Jump to content

why raymer needs to win!


Recommended Posts

Day after day I am forced to listen to my friends, family, and co-workers blither on about how poker is all luck and what cards you are dealt. Anybody else hear this nonsense from there non-poker playing friends? If Raymer wins, will it prove to these ass-clowns that there is more skill required than they think!???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this has already been proved by the following:- Doyle Brunson- Johnny Chan- T.J Cloutier- Phill hellmuthand many many more.............nuff said....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pulling for Raymer. He's a great guy, great tournament player. Every moron I run into who knows almost nothing about poker is always saying how he sucks. Raymer should win and then eat them as a victory dance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymer winning will not prove anything.(although I hope he does) There is still the same about of luck and skill involved in a 1 week poker tournament whether Raymer wins or some random player wins. Let your friends continue to think its all luck and take their money over the period of a year or so then ask them what they think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, the point has been brought up that there are 200 pros and having 3 of them make the final 27 isnt that big of an accomplishment. I disagree but the point has been made. Don't forget Minh Ly on that lis, he plays in the big game with Doyle and the guys regularly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the top 5 remaining are: Mike Matuszow Phil Ivey Greg Raymerthere is no way it is 90% or more luck when the potential final table is this stacked!
I don't see how this says anything about the amount of luck involved.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In the top 5 remaining are: Mike Matuszow Phil Ivey Greg Raymerthere is no way it is 90% or more luck when the potential final table is this stacked!
I don't see how this says anything about the amount of luck involved.
Because, if it were not about skill, then with nearly 6,000 entrants would 4 of the top 6 be pretty big name pros?? No, if skill weren't that important then 1 of the top 30 would be a big name.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Ivey winning would be a better point being made..this is a guy that is said to be one of the best holdem players ever and the future of poker..Would it justify the skill factor if he won rather than somebody that has only won one other tournament???

