http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-39-25-million
Printable View
More like the oral history of
Sorry Corrigan,
I thought I was posting an article people would enjoy. I will go back to my nap.
Better start it off with some pills and vodka, leave nothing to chance here.
Here's more well-written 2003 WSOP story time from this blogger Dan for anyone interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
http://www.smalltalkdan.com/2013/02/...sop-final.html
the smartest thing she has ever said. To bad she refuses to admit it for other shit.Quote:
Annie Duke (47th-place finisher): I was very stiff in my assessment that nobody would ever want to watch poker on television. I just couldn't imagine that watching a bunch of people play poker would grab anybody's interest. So, I'm an idiot.
That Dan has some good stories, but both were pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by neveragain39Here's more well-written 2003 WSOP story time from this blogger Dan for anyone interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
http://www.smalltalkdan.com/2013/02/...sop-final.html
I truly believe this Orenstein guy is underrated in poker, and moneymaker gets too much credit, (not that Chris asks for it, just people always say the "moneymaker" effect when referring to the big jump in entries to the ME.)
IMO, it didn't matter who won in 2003, or 2004. Or if they got in for $ 39 or if they were life long professionals.
It was the camera's that got me into poker. Plain and simple.
Should be called the "orenstein" effect.
Henry Orenstein (poker player, inventor): It was 1981 or '82. I saw a poker show on ESPN, and there were six hands in a row where the player didn't call, so we couldn't see what happened! Then the thought struck me that if we put a camera in there, and we were able to see the pros' cards, that would make the thing much more interesting. I called my engineers in, and within about four weeks we had a working model.
I partly with Jimmyg, and this view is shared later in the Grantland peice (which is a great read btw). The poker boom was inevitable with the sudden arrival of hole cams, widespread TV coverage, and maturing internet poker. But it would have been a smaller boom in the short term without the Cinderella story. They weren't going to put Farha on the front page of newspapers and parade him on Letterman.
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ps420e6f12.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
I wrote something similar about a year ago:http://burbspoker.blogspot.com/2012/...oker-boom.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by SrslySirius
Quote:
Before Moneymaker poker was already on the rise. The world had been introduced to online poker in 1998, and by about 2001 it was a well-known entity. There was also the 1998 movie Rounders, which turned into a cult-hit by the turn of the new millennium. And of course, without the hole-card camera that first sprang up in 2002 there is no Moneymaker. Basically from 1998 to 2003 the wheels were in motion to create a Chris Moneymaker. Despite what we have been told, Chris Moneymaker didn’t create the poker boom, the poker boom created Chris Moneymaker!
ESPN expanded its WSOP coverage in 2003 because of the hole-card cam, the rise of online poker, and the newfound love affair with poker that Rounders brought to the all-important Male, Age 18-34 demographic. Whether Chris Moneymaker won in 2003 or Sammy Farha took home the bracelet really wouldn’t have mattered. Had Humberto Brenes’ Pocket Aces held-up against Moneymaker does anyone honestly think poker would be in a different place right now?
Between the rise of online poker which coincided with the hole card camera; Rounders pulling in younger players; and Positively Fifth Street (which was Moneymaker in written form) WSOP attendance was already way up. People forget that attendance had already surged from 350 in 1998, to 839 in 2003. Moneymaker definitely helped but he was more of a final piece to the puzzle than the nuts and bolts of the whole thing.
Orenstein is in the Hall of Fame btw, among poker enthusiasts I think he gets the credit he is due
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
I always played poker, at various Sons of Italy, or friends games, but this is what really got me into the game more seriously. It's laughable now, given what we know about so many that he mythified in that book, but it piqued my interest at the time.
Same here, I've played poker since junior high in the 1980's but it wasn't until I caught some late night ESPN showings of the mid and late 1990's WSOP that I really caught the poker bug. Seeing Negreanu best John Bonetti to win the 1999 USPC had me searching for poker books, and within a couple years I was basically crushing home games and cleaning up at casinosQuote:
Originally Posted by BCRQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
I always played poker, at various Sons of Italy, or friends games, but this is what really got me into the game more seriously. It's laughable now, given what we know about so many that he mythified in that book, but it piqued my interest at the time.
