Poker: The Moneymaker Factor

I read an article in a poker magazine lately focused on Chris Moneymaker. Not sure exactly what the news peg was, but it probably had something to do with the World Series of Poker tournament. Anyway, the author was trying to make the connection between Moneymaker’s victory and the current popularity of the game of poker.

At first, I had to do a double-take, that of all people he’d give credit to the one person the poker community at large seems to want to have pegged as the fluke of all flukes. I honestly don’t want to get into that, it’s obvious Chris Moneymaker is a skilled player, and every poker player gets lucky plenty of times. So whether he deserved to have a bracelet is really moot here.

But as I got into the article, I could at least understand the pitch. The claim is that at the time Binion’s was in huge financial trouble, and according to the Full Tilt Poker Rakeback, the World Series of Poker needed to be sold to stay alive. This was back in 2003, when Moneymaker bested Farha at the final table to take the championship. The argument goes that his victory sparked the “amateur revolution”, leading to all the ESPN coverage that followed, and digging up enough interest to convince Harrahs to buy the World Series, thus saving it from certain death.

There’s at least a few points in there that are a significant stretch, but I’ll start with Moneymaker deserving much of the credit for poker’s popularity. In reality, poker was already experiencing a surge in popularity. I was seeing it at the college and home-game level, and watching it between sporting events and SportsCenter on ESPN. It was because of poker’s popularity that Moneymaker became so well-known, not the other way around.

And second, I seriously doubt Moneymaker’s victory instead of the veteran Sammy Farha of FullTiltPoker.com is alone what convinced Harrah’s the World Series of Poker was worth saving, or that if Harrah’s hadn’t bit, another company or casino wouldn’t have stepped in and taken the opportunity to associate itself with such a prestigious tournament. It would’ve happened, don’t kid yourself. The WSOP wasn’t going to die like an orphan abandoned on the Vegas gutters.

So while it’s nice to talk topical about how the current tournament and all the hoopla surrounding “almost wasn’t,” there’s little sense in crediting one lucky once-amateur with being it’s savior. I just don’t buy it, and honestly, it’s almost an insult to the tournament.