I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

I watched the final table live on PS, and kept track of what was happening in the tournament as it went on. I know Raymer just didn't "get lucky and win a few coin flips," as my friends in my home game like to say. I wish EPSN would show some of the chipping and cutting he did to build up his stack.

He is a really good player, and no one I know will believe it.

Does anyone know where I can access a replay of the full final table or even descriptions of each hand so I can prove it?

One of them even went so far to say that if Raymer played in our home game, he would have a shot at beating him. Pfft! My friend wouldn't have a prayer!

You don't win a tournament with thousands of people in it, over the course of several days, on "luck."

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

If you can't explain to them why he is a very good player then your persausive communication skills may not be in the highest percentile. There is also just a good of chance that they lack the intelligence or the poker know how to understand the concept.

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

Honestly, and I don't speak for Greg (obviously), but if it were me I'd LOVE for people to think I was just "lucky". From my experience I get a lot more action when people don't respect my play.

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

The sample size in the WSOP was in the range of 1400-1700 hands total. That is probably too small to size out the random luck factor. Yes he won alot of 'coin flips' but give me a break-- he pushed alot of people by bluffing also. Q-2 on the BB comes to mind....

Regardless, Fossilman is quite a player and NOT a flash in the pan. Search posts by 'barryg1' (Barry Greenstein) for discussions on hi-stakes cash game success vs. tournament success. Tournaments are not the ultimate measure of skill.

That being said, Greg CERTAINLY has excellent skills. Plus, he's one aggressive player.

I'm sure Greg will more than hold his own against the best players in these big cash games. He will certainly find out now that he has the cash, the backers, and the opportunity to be invited to some of the most interesting cash games in the world.

The downside is, only insider elite player guys like 'barryg1' will know the current and/or final cash-game scores for Greg and others.

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

Think of it from their perspective. He DID get lucky, you can concede that, theres no denying that luck is involved in a 2000 persons tournement, Greg would be the first to agree. BUT what seperates the winners from the losers, is the fact that he had the SKILL to go along with the luck. You DO need both. So youre both right.

for one, Dan, the original thread starter and his...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The sample size in the WSOP was in the range of 1400-1700 hands total. That is probably too small to size out the random luck factor. Yes he won alot of 'coin flips' but give me a break-- he pushed alot of people by bluffing also. Q-2 on the BB comes to mind....

Regardless, Fossilman is quite a player and NOT a flash in the pan. Search posts by 'barryg1' (Barry Greenstein) for discussions on hi-stakes cash game success vs. tournament success. Tournaments are not the ultimate measure of skill.

That being said, Greg CERTAINLY has excellent skills. Plus, he's one aggressive player.

I'm sure Greg will more than hold his own against the best players in these big cash games. He will certainly find out now that he has the cash, the backers, and the opportunity to be invited to some of the most interesting cash games in the world.

The downside is, only insider elite player guys like 'barryg1' will know the current and/or final cash-game scores for Greg and others.

[/ QUOTE ]

friends were'nt discussing success in high stakes cash games. they were discussing the WSOP ME Tournament. if you're talking about luck, then the short-term luck factor in winning the WSOP ME is the issue here. skill is not. you could be the least skilled and least experienced player in the whole tournament and if all of your favored premium hands held up, even in coin flip situations, you would have an excellent chance to win. does skill matter in those situations? no. tournaments may not be the true testament to skill but consistent success in tournaments, IMO, is. right now, he is a flash in the pan, the same way Moneymaker is and his previous tourney stats support this. there are alot of lesser known pro players who have better tourney stats, who are also cash game players (i.e. John Phan- who's heard of him?). he may be the World Champion right now, but until he's consistently winning or placing high in final tables over and over again, i could care less how skilled he is in cash games. the ultimate poker player is one who excels in both tourneys and cash games: players like Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein, and Howard Lederer. his WSOP ME win was one incredible and memorable feat, but the key word is ONE.

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

Many Moneymaker backers were sick of everyone here saying 'MM just got lucky.' Thats just the way things are...sorry.

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

This misguided belief that the best players are just lucky, and anybody could win a tournament like this is what keeps the games great (easily beatable) for so many winning players. Ah, poker dreams.

