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

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
i say what i have to say without having to resort to getting personal or getting offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you do. However, by the way you word things, it simply comes across like you're smart enough to know that if you simply resort to blatant insults that are irrelevant or superfluous to the point being discussed, everyone will know you're just being mean-spirited and ignore you. But, by staying civil in your choice of words, you can try to pull me down without alienating all of your readers.

Anyway, it would be a lot more interesting if you were to look at my previous post, go over my numbers, and tell me how many wins and final tables you think I should have achieved to merit your "respect". Either I've done it, or your requirements are excessive, IMO.

Fortunately, earning your respect isn't of any significance in my life.

I'll end my discussions in this thread now, so please don't be offended if I fail to respond.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, it would be a lot more interesting if you were to look at my previous post, go over my numbers, and tell me how many wins and final tables you think I should have achieved to merit your "respect". Either I've done it, or your requirements are excessive, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then what'd be great right after that is if you'd give him a personal demonstration of high-quality bitch-slapping before you sent him back for for four more years of university. At least it'd make ME feel better.

[Dan Mezick]

[ QUOTE ]
And then what'd be great right after that is if you'd give him a personal demonstration of high-quality bitch-slapping before you sent him back for for four more years of university. At least it'd make ME feel better.



[/ QUOTE ]

I believe winning the largest poker tournament in the world accomplishes this slapping task without a word being spoken.

Ya, that Raymer guy is just a [insert demaining noun here].

He is a [insert demeaning adjective here] guy.

Plus his [insert physical property name here] is funny to look at.

Jealousy (abridged definition):
The emotion created by actually admitting to yourself you can **never** have what the other has.

[lolita16]

Respond with Chris Ferguson's quote at the final table. Something to the effect of you don't win a large field tournament without your fair share of luck. You don't win a tournament without being an incredibly good poker player. You must have both.

Seriously though, of course there is some luck involved. The luck of having your best hands hold up, getting your fair share of best hands, winning your fair share of coin flips (at least), and not finding yourself in the worst of situations early on that will almost always bust you... I'm thinking mostly of KK vs AA here though I'm sure there are others.

Don't worry about the morons. If they watched the full air of the series and they still think Greg got lucky, well they simply don't understand what they are watching, much like most of the viewing public.

You could also use my line during the glory days of my beloved Cowboys: "World Champion baby; at least for the next 12 months!" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Dan Mezick]

I notice that Greg is very accountable in his posts, from day 1. He uses his actual name. This poses problems for the poster, who will be accountable by name for everything he writes about strategy, about theory.....and especially about others.

I notice that many posters who disparage others, usually do so by posting under an alias.

I notice that those disparaged are often high-achieving players posting here using their actual names.

I suspect poker skill and a philosophy that includes personal accountability are highly correlated.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I notice that Greg is very accountable in his posts, from day 1. He uses his actual name. This poses problems for the poster, who will be accountable by name for everything he writes about strategy, about theory.....and especially about others.

I notice that many posters who disparage others, usually do so by posting under an alias.

I notice that those disparaged are often high-achieving players posting here using their actual names.

I suspect poker skill and a philosophy that includes personal accountability are highly correlated.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've already posted my real name--- Destin Diarra. my username is a combination of my first and last names. i don't have to hide behind or hide from anyone. i think you're getting a 'lil to out there with the 'people who post under alias and people who don't' theory.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, it would be a lot more interesting if you were to look at my previous post, go over my numbers, and tell me how many wins and final tables you think I should have achieved to merit your "respect". Either I've done it, or your requirements are excessive, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then what'd be great right after that is if you'd give him a personal demonstration of high-quality bitch-slapping before you sent him back for for four more years of university. At least it'd make ME feel better.

[/ QUOTE ]

now Paul, i am appauled at your statement [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. the only high-quality b#tch slapping that will be going on is between a pimp and his hos. i'm neither a pimp or a ho. other than that, keep the cheesy, wishful threats of violence off 2+2. the words 'b#tch slapping' and you don't even sound right together. let's keep it civil.

