Talk:Chris Moneymaker

message: Does anyone know his marriage status? There were reports of a divorce following his big win. I think it is an intereting addition if it is true. Wins millions and because of his fame or celebrity or ? ends up divorcing his wife. Thanks
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Most lottery jackpot winners are "in the black" but it doesn't mean they're good at playing the lottery, or that the odds are on their side. Adam Carolla (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Tournament winnings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lucky winner 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Debate 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Outdrawing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correction on the bluff 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  68.45.106.216 (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lou Diamond picking Moneymaker to win the WSOP 

message: What does the phrase "ran deep" mean within the meaning of the article? 69.255.250.110 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It just means lasted a long time before being eliminated.  I've removed the slang. 2005 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ran deep" 

message: *A 2009 article in Bet Us says Moneymaker has had his fair share of critics as a result of his tournament record after his 2003 World Series of Poker win. (Bet US, Poker Insider, Moneymaker Making Noise, Charles Jay, ) According to an article in Poker Listings, Moneymaker is regarded by many critics as a "one-hit wonder" in spite of his success in 2003.(Poker Listings web site, About Chris Moneymaker, ) However, an article in Blind Bet Poker says that Moneymaker has shown he is not a one-hit wonder by making strong showings at some of the biggest tournaments in the industry.(Blind Bet Poker, Profile: Chris Moneymaker ) These tournaments include 2nd place at the Bay 101 Shooting Stars World Poker Tour Tournament,  3rd place at the Fourth Annual Jack Binion Poker Classic in Tunica and  another 3rd place at the APPT in Sydney, Australia.(Poker Tommorrow, Chris Moneymaker )
I have created a subsection to the Career section of the article called "Reception".  I have given it a moderate placement at the bottom. Based on our discussion I have avoided weasel words and made sure that each sentence is reliably sourced and that the section gives both sides of the Moneymaker controversy. Together we can tweak the copy as needed but we cannot deny that criticism and controversy exists and has been widely reported via multiple sources. Even the "one-hit wonder" phrase has been mentioned in at least 4 sources that I have seen so far. I have nothing against Moneymaker or any poker player or BLP subject. I just want to help create an article that reflects all points of view from reliable sources as per the Wiki guidelines. Thanks for your help.-- — Kbob • Talk •  17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "Moneymaker controversy", you're trying to create one! I could find a few throwaway lines on blogs, forums and affiliate sites criticizing every poker player in the world and create a "reception" section in every individual Wikipedia article. I think your section actually degrades the article (it's random and contrived) and the only reason I haven't deleted it is that I can see this is a borderline obsession for you. Hazir (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe controversy is not the right word but the issue whatever you want to call it, is there in several articles and bios on MM. Wiki does not allow the use of personal blogs and to the best of my knowledge I have not used any as sources. If you look around Wiki you will find many Bios of Living Persons that contain criticism. Sara Palin, John Hagelin,  Peter Schiff, Leon MacLaren This is a standard practice on Wiki, to present all points of view.  Wiki actually prefers that criticism be placed in appropriate places throughout the article rather than all in one section so we can do that if others feel that is better for the article. I thought a reception section would be a good way to start out. It's up for discussion. All the best,-- — Kbob • Talk •  22:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's "up for discussion" why did you go ahead and create the section? Your references are diabolical. First, there's a bits and pieces contributor/tipster for a bookmaker (BetUS) who says that Moneymaker has "had his fair share of [nameless, faceless] critics". Then there's the Pokerlistings profile page, which as mentioned, was written by an anonymous author and also makes reference to "many" faceless critics. How does this constitute a section? I note also that Moneymaker is a [profitable online player], recently taking down the Pokerstars Quarter Million and is up more than $110,000.00 overall. Good luck with your Holy War. Hazir (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Keithbob, the two references you used are terrible.  We've already dealt with the Pokerlistings one, and Bet US one is similar.  "Some people" and "has had his fair share of critics" are weasel words, and hopelessly WP:UNDUE.  More to the point, why are you adding them?  As noted above, virtually all poker players have been called rotten players by "some people" -- this means clowns on Internet forums mostly.  If an expert like Doyle Brunson or Phil Ivey were to write an article commenting on Moneymaker's play and explaining their comments (not just 'oh, he stinks') then something could be added that is authoritative criticism.  Some guys writing articles (one anonymous) basically just saying a person has been criticised by some jerks is not how we write articles.  (Additionally, the older the comments, the less valuable they are, since obviously his other poker accomplishments are greater today than the day after he won the wsop.) 2005 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And then from a purely process point of view, if you want to take a stab at a more appropriate paragraph of text, please test it out here rather than just add it to the article as thus far no one has agreed with the addition, which means you should get a consensus on this talk page before adding anything similar. 2005 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I think you have a misunderstanding of how Wiki guidelines are applied. They are guidelines for Wiki editors. So for example the guideline on WEASEL does not mean that we cannot use any source that use the words 'some people' etc. The one thing that I think we can agree on is the we disagree.  :-) I don't want to have an edit war, but at the same time I would like to see the Wiki policies upheld and I feel that accurate, reliably sourced information is being blocked from the article because of personal point of view rather than Wiki guidelines. So I am going to ask for some impartial, outside editors to join the discussion and give their insights.-- — Kbob • Talk •  03:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "reliably sourced"?   Keithbob, while you haven't seen fit to answer the issues raised by the editors above, simply asserting that the sources you have mentioned are reliable sources for this subject is part of your problem.  The burden is on you to at least try to show reliability for this text.  Assertions get you nowhere, and neither will statements like: "So for example the guideline on WEASEL does not mean that we cannot use any source that use the words 'some people' etc."  Suppose I say: So for example the guideline on WEASEL does not mean that we can use any source that use the words 'some people' etc. Where did that get us?  Guidelines exist for a reason.  No one has agreed with you that for whatever reason the clear language of guideline should be ignored in this case, and other editors here and on the Admin page you previously started have stated the weasel words should not be included.  2005 (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reception" Subsection 

message: The amount of vitriol and the number of personal attacks on this discussion page should be looked at by Wiki staff, because I see about six different contributors who deserve at least a temporary ban. I don't know how to summon staff intervention so perhaps someone who does, should do it. This talk page makes all of Wikipedia look bad. 67.204.16.137 (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see all that much of a problem with the discussions on here. They get may get heated, but they're certainly not "personal attacks." Unless I happen to be missing something...? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks on this page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chris Moneymaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070521220019/http://tvtotal.prosieben.de:80/show/letzte_sendung/2007/04/02/10104.html to http://tvtotal.prosieben.de/show/letzte_sendung/2007/04/02/10104.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is Chris Moneymaker related to Matt Moneymaker, the president of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization and one of the stars of the show Finding Bigfoot? They both have the same uncommon last name so I was wondering if they are related.-Schnurrbart (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Moneymaker 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chris Moneymaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608002808/http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9286395/view/full/the-oral-history-2003-world-series-poker-which-chris-moneymaker-turned-39-25-million to http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9286395/view/full/the-oral-history-2003-world-series-poker-which-chris-moneymaker-turned-39-25-million
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It looks like an 11 year old using Google translate from another language into English wrote it 2605:8D80:60B:CC43:C98B:641F:E09C:A186 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be cleaned up and formatted correctly