Raymer led in chips for much more than just a few hours - try days. Everybody that gets past 90% of any tournament field won some hands that they were not the favorite to win - that's poker.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
This misguided belief that the best players are just lucky, and anybody could win a tournament like this is what keeps the games great (easily beatable) for so many winning players. Ah, poker dreams.

Raymer led in chips for much more than just a few hours - try days. Everybody that gets past 90% of any tournament field won some hands that they were not the favorite to win - that's poker.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Raymer did'nt take the chip lead until Day 5 when it got down to the last 32 players. he had 1.8 million to Dan Harrington's 1.5 and Davin Andersson's 1.4. having the chip lead for two days ITM with 32 players left out of 2500+ is nothing. by then, it does'nt matter.

exactly, jw
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many Moneymaker backers were sick of everyone here saying 'MM just got lucky.' Thats just the way things are...sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moneymaker did get lucky, no matter how much his backers don't like it getting said.

Re: for one, Dan, the original thread starter and his...
 

I tend to agree with Barry Greenstein regarding skills and tournaments and cash games. If you read the barryg1 posts, they are very enlightening. I believe that Raymer will stand the test of time in terms of his poker skills. I believe he's a true talent and is not cut from the same cloth as Moneymaker. They are both good for poker; Raymer will prove to be a real talent, I do believe.

I believe anyone who wins the WSOP ME is hugely lucky. Anything can happen in a small sample size of 1600 hands.

Re: for one, Dan, the original thread starter and his...
 

No one is going to consistently win 2000 player tournaments, or "reach final tables over and over again." Those who are looking to denigrate a particular player's skill will always have a long list of tournament failures to point to.

Greg was one of the most respected tournament players at Foxwoods for some time before he won the WSOP. Did he consistently crush the game and make the final table week after week? Of course not, no one in the world is that good.

What's really disturbing is that people can look at Raymer side by side with the last 2 WSOP champs and think that they all just got lucky, without understanding the fundamental differences in the way they played. At the end of the day, the champ still has to win a lot of coinflips, but you have to look at how he got there. Did he make a strong bet with a lot of folding equity, and won the coinflip after the opponent called anyway? Or did he call an all-in with QTo and win a coinflip?

There will always be people who don't understand the difference between these situations and claim "it all looks like luck to me." Those are the people who just don't get it, and thank god they exist, because this game would be pretty hard to beat if everyone understood it.

and that\'s where i see that you may be disillusioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with Barry Greenstein regarding skills and tournaments and cash games. If you read the barryg1 posts, they are very enlightening. I believe that Raymer will stand the test of time in terms of his poker skills. I believe he's a true talent and is not cut from the same cloth as Moneymaker. They are both good for poker; Raymer will prove to be a real talent, I do believe.

I believe anyone who wins the WSOP ME is hugely lucky. Anything can happen in a small sample size of 1600 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

it was'nt just luck for Doyle, Johnny Chan, or Stu Unger to win multiple WSOP MEs (they also happens to be playing against much better opposition, skill-wise per entrant), even if the fields were smaller. it was'nt luck for Dan Harrington to win in '95 and make two more final tables, which happened to to be the biggest two fields in WSOP ME history. in reference to Moneymaker, who cares whether Greg is cut from a better and more exotic fabric. none of that means anything. the Menendez brothers' were seemingly cut from a better cloth than i was, and yet, they murdered their parents and are serving life sentences in prison. your true talent opinion is still based solely on Raymer's cash game abilities and maybe more from him being a known and long standing, respected 2+2 member. proving to be a real talent does'nt always translate into consistenet tourney success.

fnurt, who cares about him being one of the most...
 

[ QUOTE ]
No one is going to consistently win 2000 player tournaments, or "reach final tables over and over again." Those who are looking to denigrate a particular player's skill will always have a long list of tournament failures to point to.

Greg was one of the most respected tournament players at Foxwoods for some time before he won the WSOP. Did he consistently crush the game and make the final table week after week? Of course not, no one in the world is that good.

What's really disturbing is that people can look at Raymer side by side with the last 2 WSOP champs and think that they all just got lucky, without understanding the fundamental differences in the way they played. At the end of the day, the champ still has to win a lot of coinflips, but you have to look at how he got there. Did he make a strong bet with a lot of folding equity, and won the coinflip after the opponent called anyway? Or did he call an all-in with QTo and win a coinflip?

