moneymaker and raymer

[allinbluff35 0]

I know what I saw with my own two eyes and am not making this up to sound cool or anything like that. Yes you are because you are at 1000 posts now, never post again it's a pretty sweet number to leave with.

[KDawgCometh 2]

I know what I saw with my own two eyes and am not making this up to sound cool or anything like that. Yes you are because you are at 1000 posts now, never post again it's a pretty sweet number to leave with.

nope 1001 is much cooler

[Swift_Psycho 1]

I don't think you (guys&girls) watched the WSOP invitational which Annie Duke won. Greg Raymer played real poor in that one calling all ins preflop with 9 8os?? I don't know if he was intiminated by the others at the table or what but I felt that the amature came out of him in that one. I think that the commentators said that he had did alot of the same in WSOP main event but he was getting lucky, I guess he thought that he could do the same against the pro's.. WRONG !!!!! :roll:

I'm gonna explain something to you, Greg's all in calls taking the 60/40 dog three times was actually part genius. He is only gonna lose them all three times 18% of the time. He was using what's known as negative progression and it does work. Greg outlasted a bunch of other pros so what does that say about them? Greg is much better than MM, but that doesn't mean MM isn't a good player. I forgot the mathematical equation to prove the negative progression play, but I had seen it done by someone who knows their censored, Raymer will make another TV final table, I garuntee that

Thats not true at all. The third time he's a 60/40 dog he's still gonna lose that hand 60% of the time. Put it this way, if you flip a coin and it comes heads 99 times in a row, what is the probability that it will come heads the 100th time? It's the same probability that it will come heads the first time, the second time, and the 99th time, the events are compeltely independant. Say you have 22 and you absolutly know 100% that your opponent has AA, your in a MTT and both have the same size stack and your on the bubble for the money. Do you call or fold? Now lets say that the last 10 times you were in this situation you lost... do you all of the sudden call because for some reason your now a favorite as you lost the last 10 times?As for the actualy topic I think that Moneymaker is a better player than Raymer, based on what I've seen. You can point to bad beats that Moneymaker dished out, but you can also point out bad beats that Rayemer dished out. However I think that Moneymaker made some exceptional plays, moreso than Raymer (like the bluff against Farha). That said Raymer could have also made some brilliant plays that weren't on TV, but Moneymaker could have as well. Just because the guy didn't play in cash games at foxwoods before he won the WSOP doesn't mean that he's not a great player. Hell Moneymaker came in 2nd at a WPT event (Shooting Stars), and he took a bad beat to lose it, that certainly has to weigh more than Raymer's 3rd place or whatever at a foxwoods event a few years ago right?I find it funny how most of you idolize Stu Ungar for his "great poker play" yet criticize Chris Moneymaker for former cashgame play (or lack thereof, anyone know how he does in cash games now?), and placing sports bets.

I really don't have anything much to say except about that bluff against Farha. Will people stop referring to that as a good play? Moneymaker did have his moments in the 2003 WSOP, I'll admit to that. However, that bluff was not one of them. It was a poor play and he was very lucky he wasn't picked off. I don't remember exactly what the pot size was or their stack sizes, but I do remember initially feeling when I watched it that the play was so dumb because there wasn't nearly enough in the pot to justify making that huge all in bluff.That's really all I have to say, that hand is just something that always bothers me when people refer to it as a "great play."

[murphy77 0]

Thats not true at all. The third time he's a 60/40 dog he's still gonna lose that hand 60% of the time. Put it this way, if you flip a coin and it comes heads 99 times in a row, what is the probability that it will come heads the 100th time? It's the same probability that it will come heads the first time, the second time, and the 99th time, the events are compeltely independant.

look, I know that there is a equation that statisically shows the compouded 60/40 hands that you will lose all three in a row only 18% of the time. If anyone is adept at game theory or of the like please settle this for my own peace of mind. I am dead certain I saw someone do this equation somewhere and I've been searching for the past 1/2 hour all over the net but haven't found the post. I know what I saw with my own two eyes and am not making this up to sound cool or anything like that. Someone either prove me wrong mathmatically or right mathmatically. Jsut someone please prove it. I don't want blanket statements, just the cold hard facts and written out, no coinflip examples. Math that's all I want is hard math. happy 1000 to me