On a side note, quite striking that McManus had such a poor opinion of Annie Duke even back then and was willing to trash her in fifth Street
I got into poker because I had just learned to count cards in blackjack in October, 2000 (sadly just a few years after the golden age of pro blackjack ended), and was excited about the brave, new world of +EV gambling.
One of my friends at the time had just started playing limit holdem, and suggested I should get Lee Jones' book and start playing the game myself. I did, read the book, played $3/$6 at the Hustler, broke even in my first session, and was hooked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
yeah I remember reading and rereading Lee Jones book when I first got into poker
FTR, I knew he was in the hall, I'm saying ask poker players, say 40 and under, if they know who Moneymaker is, and then ask them if they know Orenstien.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
My other argument against the moneymaker effect, is the year before, a pretty much no name won, and there was no Varkonyi effect.
In the 2002 WSOP video, Doyle rips him, saying something like he thought it would be impossible for a guy like him to win.
Hellmuth had to shave his head, maybe, because he bet that guy couldn't win the final table.
He was a huge underdog.
Now, that also was the last year of the no hole cameras.
Same here, I might read that again, its been so long just to laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-OSame here, I've played poker since junior high in the 1980's but it wasn't until I caught some late night ESPN showings of the mid and late 1990's WSOP that I really caught the poker bug. Seeing Negreanu best John Bonetti to win the 1999 USPC had me searching for poker books, and within a couple years I was basically crushing home games and cleaning up at casinosQuote:
Originally Posted by BCR
On a side note, quite striking that McManus had such a poor opinion of Annie Duke even back then and was willing to trash her in fifth Street
Have you guys seen the History Channel version?
W/ the fake TJ Cloutier, and Hassan Habbib? It is part of that breaking Vegas series they did.
It was on netflix last I checked.
ESPN, a fairly recent breakup with a girlfriend, and Winning Low-Limit Holdem. That was my recipe for poker addiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by CorriganQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
yeah I remember reading and rereading Lee Jones book when I first got into poker
TBH, the average poker player of the online era knows so little about poker history its appalling. At the same time they are generally so self-aggrandizing that they would tell you how horrible the original camera is and what they would have done better.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyG_415FTR, I knew he was in the hall, I'm saying ask poker players, say 40 and under, if they know who Moneymaker is, and then ask them if they know Orenstien.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
My other argument against the moneymaker effect, is the year before, a pretty much no name won, and there was no Varkonyi effect.
In the 2002 WSOP video, Doyle rips him, saying something like he thought it would be impossible for a guy like him to win.
Hellmuth had to shave his head, maybe, because he bet that guy couldn't win the final table.
He was a huge underdog.
Now, that also was the last year of the no hole cameras.
Varkonyi was about as interesting as wet cardboard. The year before the final table was awesome and it was all pros,ESPN did several episodes on it and they were riveting with backstories and leadup to the final table, basically 2003 without the hole cards.
I read Sklansky's Texas Holdem Poker (not for advanced players, the original skinny one) and from there I bought a crate full of poker books from some guy on RGP for like $75 --some of them I hung on to because I've never seen them in print again. Within a year I bet I read 40 poker books and every issue of Cardplayer over a five year span. I still have a couple binders with early notes and statistics I made, and shit I printed off the InternetQuote:
One of my friends at the time had just started playing limit holdem, and suggested I should get Lee Jones' book and start playing the game myself. I did, read the book, played $3/$6 at the Hustler, broke even in my first session, and was hooked.
So just finished the grantland article, there was a crossover w/Dan Goldman's blog being part of this story.
I can't believe Hellmuth got 27th in that, thought that was a misprint.
Seemed like it got to 2 tables before he was sucked out on (I think by Lester), followed by the least sincere congratulations you've ever heard.
Googled "Lou Diamond, vegas" to see this guy that predicted Moneymaker on day 2. I know I've heard of him.
Doubt it is the same guy, but if you are looking for a pimp.............................................. .....