There will always be people who don't understand the difference between these situations and claim "it all looks like luck to me." Those are the people who just don't get it, and thank god they exist, because this game would be pretty hard to beat if everyone understood it.

[/ QUOTE ]

respected tourney players at Foxwoods. Foxwoods is not the center of the poker universe. you say that as if it is it's own planet or something. these 2000+ B&M tournaments are not the norm, which precisely, hits on why the luck factor was brought up, then when you consider that said local cash game player has never really excelled in even smaller B&M tourneys compared to other cash game players, it's a wrap!.
i never pointed out that every play he made was luck, only his overall win against that huge of a field. you can talk about all the coinflips you want, but that has nothing to do with skill, had the cards fell the other way...there would be no discussion. it's easy to point out the genius of it all after the fact. have him continually perform well like this, then we have an argument. other than that, the verdict is already in and it's definitely not innocent, a mistrial, or hung jury. this is not a discussion on skill.

Re: fnurt, who cares about him being one of the most...
 

I bring up Foxwoods because that's where he played. He had good results at Foxwoods, I don't get if you expect a world-class player to make 2 out of every 3 final tables or what, but I suggest that he had respect for a reason, because it was obvious he was good.

Your point seems to be that winning the WSOP doesn't show skill because a monkey could do it, if he got lucky enough times. I can't deny that, but why couldn't a monkey win in back-to-back years, or accumulate 9 WSOP bracelets, if he got lucky enough times? If all you go by is results, you can make a case for 1000 different people to be one of the top players in the world, and you can make a case against all of them too.

There are other ways to judge poker ability than simply looking at the final results. If you can't look at the way Raymer plays poker and see that he is a top player, then I respectfully suggest you are one of the people I talked about.

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

[ QUOTE ]



Raymer did'nt take the chip lead until Day 5 when it got down to the last 32 players. he had 1.8 million to Dan Harrington's 1.5 and Davin Andersson's 1.4. having the chip lead for two days ITM with 32 players left out of 2500+ is nothing. by then, it does'nt matter.

[/ QUOTE ]


HUH? when you are playing for $5 Million, I'd rather have the chip lead on day 5 than day 2.

Norman and Lon said it best - the early days are about survival, the late days are about gathering chips.

Moneymaker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many Moneymaker backers were sick of everyone here saying 'MM just got lucky.' Thats just the way things are...sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moneymaker did get lucky, no matter how much his backers don't like it getting said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moneymaker got so lucky that he has in the past 12 monnths

1. Finished second at the Bay 101 on the WPT
2. Finished 10th in a PLO this year at the WSOP
3. Was in the last 33 of Aruba(as of yesterday) on the WPT

three big finishes (at least) since his big win, yeah I wish I was that "lucky"

I could also add that he won the Blind Mans Bluff too [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Moneymaker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I could also add that he won the Blind Mans Bluff too [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

After buying in after several people had busted out. :P

-d

Re: Moneymaker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could also add that he won the Blind Mans Bluff too [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

After buying in after several people had busted out. :P

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

So that means that someone had a big chip advtange on him and he won anyways? Even more impressive [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Moneymaker
 

It's not that he didn't get lucky, it's that peolpe can't seem to fathom that you can be really lucky yet also be really good. By default anyone has to get very lucky to win the WSOP, just some might need less luck than others.

Did I run over your dog, ...
 

or something? While it's true you've never said anything nasty or blatantly wrong about me, you sure give the impression that you'd love nothing more than to make everyone believe I'm a chump who just got lucky for a week, and who is likely never going to do anything much ever again.

While it is completely true that one cannot correctly say I'm a good player based upon the WSOP this year, every time somebody brings up another form of evidence, you put it down. They say I'm a respected player at Foxwoods, in cash games and tournaments, and you discuss why that's meaningless. They say I'm respected here on 2+2 for consistently giving good tournament advice, and you put that down, saying it only proves I can talk the talk, but not walk the walk. Apparently, the only evidence you'll accept is for me to go out and win a bunch of other big events. Of course, if I fail to do so in the next year or two, that doesn't prove I'm a flash anymore than winning this year's main event proves I'm not just a flash.

