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

[Dan Mezick]

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.

[fnurt]

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.

[Desdia72]

[ 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.

[Desdia72]

[ 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.

[fnurt]

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.

[Cleveland Guy]

[ 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.

[Cleveland Guy]

[ 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]

[meep_42]

[ 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

[Cleveland Guy]

[ 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]

[curtains]

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.