Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mikeychips22 It really was a fluke. If you watch the 2003 WSOP he got extremly lucky his bad calls turned out good because of his luck. Look how he is doing now. Horrible. I saw him blow 5000 dollars up in Vegas on a no limit table that he opened himself. These weren't even pros he lost too. Moneymaker is not that good of a player. And I have a great understanding of how difficult is to win the wsop main event. |
I've watched the 2003 WSOP a bunch of times and I can't believe that anyone could say Moneymaker's win was a fluke. I think he did a great job to win. I mean, imagine sitting down at a table with Nguyen, Chan, Ivey and other pros. To be able to hold it together against those players takes a lot of stamina, patience and drive.
Sure, he got lucky at key times, but so does anyone in a large tournament. He chose when to go all-in and when not to, and he made the right choices. There are going to be times when you'll have the worst of it going in (moreso in the WSOP against super aggressive pros) and that's all there is to it. Raymer also got lucky when he won - he got some pretty great cards. At the final table, he lost a good chunk of his lead when his cards dried up. He wasn't making fancy plays to win, he was getting cards just as Moneymaker did. Raymer called a bunch of all-ins with the worst of it and sucked out on his opponents a bunch of times.
I haven't watched any of the other WSOP main events, but I'm sure it's pretty well the same. There's very few players who can dominate in these large tourneys due to the sheer number of players and donks out there who'll suck out on you when given the chance.
I think anyone who wins the WSOP deserves it - period.
Just my thoughts... (not a big Moneymaker or Raymer fan...prefer Hansen or Negreanu).
K.