You or somebody pulled my record from the Hendon Mob website in another thread. Somebody said it looked pretty weak. I guess they don't understand much about the subject. I have historically entered 1-4 events in the WSOP for the past 4 years, about 4-7 events at the World Poker Finals at Foxwoods, and about 2-4 events at the New England Poker Classic. There have been very few other events I've entered that would be reported in this database, maybe another half-dozen total. So, in the last 4 years, I've played in maybe 60-80 reported tournaments. I've won 2, and made another handful of final tables. Since the average field in these events (discounting the 2576 in this year's WSOP) was well over 100, I'd say that's pretty good. It doesn't prove I'm world class, but, I'm not sure any record could prove that point, unless it was so extreme that there was no alternative explanation left.

You kept comparing me to pros, who are less well known (now), but who have better records. Well, that's not a reasonable comparison. They were playing up to double the number of events per year that I played in 4 years. I would hope that they won a lot more often, and made a lot more final tables. If they didn't, I doubt you would have 4 years of records of their results to report. ;-)

Anyway, I really don't care if I "prove" myself to you or anybody. However, I would love to know why you are on what appears to be a vendetta against me on this issue.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Re: Did I run over your dog, ...
 

Its the glasses Greg. Some people just can't handle the glasses!

Ken

Re: Raymer
 

It's not that Raymer isn't good, but it's also not that he didn't just get lucky. It's a combination of both, although I like to think that in his case, it was definitely more luck. He'd get all his chips in with hands like KQ and AJ without a second though. It worked for him in the WSOP, due to winning the coin flips. But did you watch the TOC? He didn't win his coin flip with KQ against a lower pocket and with I think 9T against 88. Bam, he was out. The same thing could have happened in the WSOP, but didn't. In the TOC, in my opinion, he was exposed as a truly inexperirnced player.

Re: Did I run over your dog, ...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its the glasses Greg. Some people just can't handle the glases!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely the glasses. Heck, some people can only spell 'glasses' correctly about half the time! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Later,
Che

Greg, why do you care?
 

You won 5 million dollars. You're a successful patent attorney. You have 99% of the support from people on here. So one person thinks you're a luckbox, despite the fact that other people were willing to put money on you becuase they knew it had +EV. This guys a chump, forget about him/her and move on.

Re: Raymer
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that Raymer isn't good, but it's also not that he didn't just get lucky. It's a combination of both, although I like to think that in his case, it was definitely more luck. He'd get all his chips in with hands like KQ and AJ without a second though. It worked for him in the WSOP, due to winning the coin flips. But did you watch the TOC? He didn't win his coin flip with KQ against a lower pocket and with I think 9T against 88. Bam, he was out. The same thing could have happened in the WSOP, but didn't. In the TOC, in my opinion, he was exposed as a truly inexperirnced player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just start playing poker last week? If you can't figure out when he was in the coin flips he was in, then you don't understand poker.

I'll take a coin flip with KQ when I have 2 Million and my opponent has 150,000 all the time.

Re: exactly, jw
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many Moneymaker backers were sick of everyone here saying 'MM just got lucky.' Thats just the way things are...sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moneymaker did get lucky, no matter how much his backers don't like it getting said.

[/ QUOTE ]

As did Raymer...in fact anyone who wins a tourney with over 1000 people gets lucky.

Re: for one, Dan, the original thread starter and his...
 

[ QUOTE ]
No one is going to consistently win 2000 player tournaments, or "reach final tables over and over again." Those who are looking to denigrate a particular player's skill will always have a long list of tournament failures to point to.

Greg was one of the most respected tournament players at Foxwoods for some time before he won the WSOP. Did he consistently crush the game and make the final table week after week? Of course not, no one in the world is that good.

What's really disturbing is that people can look at Raymer side by side with the last 2 WSOP champs and think that they all just got lucky, without understanding the fundamental differences in the way they played. At the end of the day, the champ still has to win a lot of coinflips, but you have to look at how he got there. Did he make a strong bet with a lot of folding equity, and won the coinflip after the opponent called anyway? Or did he call an all-in with QTo and win a coinflip?

There will always be people who don't understand the difference between these situations and claim "it all looks like luck to me." Those are the people who just don't get it, and thank god they exist, because this game would be pretty hard to beat if everyone understood it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you say this to demean MM? Do you remember MM at the final table? He lured Jason Lester to bet all in with a dominanted hand, then he put 'the bluff of the century' on Farha. Both of them had some luck, but you seem to be totally playing up Greg's skillful plays, while ignoring MM.

