greg raymer and 2000 people live events

[SabaAba 0]

Does someone want to challenge me heads up?

[HurricaneKyle 0]

chindi- I would do well against a Raymer type player, for various reasons. I just don't see the guy read other players. For example on the WSOP telecast, Mattias Anderson had not played a hand in forever then moves in under the gun. Is there any chance that A-10 is in good shape here? No its almost certainly in real bad shape and folding is certainly the best option. From what I've seen Raymer likes his cards but doesn't adapt them to the situation. Aggression will get you a long way in poker tournaments if you run well.Harrington is misunderstood, I suggest you read his book before judging his style.

[spks9 0]

Trying to determine who is a better player from TV coverage is a big mistake. These shows are so heavily edited, I don't think that there is any way to get an accurate picture on any players game. I mean, all they show are "the entertaining" hands. The big bluffs, laydowns, and suck outs. One hand shown out of 50 does not give much info.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

Raymer is no guarentee in this tounament. Devilfish and Mark Seif both have reasonably healthy stacks. I like their chances.

[IndyJoe 0]

Trying to determine who is a better player from TV coverage is a big mistake. These shows are so heavily edited, I don't think that  there is any way to get an accurate picture on any players game. I mean, all they show are "the entertaining" hands. The big bluffs, laydowns, and suck outs. One hand shown out of 50 does not give much info.

That's been my point since the beginning. I've watched Raymer in several tourney's on PS. Played on the same table twice. He plays the same way. He continually goes all-in with the 2nd or 3rd best hand. Then if/when he gets a big stack, he tries to bully the table. I've seen him go from the chip leader to out in 3 hands. Sometimes his style works for him. The majority of the time it doesn't. I guess what was really irritating, is that he kept trying to tell others how to play when he was the one making the dumb calls. :roll:

[Kilgore Trout 0]

If you look at where the chip stacks are for the final table Raymer is in great shape, the next biggest stack is just to his right, and the the half his size stacks are the five to his left.He can steal a ton of blinds from those on his left while they are jockeying for chip position and he can wait for a monster to come over the top of the second in chips guy to his right. He is in the blinds for the two of the shortest stacks and they won't be too willing to push knowing raymer is in the blinds if they are at all familiar with his televised play from last year.He's in great shape to take this down1 Gregory Paul Raymer 613,000 Chips seat 8 2 Peter Lee 461,000 Chips seat 7 3 Minh Nguyen 378,000 Chips seat 1 4 David 'Devil Fish' Ulliott 338,000 Chips seat 2 5 Steve Rassi 325,000 Chips seat 3 6 Mark Seif 305,000 Chips seat 9 7 James Steve Carter 263,000 Chips seat 5 8 Webber Kang 166,000 Chips seat 4 9 Bill Gazes 181,000 Chips seat 6

[justblaze 0]

Trying to determine who is a better player from TV coverage is a big mistake. These shows are so heavily edited, I don't think that  there is any way to get an accurate picture on any players game. I mean, all they show are "the entertaining" hands. The big bluffs, laydowns, and suck outs. One hand shown out of 50 does not give much info.

That's been my point since the beginning. I've watched Raymer in several tourney's on PS. Played on the same table twice. He plays the same way. He continually goes all-in with the 2nd or 3rd best hand. Then if/when he gets a big stack, he tries to bully the table. I've seen him go from the chip leader to out in 3 hands. Sometimes his style works for him. The majority of the time it doesn't. I guess what was really irritating, is that he kept trying to tell others how to play when he was the one making the dumb calls. :roll:

yea im sure the guy is really bringing his A-game to a 100+9 on stars...

[IndyJoe 0]

Trying to determine who is a better player from TV coverage is a big mistake. These shows are so heavily edited, I don't think that  there is any way to get an accurate picture on any players game. I mean, all they show are "the entertaining" hands. The big bluffs, laydowns, and suck outs. One hand shown out of 50 does not give much info.

