Good article throughout. Interesting quote from Barry at the end.

https://theringer.com/phil-ivey-worl...r-51cd56b8cccf

Gah I don't know why I find this **** so tilting but how can the author not know Moneymaker had more than 3 outs in that hand. Other than that fairly decent read; cant help but think that 1/5th of the guys on 2p2 could do a better job

Thanks for the heads-up. Very good article. Not the usual fluff piece. Didn't know much about "Sun", Ivey's baccarat partner. I didn't know she came from a wealthy family and was a high roller all over the world.

Who doesn't want to win the main event though?

I understand skipping all the other stuff, but is another nosebleed session or two really worth skipping your annual chance at the one tournament that almost every top player enters?

I don't know the man and he's free to do whatever he wants, but I think there's probably a bigger explanation besides just "he doesn't care" because he always seemed to care about the main event in the past.

Because Phil Ivey is a gambler. Phil was never in for the glory like Phil Hellmuth. To me the winner is whoever accumulates the most money exploiting positive EV situations. Most people don't even know who the world's most successful gambler is. His name his Bill Benter. He was a former card counter who devised a program to beat horse racing betting into the huge betting pools in Hong Kong. What he earned dwarfs what anybody earned in poker or casino games. His partner was Alan Woods who he had a falling out. I knew Alan Woods from blackjack community. Alan Woods died a few years ago. The Sydney Morning Herald estimated his wealth of $670 million. Benter has been speculated to be a billionaire. Your welcome to Google his name and read about it. It's astonishing money what these guys earned.

Fairly depressing Greenstein quotes. Hopefully he takes 1 last shot at high stakes cash and stacks Galfond's wife and gets a few % back.

Ivey taking on the UK Supreme Court

what a pair

Glad they touched upon the 99 vs. AQ hand with Moneymaker. It really it interesting to think how things would've been different for everyone had that river not come an ace.

Not everyone is like Negraneau or Hellmuth and want the bracelets and the glory and the legacy and blah blah. I'm sure Ivey is rich enough as it is, so if the WSOP doesn't interest him, why waste his time on it?

It's quotes like this that are LOL media driven narratives:

I'm assuming more people want the latter than the former.

News 777 where would you rate ZELCO if you rate Moana that highly pls.

Different how? ESPN still shows the series. We still see him on the FT come close.

I still think the 2004 series is 2k+ from sattys.

Just not convinced his win, though poetic enough, was really all it's made out to be.

I can still remember conversations from back then that started with, "Can you believe the guy's name was Moneymaker that won ..." and ended with some variation of "Maybe I should try to play poker too."

Would that have happened if the winner's name that year was Smith or even Ivey? No.

Is he in any way related to Zeljko and Steicke?

Phil has judgements and liens against him. That is the reason he is not playing in any tournaments. They can garnish it. Has nothing to do with poker. Same with scumbag Eli.

Watch the 2002 tournament.

Then watch the 2003 tournament.

Difference between the coverage was night and day. I'm sure the Moneymaker name and story helped, but I think the hole cards and improved presentation were also a huge variable. 2003 was the first year where they really made it entertaining for casuals to watch.

Then you also had the WPT launching around that time and Internet sites growing more and more popular. It was the perfect storm. Moneymaker was just one piece of the puzzle.

LOL have you seen the main event coverage? Used to be a big open room and now it looks like they have the players crammed in some big dark room that's not big enough. Doesn't look enticing.

I have some very cool stories about Zeljko. He is a neighbour of mine when he is in Australia. He owns half of Balmoral, in the midst of the financial crisis in 2008 he was buying up a ton of real estate as he saw it was a good opportunity. He spent over 350M AUD buying up real estate at the time. I don't know how much of which he still owns but all of it is prime real estate and the rate in which mosman has grown; I wouldn't be surprised if it was worth in excess of 1B if he still owns it all.

Sporty triads legs on left...Today gangster should be healthy.

They had hole cards in 2002. 2002 and 2003 felt about the same coverage wise. It was that some joe schmo won, beating "top pros" that made the story and made people feel like they could do it too.

Varkonyi was just an average joe as well though. IIRC the 2003 broadcast had people like Doyle throwing shade at him, saying he wasn't much of a player. He was hardly considered a contender prior to shipping it.

It's admittedly been a few years since I watched the old broadcasts, but my recollection is that there was a quantum leap from 2002 to 2003 in terms of watchability and entertainment value.

I think the difference between Varkonyi and Moneymaker was the story. Yeah, Varkonyi wasn't a pro and was a "every man", but not everyone has $10,000 to blow on a poker tournament. Just about everyone though has $40 they can throw at an online satellite for a chance to get into the big one.

I'm pretty sure 2003 was the first year where the coverage was not just the final table, but earlier days of the tournament (such as the Moneymaker/Ivey hand). Being able to follow the building story of the amateur who won a seat at home for a few bucks (and hey, why don't you give it a shot, too?) taking down top pros had a huge effect.

He said he had 7 outs

They corrected it. I was also tilted.