When you say:

"What's really disturbing is that people can look at Raymer side by side with the last 2 WSOP champs and think that they all just got lucky, without understanding the fundamental differences in the way they played."

you seem to be implying that while Greg got lucky he also played great, but that MM did not also do the same. I disagree with that.

Re: exactly, jw
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many Moneymaker backers were sick of everyone here saying 'MM just got lucky.' Thats just the way things are...sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moneymaker did get lucky, no matter how much his backers don't like it getting said.

[/ QUOTE ]

As did Raymer...in fact anyone who wins a tourney with over 1000 people gets lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true on many levels. When you get AA, it's not skill that puts you up against someone with KK, it's luck. It's also luck that you get AA in the BB and you win in a walk.

Everyone has some luck, but to win a tournament that big you need luck + skill.

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
One of them even went so far to say that if Raymer played in our home game, he would have a shot at beating him. Pfft! My friend wouldn't have a prayer!


[/ QUOTE ]

Your friend would have a shot. It's not like playing a game of chess or 1 on 1 in basketball. Why doesen't anyone in this thread get it? Your friend could easily have the right cards against Greg. That doesen't mean anything. Playing a winning game of poker consists of loosing pots. Especially in tournaments. I don't understand why people equate winning a pot against someone as being better then them. Or winning 20 pots against them. Or beating them in a final table. Thats not where poker is won or lost. The micro results matter so very little. Just whether you made the correct play.

On a side note. Is Desdia your friend Karak?

Re: Raymer
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not that Raymer isn't good, but it's also not that he didn't just get lucky. It's a combination of both, although I like to think that in his case, it was definitely more luck. He'd get all his chips in with hands like KQ and AJ without a second though. It worked for him in the WSOP, due to winning the coin flips. But did you watch the TOC? He didn't win his coin flip with KQ against a lower pocket and with I think 9T against 88. Bam, he was out. The same thing could have happened in the WSOP, but didn't. In the TOC, in my opinion, he was exposed as a truly inexperirnced player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just start playing poker last week? If you can't figure out when he was in the coin flips he was in, then you don't understand poker.

I'll take a coin flip with KQ when I have 2 Million and my opponent has 150,000 all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Everyone seems to conveiniently forget the coinflip he was in against Matusow when it was Greg who was outchipped and risking his entire tourney on a coinflip midway through it all.

Re: Raymer
 

Fair point.

However he did push in - which is a lot different than being called. He also pushed in with 2 over cards and the Nut Flush draw. I don't think many people would have called here, and also I think Mike had about a 3-2 chip lead on him. He was very crippled after losing this.

I think it would have been looked at much differently if Greg called the all in here.

MY GOD
 

The man has been on here answering tourney questions for a long time. Many, Many (myself included) people on here have soaked up a wealth of information from him. He was HIGHLY regarded well BEFORE the WSOP... So why is it now, when he cashes, people want to bring him down? I'll tell ya, JEALOUSY!! Look, EVERYONE got BOTH lucky AND unlucky at times in that tourney, but the facts are he WON it (with class I might add). So those of you who want to bash, you have no ground to stand on. His results speak.

Thanks Greg for continuing to lurk and post here, WE appreciate it (most of us)

fireman

if you think he got lucky, so be it. Your just not going to convince those of us who have used him to further our own game.

Re: Did I run over your dog, ...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I really don't care if I "prove" myself to you or anybody. However, I would love to know why you are on what appears to be a vendetta against me on this issue.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why anyone would care, Desdia is to busy spending half his day trying to unpick flawless logical agruements to improve his game or to read anything worthwhile.

On the point of luck, sure everyone (yourself included) must know it takes some luck to get past 2600 people in a poker tournament, it also takes incredible judgement to figure out when to push/call those countless number of times without coming unstuck at some point, everyone knows its a balance of the two that makes a great player, I personally think you got that down. I look forward to seeing the programmes in the coming weeks, in the meantime enjoy your success you earned every cent, and I can't see any reason why you won't win another big one again in the near future (as much chance as most others who enter i guess).

