Thoughs on Greg Raymer

Dennis187

Hi everyone, once again.

Sorry I havent been posting much this last month. Just got married and am getting my wife's named changed, and all that so been pretty busy. However I am back now and will start too post often. I am looking forward too discussing my opinions as well as others will all of you.

Anyways, here is my first question/opinion.

With Grey Raymer winning the WSOP this year. With him catching some miracle cards under all in raises and calls. What do you think about his play? Do you think that his win as a fluke, or do you think that he deserved it. I have heard that Raymer was playing poker like 2 years before he came too the WSOP 2004... so maybe he IS a decent player. What do you all think?

Personally I think that he played "decent". He isnt the best player in the world by a long shot. At least in my mind he isnt. But he is a decent player and he did do "okay" in the WSOP TOC. But sometimes I think he got pretty lucky... but hell with a field of 2500+ players... you have to get lucky somewhere too win the whole freakin' thing... unless your name is Dan Harrington lol! Looking forward too responses... later all.

Chugs

Congrats on the wedding,

with regards to raymer i think he knew how to play with a large chip stack. He himself has said that he got really lucky on his races and could barely count the bad beats.

I think the man brought his A game and like any other winner will tell you, he did get lucky from time to time. To win a tournament of that size you have to ... every pro would admit that

ScottyZ

With him catching some miracle cards under all in raises and calls. What do you think about his play?

From what I can tell, his play seemed excellent. My guess is that many people, absolutely including myself, who offer judgements on Raymer's skill level do not have adequate information to make such judgements.

I have heard that Raymer was playing poker like 2 years before he came too the WSOP 2004...

I gather from various websites that he has been playing longer than this. There are indications that he has played poker "since college", has played in the WSOP main event in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and finished 3rd in the World Poker Finals main event in 2001, a major tournament at Foxwoods.

ScottyZ

SlantNGo

He is very well respected at the 2+2 Forums... not a Moneymaker by any means.

NurseHoliday

I don't get to the other forums much, so I might well be out of the loop, but could you please explain the comment that he's no moneymaker? Is the poker public perception that moneymaker isn't very good? WHy do people feel this way?

ScottyZ

WHy do people feel this way?

Possibly because most people, for whatever reason, like to disparage those in our society who have had some of the greatest successes.

The prosecution of Martha Stewart by an illegally selected jury, based on perjured prosecution testimony; and it subsequently becoming the late night talk show flavour of the day, is an excellent example of this phenomenon.

As for Chris Moneymaker specifically, last year's (and this year's) WSOP coverage spun him as an "internet newbie". I would certainly conceed that Chris Moneymaker is probably less experienced, particularly in terms of live events, than many of the WSOP players (simply due to his age), but it's hard to know exactly how much of a newbie this guy really was.

They also showed a couple of hands in the coverage where Chris made some unlikely draw-outs. It's a very natural reaction to associate bad draw-outs with bad players, since these are highly correlated events in our day-to-day poker games. It's a plausible knee-jerk reaction to conclude that anyone who delivers a bad beat is likely to be a bad player.

I said the same thing about Raymer: from what I could tell, Moneymaker's play was excellent, but I don't think I have enough information to make a sound judgement of this.

ScottyZ

Dennis187

I agree with ScottyZ on this one about Moneymaker and Raymer. Here is the thing. The WSOP broadcasts, broadcast the most exiciting hands and the hands that someone gets eliminated on. They dont however show all the good hands that Moenymaker and Raymer played. Hands where they did start with the best hand, had the best hand on the flop and just outplayed there opponent.

Only seeing the most exciting hands, and elimination hands will create alot of false perception concerning ones play. Raymer and Moneymaker, they were and are good poker players. But just like Chris Ferguson said. With a field of 2500 people, you have to have skill and luck. Both of these men had both going for them very well.