That's been my point since the beginning. I've watched Raymer in several tourney's on PS. Played on the same table twice. He plays the same way. He continually goes all-in with the 2nd or 3rd best hand. Then if/when he gets a big stack, he tries to bully the table. I've seen him go from the chip leader to out in 3 hands. Sometimes his style works for him. The majority of the time it doesn't. I guess what was really irritating, is that he kept trying to tell others how to play when he was the one making the dumb calls. :roll:

yea im sure the guy is really bringing his A-game to a 100+9 on stars...

My point again. He only has one style.

[shortfuze 0]

Seems like a lot of you Raymer haters are missing the point and don't understand good tourney strategy. It's been said about a thousand times already but you cannot judge someone's play by what is edited for espn. Raymer played good enough to accumulate a lot of chips and that afforded him the opportunity to lean on people, make looser than normal calls and push all in becasue he had everyone covered by a mile. it's good strategy and just about any decent player would have played the same way with a giant stack like that. Yes he got lucky a few times but I really doubt he just pushed his chips in every time from beginning to end in the tournament and just won a thousand coin flips like some of you seem to think. that's just ridiculous. I still think that Dan H is a better tourney player and until Raymer makes another two final tables at the main event and writes a book comparable to one of the most influential tourney books ever written (Harrington on Hold Em) I'll continue to feel that way. In the meantime maybe you should go watch a few live tourneys (Indy Joe) from start to finish, or better yet play in one, then tell who's strategy is better, yours or Raymers.-shortfuze

[Neb41 0]

i just saw the op exact post word for word on 2+2 wtf ?

[justblaze 0]

Trying to determine who is a better player from TV coverage is a big mistake. These shows are so heavily edited, I don't think that  there is any way to get an accurate picture on any players game. I mean, all they show are "the entertaining" hands. The big bluffs, laydowns, and suck outs. One hand shown out of 50 does not give much info.

That's been my point since the beginning. I've watched Raymer in several tourney's on PS. Played on the same table twice. He plays the same way. He continually goes all-in with the 2nd or 3rd best hand. Then if/when he gets a big stack, he tries to bully the table. I've seen him go from the chip leader to out in 3 hands. Sometimes his style works for him. The majority of the time it doesn't. I guess what was really irritating, is that he kept trying to tell others how to play when he was the one making the dumb calls. :roll:

yea im sure the guy is really bringing his A-game to a 100+9 on stars...

My point again. He only has one style.

no you missed the point entirely. the point is that you have no idea what his style is. You are inferring a general style of play from heavily edited TV broadcasts which are designed specifically to give the viewer the impression that anyone can win (as evidenced by raymer and his 'shove in' mentality, which is a distorted view) and a few low buyin tournaments online. Results speak.

[blueodum 0]

I challenge anyone reading this to a series of 37 imaginary poker matches for 5 billion imaginary dollars each.You can name the time, place and game of choice. (sw)

[bourbenz 0]

I guess most of you havent seen the wsop when Harington won, he was a madman playing a loose wild style and pushing in in tight spots and putting people to decisions. he would own any of you because you think seeing him on tv defines his style( wrong hes a pro he changes gears and adapts to the situation.)

[jjdylan 0]

Speaking of Greg.. Did you see this sick call from last night?Date / Time: 2005-06-23 22:13:00  Title: "I'm either a genius or a moron with that call" - Greg Raymer  Log: Greg Raymer makes it $22,000 to go preflop. David Slowik calls. The flop comes 10h-8s-6s. Slowik checks, and Raymer makes it $35,000. Slowik thinks for a moment, and then moves all in for about $190,000. Raymer goes into the tank, occasionally coming up to chat with Slowik, or more aptly chat at him. Slowik doesn't move, and Raymer inspects him for a while before announcing, "call." Slowik shows Qc-9c for no pair, and a double gutshot straight draw. Raymer flips up the 7c-6c, for a pair of 6's, and a gutshot. The turn brings the Kd, and Raymer's sixes are hanging on tight. The river is the 2h, and Raymer's sixes hold up, prompting a number of "What a call"'s from the crowd. Raymer wins the hand, and now has approximately $500,000 in chips. Slowik had Raymer covered so he retains a very short stack. Now that is cahones and instincts :-)

come on, it was all luck :wink:

[IndyJoe 0]

Trying to determine who is a better player from TV coverage is a big mistake. These shows are so heavily edited, I don't think that  there is any way to get an accurate picture on any players game. I mean, all they show are "the entertaining" hands. The big bluffs, laydowns, and suck outs. One hand shown out of 50 does not give much info.