Best Reagrds Mark

Re: I am getting sick of my friends saying \"Raymer just got lucky.\"
 

Greg is a great player - I've seen him in action enough times live at Foxwoods to know it.

But did he get lucky? Absolutely. I don't believe you can win any event nowadays with these 2500+ entrants without SOME luck involved along the way.

But he is absolutely a great player as well, far better than most of us will ever be.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Jealousy, get real!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The man has been on here answering tourney questions for a long time. Many, Many (myself included) people on here have soaked up a wealth of information from him. He was HIGHLY regarded well BEFORE the WSOP... So why is it now, when he cashes, people want to bring him down? I'll tell ya, JEALOUSY!! Look, EVERYONE got BOTH lucky AND unlucky at times in that tourney, but the facts are he WON it (with class I might add). So those of you who want to bash, you have no ground to stand on. His results speak.

Thanks Greg for continuing to lurk and post here, WE appreciate it (most of us)

fireman

if you think he got lucky, so be it. Your just not going to convince those of us who have used him to further our own game.

[/ QUOTE ]

i call it like i see it, straight up-- no chaser. i have never once bashed anything about Greg. just because i'm not screaming halleluah at every insignificant point brought up to combat the luck factor in why he won is'nt jealousy. what results are you speaking of? two wins in 4 years?

Re: Jealousy, get real!
 

Look Desdia,

You seem to really pick and choose what you're reading at any given point. When someone points out his tournament results are good, you talk about how Foxwoods isn't the center of the poker world (the largest casino in the world, right? might be mistaken). When someone points out his success at cash games, you say "no proof." When someone points out that he has an immense knowledge of theory, you say theory isn't results. When someone tells you his results are good...

In this most recent ridiculous post, you say that he has
[ QUOTE ]
what results are you speaking of? two wins in 4 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, if you would just even for one damn second read Greg's post, you would realize is stupid. He told you that he plays about, what, 10 events a year, and that he has been playing for 4 years. Say he's played in 40 events. Each with a minimum of 100 entrants. Oh, here, let's make it better. Let's say he's played in 100 events. Now, even at 100 events, incredibly inflated, he has 2 wins. Clearly above average. He has a bunch of final tables that aren't wins. Clearly above average. Now, if you consider shrinking that down to the actual number of tournaments played, you'll see how silly the results argument is.

He doesn't play the tournament circuit full time. Get it? Is that so hard to understand?!

Why not answer Greg's question, or have you not actually read his post? I would understand that you probably have him blocked, after all, he's just another annoying troll who's posts waste your time.

Since I have a second, how about some more. The "Foxwoods isn't the center of the poker world" argument is clearly silly as well. Do you see why? Could it be that there is no center of the poker world? Wherever there's felt, a deck, chips and people tipping badly, there's the new center of the poker world. Routinely beating any game makes you better than your competition, by definition. Routinely beating the biggest game available means that you are better than the best competition available to you. Not quitting your job and moving your family to vegas so you can play a bigger game doesn't make you an inferior player, just because you don't destroy your life to play bigger.

Desdia: People have already AGREED WITH YOU that there was A LOT OF LUCK INVOLVED with Greg winning this year. Amazingly, you were able to get that right. People have AGREED WITH YOU that GREG'S SAMPLE SIZE IS SMALL FOR LARGE TOURNAMENTS. What the hell do you want? And why, as Greg asked, do you clearly have some kind of problem with him?

citanul

no you did\'nt run over my dog, i don\'t need a...
 

[ QUOTE ]
or something? While it's true you've never said anything nasty or blatantly wrong about me, you sure give the impression that you'd love nothing more than to make everyone believe I'm a chump who just got lucky for a week, and who is likely never going to do anything much ever again.

While it is completely true that one cannot correctly say I'm a good player based upon the WSOP this year, every time somebody brings up another form of evidence, you put it down. They say I'm a respected player at Foxwoods, in cash games and tournaments, and you discuss why that's meaningless. They say I'm respected here on 2+2 for consistently giving good tournament advice, and you put that down, saying it only proves I can talk the talk, but not walk the walk. Apparently, the only evidence you'll accept is for me to go out and win a bunch of other big events. Of course, if I fail to do so in the next year or two, that doesn't prove I'm a flash anymore than winning this year's main event proves I'm not just a flash.

