Talk:Chris Moneymaker

Did he change his last name to Moneymaker in celebration of his poker success, or is this just a crazy coincidence?

It's his real name. CryptoDerk 03:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

His main goal is to provide for his family; although he quit his job, he does envision going back to mainstream work eventually. Is there a source for this? Bltpdx 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Moreover is at at all relevant? I've deleted it.

How is this POV?:

"Many pros and casual fans of poker consider Moneymaker a lucky winner of the 2003 Main Event, not just because of his amateur status but because of the perceived quality of his play. He was eliminated during day one of the 2004 and of the 2005 Main Events, perhaps adding some clout to the argument."

Monkeymaker's reputation as a weak player or lucky winner is a pretty critical characteristic of his place in the poker world. This quote does not say that he is a bad player, just that he has that reputation, which anyone who knows a lot about poker knows to be noteable to moneymaker. I've put it back in the article and vote to keep it there.

It's obvious POV, and hopelessly unencyclopedic. Many pros and casula fans view Moneymaker as an excellent player, which he quite clearly is if you ever watched his play. Additionally his second place in the World Poker Tour "adds clout" to the argument that he is an excellent player. This sort of total POV comment ("some people think he plays bad") is useless as obviously others think differently, and of course in this case more knowledgable people and those who play against him regularly consider him a fine player. 2005 09:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Are you kidding me?? Moneymaker is almost universally regarded as a weak player. If you look at his record following the 2003 wsop it proves it (one 2nd place finish does not prove anything). You clearly have no knowledge of what you're discussing and are just trying to stand up for moneymaker here. I am reverting it back and will continue to do so, but I will change it alightly to make it more "encyclopedic." I'm not trying to argue about his playing ability, but the way he is seen in the poker world is certainly as one of the weaker main event winner in history. I would like to see others comment here.

You obviously have no idea what POV means, and also apparently have little understanding of serious poker itself. Moneymaker is regarded by very good players as a very good player. His play during the his WSOP victory was outstanding. Since then he is well in the black in terms of his tournament play, so your dismissal makes no sense at all. Of course poor players think he is a poor player but they would have no way of knowing. Please do not add your opinion to this article again. 2005 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about poker??? I happen to be a professional poker player myself. Moneymaker is regarded as a weak player, end of discussion, whether or not he actually is (or your opinion of him) doesn't really matter. I know full well what POV means, you however clearly have no idea how to spot it. I don't really have the warewithol to check this page daily to win an editing war against you, but your hopeless defense of Moneymaker by deleting such information on false POV grounds is disgraceful, and I will be reporting it to the moderators.

P.S. It would not be POV to say something like "Michael Jordan is regarded as one of the best basketball players in history." There is a difference between POV and objective value statements.

Please stop inserting your POV. POV is inappropriate, and wildly false POV is even more inappropriate. Such comments will be removed. Below are three authoritative comments about Moneymaker's actual ability: http://www.ultimatebet.com/team-ub/article.html?articleID=47&author=krazykanuck http://www.poker-babes.com/bio/chris-moneymaker/ http://www.worldpokertour.com/players/?x=profile&id=3863&featured=1 The first is from an online poker site that COMPETES with the one Moneymaker endorses, a professional player's site, and from the official World Poker Tour site. While you can have your own POV that is directly opposite of these three sites, the Wikipedia is not going to include your own opinion, both because we don't print personal points of view, and because your view is not held by authoritative sources. 2005 06:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You're ridiculous. I'm not even going to bother reading those sources. I could just as easily post three that say he's a weak player. Get off your high horse and realize that you are the one trying to impose your opinion. I edited what I wrote to contain both sides of the debate, and you still deleted it. I said I'd like to hear what other people think, and you said end of discussion. Who do you think you are? I wouldn't really care except that you try to guise what you're doing as noble and unbiased. You are a shame to wikipedia. This really isn't worth my time in continuing, if you're just going to edit this to hide the truth, there's nothing I can do except let the Wikipedia community know that you are shameful. Get a life buddy.

Can I just point out to the editor: Moneymaker made it to day 2 of the 2005 Main Event - see World Series of Poker, 2005. Essexmutant 09:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tournament winnings

"As of 2005, his total live tournament winnings exceed $2,740,000."

Is this line really necessary considering the first paragraph mentions the $2.5mil and the $200,000. Useless sentence, I deleted it.