That's been my point since the beginning. I've watched Raymer in several tourney's on PS. Played on the same table twice. He plays the same way. He continually goes all-in with the 2nd or 3rd best hand. Then if/when he gets a big stack, he tries to bully the table. I've seen him go from the chip leader to out in 3 hands. Sometimes his style works for him. The majority of the time it doesn't. I guess what was really irritating, is that he kept trying to tell others how to play when he was the one making the dumb calls. :roll:

yea im sure the guy is really bringing his A-game to a 100+9 on stars...

My point again. He only has one style.

no you missed the point entirely. the point is that you have no idea what his style is. You are inferring a general style of play from heavily edited TV broadcasts which are designed specifically to give the viewer the impression that anyone can win (as evidenced by raymer and his 'shove in' mentality, which is a distorted view) and a few low buyin tournaments online. Results speak.

Can you even read? Do you understand english? I have played WITH Greg. I've played in tourney's with him. I've watched him (yes from beginning to end). Geesh. Read the post before responding! Greg, doesn't push all-in everytime. But he does put himself in coinflip situations more then most. And someone else above said that he's so smart for getting a big stack then leaning on the smaller stacks. True. But the problem is, from what I've seen many times, that he calls smaller stacks with the lesser hand. AK vs A-10. KQ vs K-9. Now here's the thing: When he wins these hands, he wins the tourney. But like I've said, I've seen him go from chip lead to out in 3 hands. Seen him lose his stack a few times making these plays. Just read the live updates on today's final table, and you'll understand.

[werm 0]

good or not, I like Raymer for one reason. He conducts himself with class and respect for others. There's a lot of classless individuals out there int he poker world.

[mcpickl 0]

lol, you seem to lack in basic comprehension skills. Other players obviously don't play to lose, but many of the very good ones don't play to bust either. Most of the top players don't like being in a coinflip situation for all their money. And that's why I don't understand at all your response saying that I should play a 1k buy in and go all in when I have a good hand (Raymer). That I would be flat broke. Exactly my point! But once every 50 tourney's, I bet I would make the final table with a huge stack. Right? And your last point, doesn't make sense either. Would I rather win $5m? Sure!!!! But does that make me a better player? NO!I swear you get more retarded by the second. I am going to use your logic for a minute. Let's say there are 15 tournaments. Each tourney has 500 players, and here are the results for four of them.1. Wins one tourney...places 300th 14 other times2. Places 3, 4, and 5th...places 300th the other 12 time3. Places 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20th...places 300th the other 74. Places 50th every single timeBy your logic, player 4 is the best out of this group. This is why you are wrong, and a jackass.

Exactly! I think players 2,3 & 4 are all much better players then #1. I would say number 3 is the best overall player.

seriously? i'd rather be the player in the order theyre in. 1, 2,3,4. Id want the horse that wins every once in a while, than the horse that consisently shows, but never wins. I want the guy who can finish.

[crowTrobot 2]

good or not, I like Raymer for one reason. He conducts himself with class and respect for others.

he seems pretty friendly, too. never met a sandwich he didn't like.

[werm 0]

good or not, I like Raymer for one reason. He conducts himself with class and respect for others.

he seems pretty friendly, too. never met a sandwich he didn't like.

yeah You cantell he really likes sandwiches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!prolly even enjoys BURGERS, too!!!!!!!

