Where would poker be without the "Moneymaker Effect"?

[Moneyjoy]

I don't think he made that much of a difference to the Poker game, after all Joe Hatchem had a similar fairy story ending when he won his first bracelet, but as he was Australian he made Poker a Household game down under.
Then you have players like Phil Helmuth, Phil Ivey and Daniel Negs all contributing to the games popularity, So collectively, Yes they all contributed to the Poker game, but I wouldn't be able to pick just one player from a huge list of popular professional players.

Moneymaker will forever be THE FIRST KING of our dynasty after qualifying at an online poker site! That’s why Chris will be never forgotten!

 

[G0930]

I would love the game with or without him
Poker would have developed differently , maybe slower growth in popularity.

Or it could have been another person who inspired people and helped poker to become socially acceptable.

I like other Pros way more tbh.
Phil Ivey ,Daniel Negreanu or Tom Dwan for instance

 

[10gerka]

a big effect occurred in the poker community and around the world, now it is not necessary to be a poker professional to be able to win a tournament, even a big one.

 

[jaymfc]

Moneymaker was the son of the poker gods sent down to save poker.

I have always thought that the wsop main event winners played like
crazy people but got lucky over and over.

 

[x patrice x]

I think poker would have the same status it has today.

First and foremost, aggressive advertising in many countries after the 2003 WSOP was the main reason for poker's popularity and is the real initiator of the "Moneymaker Effect". The name “Chris Moneymaker” naturally played into the strategic marketing hand and thus became synonymous with the incredible success story of poker.

It is the "NoLimit-(Poker) Effect" that arouses enthusiasm for this game among people around the world and it can therefore be assumed that a similar >>POKER BOOM<< would have developed.

 

[veltins]

Without moneymaker effect i am sure poker would not have died and still be around. He did made a difference though for making all small players believing in themselves to get the unthinkable. I would be still playing without his effect though cos in germany it was already popular

 

[zorro222_zorro222]

Hmmm, good question, I think without a doubt having an amateur poker player named 'Moneymaker' winning the WSOP main event and 2.5 million dollars was a marketing dream for the poker world and was a big part of the poker boom. I also think that winning his entry into the main event through a satellite helped grow online poker in general and I think someone said that the next years main event had a lot of entries just through online satellites because of that so I think his win was big for poker, especially for the WSOP. I think that poker was on the rise anyways but Moneymaker's win just made it grow even more quickly and wouldn't have been the same without it, especially in the US.

 

[jaymfc]

 

[ledsmith]

Of course, his victory increased the popularity of poker significantly. Without this, poker would not be so popular. We all love stories about how people become millionaires after depositing forty dollars, and this gives us an incentive to play poker again and again. True, sometimes it seems to me that these stories are created on purpose.

 

[Fushicho]

I was playing Poker 20 years before Chris Moneymaker won. I have no idea what would have happened to the popularity of poker, but he's had no influence on me liking or not liking poker. Until I read this thread I didn't even think he had any affect on the game itself.

 

[pavel1111111]

My guess is that even if it wasn't Chris, it still would been someone else. There will always be such examples, because that's how the audience is attracted... it's just marketing. Even if Chris didn't win, it was possible to promote another ,,name ,, .

 

[antonis32123]

Poker boom would have happened in any case ,
Moneymaker was just the right person in the right place and time to make this boom happen maybe better .

The name itself '' moneymaker'' is intriguing . What if he lost to that bluff he attempted with complete air at the FT , what if he4 wasnt the final winner , , that wouldnt mean anything for the poker boom .
He was just the flag , the symbol of this new era , a good person to use as the ambassador of the new era poker , for all the youth to have sb to take as an example to follow , to become like him one day . If it wasn't for the Moneymaker , they would have found another person like Moneymaker to do this job .

Moneymaker understood the situation , took full advantage of this fame back then in those days , with pokerstars deals and other things . He still takes credit for this achievement even nowadays as (ACR) poker ambassador , even now 20 years later .

