what would happen if Robert Varkonyi, Cris Moneymaker, and Fossil.....

[Ian]

You're good buddy Mike Matusow and I were at the same table for a portion of last year's WSOP. Mike spent the first ten minutes ripping Varkonyi to shreads, calling him the worst WSOP winner ever, a joke, etc. This actually was somewhat useful to me as it vastly accelerated my recognition of Mike's lack of understanding of certain areas of the game. Subsequently, I have spent hours at the table with Mike in the past year, versus maybe 15 minutes or so of talking with Varkonyi and his friends about poker, and I can tell you that I encountered about 100x the poker substance in my brief time with Robert than in the hours-long ear assault I endured from Mike.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Greg had many more suckouts than Chris had...at least of what was shown on tv

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity, how many suckouts do you think I handed out?

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea about anything except what I saw on tv. I only saw MM suck out twice on tv, and I saw you suck out more. No offense meant by this- I think you are a good player and a great contributor to this board.

[jwvdcw]

Who do you guys consider a better heads up player: Sam Farha or Greg Raymer?

[jwvdcw]

BTW...I really have no clue how this would actually turn out, and except for a select few, none of us do. I just knew there would be tons of Raymer-worship, so I decided to try to take MM's side.

In reality, I don't think I really saw much of Greg's game from this tourney. He was so far ahead and was getting such good cards that it just seemed too easy. I'd like to see him play shortstacked once and maybe then I could evaluate more.

I will say that he seems to not mind taking 50/50s. And I'm not just talking about when he was ahead by a huge amount. He called Matusow's all in on a 50/50 and Matusow had him covered. In the long run, taking tons of 50/50s isn't a great tourney strategy.....clearly though, none of us really saw him pressed enough to see his true skill. Several here have commented that hes a great player, so I have no reason to not believe that.

Greg, I saw you reply in the Borgata WPT thread. I asked a few questions about it in that thread. If you don't mind, could you answer those for me. TIA.

[Trainwreck]

I agree! Anyone who wins the WSOP main event CAN NOT be a bad player, we all have our moments of badness though... laughable how critical people can get over a slivered TV presentation of an event, one would think Greg was SUCKOUT MASTER of the WORLD if we didn't know better, after watching the WSOP 2004 main event ESPN coverage.

My somewhat memorable (to me) somewhat recent moment of bad tournament poker:

I went AI with 88 after a OLD GUY who I didn't even notice at the table before (MEGA ROCK) raised the pot, yikes! He had AKo and A came on flop. That was pure stupidity in my own mind, and I knew it .25 secs after I said AI, he had me covered and I was out, and out far too early.... valuable lesson though, thought I'd share. Problem: I made my decision a little to fast on that one and wrong player. 8)

>TW<

[Greg (FossilMan)]

I'm not offended, but curious. As far as I can recall, I only sucked out twice in the entire tournament. And I mean every hand, not just those on TV. So what hands, other than where I knocked out McClain and Mattias, are you considering to be suckouts? I suspect we have a very different definition of the term.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Check your facts more carefully please. I did NOT call Matusow's all-in. I flopped the overcards and the nut flush draw, and I bet all-in for about 3x the pot. And Mike then called with second pair. I think we all agree (and if not, we should) that there is a big difference between calling all-in for a clear coin flip, and betting all-in where it will likely be a coin flip if called.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[RowdyZ]

Fossilman was the big stack, he had some hands he won coming from behind but he was either the aggressor putting pressure on a small stack or he was calling a small stacks all in that really wouldn't hurt his chip position to badly if he lost.In most of those cases he wasn't that big a dog at all. Yeah he wasa big dog to Mattais for example but he alos had him easily covered, I remeber him saying "he had alot more then I thought he would" when he Mattias flipped over AK. Also I saw a few suckouts that got laid on him as well by small stacks. To me he did a great job playing his big stack.

I wonder if he regrets not calling The Mouths all when he had pocket 8's and Mike had AK and the Aussie knocked him out with AQ when a Q came on the river. I believe a 8 hit the flop.

[bigfishead]

I wont give a straight forward answer but will instead say that I have witnessed and played with at least one of these notables(not Raymer) enough to know a fair amount about their game. Having also read many of Greg's posts over numerous years, I have a decent feel for his understanding of the game and concepts. Greg would consistently crush one of these nameless noteables. The others I have no opinion on based on any or enough experience.

[JoeC]

Raymer-5
Moneymaker-3
Varkonyi-2

In my opinion, Fossilman displayed a great combination of skill and guts in the 2004 WSOP. He just kept pushing and making opponents pay when he had the best hand. This was excellent poker...on the other hand, Moneymaker I think made some really stupid calls on his way to victory. I'm not saying he's a bad player, but he got involved in big pots with mediocre hands--for instance, calling Benvenisti's all-in with A-2, a hand that is either a small favorite or a big dog to another ace.

To me, it seemed like Greg was the one inducing his opponents to make stupid calls...that is the difference between Moneymaker and Raymer.