This is consistant with 95% of other articles on poker players. Essexmutant 01:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is consistent with other articles; at the same time, it is a bit redundant in this one. Personally I hate these tournament winnings entries in the profiles as they are hopelessly, totally inaccurate for almost everyone who played before 2000. I'd like to see them all removed, or made much more general, like in this case it would be tournament winnings exceed 2.7 million (which doesn't address the redundant part). Getting too specific makes it appear as if these numbers are accurate for most people, which of course they are not. (Although in this case, since he didn't play prior to 2000, the number is basically accurate). 2005 02:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy to move it to units of $100,000, as opposed to units of $10,000 which most are at the moment. Essexmutant 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Lucky winner

That's not POV.... I agree with that editor that something should be in there, though it should be re-worded. The first thing most knowledgeable poker fans think of when they hear Monkeymaker is "over-rated" or "lucky to win." (If you look at Tom Brady's article, there is a section about the debate over whether he is truly a great quarterback or just in a good situation, that isn't POV... a similar type of paragraph should be added to the Moneymaker article). I think it would behoove the encyclopedia to include this, but personally I don't feel like putting in the effort to word it appropriately. Maybe I will later on.

• • If you added that, you'd have to do the same for every poker player what won the WSOP. For example, Chris Ferguson won the WSOP by outdrawing TJ Cloutier when his A9 beat Cloutier's AQ. Even the legendary Stu Ungar was very lucky on the final hand of his last WSOP win. Luck is a huge aspect of poker and no one has won a large tournament without some luck. Furthermore, Moneymaker's luck is overstated. There are really only two hands where he outdrew someone (against Ivey and Brenes, and the Ivey hand was after Ivey already got lucky). The rest of the hands, where he defeated guys like Johnny Chan, Dutch Boyd, and Sam Farha, he clearly outplayed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.88.255.139 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate

Debate section is a good addition, please do not revert. Re-wording might be necessary though. JOPKE 14:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)JOPKE

Please spare us more of these ridiculous entries. How he stands in the eyes of one, ten or 372 professionals is not something you know, nor something this article can possible cover factually. This fetish of yours is beyond old. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip center. 2005 20:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to let you solely determine what is encyclopedia worthy. Many pro athletes have debate sections - a pro poker player is a similar type of deal. A player's legacy is noteable. I will continue reverting it unless I see opinions other than yours that this is not encyclopedia worthy. Please stop your blind defense of Moneymaker. I don't know what your motives are, but it is certainly not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. JOPKE 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)JOPKE

Stop insertuing this nonsense. A passage saying some people think he sucks while others don't is not just pointless it is ridiculous since every bio could have that, and that doesn't even address the silly POV in the wording. Whatever your motives are in inserting your POV in this article over and over, get over it. There is no need for a "defense" of Moneymaker nor your attacks. This is an encyclopedia about facts, not your personal gossip platform. I've already posted relevant references about the particulars, even though that wouldn't matter since opinioneted speculation has no place here. Please make your future contributions factual and without your POV. 2005 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You simply misunderstand the purpose of the edit. But I'm not gonna check this page every day to revert. If you insist on deleting sections that you are too blinded to see the relevance of, oh well, go ahead and help make wikipedia a poorly edited encyclopedia.

This encylopedia entry isn't even really that large. Is there some way to get more information on him?

Autobiography Book Review

I would like to post an external link to a review of Chris' autobiography written by Nick Christenson. I think that since we reference the autobiography it would be helpful for the readers of the article to see what a third-party thinks of it. Nick is a well-respected reviewer who has no axes to grind or need to curry favor. If you would like to look at the review it is located here: xhttp://www.readybetgo.com/book-reviews/review-320.html. Let me know what you think. MichaelOpton 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

His autobiography is mentioned. The article about him, not his authobography. And please stop dropping these links. 2005 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He posted the links here rather than trying to add them back to the article at my suggestion. He originally posted the to the article from an IP address and I removed them, warning him for spamming in the process. After the exchange of a few emails, I came to the conclusion that he had a genuine interest in the subject and it was worth trying to make him into a contributor as he seems knowlegable on the subject of poker. I suggested that he create an account and make actual contributions to the project. I also suggested that he post to the talk pages asking regular contributors if his link was worth including.

