| Moneymaker and the WSOP |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by admin |
| Thursday, 28 August 2008 00:00 |
What happens if Sammy Farha, NOT Chris Monemaker wins the 2003 WSOP?Before reading these, don't forget that Hold'em was already surging because of Rounders which was released a couple years earlier. Certainly Moneymaker may have expedited the popularity holdem it would have come regardless with the ushering in of hole card cams and the World Poker Tour as well. --- After watching tonight's wsop episode i got to thinking about this...how would poker be different today had chris moneymaker gone on to lose to sammy farha? not just the effect on the popularity of poker, but the effect on the style of play...does a gambling, loose-aggressive style become the norm quicker?(since it seems to be the norm now after the success of people like gus hansen)...and is poker nearly as popular today if moneymaker finishes second? i mean, it was still an improbable run either way, but would the general public still be able to put their arms around the situation like they did since he actually won and took down a professional player? I am just curious to see the responses --- I think the MoneyMaker added to the growth and if he came in 2nd it would not be as popular as it is now, but more popular than it was in the past. I think the biggest growth was due to hold card camera, in the past you would not see the cards that people folded or raised with and frankly it was not entertaining to watch. I do think a loose player is more the norm for new players because that is what they show on TV more and it is more exciting for TV. What people do not realize is that those plays are only a small part of the game, they never show the hands in which everyone folded to the big blind. The final table broadcast is 2 hours long (this year they had PPV for the whole Final Table at the WSOP), but the actual time is 12 hours or longer. So during that time there is a lot of no flop hands. For example they only showed some of TJ's hands because he is known as a tighter player and more Mike The Mouth who is more aggressive, not to mention talks more so he is better for TV. Actually, the 2002 WSOP main event winner was also an amature. Most folks don't remember Robert Varkony won a bracelet. Moneymaker just became the face of the everyday type of guy. Although he hasn't done squat since that win. Raymer and Hashem have done far better after their respective wins. I figure that once Moneymaker had made the final table, they were going to hype it up which would have not made a difference. --- In short. It would be different UNTIL another player won an online tournament. Several points contributed to Moneymaker being the most influencial person in poker today. -He was an everyday day thrust into the limelight -He proved that the allure of poker is still that the unknown player can beat the best on the right day -He turned a three-digit buy in into a 7-digit win -He proved that online poker is a viable form of poker And it helped that his actual last name is Moneymaker! All of the above points would eventually occur and poker would slowly reach the same level of fame, but all of these characteristics wrapped into one player (who I still thinks sucked and got very lucky!) could not help but propel poker into the phenomenon it is today. I'm all in! --- I don't know that it would have been that different... granted, the fact that he was able to win a bracelet coming from where it did certainly had a tremendous impact, but still, what if he had just come in second? Think about it... that's still a tremendous accomplishment. Not only did a man who spent less than $100 and worked his way through a series of tournaments as an amateur make it to the WSOP, he reached the final table... if that wasn't enough, he went up against a pro. After going through all that, even if he had lost, do you honestly think it would have had no impact whatsoever? Maybe not as powerful a one, but I think it would have meant something. I too watched the WSOP tonight and listened to the commentators talk about the Moneymaker effect. --- I don't think poker would be as big today if Farha had won it. It was the whole fairy tale story of a regular working man, buying in for $40, and parlaying that into $2.5m. That is the American dream, and it captured the imagination right as the WPT was taking off. The combination of that and a variety of factors caused the poker boom that we see today. I myself was inspired and vowed to learn this fascinating game. Since that time I have won several thousand dollars and enjoyed all kinds of success in poker. I have a long way to go, but the journey thus far has been very interesting. I think that the poker industry has a lot to thank Moneymaker for, despite his pitiful showing at this years' WSOP. --- honestly, i don't think that the chris moneymaker- fluke winning the main event in the WSOP- had that much to do with the gaining popularity of poker. Poker had already started it's rise before the world had ever even heard of moneymaker. if nothing else, the only impact moneymaker had on the poker world was turning the game into more of a lottery than the ultimate test of poker skill. the game will never be the same but this was bound to happen, whether it had been moneymaker or some other donkey. poker got the jumpstart back in either '98 or '99 when "Rounders" hit the big screen. not when moneymaker won the ME. |
| Last Updated ( Sunday, 16 November 2008 04:39 ) |
