Raymer has really maximized his 90% luck

[edingerlaw 0]

As smash pointed out, tournament play is 90% luck and 10% skill. LOL Raymer is 4th in the chip lead with 28 players remaining. Percentage wise he has all ready outlasted a greater number of players in the field than Action Dan's back to back final tables. If tournament play is 90% luck, than Raymer has to be the luckiest man ever because to win in 2004 and survive over 99.5% of this year's field, because the odds to do that would have to be 10,000,000 to 1 based on the fact that luck accounts for NINETY PERCENT OF ONE'S TOURNAMENT SUCCESS.

[Smasharoo 0]

I agree.He's been exacptionally lucky.

[93transam 0]

do shutup.

[Smasharoo 0]

Sorry, what's the other theory? That he's the most skilled NL tournament player in history?Let me know.

[Suited_Up 2]

I agree.He's been exacptionally lucky.

This makes me laugh.But seriously. He is sure making a case for himself. He was doing real well at the WPT Championship also (Leader for awhile), but in those middle stages, you get lucky or you're out basically. But I think his skill level is right up there.

[Smasharoo 0]

But seriously. He is sure making a case for himself. He was doing real well at the WPT Championship also (Leader for awhile), but in those middle stages, you get lucky or you're out basically. But I think his skill level is right up there.Sure.He's also been exceptionally lucky.I didn't make the game mostly luck. It's that way BY DESIGN.

[econ_tim 0]

I don't know how you are calculating the odds, because I don't know what 90% luck and 10% skill means.I guess if it were 100% luck he would win 1/n times where n is the field size.And if it were 100% skill, he would win every time were he the most skilled.But if it is 50% luck, does he win 75% of the time if he is the most skilled?

[PA32R 0]

But seriously. He is sure making a case for himself. He was doing real well at the WPT Championship also (Leader for awhile), but in those middle stages, you get lucky or you're out basically. But I think his skill level is right up there.Sure.He's also been exceptionally lucky.I didn't make the game mostly luck. It's that way BY DESIGN.

A good and often overlooked point.

[DCSports92GSR 0]

Sorry, what's the other theory? That he's the most skilled NL tournament player in history?Let me know.

I think what people were saying was if he made the final table again, it would be "The greatest ACOMPLISHMENT in tournament poker history", not "Greg Raymer would be the best PLAYER in history".I agree. I already count his success the last 2 years as teh greatest ACOMPLISHMENT, but I don't think he's the best player.

[econ_tim 0]

I wish foxwoods would hire GR as their poker ambassador. He could make bank with all the fish that would come play him for high stakes limit games (what he used to play).

[typesick 0]

There were hundreds of professional players in the event. It's no surprise that some have lasted this long.

[edingerlaw 0]

Of course, Raymer is very lucky. But the example was to point out thattournament play is not 90% luck and only 10% skill. NO PROFESSIONAL PLAYER IN THE WORLD WOULD AGREE WITH SMASH'S PERCENTAGES.

[Smasharoo 0]

But if it is 50% luck, does he win 75% of the time if he is the most skilled?Yes.So if it's 90% luck he wins.....

[Smasharoo 0]

Of course, Raymer is very lucky. But the example was to point out thattournament play is not 90% luck and only 10% skill. NO PROFESSIONAL PLAYER IN THE WORLD WOULD AGREE WITH SMASH'S PERCENTAGES.Care to wager on that?

[econ_tim 0]

I guess one way to measure this would be to measure the preflop equity of starting hands for every player all through a tournament. Then see what the correlation between starting hand quality and finishing rank is. I bet it's pretty high.

[Nutcracker 0]

Of course, Raymer is very lucky. But the example was to point out thattournament play is not 90% luck and only 10% skill. NO PROFESSIONAL PLAYER IN THE WORLD WOULD AGREE WITH SMASH'S PERCENTAGES.

I'm not sure they'd bother to try and quantify and compare two completely unquantifiable and uncomparable things such as luck and skill. It's like comparing the taste of orange juice to the pain you get when you hit your funny bone.

[Smasharoo 0]

I guess one way to measure this would be to measure the preflop equity of starting hands for every player all through a tournament. Then see what the correlation between starting hand quality and finishing rank is. I bet it's pretty high.I bet it's not.In fact, it's exceptionally unlikely that it is.