My personal opinion on the review page is that links to buy the book are too prominent and so, we should probably not include the link. That said, please give it some consideration. You're in this area of the project as you have an interest in the subject and I'm only here as it's a spammer magnet, so your own opinion is more valuable than mine. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The book review link is meant to expand the information about the subject, not to sell books. If people prefer there not to be a book cover with the book review, that can also be arranged.MichaelOpton 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't get led astray, information about an *autobiography* is totally relevant on the page about the subject. The cover of the book is totally appropriate. It's best not to provide a link to anywhere you can buy it - just provide the ISBN number, and Wikipedia's software takes care of the rest. However, links to sites that have decent reviews of it would be perfectly appropriate. Stevage 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

'The article about him, not his authobography.' This is undoubtably the most asinine statement I've ever read. Do you have any idea what an autobiography is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.212.211 (talk • contribs) .

Please be civil. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Outdrawing?

Moneymaker eventually won the WSOP when his 5♦ 4♠ outdrew Farha's J♥ T♦ on a board of J♠ 5♠ 4♣ A♠ 4♥, giving Moneymaker a full house.

I don't get it. Before the river, Moneymaker would have been holding two pairs (5s and 4s) compared to a single pair (Js) of Farha's. In fact, he was winning from the flop - in what sense did he "outdraw"? Stevage 15:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's changed. Any time you see something like that I don't think anyone would mind if you edit it. SmartGuy 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "outdraw" simply means to draw to a better hand when you start with a weaker one, regardless of the betting pattern. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, strangely enough re-reading this now it seems ok to me. Yeah, the weaker hand "outdrew" the stronger one - two pairs vs one pair (and eventually upgrading to FH). Maybe I was getting confused with "drawing out" on someone. :) Stevage 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Outflopping" is probably the concept trying to be stated, since "outdrew" makes no sense. Clearly Moneymaker was the major favorite when the money went in. But even "outflopping" isn't right since that wasn't a key element in the hand. When Moneymaker had the best hand, he bet the main bet, and continued on to win when his better hand defeated a weaker one. 2005 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction on the bluff

the actual board was flop: Js 5s 4c, turn: 8d, river: 5h

I changed the turn to 8d from Ad because 8d was incorrect. The original and only update for this is 9 May 2006 Essexmutant (Talk | contribs) (adding 2003 WSOP winning hand) and was apparently never verified. Not that the outcome would have been any different, though.

For video reference of the play in question: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7knaWAaQCKU

-BonfireBuddhist 11:19am CST 12/03/06

Good catch!, It was undoubtedly a typo, as the hand was listed as a full house and the ace would had made only 2 pair, Essex must had thought 8 and typed A, btw User:Essexmutant is responsible for most of the articles on poker(for a single person), before he left and was imho greatest contributor which you can see on he user page along with number of article he started and added to, as I remember I caught an error on Moneymakers birth date and year once, heh, anyways good looking out on this one , thank you :-) ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lou Diamond picking Moneymaker to win the WSOP

Someone keeps removing the information about Lou Diamond picking Moneymaker to win the WSOP calling it "nonsense spam." Moneymaker mentions that in his own autobiography (check pages 99-101 of his autobiography Moneymaker: How an Amateur Poker Player Turned $40 into $2.5 Million at the World Series of Poker), so I have no idea why this would be considered either "nonsense" or "spam." 68.45.106.216 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A fellow saying he picked a winner is not a reliable source. Please read WP:V. And then, when did he pick him, two days before the event started? When there were two players left? If the passage as entered was not spam, it was still ludicrous. To have such a passage you need a reference from an independant reliable source, and then also phrase the passage so it isn't mystical... specifically, when exactly did he pick him to win? Obviously picking him to win once they wre at the final table is silly, since he was the chip leader. Finally, the fact that somebody picked him to win (at some point other than before the event started) is extremely trvial and likely not worth mentioning. 2005 (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that you added a proper source, and I changed the wording to the actual quote stated in the source and said it was on day 1, now the passage works appropriately. In the future, just remember that quoting someone about their own achievement is seldom going to work. You need a source independant of the person, especially in articles about other living people. 2005 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me I need a source. I am not the author of that sentence, I simply restored the edit that your reverted without explanation, as I knew that information was contained in Moneymaker's autobiography and Moneymaker's autobiography is already mentioned on this page.