Rethinking the Moneymaker Boom 20 Years Later (3 Viewers)

[Old State]

So I’ve been seeing the 2003 WSOP hit my YouTube feed. That along with recently reconnecting at the table with some of the guys I played with back then has jogged many memories and I’m really questioning the narrative of the “Moneymaker” boom.

He gets a lot credit for single handedly making poker popular…but that’s not how I remember it in real time. I was 29 that year and remember many people talking about the WSOP because of the new high production value ESPN invested in. The hole camera was the game changer. A bunch of my friends and family were watching this from the beginning before Moneymaker emerged as the chip leader. The 2002 event had already upped the production value a bit. I believe the ratings were pretty high as poker seemed to be gaining in popularity for about two years before.

My buddy had a Holdem tournament several months before the 2023 WSOP aired as holdem was starting to get poplar. Almost everyone at that tournament including me had to learn Holdem as we all played stud. I remember going to rent Rounders because it was the only place I remembered seeing it

While Moneymaker made a great story I believe the ESPN producers that made the production so top notch deserve 99% of the credit.

 

[chicubs1988]

It was several key factors:

1. The production value, the biggest factor being the hole-camera and graphics showing you what people had so that you could follow along with the action.
2. Online poker become more accessible and online poker advertising money made poker a viable television option for networks. Also, simply getting onto the featured table could cover your buy-in with the various sites signing you up to a deal to wear their merch on camera.
3. Moneymaker being a "regular" guy who not only won the tournament, but made it there by winning his seat via an online tournament.

It also helped that all of the old pros made their careers playing live, some of whom had to do it in underground games (ex: Doyle Brunson). As a result, they all had personalities that made them entertaining. Today I have a hard time watching a lot of poker because its dudes in hoodies and headphones barely speaking a word as they play GTO in super high roller tournaments where everyone owns a stake in everyone else and have sold off large chunks of their own action.

 

[tabletalker7]

Moneymaker had a hand in it, but it really wasn't him it could have been anyone decent. If ESPN put all that production value into it so we could watch an ex-con out on parole after serving 10 years at Club Fed for conning old people out of their retirement, poker dies right then and there.

 

[Moxie Mike]

So I’ve been seeing the 2003 WSOP hit my YouTube feed. That along with recently reconnecting at the table with some of the guys I played with back then has jogged many memories and I’m really questioning the narrative of the “Moneymaker” boom.

He gets a lot credit for single handedly making poker popular…but that’s not how I remember it in real time.

While Moneymaker made a great story I believe the ESPN producers that made the production so top notch deserve 99% of the credit.

I disagree.

Before I share my thoughts, I'd like to ask you one thing: What do you think happens in 2004 (and beyond) if Phil Ivey had won the 2003 Main?

 

[MrRossKeys]

I disagree.

Before I share my thoughts, I'd like to ask you one thing: What do you think happens in 2004 (and beyond) if Phil Ivey had won the 2003 Main?

This is a great question to put it in perspective.

I'd give ESPN maybe 40-50% of the credit. Word of mouth is a big factor... and the "little guy" winning gets a lot of the credit. For some of us Moneymaker is also a "local guy" which is even more incentive for some.

Think of Steph Curry for example. A "smaller" guy by NBA standards that looks more like you and me, doing amazing things... it's more accessible and makes many think they can do it to. Has a whole lot to do with why basketball is even more popular with kids or all ages, sizes, and race... because people can see themselves in it in ways they couldn't before.

 

[Machine]

Wasn’t that a record breaking year for entries? Didn’t it shatter the previous years record?

I think poker was seeing a more main stream interest with culture changes and a more thriving market and boredom, I think it wouldn't matter who won it was more of a culmination of the events ending with what could have been a lotto winner. Moneymaker happened once a upon a star imho

 

[Moxie Mike]

This is a great question to put it in perspective.

I'd give ESPN maybe 40-50% of the credit. Word of mouth is a big factor... and the "little guy" winning gets a lot of the credit. For some of us Moneymaker is also a "local guy" which is even more incentive for some.

Think of Steph Curry for example. A "smaller" guy by NBA standards that looks more like you and me, doing amazing things... it's more accessible and makes many think they can do it to. Has a whole lot to do with why basketball is even more popular with kids or all ages, sizes, and race... because people can see themselves in it in ways they couldn't before.

Respectfully, I reject the comparison between poker and professional team sports. There are just no parallels.