Your looking at this the wrong way. Your right, if you run a hand where you are a 60/40 dog three times your only gonna lose all three 21.6% of the time (.6^3 100 gives you that number). However, that doesn't matter at all. Just because you lost the last two times, does not make you an 80% favorite in the hand. Your still a 60/40 dog in the hand. Say you flip a coin and it comes heads 100 times in a row. The probability of this happening is .000000000000000000000000000007886% chance of happening (actual figure, .5^100 *100). Now for the 101st flip would you bet $90 that its gonna come tails, to $1 that it will come heads because your getting an insane +EV since the coinflip isn't really 50/50, its 99.(29 9's go here) to .(29 0's go here)1 that will come up tails, or even a less percentage since your doing another flip?

[Emptyeye 0]

Thats not true at all. The third time he's a 60/40 dog he's still gonna lose that hand 60% of the time. Put it this way, if you flip a coin and it comes heads 99 times in a row, what is the probability that it will come heads the 100th time? It's the same probability that it will come heads the first time, the second time, and the 99th time, the events are compeltely independant.

look, I know that there is a equation that statisically shows the compouded 60/40 hands that you will lose all three in a row only 18% of the time

Actually, you're both right, though I believe he actually loses 3 times in a row 21.6% of the time (If I'm doing the math right).First we'll use the coin flips as an example. Obviously, there's a 50% chance of a given side coming up on a coin flip.The odds of heads coming up twice in a row is 25% (50% each time, heads must come up BOTH times, .5 * .5 = .25 or 25%).With that, Raymer has a 60/40 of losing one of these given "coin flips" (60/40 is actually not a coin flip at all, but that's another story). So the odds of him losing all three is:Odds that he loses #1 AND loses #2 AND loses #3, which is .6 * .6 * .6 = .216 or 21.6%EDIT: Beaten to it.It's hard to explain in a non-mathematical sense (As you said, independent results have no memory, and the odds of him losing one of these given situations is still 60%), but I guess it helps to think of the condition of him losing 3 in a row as one massive event.

[murphy77 0]

I really don't have anything much to say except about that bluff against Farha. Will people stop referring to that as a good play? Moneymaker did have his moments in the 2003 WSOP, I'll admit to that. However, that bluff was not one of them. It was a poor play and he was very lucky he wasn't picked off. I don't remember exactly what the pot size was or their stack sizes, but I do remember initially feeling when I watched it that the play was so dumb because there wasn't nearly enough in the pot to justify making that huge all in bluff.That's really all I have to say, that hand is just something that always bothers me when people refer to it as a "great play."

It wouldn't be great if he had just randomly gone all in when his draws missed. He made a pretty large bet on the turn which was simply amazing for a so called amature. If he makes either of his draws he can make a bet on the river that could give Farha pot odds to call to get more chips out of him. On the other hand if he misses (which he did) he can sell his bluff of having a made hand on the turn (when the third? spade hit). IIRC the stack sizes were about equal with Moneymaker with a slight lead, and the pot was pretty large, and gave Moneymaker a very nice chiplead.

[KDawgCometh 2]

With that, Raymer has a 60/40 of losing one of these given "coin flips" (60/40 is actually not a coin flip at all, but that's another story). So the odds of him losing all three is: Odds that he loses #1 AND loses #2 AND loses #3, which is .6 * .6 * .6 = .216 or 21.6% It's hard to explain in a non-mathematical sense (As you said, independent results have no memory, and the odds of him losing one of these given situations is still 60%), but I guess it helps to think of the condition of him losing 3 in a row as one massive event.

thanks a lot emptyeye, I was going nuts trying to find the equation all over the internet as I had seen it before. This is the whole idea between negative progression is that in one random event you can lose, but when it is compounded your actual loses are small as you are going to win x amount of time and this works in tournaments much better than in cash games. I know that negative progression is used heavily as a betting srategy in BlackJack

[Swift_Psycho 1]

I really don't have anything much to say except about that bluff against Farha. Will people stop referring to that as a good play? Moneymaker did have his moments in the 2003 WSOP, I'll admit to that. However, that bluff was not one of them. It was a poor play and he was very lucky he wasn't picked off. I don't remember exactly what the pot size was or their stack sizes, but I do remember initially feeling when I watched it that the play was so dumb because there wasn't nearly enough in the pot to justify making that huge all in bluff.That's really all I have to say, that hand is just something that always bothers me when people refer to it as a "great play."