 

[acidburnfx]

Maybe it should just make poker grow at a slower pace and then, inevitably, another player should emerge in its place to then spread its popularity and gain more fans, the same happens in other modalities.

 

[emk211]

I think another donkey would win and it would be called the donkey effect instead, never been impressed with that whole scenario, I was playing poker before and have been playing for 55 years, and he had no effect on me whatsoever, except that if he can do it anyone can!

 

[Gritz18]

Where do you think poker would be today if the "Moneymaker Effect" had never happened?

Certainly Chris Moneymaker, boosted poker in 2003, and made many recreational players dream of such glory, he popularized the sport of the mind around the world.

 

[belizebum]

The Moneymaker effect was quite personal to me. Never really heard of Texas holdem. I mean I knew about poker, but the usual games, Stud etc. He was all over the news with that win, and when I found out he was just some Accountant, like me, well the bells went off. I know I will never get to where he is, thats for sure, but it brought Texas holdem to me. Think I started on Stars first and gradually ended up on every major site. I was watching it on TV every chance I got. It was really a few years later that I actually realized there were courses and online training. As much as I lose or bust out, I love this freaking game and hope to continue getting better at it every day.

 

[Luvepoker]

I do believe the poker world would be very different if Moneymaker had not won and bubbled.

I was interested in poker prior to the boom. I saw the poker sites and saw they becoming mome viable every year. The WSOP was on TV already and growing and the WPT was just about to explode onto television. If Chris would not have won I still believe we would have had a poker boom. It would have been much slower that what we experienced but I believe it would have happened just the same.

Chris Moneymaker was in my opinion the perfect storm for pokers growth. A true and pure amateur who played the game for mostly fun " and money" could only dream of the chance to play in this event. $40 he turned into $2.5 Millions.. This is everyone dream wither its poker or something else to take a small amount of cash and win life changing money. IE slots, blackjack or a lottery. Then take the fact he was just like up common folks. Working class. struggling to pay bills in life. He was not flashy person just a good down to earth player who went there for his shot. Add in the name Moneymaker and I believe the perfect storm was set. Then came the bluff of the century against one of the true professional greats of the time he bluffed of not just the winning hand but the championship winning hand. He sat there knowing he was bluffing and held it in until Farha folded. He showed us common fold could play and ever hold our own with them. Yes we in the poker would should be grateful this happened as many may not have tried this game out. His win is why it blew up as fast as it did.

If not for this win I think the WPT would have helped poker blow up anyways due to the sponsorship with party poker. Just those commercials alone would have done it as they were absolutely funny and got players thinking about signing up.

Now here is a good question though. Would poker have been better off if Moneymaker had not won? Poker would have grown for sure and much slower but I also would not have been so smack in your face exploding the way it did. We may of never had black Friday are the fight due to S Alderson doing his best to stop legislation.

 

[Gh0stL]

This event make that a lot players recreational they star to play poker with the same dream to achieve, but I think that the poker is interesting for everyone and a lot player play this game, and with Internet make this spread a worldwide.

 

[vnnby]

I came to poker partly thanks to a friend, I’m not familiar with the history of the development of poker, but I think that the development of poker depends on many factors, yes, someone’s victories inspire, but poker should also develop itself and provide opportunities so that everyone can be a winner - winner, so interest is directly proportional to opportunities.

 

[NightStalker]

I think online poker wouldn't be so popular.

 

[Marshmalo1994]

Obviously poker wouldn't have grown as much as it did.
I think that the streaming boom would have produced a similar effect, but maybe lower. In consecuence, I think that poker would be years behind from where it is today, unless there would have been another Chris Moneymaker. Too bad that is not called Marshmalo effect 😅

 

[AKQ]

Imagine that Chris Moneymaker had busted out before the bubble in the 2003 WSOP Main Event and never became a household name in poker. Where do you think poker would be today if the "Moneymaker Effect" had never happened?


