GREG RAYMER= OVERATTED ON 2+2??

[AngryCola]

I can't believe this kind of discussion is still going on.
Raymer knows his stuff.

Frankly, how do YOU know how he played the WSOP? Because you watched the ESPN coverage? I don't know the actual number, but the % of hands you saw Raymer play at the WSOP was very small. I don't see how you or anyone else can judge his play solely on that small amount of TV coverage.

That being said, the only thing to judge him by is how knowledgable his posts here have been. By most accounts, almost everything he has posted on 2+2 shows that he knows his stuff. Unless you have played with Mr. Raymer, or know someone that has, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Is there a 2+2 bias? Yes. Should there be? Yes.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe this kind of discussion is still going on.
Raymer knows his stuff.

Frankly, how do YOU know how he played the WSOP? Because you watched the ESPN coverage? I don't know the actual number, but the % of hands you saw Raymer play at the WSOP was very small. I don't see how you or anyone else can judge his play solely on that small amount of TV coverage.

That being said, the only thing to judge him by is how knowledgable his posts here have been. By most accounts, almost everything he has posted on 2+2 shows that he knows his stuff. Unless you have played with Mr. Raymer, or know someone that has, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Is there a 2+2 bias? Yes. Should there be? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not judging his play based on the hands i saw him luck out on in the WSOP ME (i saw at least 5 that were dominated preflop and at least two won on the river). i'm judging his play based on all the hype surrounding him on 2+2 when his play, whether you wanna take it to the last 3-4 years, does'nt support it. if you're gonna hype someone like that, they should at least have the stats to back up the hype. other than that, it's favortism and bias.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

You contradict yourself so much it is pathetic. Somebody backs me up, and you say how ridiculous it is for 2+2ers to be lining up to buy my book when I don't have the record to indicate I'm a great player. They then point out that I've been making top quality useful posts on this site for years. Your response? Well, I didn't say he couldn't write about poker, I said he couldn't walk the walk. Do you see the inconsistency? Why would you care about the ability of the writer to walk the walk if what he writes is correct and will improve your game? The probably explanation for this inconsistency is, well, you're just a moron.

And I've yet to see you post about, or to catch your name in CardPlayer regarding your results in ANYTHING. So, if you can't walk the walk, I guess we should all just ignore your posts, as they're clearly not worth reading. Of course, we could figure that out without doing the research. All we have to do is read your posts to see they're just hate-filled garbage. How high do you play? Have you ever beat a 150-300 game? A 5-10 game? What's the most you've ever won in a tournament? We wait with baited breath.

Now, this is a good example of your lying nature. Or your stupidity, you tell us.

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not judging his play based on the hands i saw him luck out on in the WSOP ME (i saw at least 5 that were dominated preflop and at least two won on the river).

[/ QUOTE ]

I want you to state EXACTLY what hands these were. I put two bad beats on a player during the entire length of the WSOP. I got lucky to knock out McClain with TT vs. his AA, and lucky again with AT against Mattias' AK. That was it. Every other time I caught a lucky card on somebody, I did it BEFORE most of the money went in, not after. Every big pot I played, the money went in on a coin toss, or the money went in when I was the big favorite. Seriously, you're just pulling this 5-dominated-hands lie out of your a*s, or your memory sucks.

I don't know why you have this vendetta against me, and I don't care. Either name the 5 hands card-for-card and against what opponent, or admit you're wrong, or just shut up.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Spladle Master]

I only joined the forum a couple of weeks ago, I've never read any of Greg Raymer's posts, and I have no bias.

Desdia, I'm pretty sure you just got metaphorically bent over and raped in this discussion. Mayhap 'twould be best if you refrained from posting for(ever) a bit.

[Daliman]

Of COURSE Fossilman is overrated. He obviosly either doesn't know proper word usage when resonding to posts, or eats worms.

[ QUOTE ]
We wait with baited breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Of COURSE Fossilman is overrated. He obviosly either doesn't know proper word usage when resonding to posts, or eats worms.

[ QUOTE ]
We wait with baited breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

....shouldn't that be.....'baited fish-breath'?

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
We wait with baited breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, irony.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

He apparently picked the just-shut-up option. But only with respect to this post. Of course, the truth is he absolutely cannot come up with the 5 hands, because they don't exist. They don't exist on the TV show, and they don't exist even if he could go back in time and see every hand I played.