It wouldn't be great if he had just randomly gone all in when his draws missed. He made a pretty large bet on the turn which was simply amazing for a so called amature. If he makes either of his draws he can make a bet on the river that could give Farha pot odds to call to get more chips out of him. On the other hand if he misses (which he did) he can sell his bluff of having a made hand on the turn (when the third? spade hit). IIRC the stack sizes were about equal with Moneymaker with a slight lead, and the pot was pretty large, and gave Moneymaker a very nice chiplead.

Thanks for the explanation, but it wasn't necessary. I said that I didn't remember the exact stack sizes and the pot size, but I do remember the situation, the hand's betting, and relative stack sizes. Moneymaker had a decent lead, not just "slight." Farha bet the turn about 300k, Moneymaker raised 500k (the commentators said it was a big raise, but that was really an exaggeration). I think that the hand was really misplayed by Farha more than it was played brilliantly by Moneymaker. Farha shouldn't have called the raise on 4th street if he was going to lay it down on 5th street when a blank hit on the river. He was drawing to a Q-high flush, but he wouldn't have been comfortable with his flush even if he made it, since Moneymaker already showed strength of a possible stronger flush when the 3rd hit on the turn(or , whatever the suit was). If Farha wanted to call that bet on the turn, he should have felt committed to calling his chips off on the river when a blank hit. He did, after all, still have top pair on the board. Drawing to a flush that might not be good (and wouldn't have been) if you make it is just bad poker. On the other hand, Moneymaker fired one shell on the turn and was called. His chip lead was still going to be decent if he just backed off, but he just decided to move in. If he really wanted to bluff, I would have liked him to bet something like two thirds of Farha's stack or something along those lines. It would have been a more convincing bet (as far as representing strength and wanting a call). His huge bet, how he said the words "All In!", leaned over the table, stopped breathing , and other things just screamed of a bluff. I could go into this more, but my intention isn't to start an argument or anything. The play to me was just not that great, and I look at the hand as more of a misplay by Farha than a "great" play by Moneymaker.

[21gambit 0]

Its correct to say that in each individual instance Raymer is a 60 percent of the time, thus making it a bad play, but heres how negative progression would make sense to me.Lets say you are heads up in a NLHE tournament and you have a huge lead over your opponent, you have 150,000 and your opponnent has 10,000.The blinds are at 500-1000now lets say you are dealt KJo and your opponent is dealt A10o every hand, would you want to go all in everytime? He is a 60 percent favorite but the chances that you are going to win eventually are pretty decent, plus, youre stuck in that situation every hand, so what other choice do you have? You would have 4 shots to win the tournament. 1st time hes got 10K vs 150K, doubles to 20K20K vs 140K40K vs 120K80K vs 80KThis is just like someone saying to me, hey, I have this ten sided die, how about we roll it four times, if it lands on 1 through 4 any of those times ill pay you 100 bucks, if none of those rolls lands on 1-4 you pay me 100 bucks...Would you take those odds? That guy wouldbe welcome at my house any time.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

Thats not true at all. The third time he's a 60/40 dog he's still gonna lose that hand 60% of the time. Put it this way, if you flip a coin and it comes heads 99 times in a row, what is the probability that it will come heads the 100th time? It's the same probability that it will come heads the first time, the second time, and the 99th time, the events are compeltely independant.

While this is true, it has nothing to do with the previous argument.As an extreme example, if you have 1/64 of the chips in play headsup and push allin blind every hand, you can lose the first hand and have 1/32 of the chips. Then lose and have 1/16. Then lose and have 1/8. Then lose and have 1/4. Then lose and have 1/2. If you lose then, you bust, but the odds of this happening are 1/32, assuming your opponent calls every time. These are low odds.

Say you have 22 and you absolutly know 100% that your opponent has AA, your in a MTT and both have the same size stack and your on the bubble for the money. Do you call or fold? Now lets say that the last 10 times you were in this situation you lost... do you all of the sudden call because for some reason your now a favorite as you lost the last 10 times?

