I am getting sick of my friends saying "Raymer just got lucky." - Page 6

lastchance · #51 10-01-2004, 12:31 AM

Raymer was pretty lucky when it came to ME. We all know that. You need to be lucky to win the WSOP ME. A great player can have an edge over the field due to superior play, but people are always going to get lucky.

This is no diss to Greg, by the way. I think he has skills, based on the TV hands they showed (he didn't do anything flat out stupid, I don't think) and his posts on this forum. But, we don't really know how good he is, as we haven't seen his full play and results, especially throughout his career. What kind of games can Greg Raymer consistently beat? We don't know.

All we have is our guesses, until Raymer moves down to Las Vegas and beats the highest possible limits there. ^^

Desdia72 · #52 10-01-2004, 12:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my point is not about one play. it's about consistency over a long period of time. that's one of my main arguments that i bring up when people overexaggerate Greg's tourney performances. i respect a player with a proven track record that one can go back and reference. one in which is not centered around one locale, but one where consistent success has been achieved all over. Dan Harrington has 4 WSOP ME final tables and i think he finished no lower than 5th or 6th in any of them. look at how many final tables Phil Hellmuth has in the WSOP as a whole. look at the bracelets he has. look at Johnny Chan or Doyle. even young guns like Phil Ivey and Daniel Negreanu. they have bracelets and consistent tourney success abroad. along with their cash game prowess, speaks volumes about their status as elite players. this is not about luck on one hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post did not come across as intended. The point was that Dan could have easily been eliminated this year despite his skill.

Dan's finishing in four final tables does not prove that he's a good player. That's all I was saying. He's been luckier than the other pros who have been playing all these years.

Btw, is Chip Reese a good player? Where are his tournament results? How about Lyle Berman? They're both in the hall of fame, but have very little to show for it when it comes to tournaments.

Greg Raymer is a good player because he has proved it with his play over the years. It is possible to say that he is a good player based on that knowledge. His lack of tournament experience does not mean that he's not a good player. This is where your logic breaks apart. Do you see why?

Justin A

[/ QUOTE ]

how does my logic break apart here? on one hand, you questioning two players in the Hall Of Fame for their non-tourney success, and in the same breath, complimenting Greg for the same lack thereof.

Justin A · #53 10-01-2004, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
how does my logic break apart here? on one hand, you questioning two players in the Hall Of Fame for their non-tourney success, and in the same breath, complimenting Greg for the same lack thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you really need help with reading comprehension. I was making a point of two hall of famers to show how silly your argument is. Of course these guys are two of the best players who have ever lived, despite their lack of tournament success. Saying these guys are not good at poker based on lack of tourney success is obviously misguided. The same can be said about Raymer.

Justin A

Desdia72 · #54 10-01-2004, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Raymer was pretty lucky when it came to ME. We all know that. You need to be lucky to win the WSOP ME. A great player can have an edge over the field due to superior play, but people are always going to get lucky.

This is no diss to Greg, by the way. I think he has skills, based on the TV hands they showed (he didn't do anything flat out stupid, I don't think) and his posts on this forum. But, we don't really know how good he is, as we haven't seen his full play and results, especially throughout his career. What kind of games can Greg Raymer consistently beat? We don't know.

All we have is our guesses, until Raymer moves down to Las Vegas and beats the highest possible limits there. ^^

[/ QUOTE ]

so eloquently put. great post.

Ionphore · #55 10-01-2004, 12:49 AM

All I can say is threads like this are fairly dissapointing. The wpt forum is a detriment to 2+2. Threads like this are also likely to drive away a valuable poser like Greg because everytime he posts its like hes on trial or something. Its so silly. I can't beleive the time someone like desdia has put into this thread. It boggles the mind.

Desdia72 · #56 10-01-2004, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how does my logic break apart here? on one hand, you questioning two players in the Hall Of Fame for their non-tourney success, and in the same breath, complimenting Greg for the same lack thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you really need help with reading comprehension. I was making a point of two hall of famers to show how silly your argument is. Of course these guys are two of the best players who have ever lived, despite their lack of tournament success. Saying these guys are not good at poker based on lack of tourney success is obviously misguided. The same can be said about Raymer.

Justin A

[/ QUOTE ]

your point is null and void. i never said Greg was'nt a good player.

siccjay · #57 10-01-2004, 12:53 AM

It's unbelievable that you base your opinion of Greg in the WSOP based on the few hands that were on TV. That is f'ing ridiculous.

Didn't I read somewhere he was never lower than 16th in chips?

Desdia72 · #58 10-01-2004, 12:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All I can say is threads like this are fairly dissapointing. The wpt forum is a detriment to 2+2. Threads like this are also likely to drive away a valuable poser like Greg because everytime he posts its like hes on trial or something. Its so silly. I can't beleive the time someone like desdia has put into this thread. It boggles the mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

neighborhood bully or something.

Desdia72 · #59 10-01-2004, 01:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's unbelievable that you base your opinion of Greg in the WSOP based on the few hands that were on TV. That is f'ing ridiculous.

Didn't I read somewhere he was never lower than 16th in chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

televised on ESPN. if we're talking strictly tourney results, there's not much to talk about. that's being real. i don't know enough of him to speak on his cash game prowess.

citanul · #60 10-01-2004, 01:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
your point is null and void. i never said Greg was'nt a good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT THE HELL IS IT THAT IS YOUR POINT? WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY?

Your very first post in this thread actually had no point to it. It didn't say anything about Greg except that one tournament finish is luck. No one has disagreed with that at all. No one. Not at any point. Very good. You said that you believe the "ultimate poker player" to be one who excels at cash and tournament play. Fine. No one is begrudging you your belief. You are entitled to it.

You have not made any point at all in this thread.

In every thread about every event, you basically say the same thing "one shot results are luck." Oh my God! Did you come up with that yourself?!

Big news flash here: Two results, you know what they are? Even luckier than 1!!!

Other news flash. In many ways, it is harder to win a tournament that is larger and "less densely populated by top players" than a tournament that is small and entirely filled with top players. Surely you see why. It has to do with the LARGE AMOUNT OF LUCK. It also has to do with the fact that although less dense, even more top players are in the field in these large fields. It's not like this year there was Greg and 2600 people who'd never seen a deck of cards before. If Doyle had won it this year, that wouldn't change my sentiment at all.

citanul