 3 way pot , therefore they can use their skills of folding pretty strong hands, knowing that 9 cards are now in play, instead of 7 cards.

With NL hold em , you are almost guaranteed to have to play some coin flip hands preflop , which takes away ALL the skills involved of betting, raising, folding , check raising on the flop, turn and river.

You see what im saying ?

 

[smallfrie]

Moneymaker had several pivotal hands during the win in 2003 they all were a factor in his win not just one but if I were to point to one that was the biggest I would say it was the 33 post-flop call verses Dutch Boyd which was imo insane but he was in fact ahead when they turned the cards over and he stayed ahead, but risking his total tournament calling off all his chips in that spot was silly. I have played live at the same table as Moneymaker in several tournaments in the last few years and can assure you he is a much better player than he was in 2003. He is way more "trickier and trappier" now and I think there is no way he would even consider some of the plays that won him the WSOPME. Luck played a huge role in that win but his game relies a lot less on luck now.

 

[Rumme1]

But thats where you fall short - it was not a mistake to call the bet - if he folds there he is a relative super short stack and faces a very very very VERY difficult time in going further - which is why he had to call - that is what pot committed means (people over-use this term and mostly in the wrong way). Plus if he thinks he is good then the play was correct as well, just because someone shoves does not mean you are automatically beat.

Plus this was a tourney - not a cash game where the variance is much lower and so is the need for luck - why you dont play it, probably because you fear the variance and cant play around it, dont blame your lack of understanding of how to control the game (pot control, bet sizing, range reading, etc...) to it just being a luck fest.

Again, another example of you confusing luck with variance, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

To carry on more...after I actually think about it I stand by the notion that if luck determines the outcome more in poker it would be in limit and pot limit games where more people see more streets because the bets are smaller giving luck more of a chance to prevail

Maybe thats why I will never be solid winner in NL, hold em, because I would have never played the hand the way moneymaker did..

I could understand his check on the flop , and could understand his call of his opponents bet on the flop, to try and clip his 8 on the turn...which he would have done anyways without going all in on the flop , and been able to still bust his opponent when that rag 8 came on the turn .

But for moneymaker to check it on the flop, the reraise big when his opponent bet on the flop, and put himself in a bad position to have to now call off the rest of his chips with a 2 outer , if his opponent shoves, will never be logical for my style of poker playing.

From my style of play, the only 2 logical plays moneymaker can make on the flop is to ;

check , and call his opponents smaller bet , or check on the flop , and fold if his opponent bets. I find it nonsensical for Moneymaker to check, raise, and then put himself in such a bad postion stack wise, that he must call any all in bet on the flop, from his opponent..ESPECIALLY, when theres 2 overcards on the board, and a flush draw.

 

[smallfrie]

Maybe thats why I will never be solid winner in NL, hold em, because I would have never played the hand the way moneymaker did..

I could understand his check on the flop , and could understand his call of his opponents bet on the flop, to try and clip his 8 on the turn...which he would have done anyways without going all in on the flop , and been able to still bust his opponent when that rag 8 came on the turn .

But for moneymaker to check it on the flop, the reraise big when his opponent bet on the flop, and put himself in a bad position to have to now call off the rest of his chips with a 2 outer , if his opponent shoves, will never be logical for my style of poker playing.

From my style of play, the only 2 logical plays moneymaker can make on the flop is to ;

check , and call his opponents smaller bet , or check on the flop , and fold if his opponent bets. I find it nonsensical for Moneymaker to check, raise, and then put himself in such a bad postion stack wise, that he must call any all in bet on the flop, from his opponent..ESPECIALLY, when theres 2 overcards on the board, and a flush draw.

Moneymaker asked for an estimate on Humberto's stack and got it ballparked at 120k I assume that estimate was for what he had left behind the 30k bet and that was not a total of left behind and the bet. Moneymaker then bet 120k which means he was never putting himself in a position to make a decision after. Moneymaker checked Humberto bet 30K Moneymaker asked for an estimate and was told 120k Moneymaker then bet 120k instead of going allin moneymaker probably bet 120k because he thought it sounded better/stronger than an all-in but he was never betting 120k and folding to an allin from Humberto which amounted to at most 30k more. I don't know what you are talking about when you say "and put himself in a bad position to have to now call off the rest of his chips with a 2 outer" Moneymaker was never calling off the rest of his chips he was calling off around 30k. It was a long time ago but I just watched the video again am I missing something?

 

[ph_il]

I really like how Rumme1 completely ignores my replies...

=(

 

[S3mper]

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.

This is an absurd comment. The main event is a large tournament held once a year.

I think part of the problem is that you are judging a long term game based off the results of one individual tournament. Instead of looking at results across multiple tournaments.

Let's take a look at those players you mentioned in a larger scale instead of looking at their results from one individual tourney.



Phil Ivey:

https://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?n=127

Phil Hellmuth:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=117&_ga=1.97760095.1935051914.1460532284

Tom Dwan:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=50670&_ga=1.128179916.1935051914.1460532284

Daniel Negreanu:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=181&_ga=1.66190190.1935051914.1460532284

Doyle Brunson:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=34&_ga=1.66190190.1935051914.1460532284

 

[Rumme1]

I really like how Rumme1 completely ignores my replies...

=(

not at all bud...I read them, and they make alot of sense...in other words, I cant really put up a argument against your replies..thats a nice way of me saying, your replies make some sense.

 

[Rumme1]

This is an absurd comment. The main event is a large tournament held once a year.

I think part of the problem is that you are judging a long term game based off the results of one individual tournament. Instead of looking at results across multiple tournaments.