This is one of the dumbest examples I've ever seen in my life. Not only is it irrelevant to the discussion, its entirely absurd. I can't even wrap my brain around the point your trying to make with it. Even if he's 40/60, there's dead money in the pot that makes the play profitable. Even if he's a 20/80 dog, the value of the size of his stack the 20% of the time he wins may be enough to make the call correct.

As for the actualy topic I think that Moneymaker is a better player than Raymer, based on what I've seen. You can point to bad beats that Moneymaker dished out, but you can also point out bad beats that Rayemer dished out. However I think that Moneymaker made some exceptional plays, moreso than Raymer (like the bluff against Farha).

This is headsup, a situation which occurs in tournaments for TWO PLAYERS FROM THE ENTIRE FIELD. You can't base someone's game off their headsup play. Even more importantly, you can't base someone's tournament play off of headsup play. 99.9% of the hands dealt in a tournament do not involve 2 players being dealt in.So because of the specific example of someone playing headsup in the specific setting of tournament poker playing the specific game of no-limit texas hold'em, moneymaker is better.Should I concede that point to you, you still have no proof of the point that CMM is better at poker than GR.

That said Raymer could have also made some brilliant plays that weren't on TV, but Moneymaker could have as well. Just because the guy didn't play in cash games at foxwoods before he won the WSOP doesn't mean that he's not a great player. Hell Moneymaker came in 2nd at a WPT event (Shooting Stars), and he took a bad beat to lose it, that certainly has to weigh more than Raymer's 3rd place or whatever at a foxwoods event a few years ago right?

You can't assign significant logical weight to independent tourney places such as these. Read my previous posts for an explanation of this if you aren't satisfied by the following statement: tournament play is the highest-variance form of poker and short-term results, which may be as extensive as a 50 tournament run, can not easily distinguish the relative skill level of two players.

I find it funny how most of you idolize Stu Ungar for his "great poker play" yet criticize Chris Moneymaker for former cashgame play (or lack thereof, anyone know how he does in cash games now?), and placing sports bets.

Stu played poker for twenty years and had deep roots in gin, backgammon, and other games of logic and chance. He was a deeply rooted gamesman who had a feel for equity, regardless of whether or not he actually made the calculations necessary to quantify the concept. Moneymaker has played poker for two years... TWO YEARS. Stu ungar was an idiot in life. He ****ed himself up in indescribable ways, but was a genius when he needed to be. Addiction is a profoundly terrible thing.-adam

[jogsxyz 0]

With that, Raymer has a 60/40 of losing one of these given "coin flips" (60/40 is actually not a coin flip at all, but that's another story). So the odds of him losing all three is: Odds that he loses #1 AND loses #2 AND loses #3, which is .6 * .6 * .6 = .216 or 21.6% It's hard to explain in a non-mathematical sense (As you said, independent results have no memory, and the odds of him losing one of these given situations is still 60%), but I guess it helps to think of the condition of him losing 3 in a row as one massive event.

thanks a lot emptyeye, I was going nuts trying to find the equation all over the internet as I had seen it before. This is the whole idea between negative progression is that in one random event you can lose, but when it is compounded your actual loses are small as you are going to win x amount of time and this works in tournaments much better than in cash games. I know that negative progression is used heavily as a betting srategy in BlackJack

Dont waste your time. There is none. From Stat 100 using Feller as the text there is no way to incorporate a losing strategy into a winning strategy and improve the winning strategy.There is no getting around this. Tournament poker is a HUGE luck game. The only way to reduce luck is to increase the number of deals necessary to produce a winner. Every year the players are playing slower and slower. Fields are getting larger and larger. To finish a tournament in real time sponsors are forced to increase the blinds more quickly, thus reducing the number of deals and increasing the luck factor.