[mcpickl 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.

wouldnt put too much stock in the freeroll tourney. since it was only paying one spot, and up against the other top players in the world, and Annie Duke, you needed to win many races and get extremely lucky. since there was no reason to hang tight for a 2nd place finish of $0, he was attempting to build a big stack by gambling or go home, very similar to DN.

[IndyJoe 0]

lol, you seem to lack in basic comprehension skills. Other players obviously don't play to lose, but many of the very good ones don't play to bust either. Most of the top players don't like being in a coinflip situation for all their money. And that's why I don't understand at all your response saying that I should play a 1k buy in and go all in when I have a good hand (Raymer). That I would be flat broke. Exactly my point! But once every 50 tourney's, I bet I would make the final table with a huge stack. Right? And your last point, doesn't make sense either. Would I rather win $5m? Sure!!!! But does that make me a better player? NO!I swear you get more retarded by the second. I am going to use your logic for a minute. Let's say there are 15 tournaments. Each tourney has 500 players, and here are the results for four of them.1. Wins one tourney...places 300th 14 other times2. Places 3, 4, and 5th...places 300th the other 12 time3. Places 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20th...places 300th the other 74. Places 50th every single timeBy your logic, player 4 is the best out of this group. This is why you are wrong, and a jackass.

Exactly! I think players 2,3 & 4 are all much better players then #1. I would say number 3 is the best overall player.

seriously? i'd rather be the player in the order theyre in. 1, 2,3,4. Id want the horse that wins every once in a while, than the horse that consisently shows, but never wins. I want the guy who can finish.

Well, if I were playing in the main event of the WSOP then I would for sure want to be the guy that wins. But if we're talking about regular WSOP and/or WPT tourney's then I would want to be the 2nd guy because I would be putting myself in POSITION to win. Maybe the guy hasn't sealed the deal yet, but he will if he keeps knocking on the door.

[speedz99 145]

lol, you seem to lack in basic comprehension skills. Other players obviously don't play to lose, but many of the very good ones don't play to bust either. Most of the top players don't like being in a coinflip situation for all their money. And that's why I don't understand at all your response saying that I should play a 1k buy in and go all in when I have a good hand (Raymer). That I would be flat broke. Exactly my point! But once every 50 tourney's, I bet I would make the final table with a huge stack. Right? And your last point, doesn't make sense either. Would I rather win $5m? Sure!!!! But does that make me a better player? NO!I swear you get more retarded by the second. I am going to use your logic for a minute. Let's say there are 15 tournaments. Each tourney has 500 players, and here are the results for four of them.1. Wins one tourney...places 300th 14 other times2. Places 3, 4, and 5th...places 300th the other 12 time3. Places 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20th...places 300th the other 74. Places 50th every single timeBy your logic, player 4 is the best out of this group. This is why you are wrong, and a jackass.

Exactly! I think players 2,3 & 4 are all much better players then #1. I would say number 3 is the best overall player.

seriously? i'd rather be the player in the order theyre in. 1, 2,3,4. Id want the horse that wins every once in a while, than the horse that consisently shows, but never wins. I want the guy who can finish.

Well, if I were playing in the main event of the WSOP then I would for sure want to be the guy that wins. But if we're talking about regular WSOP and/or WPT tourney's then I would want to be the 2nd guy because I would be putting myself in POSITION to win. Maybe the guy hasn't sealed the deal yet, but he will if he keeps knocking on the door.

Holy Crap! Re-read that line I bolded in your reply. Raymer is the guy that won the main event!!!!! The guy you are trashing is the guy you want to be! Your whole argument is now moot.I love that word...moot.Moot.