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Ivey winning would be a better point being made..this is a guy that is said to be one of the best holdem players ever and the future of poker..Would it justify the skill factor if he won rather than somebody that has only won one other tournament???
If you're referring to Raymer, he has won only one other WSOP tourney, but he has won smaller tourneys, and he hasn't played in many WSOP events. The guy is a seriously skillled (note the three l's to drive home the point) player.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Ivey winning would be a better point being made..this is a guy that is said to be one of the best holdem players ever and the future of poker..Would it justify the skill factor if he won rather than somebody that has only won one other tournament???
Only won one other tournament? Jessus, do people really think that all the poker Raymer has ever played has been on TV? The guy's been playing (and winning) for a long time. Just because he wasn't a "pro" at the time they make him out to be some johnny average internet qualifier. He's not that in the least.If anyone says that poker is a game of luck invite them over to your house and tell them to bring lots of cash. If it's pure luck they should have just as good a chance as you of coming out ahead.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In the top 5 remaining are: Mike Matuszow Phil Ivey Greg Raymerthere is no way it is 90% or more luck when the potential final table is this stacked!
I don't see how this says anything about the amount of luck involved.
Because, if it were not about skill, then with nearly 6,000 entrants would 4 of the top 6 be pretty big name pros?? No, if skill weren't that important then 1 of the top 30 would be a big name.
Nobody but the OP's friends has said that skill isn't important.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Only won one other tournament? Jessus, do people really think that all the poker Raymer has ever played has been on TV? The guy's been playing (and winning) for a long time. Just because he wasn't a "pro" at the time they make him out to be some johnny average internet qualifier. He's not that in the least. If anyone says that poker is a game of luck invite them over to your house and tell them to bring lots of cash. If it's pure luck they should have just as good a chance as you of coming out ahead.
Why dont you go ahead and read my statement again..Did I ever say raymer wasnt skilled...Did I ever say the 2004 WSOp is the first time he has ever played..No..Your a ****ing moron for making that assumption..Raymer is extremely skilled but he has never won any other big tourneys or made a big name for himself in the cash games..The OP posters point was to prove that poker is more skill than luck..Phil Ivey is one of the most well known pros around..He would make a stronger case..That was my point..You jumped to all these conclusions yourself..read what I ****ing wrote not what you think I meant dumb arse...i never put raymer down once in that post..Does Ivey winning not make a better point for the OP's point he is trying to prove???
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why dont you go ahead and read my statement again..Did I ever say raymer wasnt skilled...Did I ever say the 2004 WSOp is the first time he has ever played..No..Your a censored moron for making that assumption..Raymer is extremely skilled but he has never won any other big tourneys or made a big name for himself in the cash games
Ummm...he made quite a big name for himself winning in both tournaments and cash games at foxwoods. A big enough name in fact that he was able to turn himself into a corporation and sell enough shares to fund his entire 2004 poker bankroll. He has also always been well known and respected on RGP (back when that forum was worth something). So no he wasn't on the WPT where you would have seen him, but he was known to a portion of the poker world.
Link to post
Share on other sites
well, the point has been brought up that there are 200 pros and having 3 of them make the final 27 isnt that big of an accomplishment. I disagree but the point has been made. Don't forget Minh Ly on that lis, he plays in the big game with Doyle and the guys regularly.
How is that not an accomplishment? By the math of 200 out of 5,661 there is one pro for every 28 entrants. The fact that there are 5 pros in the final 27 is quite impressive.Yes 5: Raymer, Matusow, Ivey, Ly, and Phan. (Phan is a high limit pro from LA)
Link to post
Share on other sites
well, the point has been brought up that there are 200 pros and having 3 of them make the final 27 isnt that big of an accomplishment. I disagree but the point has been made. Don't forget Minh Ly on that lis, he plays in the big game with Doyle and the guys regularly.
How is that not an accomplishment? By the math of 200 out of 5,661 there is one pro for every 28 entrants. The fact that there are 5 pros in the final 27 is quite impressive.Yes 5: Raymer, Matusow, Ivey, Ly, and Phan. (Phan is a high limit pro from LA)
Most excellently stated!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the final 10 last year:HarringtonAriehRaymerD. Williams (little known at the time, but still a pro)LuskeI know I'm probably forgetting someone, but 5 out of 10.......pretty strange coincidence hmmmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the final 10 last year:HarringtonAriehRaymerD. Williams (little known at the time, but still a pro)LuskeI know I'm probably forgetting someone, but 5 out of 10.......pretty strange coincidence hmmmmmm
You forgot Al Krux.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea wheres the love for Al Krux??? And his hot daughter :wink: I'll bump into people like that all the time too talking about OP, anyway all you can do is just brush it off. Their ignorance is not our fault, and thats really what it comes down too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Ivey winning would be a better point being made..this is a guy that is said to be one of the best holdem players ever and the future of poker..Would it justify the skill factor if he won rather than somebody that has only won one other tournament???
Only won one other tournament? Jessus, do people really think that all the poker Raymer has ever played has been on TV? The guy's been playing (and winning) for a long time. Just because he wasn't a "pro" at the time they make him out to be some johnny average internet qualifier. He's not that in the least.If anyone says that poker is a game of luck invite them over to your house and tell them to bring lots of cash. If it's pure luck they should have just as good a chance as you of coming out ahead.
What if they catch a good run of cards and take all your money?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm...he made quite a big name for himself winning in both tournaments and cash games at foxwoods. A big enough name in fact that he was able to turn himself into a corporation and sell enough shares to fund his entire 2004 poker bankroll. He has also always been well known and respected on RGP (back when that forum was worth something). So no he wasn't on the WPT where you would have seen him, but he was known to a portion of the poker world.
Why is everybody trying to argue with me about Raymer..THe only point I am trying to make is that Raymer is not as big of a name and well known of a pro as Phil Ivey..Not saying he isnt a great poker player or anything like that.. Why do you feel you have to argue every freaking point someone is making..Point is that ivey is regarded as a top five player in the world..He would prove more of a point than raymer..Quit ****ing arguing because you are arguing the wrong point
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...