[KDawgCometh 2]

With that, Raymer has a 60/40 of losing one of these given "coin flips" (60/40 is actually not a coin flip at all, but that's another story). So the odds of him losing all three is: Odds that he loses #1 AND loses #2 AND loses #3, which is .6 * .6 * .6 = .216 or 21.6% It's hard to explain in a non-mathematical sense (As you said, independent results have no memory, and the odds of him losing one of these given situations is still 60%), but I guess it helps to think of the condition of him losing 3 in a row as one massive event.

thanks a lot emptyeye, I was going nuts trying to find the equation all over the internet as I had seen it before. This is the whole idea between negative progression is that in one random event you can lose, but when it is compounded your actual loses are small as you are going to win x amount of time and this works in tournaments much better than in cash games. I know that negative progression is used heavily as a betting srategy in BlackJack

Dont waste your time. There is none. From Stat 100 using Feller as the text there is no way to incorporate a losing strategy into a winning strategy and improve the winning strategy.There is no getting around this. Tournament poker is a HUGE luck game. The only way to reduce luck is to increase the number of deals necessary to produce a winner. Every year the players are playing slower and slower. Fields are getting larger and larger. To finish a tournament in real time sponsors are forced to increase the blinds more quickly, thus reducing the number of deals and increasing the luck factor.

ummm, did you just look at the above examples of how negative progressions smart guy. Of course you don't like reading other posts since you had said that Raymer never made a final table before and I had already said he did, twice, and winning one well beofre you wrote your post, get a clue

[murphy77 0]

If your negative progression theory is so damn great then lets flip coins. First flip will be free, but then I'll give you $30 to your $70 that it will come up the same as the previous time. After all what your saying is that the chances of the same side hitting twice is only 25% so wouldn't you be getting a +EV deal? To the 60/40 thing, who cares about the dead money in the pot? I'll take a 60% chance of winning much more than the 40% chance, whether its done once, three times, or a hundered times. If you want to call someone's all in when they have AA and you have 22 go ahead, I won't stop you. As for the real topic, of course I can't prove that Moneymaker is better than Raymer, just like you can't PROVE that Raymer is better than Moneymaker. Proving stuff is very hard to do. Just because I think that Robert Varkonyi is a complete fluke doesn't mean that he is. He could have had some insanely bad luck the last couple of years, and might start compltely tearing up the WPT. However, I have to base what I think of the two as players from what I've seen. I saw Raymer get luck and hit a huge stack with an insane chip lead, and then just call a bunch of all-in's with inferior hands, some where he wasn't even at a coinflip and win. If tournaments are so much luck then what about your hero Stu Ungar? All he ever did in poker was win tournaments and you don't hold that against him, yet Moneymaker's 2nd at Shootingstar is for naught because tournaments are random? Sorry he didn't sit down at 75/150 before he won the WSOP. As for Moneymaker being a "degenerate gambler" because he gambles a lot within 2 years of his win compared to Ungar's 20? WTF is that about, I read a story (may have been linked from this site) that if you wanted to place a sports bet in the early 80's and you were going to bet on the team that Ungar didn't bet on, you'd go behind him because he'd move the line with 5+ max bets. This is the early 80's, probably within 2 years of Ungar's WSOP win. This doesn't make him any worse of a poker player, and it shouldn't make Moneymaker any worse of a poker player. I'll bet almost anything that Raymer doesn't make it past the first day at the WSOP this year, not because he's a bad player, but because people will be gunning for him and he'll have to have an incredible run of cards to survive.This is an opinion issue, I'm sorry my opinion/observations are different than yours.

[looshle 6]

I dont think you can say fossil man is better then moneymaker because even though that may be true moneymaker has got a second place finish in a major tournament and i dont think raymer has made it to another final table.( i could be rong).

Even though it maybe true, you can't say it? lol

[jogsxyz 0]

[ummm, did you just look at the above examples of how negative progressions smart guy. Of course you don't like reading other posts since you had said that Raymer never made a final table before and I had already said he did, twice, and winning one well beofre you wrote your post, get a clue

I checked. Other than the main event Raymer made no final tables last year. He has made no final tables this year. Minor events dont count. CardPlayer has the official list.

[KDawgCometh 2]

[ummm, did you just look at the above examples of how negative progressions smart guy. Of course you don't like reading other posts since you had said that Raymer never made a final table before and I had already said he did, twice, and winning one well beofre you wrote your post, get a clue

I checked. Other than the main event Raymer made no final tables last year. He has made no final tables this year. Minor events dont count. CardPlayer has the official list.

he placed tird in the $5000 main event at foxwoods in 2001 that Scotty Ngyun won, is that big enough for you, and the stud event was a $75000 win that he won, so no they aren't "minor"

[jogsxyz 0]

 As for the real topic, of course I can't prove that Moneymaker is better than Raymer, just like you can't PROVE that Raymer is better than Moneymaker. Proving stuff is very hard to do.