[Spademan 94]

I guess one way to measure this would be to measure the preflop equity of starting hands for every player all through a tournament. Then see what the correlation between starting hand quality and finishing rank is. I bet it's pretty high.

It'd be pretty high amongnst the most skilled players.Much less so amongst average to below averarge due to overplaying and underplaying good hands, not accounting for position, not knowing when they are ahead, and a number of other things that skilled players have over unskilled players.I disagree with 90%. It will vary due to the size of the tourns.Just like Limit, or any other game, any SINGLE tourn can involve a vast amount of luck, but over the course of time, that factor goes down.Over time I give tourns, depending on the size, "Luck" factors of 30% for small, 50% for medium, and up to 80% for huge. Over time that is.

[Smasharoo 0]

Just like Limit, or any other game, any SINGLE tourn can involve a vast amount of luck, but over the course of time, that factor goes down.Over time I give tourns, depending on the size, "Luck" factors of 30% for small, 50% for medium, and up to 80% for huge.Over time that is.No.The luck factor doesn't change "over time" that's impossible. What most people are missing is that 10% skill is a massive edge.

[econ_tim 0]

I guess one way to measure this would be to measure the preflop equity of starting hands for every player all through a tournament. Then see what the correlation between starting hand quality and finishing rank is. I bet it's pretty high.I bet it's not.In fact, it's exceptionally unlikely that it is.

Why not? If it were high, it would support you argument that luck is a big factor in tournamnet success.

[PA32R 0]

I guess one way to measure this would be to measure the preflop equity of starting hands for every player all through a tournament. Then see what the correlation between starting hand quality and finishing rank is. I bet it's pretty high.I bet it's not.In fact, it's exceptionally unlikely that it is.

Why not? If it were high, it would support you argument that luck is a big factor in tournamnet success.

That's what I was thinking. I was surprised to see Smash eschew the notion.

[Play2day 0]

He's been lucky, but you have to be lucky.He is also a good player, and if he wins this year it makes him the best player in WSOP history in my mind. You still have to play amazing poker to outlast as many people as he would to do to go back to back.

[Johnny Lately 0]

But seriously. He is sure making a case for himself. He was doing real well at the WPT Championship also (Leader for awhile), but in those middle stages, you get lucky or you're out basically. But I think his skill level is right up there.Sure.He's also been exceptionally lucky.I didn't make the game mostly luck. It's that way BY DESIGN.

It is too that way by design....It may also be the games' downfall in the end in the T.V./celebrity sense. Whilst media wise poker is on a seemingly unstoppable upward popularity curve, the hoi poloi tend to like easily recognisable characters/teams - Whilst I'm not worried about poker's long term popularity I wouldn't be surprised if t.v. coverage starts falling off for "open" events (e.g. the WSOP and WPT) because the increasing number of entrants and therefore the ever increasing element of luck which is required to win will mean that less and less poker pros will win events.I can see an increase in T.V. poker events like that one made for the box a couple of years ago, Pokerstars, with only stars like T.J., Greenstein, Ivey, Lederer, Chan, Brunson, Hansen and Reese.But whatever - next years WSOP on ESPN will propably be the biggest T.V. event of all time just to prove me wrong.....

[Newbs 0]

Of course, Raymer is very lucky. But the example was to point out thattournament play is not 90% luck and only 10% skill. NO PROFESSIONAL PLAYER IN THE WORLD WOULD AGREE WITH SMASH'S PERCENTAGES.Care to wager on that?

"NO PROFESSIONAL PLAYER IN THE WORLD WOULD AGREE WITH SMASH'S PERCENTAGES."Not a good way to word a bet if that is the side you are on.I don't claim to know what the skill % tends to be -vs- luck but 10% skill seems a bit low, but then again I could be underestimating how much 10% is.Might as well sit back and see what develops.

[pokerplayer24 0]

I think you can say that someone like Raymer or Ivey is at least 30-40X more likely to win a tourney then a no name player. Sure that means thats their chance is still very slim. But there odds are far improved.Best example I can use is gank's online play. The guy doesnt win every tourney he enters online but he wins far more then most players, not because hes lucky but because hes a better player.