[Black99 0]

The Raymer haters on here are hilarious. As anyone with a brain will tell you, it takes a significant amount of good luck, or at least a lack of bad luck, to win a 2000 + player tourney. For Indy, suggesting that Raymer played bad by pushing all in with 10-10 against AK, do I take that to mean that it would have been a good play to fold to a raise by a player with AK (heads up)??Daniel has mentioned the luck factor that will inevitably come into these mega events, however, that does not mean that a player is by definition "merely lucky" because he won most of his coinflips. We will never see anyone win the main event without getting what is perceived (especially by those merely watching the espn covereage) to be very good luck. Harrington deals with this in Vol. 1 of his book. You have to get very lucky to win one of these events. You have to win the odd 4-1 situation with QQ against KK if you are going to win a 7 day event. Raymer plays a style very similar to Doyle Brunson. Another guy who has been successful, but not because he is skill, it is all luck!! (SW)FINALLY, this whole issue is exactly what Daniel has written about in relation to Phil H. He has to learn that in order to win these large events, he needs to be prepared to gamble. When an event has 2500 people, you cannot expect to be able to play the entire event without putting all your money in on a coinflip. If you dont win most of those coinflips, you are not going to win. Oh well, Anyone who does not accept that Raymer is in a group of the top 200 no limit tourney players in the world just does not get it...Black 99

[justblaze 0]

lol, you seem to lack in basic comprehension skills. Other players obviously don't play to lose, but many of the very good ones don't play to bust either. Most of the top players don't like being in a coinflip situation for all their money. And that's why I don't understand at all your response saying that I should play a 1k buy in and go all in when I have a good hand (Raymer). That I would be flat broke. Exactly my point! But once every 50 tourney's, I bet I would make the final table with a huge stack. Right? And your last point, doesn't make sense either. Would I rather win $5m? Sure!!!! But does that make me a better player? NO!I swear you get more retarded by the second. I am going to use your logic for a minute. Let's say there are 15 tournaments. Each tourney has 500 players, and here are the results for four of them.1. Wins one tourney...places 300th 14 other times2. Places 3, 4, and 5th...places 300th the other 12 time3. Places 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20th...places 300th the other 74. Places 50th every single timeBy your logic, player 4 is the best out of this group. This is why you are wrong, and a jackass.

Exactly! I think players 2,3 & 4 are all much better players then #1. I would say number 3 is the best overall player.

seriously? i'd rather be the player in the order theyre in. 1, 2,3,4. Id want the horse that wins every once in a while, than the horse that consisently shows, but never wins. I want the guy who can finish.

Well, if I were playing in the main event of the WSOP then I would for sure want to be the guy that wins. But if we're talking about regular WSOP and/or WPT tourney's then I would want to be the 2nd guy because I would be putting myself in POSITION to win. Maybe the guy hasn't sealed the deal yet, but he will if he keeps knocking on the door.

Holy Crap! Re-read that line I bolded in your reply. Raymer is the guy that won the main event!!!!! The guy you are trashing is the guy you want to be! Your whole argument is now moot.I love that word...moot.Moot.

haha, moot.

[steve7stud 0]

Wow, I didn't realize how much controversy this post would create. Maybe I should clarify a few things. I don't think that Raymer or Harrington are world class players. I know that might sound shocking. But neither one in in my opinion are in a league of Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Chau Giang, Chip Reese, Daniel Negreanu, John Juanda, Johnny Chan, etc. I could actually compose a VERY large list of players that I think are better than both of these guys.I'm also not really a "fan" of either player. I do think that the style that Raymer employs is more effective for todays tournaments. Harrington has played WAY more no limit events then you could imagine. I know it seems like every year he just shows up for the main event, and wow, there he is at the final table.Finally, as I stated in my first post, I have never played with either one. So, I could be wrong, obviously I don't think that I am. When I say that I think one is better, or one has a better style then the other. It's not just from watching the two on TV. Friends of mine have played with both of them. And we have had LENGTHY discussions about various players. Those two happened to be in the mix at one point or another. This whole discussion is fairly pointless to a certain degree. I have respect for both players in regard to their poker accomplishments. Here is something that really might shock you. If Dan Harrington and Antonio Esfaniari were playing heads up. I would put my money on Antonio EVERY time. I have a feeling tht Daniel would make the same bet. Good Luck.