Which is the more impressive feat?
Dan Harrington finishing 3rd and 4th in back to back world series or Greg Raymer winning and then beating 99.5 % of the field the following year? ( I think he finished 29th last year).Both are unbelievable, but which is more impressive?
Comments
sstar
Uhhh, that is the 3rd and 4th place finish referred to in the initial post of this thread.  And again, 2003-839 players, 2004-2576 players.
Give Raymer credit...what he did could be luck ONCE...but three times, in the three biggest fields in poker history?? I love Harrington, but Raymer's feat may never be equalled.
sstar
Must learn to read the post more closely.
I don't think Raymer is a bad player, I just think Harrington is a better player. Both I think are good and had great accomplishments.
I think what Raymer needs to do is work on his image (maybe get some good PR people or something) because he could make a lot of money just off his success in the last 2 years.
Greg Raymer won the WSOP (ME). Action Dan although making back to back final tables will be the first to tell you he NEVER put himself in the driver's seat to WIN a the main event over those 2 years.
Raymer won The main event in 04.
In '05 Raymer dominated again. There were 2 nights where play stopped and Raymer became the odds-on money favorite to take it down.
Raymer took a horrific beat with just 3 tables left this past summer.
If Aaron Kanter doesn't play worse than my mom and chase running hearts against him, Raymer then becomes a HEAVY favorite to repeat with 25 players left.
Based on what I know about Greg and his game, I can assure you he would have been extremely hard to beat, Final Tabling would have been a lock.
Basically it is hard to compare Dan and Raymer, as they play entirely different games.
If you ask me, Raymer plays for the win throughout the tournament.
Action Dan is a survivor, I have never seen a case where Action Dan has put himself in a position to win a tournament before it got down to the last few players, and a good run could give anyone the victory.
The added fact that the field this past year while Raymer was going again, as compared to the year of Dan's first of back to back final tables, was more than 6 times as many entries solidifies Greg Raymers WSOP main event achievemants as the nuts, at least in my books.
Kev
If you truely believe that playing a tight rock-like game a la Dan Harrington doesn't need 5 TIMES the amount of luck it would take for someone playing a style similar to that of Greg Raymer's to win, you are clueless.
Sorry to be mean jpajamas, but your post is way off.
I've actually been starting to wonder about this (how lucky you need to be if you're "too tight"). I have a lot of respect for your game (especially after playing you at WS), so could you expand on your thoughts? (although this might need a new thread...)
Hey, last I looked, it's a free country, I'm entitled to my opinion, and so are you. I've read poker material from both, and though Raymer is somewhat intelligent, action Dan knows poker. Let's have this post again in 3 years to see what Raymer has done in the meantime. I'll bet not much.
Are you really trying to imply there is only one successful strategy to win tournaments? I highly doubt that harringtons style requires 5x more luck. I think the more hands you play, the more luck you need just because of the number of confrontations you have to win.
Word.
While I agree with what you have said here, it generally takes a better 'all around' player to play the type of game that Raymer plays. He plays more hands then Harrington would but I wouldn't necessarily say that he needs to get lucky on all of them, he still has the option to outplay his opponents and will have to do this more often than Harrington because he is playing more hands.
In saying all of that I'm still not sure what feat is more impressive. If I had to chose who I would fear more at my table between Raymer and Harrington, I would say I'd fear Raymer any day of the week.
stp
Congrats on taking absolutley no stance on the topic. Would you like some water with your water? Thanks!
In general I'd probably agree. But this got me to thinking... There was a recent EPT episode on TSN on the weekend where some old French guy with a very rock-like image laid down TT 3 handed vs. a young hyper aggro player that reraise pushed with K9o. I think after this, the kid started to think he could run all over said player. The "rock" made adjustments and was making great calls with "weak hands" (which are big hands headsup) like 2nd pair, bottom pair, etc. against the LAG's bluffs and the kid seemed shocked at some of the calls.
So, this got me to thinking that some of the very good players with tight images might actually lure their opponents into a false sense of security, thinking "He's a rock, he plays boring unimaginative poker, I can eat him for breakfast". And then the aggressive players proceed to donk off their chips and wonder what happened... Barry Greenstein, Howard Lederer are others I think of that sort of impose a non-threatening rock-like image that sometimes the aggressive players get overzealous in their attempts to bluff them (I seem to remember Steve Danneman making a horrendous ill-timed bluff at Lederer in the WSOP that cost him a bunch of chips).
I encourage you to keep voicing your opinion, as that is what we are here for. The more faults your opinion have the more bashing you will receive, thats simple. I am getting bashed here too.
I am very happy putting my money where my mouth is. Come up with something and I will bet my money on Raymer vs Dan Harrington against you..
My statement that playing an overly-tight style makes it 5x harder to WIN a tourney was in fact an underestimate.
For my example I am using the image we have seen of Dan Harrington over the 2 year main event stretch where he found his way to the TV table often.
Of course we only see selected hands and we watched Dan play a tight game, save for one hand I recall over the 2 years. I am in no way saying that Dan doesn't have the knowledge and skill to play many styles and mix up his game, as he obviously is quite possible of.
What I did mean to say is simply that a player who open raises a pot once every two orbits of the table, (as you can go watch Action Dan do any tourney he plays) is going to WIN a tournament AT BEST 1 in every 5 times. The other 80%+ of the time, the winner is going to be a player who open raises 3 times in ONE round of the table, maybe more.
That is my feelings on tournament play.
I used to believe that tight was right, but now I have been around poker long enough to know otherwise.
Kev
Mmmmm.....tight.
What's that about a third part of his book? The first 2 are my bibles.