You're right murph, we can't prove who's better. But we all know the law of large numbers. In a 60/40 proposition we'll take the the 60 side and let Kdawg take the 40 side. I like our chances.

[AKQJs_2o 0]

I think it's because Raymer gets more respect from more players.  If I remember correctly, Moneymaker won an insane amount of pots in which he should have lost, but got lucky at the right times.

Moneymaker caught some great cards and knocked out a few pros on more than one all-in hands where he looked like he was going to go home.Still I think CM did a lot for poker when he won the 2003 WSOP, it was a great story and it increased interest in the game.Didn't CM go out drinking the night before the 2004 WSOP began and then get knocked out on the first day?Raymer was a very successful high stakes player with a "local reputation" at Foxwoods from what I've heard. Raymer is probably much more eloquent than Moneymaker considering his education and employment as an attorney, so I can see why he'd be a popular media/tv commentator.Moneymaker, on the other hand, came out of cyberspace and shocked everone.

[AceyDeucy 0]

Negative regression theory:The key to any question of probability is the question you ask. For instance: "What is the probability of my 101st coin flip being heads?" Answer: .5 "What is the probability of my 101st coin flip being the 101st consecutive heads?" Answer: REALLY REALLY SMALL.Let's you have a series of independent events in which you are consistently the underdog. Let's also say you only need to win ONCE. So is the correct question, "Will I win this hand?" No. The question is "Will I win any of the next five hands?" So, let's say you will lose 40% of the time. The probability that you will lose all five trials is .4*.4*.4*.4*.4=.01024. So you will win 99% of the time. Again, this applies to a special situation., when you only need one "jackpot" hand to beat all your losses. The point of this is that you make your decision at the beginning and take your hands off the wheel and what what happens. You don't go to the fifth trial thinking, "Okay, I am BOUND to win this one." here's a practical example, and one Amarillo Slim mentioned in his book that has gotten me lunch money a few times. Get a room with around 30 people in it. Bet anyone concerned that two people in the room have the same birthday. This is the same situation, you have an improbable event you only need to happen once over many trials. Here's what happens:What are the odds that two people have the same birthday (ignoring leap year effects)? In other words, that one person has a birthday in 364 of the 365 days that do not correspond to the first birthday:1-364/365=0.27%Okay, go to three people, and one common birthday (one has a birthday in 364 of the 365 days that do not correspond to the first birthday and a second a birthday in 363 of the 365 days that do not correspond to the first or second birthday):1-(364/365*363/365)=0.82%blah blah blah you get to about 23 people and it's a coin flip. You get to 30 and you are a 70-30 favorite (by my hasty Excel sheet). Sure, it's a whole bunch of really unlikely events, but you ONLY need one hit. Oh, who's a better player? Moneymaker has great talent, but I think Raymer is a more complete package. I would take Raymer (and as a Southernor, that pains me)

[ArseneLupin3 0]