View attachment 341223

Cuz I'm me.
I'll be the one

moneymaker did not affect poker at all.for me at least
FACT cuz of opinions lol
let me explain
I was watching that WSOP he won
As was ALOT of first time viewers
due to the Markting budget and time slot of the WSOP
Plus 1500 reaired episodes of it
I was already into poker thats why i was watching the wsop
or it was the company

and theyr'e using him as a marketing tool

wait yeah thats right ooops

 

[AKQ]

The placebo effect gets you high I hear

 

[DS3]

How I Got Hooked on the Game (at least online)

Back in the early 2000s, something extraordinary was happening in the world of poker, and I was right there to witness it. Poker was becoming the next big thing, and it wasn't just because of one guy named Chris Moneymaker. ESPN played a massive role in all of this, turning a card game into prime-time entertainment.

Before the Poker Boom, poker on TV was kind of dull (and in Sweden almost non-existent). You had elite players going head-to-head, but you couldn't really see what was happening. Then, ESPN stepped in and introduced the "hole cam." This little camera changed everything by showing the secret cards, turning poker into a captivating spectator sport.

ESPN didn't just air the WSOP once and call it a day. They played the same 3-4 episodes over and over for a whole year. And 2003 WPT also started on the Travel Channel.

But Chris Moneymaker was still important to give the boom an extra almost steroid-like boost. His story was incredible. In 2003, this regular guy from Tennessee, who qualified for the World Series of Poker Main Event through a $40 online satellite, walked away with millions. It was like a real-life David versus Goliath when he played the final table HU against established pro sammt Fahra. And his real name really is Moneymaker!!

That year, from 2003 to 2004, poker exploded. It was like a wildfire spreading. Everyone started hosting poker nights, bar leagues started, and online poker rooms were popping up like mushrooms.

What made poker so appealing during that time was its accessibility. Unlike most sports, where you can't even dream of playing against the pros, poker lets you do just that. All you needed was to buy into a tournament, and you were facing off against the best in the world. And guess what? In a short tournament, even a bad player could outluck the pros, and that's pretty exciting.

Before Moneymaker, the WSOP Main Event was an exclusive club for elite players. His victory shattered that illusion, showing that anyone, with some luck and skill, could become a poker champ.

So, in conclusion, as much as people talk about the "Moneymaker effect," it wasn't just him. It was a perfect storm of the hole cam, the growth of online poker, and the thrill of watching an everyday guy take on the pros. The Poker Boom was a wild ride, and I hopped on it after seeing some World Poker Tour events in 2003. It was a time when poker was the coolest thing on TV, and we were all trying to get in on the action. The Boom would still have happened but not as fast and maybe not become quite so big without Moneymaker.


Here is a YT clip analyzing the big bluff by our own CardsChats expert Dara O'Kearney (and company)- plus some short comments on the importance of Moneymaker's win at the end.

A great reply.

As others have noted, the 'Moneymaker' effect was real and one of a number of factors playing their role, with Chris Moneymaker himself being the perfect player to find himself at the center of a poker storm. There had been increasing interest in poker already - the WSOP attendance was up considerably, Poker was being featured on television and on-line poker which had been available for 5 years was attracting growing levels of interest.

However, pentazepam is absolutely correct that cameras being able to show hole cards was perhaps the greatest innovation to spur the growth of the game.

Suddenly the inner workings of the game and players were laid bare. Everyone could now grasp the strategies involved whereas before many who watched televised poker were left in the dark unless they already had a thorough grasp of the game. To most it seemed an odd version of gambling rather than a game where skill was employed. Once hole cards were shown it was apparent skill and strategy were involved even if poker inevitably remained something of a game of chance.

 

[Poker_Mike]

I've enjoyed reading the posts on this thread.

And mostly everybody is correct.

What we will never know is who could have been Moneymaker if Moneymaker never entered the Main event or won it.

Maybe George Winner could have kicked off the poker boom with his win in 2012 - but we will never know.

Anyways - thank you Mr. Moneymaker. I never met you but I played at a live tournament table right next to yours.