 

[MrRossKeys]

Respectfully, I reject the comparison between poker and professional team sports. There are just no parallels.

Respectfully, I'm comparing the adoption rate of two disciplines that are made up of both hobbyists and professionals.

Both have grown exponentially from where they were 25+ years ago. One of the reasons for this is the mirror exposure effect. Vicarious achievement creating inspiration and motivation.

 

[Moxie Mike]

Wasn’t that a record breaking year for entries? Didn’t it shatter the previous years record?

I think poker was seeing a more main stream interest with culture changes and a more thriving market and boredom, I think it wouldn't matter who won it was more of a culmination of the events ending with what could have been a lotto winner. Moneymaker happened once a upon a star imho

Moneymaker's win gave credibility to the story that anyone can win. Every nobody that has won over the past 20 years perpetuates that premise.

Look at the 20 main event winners since Moneymaker. There's not a household name amongst them. This only stands to certify the premise that anyone can win. 70% of the last 20 WSOP main event winners' only bracelet is the ME.

 

[Machine]

Moneymaker's win gave credibility to the story that anyone can win. Every nobody that has won over the past 20 years perpetuates that premise.

Look at the 20 main event winners since Moneymaker. There's not a household name amongst them. This only stands to certify the premise that anyone can win. 70% of the last 20 WSOP main event winners' only bracelet is the ME.

I think we are close to saying the same thing. I think with that field, statistically an avg Joe is favored. It’s why people mortgage their homes to buy lotto.

 

[ekricket]

It was Lon McEachern and Norman Chad. We would have watched grass grow if they narrated it.

 

[warma]

Moneymaker had a hand in it, but it really wasn't him it could have been anyone decent. If ESPN put all that production value into it so we could watch an ex-con out on parole after serving 10 years at Club Fed for conning old people out of their retirement, poker dies right then and there.

I recall a lot of conversations centering around how Chris was a regular player and how the show generated a lot of excitement around poker. I agree with the points above- seeing hole cards was huge, because everyone became a poker genius. Norman Chad mad it super entertaining.

I can’t remember if I started watching that year or the year after, but getting into the WSOP was part of what got me back into poker so enthusiastically after a 10 year hiatus. It was the whole package in my mind, not just Chris’ win. (It also focused me on Texas HE vs the circus games I used to play, an error that lasted until a few years ago.)

I think Chris’ real benefit was getting regular players to believe they could win, which probably drove more people to the WSOP. It almost became a lottery with the high number of entrants.

 

[ValueTown]

I liked poker from the old crowd. The new on screen info was a game changer.
I think they over hyped the "little guy" made it so any can as a business move. That did draw folks, but I don't see it as the moneymaker boom. My .02.

 

[Rakrul]

As someone already mentioned, I believe there was already a ton of people playing in the 2003 WSOP, mainly because of all the online satellites being offered that allowed the fish to join a very expensive tournament they normally wouldn't play in. When you add the fact that a non-pro won from paying $10 along with the TV and media coverage, you get lotto-fever going on. You already had a massive growth in poker interest going into the WSOP, and I think sooner or later an amateur would win and you'd get a boom no matter what.

So all in all, I'd guess 3 factors came in to a perfect storm;
1) Increased interest due to online poker and marketing
2) Increased production and hole cams
3) Underdog winner

 

[BigJackJones]

I grew up in Oklahoma. I’m the son of a preacher. Although my Dad was not the typical conservative Oklahoma minister, gambling was just not acceptable. I was the type of kid who rooted for the outlaws, long before Martin Scorsese opened Goodfellas with a similar line.

While it was not as readily available on television back then, and it took a while for us to finally get cable television, I would watch everything about poker I could, when I could. I was fascinated by guys like Johnny Moss, Amarillo Slim, Doyle Brunson, Stu Ungar, and to some extent Chip Reese. They were like outlaws to me.

I forgot about it for a few years while I went to college, got married and divorced, toured with my band, and drank myself damn near to death. Rounders brought my interest back to the game, and the availability on cable TV made it easy to watch.

By the time Moneymaker won the main event, you couldn’t spit in any direction without finding a game. I have always liked 7 card stud more than hold’em, but I couldn’t find anyone willing to play anything but hold’em once Moneymaker won.

I like watching guys like Phil Ivey and Daniel Negreanu play, but they don’t have the same appeal to me as the old outlaw types did when I was growing up.