While it is almost a statistical certainty that I played at least 5 hands that were dominated throughout the event, these were not hands where the pot became significant, and I caught a lucky river card after putting in a lot of money. However, I very much doubt we will ever hear Desmond Diarrhea (or something like that) admit he was wrong.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)


[ QUOTE ]
Now, this is a good example of your lying nature. Or your stupidity, you tell us.

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not judging his play based on the hands i saw him luck out on in the WSOP ME (i saw at least 5 that were dominated preflop and at least two won on the river).

[/ QUOTE ]

I want you to state EXACTLY what hands these were. I put two bad beats on a player during the entire length of the WSOP. I got lucky to knock out McClain with TT vs. his AA, and lucky again with AT against Mattias' AK. That was it. Every other time I caught a lucky card on somebody, I did it BEFORE most of the money went in, not after. Every big pot I played, the money went in on a coin toss, or the money went in when I was the big favorite. Seriously, you're just pulling this 5-dominated-hands lie out of your a*s, or your memory sucks.

I don't know why you have this vendetta against me, and I don't care. Either name the 5 hands card-for-card and against what opponent, or admit you're wrong, or just shut up.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
He apparently picked the just-shut-up option. But only with respect to this post. Of course, the truth is he absolutely cannot come up with the 5 hands, because they don't exist. They don't exist on the TV show, and they don't exist even if he could go back in time and see every hand I played.

While it is almost a statistical certainty that I played at least 5 hands that were dominated throughout the event, these were not hands where the pot became significant, and I caught a lucky river card after putting in a lot of money. However, I very much doubt we will ever hear Desmond Diarrhea (or something like that) admit he was wrong.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)


[ QUOTE ]
Now, this is a good example of your lying nature. Or your stupidity, you tell us.

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not judging his play based on the hands i saw him luck out on in the WSOP ME (i saw at least 5 that were dominated preflop and at least two won on the river).

[/ QUOTE ]

I want you to state EXACTLY what hands these were. I put two bad beats on a player during the entire length of the WSOP. I got lucky to knock out McClain with TT vs. his AA, and lucky again with AT against Mattias' AK. That was it. Every other time I caught a lucky card on somebody, I did it BEFORE most of the money went in, not after. Every big pot I played, the money went in on a coin toss, or the money went in when I was the big favorite. Seriously, you're just pulling this 5-dominated-hands lie out of your a*s, or your memory sucks.

I don't know why you have this vendetta against me, and I don't care. Either name the 5 hands card-for-card and against what opponent, or admit you're wrong, or just shut up.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

first off, i have a life outside of 2+2, so please forgive me Your Highness for not responding back to you in a timely fashion. it's funny how i have never said a bad word about you nor ever resorted to calling you any kind of negative name, yet for someone who is supposed to be so high exalted and professional...Desmond Diarrhea? c'mon. sure someone who is smart and talented enough to achieve the lofty position of patent attorney can at least come with something more funny and original.

i'll admit, i was wrong about the five dominated hands. no problem. it's been awhile since i saw the final table. i should have used 'coinflips'. however, your memory must be a little shaky too if you're trying to past off to the 2+2 public that it's a statistical certainty that you played at least 5 hands that were dominated throughout the whole tournament. (4) were at the final table alone:

Michael McClain busted with A A against your 10 10
Mattias Andersson busted with A K against your A 10
Josh Arieh busted with 9 9 against your A Q

the fourth was your A K against Al Krux's 6 6 all-in where you caught a King on the turn and Al caught a 6 on the river to stay alive. now although 6 6 is a small favorite over A K (very close to 50/50) it's still dominated. of course i expected you to make that call, but my point was about dominated hands, regardless of whether it's a slight dog or a huge dog.

there were also two more significant close hands in which you were the favorite:

Al's all-in with A 9 v.s. your A Q on a flop with an Ace
Glenn Hughes i think he either had K 10 or K Q against your
5 5.

so i doubt very seriously that you avoided less than 5 dominated hands, whatever the dynamics of the hand or the money involved, throughout the whole tournament. it's very clear you were involved in quite a few lucky situations, which IMHO, had nothing to do with your superior skill and play. out of the nine finalists you busted out (5), not including David when you both had fullhouses.

[jwombles]

WHO CARES?! What is the point? Of course us 2+2'ers like him. There is bias in everything in life! Your favorite sports team, your favorite athlete, etc. etc. etc.

A lot of us like Raymer b/c we identify with him and hope to make good like he did one day. Why belittle him and assume that b/c he got lucky on some hands he isn't a great player? Does that mean that the only champions we should truly consider great are those who never hit the river or who never came into the flop dominated? You are an idiot, and I feel more idiotic for even replying to your arrogant post.