Xsqueezeme

Chris Moneymaker is the first champion for ALOT of poker players to ever see. The world was not so aware of the wworld of poker until the WSOP last year and last years champion was Moneymaker. 'The guy next door.' Every one since then has been living the dream of 'well if he can do it, so can I'

Raymer played great! At least from the footage that I have seen. He out stacked everyone for a large remainder of the tourney and played his stack very well.

MrBluffsAlot

Chugs wrote:

I think the man brought his A game and like any other winner will tell you, he did get lucky from time to time. To win a tournament of that size you have to ...every pro would admit that

Unless your name is Phil Helmuth, to quote him.......(not sure if these are his exact words, but pretty close)

"If there were no luck involved, I would win every time!"

Theres a fine line between confidence and arrogance, I think Phil crosses that line from time to time

I think Raymer played very, very well. I mean you don't get to the final table by simply getting lucky. And as far as those "bad beats", with the size of the stack that he had, he did what I think most of us would do.

BTW, he suffered one or two of those same beats during the course of that final table. I think it was Harrington who caught the 3rd 9 on the river, giving him a set. :banghead:

Ah, the ups and downs of poker

SlantNGo

Raymer had a lot more tournament experience than Moneymaker. I think he's easily a better player than the previous two champions (I don't Varkonyi? sp? had much tournament experience either).

AcesFull

If I had to pick the better player between Raymer and Moneymaker, I'd have to go with Raymer. Not to say that I think MM is a bad player, but Raymer NEVER seemed to get even the least bit nervous in any situation. He seemed to be on autopilot, and came into every pot as though he was going to win it. I also liked the way Raymer handled himself, nothing but class through the entire event......which only served to infuriate egomaniacs like Arieh. I especially liked his handling of 'Mike the Mouth'.....he barely even acknowledged his presence. You could tell Raymer was just waiting for 'The Mouth' to self destruct and give his chips away.

Regarding the final 5 at the table. Did anyone notice the play change right after they brought out the money and they were all discussing what to do with it if they win? It seemed as though guys started thinking, "well I'm going for 1st but if I get knocked out now, I'm still a millionaire......so here goes nothing." I'm not suggesting that guys just gave up, but it seemed to me that they weren't putting as much thought into their hands as they did previously. The best example of this, has to be the final hand with Raymer and Williams. Williams didn't think for a second that Raymer might be holding pocket pairs? I know he was pot committed at that point, but what about thinking it through on the flop or turn? I'm sure he would have taken a little more time if he wasn't assured of a $3.5 million payout.

BrentMoreau

i have to agree with most people, in that raymer was a far superior player than moneymaker. he held a large chip stack from the very beginning of the tournament and played it properly. he did win a lot of races, but when you're grossly outstacking your opponents that's a good thing to do. also though, raymer was about the furthest thing from a newbie. he has played poker for many many years, and would be what i consider to be a semi-professional. he lives only a few miles from foxwoods, and had won many smaller tournaments there and as previously mentioned was a well-respected poster on 2+2. also, im not sure exactly when, but a while back raymer's bankroll got low, so he went to 2+2 and sold shares of himself for $500. he ended up selling a bunch of them, which payed off handsomly for his investors, as the WSOP win ended up costing raymer over 2 million dollars in payouts to his investors. he says he did not regret this though, yeah right! lol

harthgosh

I like Raymer. He is funny, and seemed cool for a wierd looking dude. Apparently he has been playing winning poker for a long time, so it is no surprise that he won. I don't think this was his first wsop was it?

As for moneymaker, I think he is a putz. He won his ticket to the wsop with huge gambling debts already. Thats why he had to sell 50% or more to people from a tourny he won a sat to! Moneymaker obviously knows how to play cards, but I do not see him ever coming first in an event again.
peace

literation

It wasn't his first wsop but I can't remember how many they said he's been in.

ScottyZ

ScottyZ wrote:

I gather from various websites that he has been playing longer than this. There are indications that he has played poker "since college", has played in the WSOP main event in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and finished 3rd in the World Poker Finals main event in 2001, a major tournament at Foxwoods.

I never thought I'd quote myself in the same thread...

I *love* the dancing banana.

ScottyZ