Where would poker be without the "Moneymaker Effect"?

[gena31]

It's a difficult question . But in my opinion, I think that there are no irreplaceable people anywhere, and there will be another one.
Poker will always be popular and people will always play it. And shows will always be created in the form of various series - after all, all this brings a lot of money to the creators and it is difficult to imagine that someone will refuse this.

 

[bermejoga]

Hard to answer, because I actually didn't know about the "Moneymaker Effect", and how it helped grow poker's propularity.
If that never happened I believe poker wouldn't be as much big at it is now.
It would be just like any other card game that you play in your house in a Sunday night, with a few friends over

 

[kley126]

It really was the best thing that could happen to poker this was a real explosion for poker to continue attracting more people every day if this event had not happened would be something unknown by many thanks moneymaker

 

[GARCIA PABLO DANIEL]

I consider that he played very well and luck also accompanied him, these are decisions like life!!! I am very happy that a person like Moneymaker has achieved glory in this exciting game, greetings!!

 

[Luvart]

Well, it's a difficult question because we can no really predict what would happened to poker without the appearance of Chris Moneymaker. I know that there were a lot of players who played at the early poker sites back in 2001, 2003, etc (and in my country I know some), so with the rapid rise of the internet worldwide, maybe there were some "early online poker stars" that would promote the game.

Very very important to not forget is that for the steady but quite decent rise of the online poker important factor played the fact that we had the appearance of two major very innovative, for their era, poker rooms like pokerstars and Full Tilt that destroyed the competition.

 

[Antonioadv]

Poker was already growing a lot, especially in brazil, however, the Moneymaker effect boosted poker in an exceptional way, which made online poker very visible and widely accepted.

 

[Atararo14]

Chris Moneymaker certainly had an impact in making poker popular, but I think without him the game would have the same popularity one day and his effect just accelerated that popularity.

 

[nelomec]

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

I think that if the monermaker effect hadn't happened, poker would have little interest for people and there would still be a lot of difficult labels and taboos to break in people's minds, although even little, there is still this in some people.

 

[john_entony]

The Moneymaker Effect was very important in popularizing poker, no doubt about it. But it seems to me that if there had not been that turning point in 2003, that turning point would have come later. Everything is due to the fact that poker is not even a sport. Poker is an idiology. Yes, not a religion, of course, but poker holds an essential part of every poker player's soul. Whoever has fallen in love with poker is unlikely to fall out of love with it. I would even compare poker to a snow avalanche. Sooner or later it will come down from the mountains. So will poker: sooner or later it was going to become popular. And that's amazing!

 

[luckyfish98]

yes many professional poker players have reached the top through hard work and always have a one very successful story of their journey

 

[blata8ruga]

Maybe I am crazy, but the same way online sports betting is huge now I think online poker would have caught on. Probably not as quickly but eventually someone or something would have precipitated the poker boom.

 

[Iryna Stryzheuskaya]

Another player would have done it. But if the world had not heard about his victory....

 

[bowserdon]

I think it helped poker a bit but poker would still be popular.Losing US players really hurt poker

 

[Nafor]

None of us really knows... We could also ask, if online poker wouldn't have boomed in the US when it did would it still be legal in the whole country? Meaning - small scale action would attract less attention from above
Or even a wilder thought - what if Trump had ruled at the time?

But never underestimate the power of marketing. Something "positive" would have definitely happened - either real or made up.
US poker needs better lobbyists and relatable figures.

 

[MK_]

I think poker was pretty hot at that time anyway, but yeah I think the newer average viewer probably liked the new guy taking out the more established player... I was pretty heavily involved in poker in many ways at that time and I remember it just crushed me and my friends this goofy guy who was literally staring into space half the time bluffed Sammy Farha of all people lol, so I think even if he had only gotten deep and not actually managed to somehow win the boom was already set to happen anyway but good for him he won lol

 

[Amigodzzz]

His 2003 win is said to have revolutionized poker because he was the first person to become a world champion after qualifying at an online poker site.
It is difficult to predict exactly how poker would have developed if Chris Moneymaker had not become a champion but the most important think its he make the revolution of poker online and make it esayer than peoples thinking about online poker

 

[Gavincwb]

Yes, it helped with growth. But, with him or without him, the game would grow.

 

[hobojim1247]

He opened up the possibility that anyone could win big money and fame with this simple game. This brought in many people who brought in the money to fund the explosion of interest.

 

[Balou1982]

Hi pokerfolks,

this is a tricky question to answer i think because nobody can predict the future exactly!
Im not a fan of a special poker player, i like Daniel Negreanu because he is a guy with humor and has a good behaviour on table.
In Europe the moneymaker effect was known but poker growed up with online platforms like PS and more commercials@tv.
Maybe in th U.S the moneymaker effect changed a lot but i think it was the perfect moment for pushing poker up to a higher thing than only a game of cards!
I would say poker got a big push in the first years of this century because many things on this planet got global!

Greets

 

[Skot_Gy]

Some players have that effect on poker like in science the breakthrough effect, when someone invent smth new...
However, poker became so big because of the globalisation and internet era. Iconic players add the flavour, but the game would have went this road, regardless.

 

[KUN_AGUERO_KROOS]

This question reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode, where a scientist goes back in time to kill baby Adolf Hitler.

She succeeds, but Hitler's father's housekeeper buys a baby from a gispy woman and he's raised in that household and named Adolf Hitler.

“A moment of silence for Andrea Collins. She sacrificed herself for the good of mankind. But she also created the very monster she sought to destroy. History can never be changed. Not even… in The Twilight Zone.”

History can never be changed. With the amount of online satellites for the Main Event going on back then on PokerStars, a Cinderella story like Moneymaker was due to happen.

If he were eliminated in that Main Event, eventually another John Smith with a southern accent would win the Main Event and Poker would be as big as is today.

 

[deeevinicius]

This effect popularized the game and made people hope to become millionaires in a not so common way. Perhaps it would take longer for the game to be embraced by the masses.

 

[Anamembu]

If Chris Moneymaker had not had his stunning victory in the 2003 wsop Main Event, and therefore, the 'Moneymaker Effect' had not occurred, the world of poker would likely be quite different today. Moneymaker's triumph captured the imagination of many and sparked a boom in poker's popularity, especially Texas Hold'em. Some potential consequences if that had not happened include less interest in poker, reduced media exposure, fewer recreational players, and an impact on the online poker industry.

 

[frazzle1991]

Personally, I think Poker would have found another horse to back and push its initiative, i.e.; whoever else won if he didn't. Though that being said it may not have had quite the impact as the household "moneymaker" moniker. His back story was indeed quite the inspiration. Even without him as the front-runner though, the proverbial show must go on and as such I think poker would still be doing well.

 

[belladonna05]

I'm not trying to take away the boom that the "Moneymaker Effect" had on poker. I do think it was a trifecta of events that truly made the boom take off.
1. ESPN featuring the WSOP.
2. Online poker bringing it into more households.
3. Both converging to bring Chris Moneymaker to the WSOP and make poker history.