For me, the Moneymaker Boom (or Hole Card Cam Boom) may have ruined what I liked about the game. It feels more like playing accountants and dentists (No Offense) than it does Cowboys and Gangsters for the last 20 years.

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

So here's my two cents from what my ex brother inlaw, who was a poker dealer, claims he experienced.

• He was a "poker" dealer in Blackhawk/Central City in CO at the time.
• Nearly all of the casinos closed down their poker rooms, so he had to deal black jack.
• Moneymaker won the Main Event.
• Every fool and his brother were now looking for poker.
• Most of the poker rooms re-opened due to demand.

Now...my ex brother inlaw was a total shitbag, so he might have been lying. But that's his story. Others on here from CO might know better, but he claims Moneymaker winning was the sole reason they reopened poker rooms in Blackhawk/Central City.

 

[Highli99]

The person responsible for hole cards is Henry Orenstein, a fascinating individual. He was a teenager in Poland during WWII and survived 5 different concentration camps.

After the war he went on to a very successful business career and was a well known player for many years.

He passed away of Covid during the pandemic.

His book is titled “I shall live” and I highly recommend it.

 

[pokerplayingpisces]

There is already an excellent book on this conversation:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/145074119131?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr=1&amdata=enc:1ZgvtXV6MSaGVUCM8M1qH5w86&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=145074119131&targetid=1584739239974&device=m&mktype=pla&googleloc=9026840&poi=&campaignid=19894961968&mkgroupid=148855406073&rlsatarget=pla-1584739239974&abcId=9307911&merchantid=107435593&gbraid=0AAAAAD_QDh9CzEn-0Hz8Ir-fA39VrQfmV&gclid=CjwKCAiAmZGrBhAnEiwAo9qHiTbFDDy7vmg6NckpcZ0odSO5zgCGDi4v5gyzTBbk26m9Dhw__mI6sRoCtXQQAvD_BwE

Like many others have pointed out, there was plenty of momentum towards a “boom” happening: hole cams for better ESPN coverage, the rise of online poker, etc.
The fuel for a fire was there, Moneymaker was the match.
IMHO what we went through was a “Hold’em Boom”. It brought many people to the game. Some were just novices, and moved on to other hobbies. Some of us have stayed, but have moved on to other games (Omaha, circus games, etc.). A small segment of NLHE tourney only players remain.

 

[AH77]

Let’s not forget about the “Farha effect” either. The perfect villain that you kind of wanted to be but also wanted to defeat at the same time.

The thing that appealed to me as a spectator at the time was being exposed to a world of gamblers and eccentric characters that I previously never knew existed. It wasn’t so much about being an average joe and wanting to beat the pros but moreso, just wanting to be a part of that world in general.

 

[Kain8]

where everyone owns a stake in everyone else and have sold off large chunks of their own action.

I mean, that's always been the case for tournament regs who travelled the circuit. Heck, it can go from player to player or from investor to investor who both field several players each. They're all after that small amount of equity from the amateurs that enter.

 

[Old State]

I disagree.

Before I share my thoughts, I'd like to ask you one thing: What do you think happens in 2004 (and beyond) if Phil Ivey had won the 2003 Main?

I honestly still think there is a poker boom. The 2002 winner wasn’t a famous poker player either…he was a banker. The 2003 WSOP was a big deal as it was happening. People not that familiar with poker were tuning in well BEFORE Moneymaker was part of the final episodes.

Wasn’t that a record breaking year for entries? Didn’t it shatter the previous years record?

I think poker was seeing a more main stream interest with culture changes and a more thriving market and boredom, I think it wouldn't matter who won it was more of a culmination of the events ending with what could have been a lotto winner. Moneymaker happened once a upon a star imho

Yup. Poker started slowly getting big around 2001-2. Rounders was release in 1998 but didn’t play in many theaters. The movie didn’t get big for at least another 2 years after when it was on tape DVD. I don’t think I first heard of it or saw it until 2000 or 2001 when I saw it at a Blockbuster.
I remember a lot of poker games popping up around that time. Most were playing Stud …but Holdem was being talked about. I hosted my first cash game of straight poker (stud) around 2000. People forget that with the exception of the Teddy KGB and Taj scenes, the entire movie shows stud being played. But it made poker look very very cool.
My buddy was the biggest card player I knew at the time (the guy who hosted the holdem tournament in 2002. At that time he had already found ASM and had the first custom chips I ever saw. Me and three others bought ours in early 2003. I remember wanted them…not because of the WSOP hype, but because they were in Rounders and my buddy had them. My first order was 500 chips specifically for cash. At the end of 2003 with the boom, I ordered another 500 for tournaments

 

[doublebooyah85]

Moneymaker was certainly more than 1%.