This is a multiple-part post where i reply to jog, murphy, acey, and a few others.First off..Is this a valid negative progression application?Circumstances:Andy beale comes to vegas, looking to play NLHE vs. the Corporation, a group of high limit professionals who pool a portion of their bankrolls for the session to decrease variance, risk of ruin, etc.Situation 1:Beale, worth a few billion for the sake of the example, sits with 100 stacks of $100,000 chips in front of a large variety of other denominations. All told, he has $250,000,000 on the table. He is offered a choice of players for the game and selects Bobby Baldwin. Bobby sits with $5m, the corporation has agreed to allow a maxmimum loss of 20 in the game. The blinds are 20k/40k. Beale pushes every hand. Assuming Bobby eventually calls, he'll do so after losing (most likely) a few hundred k, waiting for the right spot (during a break, the corp. confer and reach the assumption of 70-30 or better is a good enough spot). Bobby is a 3:1 dog to win four of these hands in a row, and will be getting blinded off in the process. Even in the best case, he has 40m at the end of this. Situation 2: Beale sits with his entire net work, as well as an infinite line of credit from a nonexistent insurance firm. Same blinds. He pushes every hand. There is no way he can lose if bobby keeps playing.While the less extreme example (1) is not a +Ev situation for beale, it's feasible. Example (2) is a really outlandish case but gives you an example of the math at work.On the other hand, you have Raymer with a decent amount of chips at the WSOPTOC, or at the WSOPME Final table. Relative to many of the players remaining, his stack was so large where this concept was applicable to a great degree of profit. The achille's heel of this strategy is the tendency to view the final event or events in the series of events as a bad play because you can ignore the previous events. Fortunately, the odds were there for Raymer to justify his call of the reraise.--As for those who said the luck factor is a bigger issue because of the slower play and larger fields..First off, Is it easier for a bad/marginal player to win a tourney with a larger field or smaller field? The latter. While the size of the field's increasing will bring about more bad players cashing by the simple presence of more bad players, the percentage of bad players cashing will be lower, because they will have to trudge through far more opponents and hands, as a result of....the main event was 5 days in 2003 and is now 6 days. These are not short days of poker, either. Even with slower play, you're still talking about a 20% increase in the tourney time. The WSOP has not increased the rate of blind increase, as far as I know. I don't have the time to double-check this, however. Tournament poker is a lot like natural selection. Unfortunately, a lot of the fitter competitors will be culled from the population/field by chance events, be they bad beats, unavoidable underdog situations (kk vs aa). This is the luck factor, yes, but it applies to the unfit as well as the fit.As you increase the population undergoing selection, the efficiency of the process increases and is more likely to produce a relatively 'fit' group of individuals surviving towards the end. The unfit competitors simply have more chances to die as a result of their poor adaptation strategies.As you increase the period of time during which the selective events occur, the efficiency of the process again increases.I don't think I need to say more on this subject.----murphy: I believe that your retort on the N.P.T. is flawed. independent events carry the probability of the event alone. But if you decide to view a series of events as a single event, you can assign probabilities and variances to the series.Additionally, your theory on taking a 60/40 favorite as opposed to the 40/60 dog with dead money is, simply put, stating the obvious. My point was that there are certain situations where a steal-raise makes a call mathematically correct. If you decide to fold in those situations where your earlier mistakes set up what is, in effect, a profitable call, you will be making two errors instead of simply one.As for your claim that you can't prove that either player is better:Thank you for agreeing with me, I've said this twice (I believe) in the thread in some form or another. My point on this matter is that there is a far larger body of evidence, IMO, that Raymer is a better poker player overall--and probably slightly better at NLHE. Most of the arguments put forth, however, are too affected by variance to carry any real weight. You're still misattributing a lot of Greg's correct plays as mistakes, though. If you read any professional's discussion of how to play the big stack at a final table, they agree with you if you offer the example of Greg's 2004 wsop play. To put it in perspective, remember these 3 simple points:1) Steal raises have enormous value and often set up situations where you must call with the worst hand. This does not make the raise or the call incorrect, even if the odds when the hands are turned over did not make the call 'correct' in hindsight. When you assign a range of hands to someones holding, sometimes they just happen to have the worst hand in that range for you.2) Profit is the product of the size of one's wager and the expectation of that wager. When Greg had all the money in as a dog, he had his opponent covered. Calling with the bully stack is almost a requirement for the value of busting out another player combined with the values of having the best hand, being able to suckout with the worst hand, and the value of the extra money in the pot.3) TV editing produces bad poker players. You should be happy for this fact, as it's made you reach some debatable conclusions about Raymer's play. You see a tiny fraction of the hands, and an even smaller fraction in the context of the tournament. What percentage of the final table hands that ESPN broadcast were all-ins? Their coverage of the final table this year was a joke.So, yes, he got lucky. So did CMM. You have to get lucky in some form to win any tournament, even a 6 player SNG. You can't outplay your opponents every hand, never show a hand down, tec. Next.. If you really want to bet on Raymer not making day 2 of the wsop this year, lay realistic odds. 40% of the field remains after day 1.And lastly on this reply, just because people are gunning for you doesn't mean they're going to be doing a good job of it. ---This one is addressed to jogsxyz:Stop talking about Raymer's cashes. We've already discussed this. Tournament variance is high and neither CMM or GR have played enough events for this info to be particularly relevant.---Lastly, you're all still undervaluing the worth of a chip lead in an event like this. First place pays 2m. Second through tenth pay $0. Break this into 1-5 and 6-10 and you have the average cash at $400k for the first half, second half $0.10handed, winning a pot means a larger chance of getting in a position to win 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. It also increases the chance of getting first as the size of the pot increases. In the context of this bizarre format, you have to play for first, since it is the only spot with any value. This means increasing your aggression, variance, and chances of busting. Would you rather:Assuming the players are all of equal ability..1) finish first 12 times in 100 tries in this event, busting in the bottom half for the majority of the remaining 88 times. [situation more likely with aggressive play]2) finish first 9 times out of 100 and bust randomly throughout the field the remainder? [typical of normal play]3) finish in the top half 90 times out of 100, getting lucky enough 5 times to win and busting in the bottom half 5 times [weak play]Basically, tournament poker requires the ability to assign values to more than just the hand in play. Aggressive play exploits these other values.-adam