You or somebody pulled my record from the Hendon Mob website in another thread. Somebody said it looked pretty weak. I guess they don't understand much about the subject. I have historically entered 1-4 events in the WSOP for the past 4 years, about 4-7 events at the World Poker Finals at Foxwoods, and about 2-4 events at the New England Poker Classic. There have been very few other events I've entered that would be reported in this database, maybe another half-dozen total. So, in the last 4 years, I've played in maybe 60-80 reported tournaments. I've won 2, and made another handful of final tables. Since the average field in these events (discounting the 2576 in this year's WSOP) was well over 100, I'd say that's pretty good. It doesn't prove I'm world class, but, I'm not sure any record could prove that point, unless it was so extreme that there was no alternative explanation left.

You kept comparing me to pros, who are less well known (now), but who have better records. Well, that's not a reasonable comparison. They were playing up to double the number of events per year that I played in 4 years. I would hope that they won a lot more often, and made a lot more final tables. If they didn't, I doubt you would have 4 years of records of their results to report. ;-)

Anyway, I really don't care if I "prove" myself to you or anybody. However, I would love to know why you are on what appears to be a vendetta against me on this issue.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

a vendetta to speak the real, and despite the way it seems, it ain't personal. if i was in your position, i would feel the same way about my own results. let's say the roles were reversed: Ok, i won the WSOP ME for $5 million and i caught alot of lucky breaks on the way. i would acknowledge that and leave it alone. it does'nt matter whether i recognized situations or reads that got me in coinflips that turned in my favor. *Desdia shrugs his shoulders and says, "i was fortunate, it could've went the other way*. who cares whether i [Destin] am a very respected cash game and tourney player at ONE casino. none of this makes me any more special or worthy of respect than the next man or player. i don't need to point out how respected i am and i don't need others to do it either. in the overall scheme of things, what does it really matter anyway? i don't care about being the best, i don't care whether others think am the best. i do me and hopefully along the way, The Almighty bestows me with enough blessings to be successful. does the fact that i [Destin] give good tourney advice mean anything?
no, i certainly would'nt use that as a reason to bolster my image as a good player or as a reason why i won. if a player or players benefit from advice i have given, great, if they don't, oh well. what i [Destin] pride myself in is how well i perform over a period of time. if i am to be considered good or world class, what do my results say? am i a consistently profitable cash game player? when i play tournaments, how often do i cash, make the final table, or win? am i the type of player where my play and results do the talking, rather than others or myself having to hype them?

two players that i respect alot also don't do alot of talking. those two players are Barry Greenstein and Phil Ivey. their cash game and tourney results do the talking for them, so even when others steps up with praise and respect, you know where to look for WHY.

i don't wish any ill will toward you. i don't downplay your WSOP ME win but i do put it in it's proper perspective. it's ONE tourney win, that's it...plain and simple. you don't have alot of sparkling tourney statistics, that's the truth...plain and simple. had you had more final tables and wins in which to reference, i would'nt be in this thread. i respect results, i don't respect hesay/shesay. in the environment where i'm from, nobody wants to hear talk, they expect to see actions and results from those actions. people who talk to much about what they've done get their mouths closed alot. the people who keep their mouths closed, go about their business, and produce are who get the respect. anybody can look good for a game but how many look good for a career?

Re: no you did\'nt run over my dog, i don\'t need a...
 

As I understand it, while Greg got lucky on 2 hands at the final table when he a huge chip lead and could afford to gamble, he didn't get it all in with the worst of it at any other time all week.

As for luck, how about Johnny Chan's 11 coin flips in a row in the ME? Surely Chan is a great player.

Or Sammy Farha last year, calling all in against quads early in the tourney and hitting his SF.

Luck can't be the reason someone is not a great player, because every tournament winner got lucky at some point, including the multiple tournament winners.

Re: no you did\'nt run over my dog, i don\'t need a...
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for luck, how about Johnny Chan's 11 coin flips in a row in the ME? Surely Chan is a great player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this oft-repeated legend (which I've heard with every number from 8 to 20 in it) actually documented anywhere reliable? Not that it's all that far-fetched, but I don't think it belongs in the realm of "known fact".

[ QUOTE ]
Or Sammy Farha last year, calling all in against quads early in the tourney and hitting his SF.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how legends get started I guess. The money went in after he hit the straight flush, not before.