GREG RAYMER= OVERATTED ON 2+2??

[silversurfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Then elaborate and prove yourself to be right. I was expecting atleast 5 posts in which Zaxx has been all of the above, you only gave me ONE which is not enough to validate your point as far as i'm concerned, especially when there are atleast 20 that make your eyes bleed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are being stubborn. I think my argument was pretty sound, but your opinion is noted. Quantifying my argument was not part of the question, and your niggling at what I said (20 posts) is quite comical.

[ QUOTE ]
Very thoughtful however that you were kind enough to point out that my spelling wasn't 100% accurate, I appreciate it dearly. I have been posting on this forum for a long time and no one has ever criticized me for my opinions except for you and that no nothing fool of a poster Busguy. I have never flamed anyone. If I argue with someone it's for the right reasons but i'll never openly flame someone for no reason. I happen to like Greg Raymer, and I appreciate his consistant posting on 2+2. I only replied to this thread to defend Zaxx and Desdia against a CERTIN few that were attacking him.
You're not worth anymore of my time you anathema. I asked you to do something and you FAILED which probably very common. Absurd. This thread was not intended to bash Raymer and Zaxx has clearly pointed this out several times. Later on during the thread there are SOME negative posts about Raymer that where out of line and Zaxx was man enough to apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh* This is too easy. I'll ignore your insults, as you made a huge mistake and it's bedtime. Who did I address my last post to, Synth? Check the subject line. Here, I'll help - it wasn't you. Whoops!

The certain two you are defending are well-known board trolls who flat-out attacked someone. They could have been attacking Larry the Fuzzy Bunny for all I care. Reading their posts annoyed me, I felt like spouting off at the mouth for a bit with a few lengthy flames - something I won't be doing again. I've said what I had to say.

I failed? Prove it, seeing as how you are so into that.
I'm a failure? lol, I'll let that one pass, not worth responding to.
Zaxx pointed out that he wasn't here to bash? Don't believe it, I've explained why at length.

I think that's enough. Good evening.

[Wayfare]

Thanks for the response. Terms and conditions link at the top left broken for me.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now Raymer's play in the TOC is a different matter entirely. Where did you see "horrid horrid horrid" play at any time? He made some moves and got caught. That sort of thing happens in winner take all tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

read your last paragraph again. try raising with dominated hands preflop, then calling over the top all-ins with those same hands because of pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, by your logic, if Greg raises pre-flop with KK and calls an all-in against AA because of pot odds, it's a "horrid, horrid play".

Got it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't be serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that play with KK vs. AA any different than a play with AQ vs. AK? That's what you're saying, right? Raising pre-flop with a dominated hand, then calling because he's got odds. Why don't you try explaining why your examples (which you haven't shown us) are horrid horrid play, but mine aren't. My example fits your criteria of Greg's horrid play.

[VoxGibson]

I appreciate posts from players like zaxx who have a particular feel for the game that may be against the norm.... 9 times out of ten i can tell if someone i'm playing against is a sklansky reader, a doyle reader, a 2plus2 guy, or an online player....

so to see the diversity on this forum makes me very happy, and proud to be a member...

as far as the fear of them insulting a great poster (or i think perhaps you just mean a celebraty of sorts) i think its just as easy for them to ignore comments or respond to them as it is for the rest of us....

hearing talk of banning people for their opinions and ideas on this site makes me sick....
i think i lose a little faith and die a little inside each time i hear that.... if they're so offensive to you, why do you keep reading their posts.... WHY WHY WHY....

[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 ]

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that tournament success, despite the most recent WSOP, would indicate that Arieh is a much better player, but for all we know Arieh could be running well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you probably aren't aware of Greg's tournament successes at Foxwoods over the last four years or so. Granted, these were mostly smaller or weekly NL tournaments, but even those are decent-sized fields, and my impression is that Greg compiled quite an impressive record.

Also, anyone who talks like Arieh did on that interview (going on and on about it was "just his time to win" or whatever, etc.), is obviously an egomaniac, and probably not as bright as Greg.

[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.

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear ya, Angry.....

The Yankees didn't win the World Series this year, either......They must suck, eh?


............oh......they didn't participate??

...tsk, tsk.....details.....details....

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to point out that the fact the Yankees didn't participate in no way makes them suck any less.

Go Sox. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Myrtle]

ethan,

As a season ticket holder at Fenway Park for the last 25 years........

I'm right there with ya!!!

GO SOX!!!

[zaxx19]

Silversurfer did you EVER bother to even read the initial message?? You continually refer to my veiled motivations to bash Raymer and your "lengthy" explanation of said bashings but never once actually quote or refer to the actual post. This is akin to a history scholar asserting the Gettysburgh address(lol ok well my posts are certainly not as well written, as cogent or lucid lol)was actually a thinly veiled attempt to sleight French inaction during the Civil War without actually referring to a manuscript of the speech. Do you believe for one second such a paper would be published in any academic journal of reasonable repute?? Please if you are going to repeatedly make ridiculous claims about a poster or his posts at least take the requisite 40 seconds to read the post, and please try to refer to the post or specific arguements that lie therein in your response. Thank you have a nice day.

P.S. You guys who asked Matt to take down the post are sooo ridiculous its really laughable. On what grounds would the post be stricken?? "Unflattering to Greg Raymer"..."Not consistent with the majority view on Greg Raymer"??? Or perhaps "Raises questions about the treatment of 2 excellent players who happen not to be Greg Raymer"....

Ironically with this sort of overkill delivered in response to what was in retrospect not a very provocative or negative post I believe most of you guys have helped answer the question of whether Raymer was overatted yourselves. So in some odd way, thanx.