greg raymer and 2000 people live events

[jrbrown1548 0]

I understand that a lot of you all think that Raymer was lucky last year with a decent amount of coin-flips and 4-1 hands winning, but come on guys I think now the man deserves some respect. He is at the final table right now at the $1,500 NL Hold'Em that had a field of over 2,000. I understand the blinds suck, but I'm almost willing to put him into a category of Harrington's back-to-back final tables from 03/04. He's the chipleader going in and hopefully will represent quality. Last year I think MM made like a 10th finish at some event.....I guess my point is, is that give the man some respect as he seems like he's on the ball so far this year....just my 2 cents, I don't think any flaming is deserved on this post, but whatever, I understand

[Wlleiotl 0]

only reason you could get flamed for this is for pointing out to the morons that thought raymer was a bad player that they're wrong.hes an excellent poker player, fully deserves another bracelet here

[steve7stud 0]

I personally think that Raymer is a better player than Harrington. He certainly has more heart. I haven't played with either one. But if I was playing in a tournament and had to pick, I would MUCH rather be playing with Harrington rather than Raymer. I think the major difference between the two players is this. Raymer is looking to win the whole thing. And Harringtom is looking to survive. Again, these are just my thoughts and opions.

[Python49 0]

No, the difference is raymer isnt a dormat... you could sneeze on a pot harrington is in and take it down.

[mk 11]

No, the difference is raymer isnt a dormat... you could sneeze on a pot harrington is in and take it down.

I really hope this is missing the (sw).If not, it might be the dumbest thing I've read on this forum.

[Josh Woolsey 0]

No, the difference is raymer isnt a dormat... you could sneeze on a pot harrington is in and take it down.

That right there is why Harrington stays alive in tournaments, he wins some very very large pots because people believe that.

[Whatever 1]

Harrington is obviously weak tight. :shock: (sw)

[Pokerghost2 0]

steve7stud up until this point i have agreed with u in large part with everything u have posted on here and definetly can tell that u have some knowledge and experience, but raymer being better than harrington? You went a little overboard there buddy. I think he played great in the main event last year, but i didnt see enough from that one tourn to say hes a better tourn player than Dan Harrington. He certainly stunk it up in that 2 mil freeroll. Same thing tho he likes to stick it in pf and HOPE for a coinflip. hes not in harringtons league. I stil dig ur posts steve, and id rather have harrington at my table too but only because i dont want a preflop coinflip for all my chips.

[Smasharoo 0]

I personally think that Raymer is a better player than Harrington.Disagree. He certainly has more heart.Disagree. I haven't played with either one.I've played 10/20 limit with Raymer at Foxwoods, which is fairly meaningless in terms of his NL tournamnet playing ability.Nice guy though.

[Governator 54]

Considering they have completely different strategies to the game.. Isn't it kind of hard to compare the two? If they were both aggressive players you could probably outway who's "better", but in my opinion since Harrington is so tight, there arn't many at his level who play a similar style.

[Smasharoo 0]

I think people really overestimate Harrignton's predicibilty.He's not the luckiest weak tight player in the world. He's just very good about not showing junk often.That doesn't mean he's not raising with it occasonally.

[HangukMiguk 8]

That doesn't mean he's not raising with it occasonally.

just watch the 2004 final table and you will see that. We all know that he's very tight. But he would not be successful at that level (especially now), if he did not pull off bluffs as well.The guy knows when to exploit his table image for all its worth. That's the mark of a good player.

[moe1078 0]

I dont remember all of the details so I may be wrong on some of this. But didnt he have a decent chip stack at last years main event and reraised someone all in with some god awfull hand? I would say that takes a little heart.

[Azzy666 0]

That doesn't mean he's not raising with it occasonally.

just watch the 2004 final table and you will see that. We all know that he's very tight. But he would not be successful at that level (especially now), if he did not pull off bluffs as well.The guy knows when to exploit his table image for all its worth. That's the mark of a good player.

A quick example for those unenlightened:~8 people left in the 2004 main event with blinds of $40,000/$80,000 and a $10,000 ante, the table looks something like this:SB: Glenn Hughes — $1,800,000BB: David Williams — $2,000,000UTG: Josh Arieh — $3,200,000Al Krux — $2,000,000Greg "Fossilman" Raymer — $7,250,000Matt Dean — $3,250,000Dan Harrington — $2,250,000John Arieh, who had been fairly aggressive, raised UTG with K9 to $225,000. Krux folded and Raymer called with A2s. Dead folded and Harrington looked down at 46. Normally Harrington would throw this hand away. Instead, he decided to execute a squeeze play.Harrington reraised to $120,000 and everyone folded and Harrington raked in $640,000 profit!!!Note: I know that this isn't all completely accurate, but I believe it displays the situation close enough...

[Azzy666 0]

Note: Harrington made lots of plays like this, I was just providing one example. In general, yes, he plays very tight. However, that tight image is what allows him to pull off some of these monster bluffs!

[Smasharoo 0]

Anyway, all that said.I don't think either cashes this year.

[Pokerghost2 0]

lol u may be eating those words pretty soon. Unless u meant in the main event only.

[Smasharoo 0]

Unless u meant in the main event only.Obviously.

[snakster 0]

Anyway, all that said.I don't think either cashes this year.

In the main event, you mean...yes?

[snakster 0]

oops. nevermind

[guacamole 0]

if Raymer wins both this one, and the main event (again, LOL), he is officially the worlds best poker player.I think a lot of people (me included) will be updating our opinions of the fossilman this morning. I was pretty shocked to see him at the top, although not nearly as shocked as I would have been had it been Moneymaker.

[Smasharoo 0]

if Raymer wins both this one, and the main event (again, LOL), he is officially the worlds best poker player. No.Luckiest, though.

[PhishForChips 0]

Harrington bluffs a lot if you watched the WSOP last year you would see some key pots late in the game that Harrington bluffed or put his whole tourney on the line for a small pot with crap cards. He got the respect because he's know to showdown with nut hands, but he picks his spots well and can pick up the blinds with the respect he gains from his reputation. Thats good poker right there. Comparing Raymer to a legend? Please. Harrington may be one of the 10 best to ever play the game. Lets not put Raymer in that category just yet.

[PhishForChips 0]

if Raymer wins both this one, and the main event (again, LOL), he is officially the worlds best poker player. No.Luckiest, though.

Poker is all luck. No skill. (sw)

[Smasharoo 0]

Poker is all luck. No skill.Well, I'm not sure about imaginary poker, but real poker involves a huge amount of luck in the short term, tournaments even moreso.