[KDawgCometh 2]

now arsene just don't go and shoot greg before he gets a chance to make another final TV table, ok . If we are to theoretically compare the two, we have to look at them in the same competition, GSN's lame battle of the sexes. Greg won a round and Chris was one of the first out in the rounds he played. I'm only noting this to point it out. Really the whole battle of the sexes was stupid and I'm not gonna hold all that much into it. They are both good players, but the fact is is that Greg had been there before(look for him in the 2002 WSOP main event) and Chris hasn't. People want to cite the Bay 101 tourny to point out how good Chris is, well it certainly has been less time that Greg won it then when Chris made the Bay 101 final table, just give them both time.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

I say CMM and GR play HORSE headsup 50/100 for 30 hours.-adam

[jogsxyz 0]

Lastly, you're all still undervaluing the worth of a chip lead in an event like this. First place pays 2m. Second through tenth pay $0. Break this into 1-5 and 6-10 and you have the average cash at $400k for the first half, second half $0.10handed, winning a pot means a larger chance of getting in a position to win 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. It also increases the chance of getting first as the size of the pot increases. In the context of this bizarre format, you have to play for first, since it is the only spot with any value. This means increasing your aggression, variance, and chances of busting. Basically, tournament poker requires the ability to assign values to more than just the hand in play. Aggressive play exploits these other values.-adam

After a lost or two chip leads become short stacks very quickly in tournaments. Raymer vs Duke. Raymer had the huge chip advantage.Raymer went heads up three times against Duke. All three as the dog. She busted him after the third win.

[ArseneLupin3 0]

Lastly, you're all still undervaluing the worth of a chip lead in an event like this. First place pays 2m. Second through tenth pay $0. Break this into 1-5 and 6-10 and you have the average cash at $400k for the first half, second half $0.10handed, winning a pot means a larger chance of getting in a position to win 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. It also increases the chance of getting first as the size of the pot increases. In the context of this bizarre format, you have to play for first, since it is the only spot with any value. This means increasing your aggression, variance, and chances of busting. Basically, tournament poker requires the ability to assign values to more than just the hand in play. Aggressive play exploits these other values.-adam

After a lost or two chip leads become short stacks very quickly in tournaments. Raymer vs Duke. Raymer had the huge chip advantage.Raymer went heads up three times against Duke. All three as the dog. She busted him after the third win.

What's your point? Nothing you said replies to what you quoted, nor does it tell us anything we didn't know. Yes, you can potentially lose your chip lead in a tournament playing aggressively. In fact, when you play tournaments for the maximum expectation, you'll bust a huge amount of the time. This is the classic tradeoff of increased profit at the cost of increased variance. This is especially true when only one of the competitors is getting paid.John Juanda and Gus Hansen are two players who make a lot of moves preflop when the odds are usually easier to define in a game theoretical sense and the hand reading is less complicated. Move-in specialists are here to stay for some time, and Greg Raymer understands that this style of play is key, especially in a winner take all event.-adam

[KDawgCometh 2]

After a lost or two chip leads become short stacks very quickly in tournaments.  Raymer vs Duke.  Raymer had the huge chip advantage.Raymer went heads up three times against Duke.    All three as the dog.  She busted him after the third win.

but if it was Gus Hansen then it would've been alright, right. If you are a fan of Gus then your argument is completly invalid