Was Poker booming before him? Certainly.

Moneymaker took it to the next level. If that wsop was a dud for example or a boring pro wins, it doesn’t boom as much w Moneymaker and Farha.

And to your point most everyone in this hobby or site would still be here today, but moneymaker brought in the recreational play to the next level.

 

[Old State]

Moneymaker was certainly more than 1%.

Was Poker booming before him? Certainly.

Moneymaker took it to the next level. If that wsop was a dud for example or a boring pro wins, it doesn’t boom as much w Moneymaker and Farha.

And to your point most everyone in this hobby or site would still be here today, but moneymaker brought in the recreational play to the next level.

Yes…but it was all the poker pros that became celebrities….far far bigger than Moneymaker. Kids didn’t want to be Moneymaker they wanted to be Johnny Chan, Dan Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Antonio Esfandari, etc. As I recollect in real time Moneymaker was considered more of a fluke and almost immediately started losing the lime light to the young pros.

 

[doublebooyah85]

Yes…but it was all the poker pros that became celebrities….far far bigger than Moneymaker. Kids didn’t want to be Moneymaker they wanted to be Johnny Chan, Dan Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Antonio Esfandari, etc. As I recollect in real time Moneymaker was considered more of a fluke and almost immediately started losing the lime light to the young pros.

Yeah those pros elevated the game as well. But Moneymaker told the David vs Goliath story.

Any rec could win…

 

[ekricket]

Yeah those pros elevated the game as well. But Moneymaker told the David vs Goliath story.

Any rec could win…

That’s kinda saying poker isn’t that hard isn’t it…. It’s so brainless that any Jo Schmoe can beat the pros.

 

[doublebooyah85]

That’s kinda saying poker isn’t that hard isn’t it…. It’s so brainless that any Jo Schmoe can beat the pros.

I don’t follow. I think I agree but don’t follow the sarcasm lol

Yes any brainless person can win a tournament. Hence the appeal to the masses and recreational players resulting in a bigger boom.

 

[Old State]

Yeah those pros elevated the game as well. But Moneymaker told the David vs Goliath story.

Any rec could win…

I agree, but I think the narrative around Moneymaker has been severely embellished over time because people prefer that version to reality. It’s a better story. But by 2004 no one was really talking about him anymore. He never did well at anymore tournaments and became a memory. It was all about the new celebrity pro pokers player and the new TV shows with hole cards.
Dan Negreanu, Scotty Nguyen, Hulmuth and all the big pro personalities drove the poker boom FAR more than Moneymaker….and that actually started during the 2003 ESPN coverage.

 

[doublebooyah85]

I agree, but I think the narrative around Moneymaker has been severely embellished over time because people prefer that version to reality. It’s a better story. But by 2004 no one was really talking about him anymore. He never did well at anymore tournaments and became a memory. It was all about the new celebrity pro pokers player and the new TV shows with hole cards.
Dan Negreanu, Scotty Nguyen, Hulmuth and all the big pro personalities drove the poker boom FAR more than Moneymaker….and that actually started during the 2003 ESPN coverage.

Agree. I’d say it’s 50/50. Both needed each other.

And again, to your point, a boom was already happening. There’s a reason Moneymaker was playing online satellites w thousands others!

 

[Old State]

Agree. I’d say it’s 50/50. Both needed each other.

And again, to your point, a boom was already happening. There’s a reason Moneymaker was playing online satellites w thousands others!

I also believe perception is based in one’s age and prior familiarity with poker in general. I think for people who were teens or very young in 2003, Moneymaker has a bigger spot in their memory. If you are older and were familiar at least somewhat in poker already, things like Rounders and the fact you could see hole cards was a bigger piece of the poker boom.

 

[Old State]

Let’s not forget about the “Farha effect” either. The perfect villain that you kind of wanted to be but also wanted to defeat at the same time.

The thing that appealed to me as a spectator at the time was being exposed to a world of gamblers and eccentric characters that I previously never knew existed. It wasn’t so much about being an average joe and wanting to beat the pros but moreso, just wanting to be a part of that world in general.

100%