Let's take a look at those players you mentioned in a larger scale instead of looking at their results from one individual tourney.



Phil Ivey:

https://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?n=127

Phil Hellmuth:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=117&_ga=1.97760095.1935051914.1460532284

Tom Dwan:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=50670&_ga=1.128179916.1935051914.1460532284

Daniel Negreanu:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=181&_ga=1.66190190.1935051914.1460532284

Doyle Brunson:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=34&_ga=1.66190190.1935051914.1460532284

yes , it is a large event held once a year , but it is a long event , in that it isnt just 1 session of a few hours. Do we agree that in such events, not even skill and knowledge of the combined pros is enough to defeat the luck factor of it ?

 

[ph_il]

not at all bud...I read them, and they make alot of sense...in other words, I cant really put up a argument against your replies..thats a nice way of me saying, your replies make some sense.

I appreciate that.

 

[smallfrie]

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.

Wow many have never even made it to the final table in the last 15 years, let alone won it lol yes many players have never made it through 6000 plus field in a tournament that happens once a year what a shocker.

I think when you consider the size of the field at the WSOPME the fact that so many pro's run deep is the story not that they are not at the final table and if it does not fit your narrative don't mention it..

Examples J.C. Tran is a top pro by any metric and was also the chip leader coming into the final table of the 2013 WSOPME.

Michael "the grinder" Mizrachi is a top pro, final table WSOPME 2010

You mentioned Daniel Negreanu a top pro and finished 11th in wsop 2015

You mentioned Phil Hellmuth final table and winner of WSOPME Europe 2013
Thought I would just throw that in because he is a previous pre-Moneymaker WSOPME winner and and now winner of the first WSOPME Europe he played in.
That is just off the top of my head.

Pro's are consistently running deep in the WSOPME considering that in tournament poker cashing lets say 25%,30%? of the time is good(That is going up or down quite a bit and still be good depending on structures field size etc. but feel free to insert your own number instead of 25%,30% if it makes you happy...)and final tables far less, so to say in 15 tournaments top pro's did not consistently make the final table in a 6000 plus field if 100% true would be expected and no surprise.

 

[olfabiolo]

Ai that hand maybe the luck factor made him win, but I do not think it's just luck.

 

[RogueRivered]

Looks like Ivey won $1.7 million for 1st place in February last year in Australia.

Thanks S3mper for posting those links. I didn't know about that web site.

The problem with a lot of big money poker stars is that they really want to gamble, so much so that it's a problem for them in their lives.

 

[detroitjunkie]

but then one could reply : skilled players in pl omaha, understand that a jack hi flush , is no longer as strong of a hand on a unpaired board on the river, in a 3 way pot , therefore they can use their skills of folding pretty strong hands, knowing that 9 cards are now in play, instead of 7 cards.

With NL hold em , you are almost guaranteed to have to play some coin flip hands preflop , which takes away ALL the skills involved of betting, raising, folding , check raising on the flop, turn and river.

You see what im saying ?

Knowing when to fold and when not too has nothing to do with luck. My point is that in limit and PLO games more often than in NLH games the winning hand preflop will lose in the end....this is undoubtedly true based on numbers of opponents seeing future streets, mathematically it has to be true. Therefore luck is more of a factor in those games than in NLH, but again I say you cant compare them anyways because they are different games (as different as chess and checkers) and it should not have any effect on how or what you play. Your skill - knowing when to fold, when to raise, how to control pot sizes and variance - should and will always dictate which games you play, if you cant fathom controlling variance, or having big swings in your roll, then stay away from NLH...should have nothing to do with luck.

Having 'some' coinflips preflop; in cash games this should not be an issue if you do not want it to be - there is no real reason to EVER call an AI preflop if you do not want too in cash - even with AA, it does not NEED to happen for you to profit in the session. In tournaments however this is a different story. Yes there is more luck in tournaments (but I also say more skill too), but that has nothing to do with the fact that it is NLH, it has to do with raising blinds, number of opponents, pay structure, etc... that forces you to need to get a little lucky to win. EVERY PLAYER, and I mean EVERY PLAYER that has ever won a tournament in the history of poker tournaments (of any significance - not a heads up sng or something stupid) has gotten lucky at least once during the game - all formats of tournaments, all games.

Luck is an issue, I agree due to our finate nature of being humans that not everyone will share the same amount of luck in either direction. The base swing is around 10% either way (I believe) so its more like 60-40 (I consider to outter ring to be 65-35 and very rare cases beyond that). But this is not abnormal, and may not be equal - but its fair because its what the math says there should be. But this effect is everywhere, not just NLH, not just for bad players, for all people in all things.

Luck can make NLH sure look dangerous sometimes, but that is because the variance is so high that when an outdraw occurs it can be devastating, which is then why you need more skill to rebound from that and make a comeback...or to know how to use your recent big win and get to the next level, maybe by bluffing someone heads up at the final table or something and changing poker forever

Oh and on the hand you bring up, why could he not be bluffing here? Seems like a valid move at that point.

 

[detroitjunkie]

I appreciate that.

You posted in this thread???

 

[Aceplayer55]

Oh and on the hand you bring up, why could he not be bluffing here? Seems like a valid move at that point.

Which brings up this point - NL is the only game where you can really bluff. Pot Limit the worst odds you can give your opponent is 2-1.

THAT is why NL is more skillful than limit poker.
Of course to understand pot odds, you have to understand probability.

 

[arenk22]

i understand that luck does play a huge role in this game but at the same time you have to know when to take your chance to get lucky.