[citanul]

I vote for this as Desdia's best post ever.

citanul

The parent to his may also be my favorite Paul Philips post.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i say what i have to say without having to resort to getting personal or getting offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you do. However, by the way you word things, it simply comes across like you're smart enough to know that if you simply resort to blatant insults that are irrelevant or superfluous to the point being discussed, everyone will know you're just being mean-spirited and ignore you. But, by staying civil in your choice of words, you can try to pull me down without alienating all of your readers.

Anyway, it would be a lot more interesting if you were to look at my previous post, go over my numbers, and tell me how many wins and final tables you think I should have achieved to merit your "respect". Either I've done it, or your requirements are excessive, IMO.

Fortunately, earning your respect isn't of any significance in my life.

I'll end my discussions in this thread now, so please don't be offended if I fail to respond.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

not towing the company line or something? you're an attorney so of all people, you should know the value of being able to argue your case eloquently without regard for whether the opposition likes what's being said or not. me and you, we have a vastly different way of viewing this whole subject. if i were in your shoes and another 2+2er said the same exact things about me, i would'nt get bent all of of shape about it, especially if what this poster says has some merit. plus, this same poster has never said anything slick or offensive about me either so why would i stress it? i'm a results-oriented person. if i know that i only mostly play in one locale, if i know i'm only a part-time tourney player in this same locale, and i don't have sparkling tourney statistics over a period of time to make a point of anything...i would'nt get offended by another poster bring up this fact. i'd say, "you know what, you're right".

when i made the comment about the poker advice you were giving being insignificant at the time, it was'nt to put you down as a person (you're jumping to the wrong conclusions), it was merely to point out that anybody can come on 2+2 and demostrate vast poker knowledge, but for all you know, they could be an imposter. the example i gave on the matter made my point and had nothing to do with you. you're reading to close into things and catching feelings. the posters that brought up your poker advice brought it up in defense in the wrong discussion. it's like giving an answer to a question that no one asked.

Greg, to answer your question, i don't feel that your stats in tournies warrants any kind of mention, in part, because if your sample is that small over a 4 year time frame, then it's nothing more than the short-term semi-success spread over a long period. it would be easy to overvalue those statistics instead of putting them in their proper place. the key is, you're satisfied with them. besides, earning my respect is not a priority of yours anyway, so i say, "why even ask the question?" i've played between 350-500 SNGs and have moneyed in 40% of them since i started playing money poker around December 2003. i'm not staisfied with that, not one bit, and i don't put to much stock in those statistics either. people always try to tell me to quit tripping over all the rivers and bad beats i'm getting because i've played too small sample compared to the time i've been playing. as a new player, that's just something that i gotta except and get over.

here's an example for others in what i look at: Barry Greenstein had a post where he said something to the affect that he's played maybe 100 tournaments within the last year and a half to two years and won like 7 of them. now along with thos 7 wins he's also had probably 20+ final tables during that span and numerous smaller cashes. let's just say total that he's cashed in 35 tournaments (which could be more) out of 100. the majority of his cashes are at final tables and a lot of his wins are BIG wins in BIG tournaments. that's what i look at, that's what i respect. when people say Barry is a world class player, not only can you look to his peers to reference his cash game prowess but you can also look at how well he's done in tournaments (and he's done well everywhere, not just locally in Vegas).

[citanul]

Desdia,

I'd like to applaud you on two things in this post.

1) You used paragraphs, a welcome change.

2) You (albeit only after taking a 2 paragraph diversion to invent an attack from Greg against you out of thin air) answer the question posed by Greg to you.

Now, first off, I'd like to tell you that 40% itm is a good rate for the sngs. You're doing fine.

Next, No one said Greg's tournament career was worthy of any kind of mention. You're attacking a statement no one made.

Now that Greg has informed you of his statistics, and you have informed him of what you think they would have to be to garner your respect, that's all settled. You shouldn't mind when other people tell you that they respect his results. That's their opinion to have.

Carry on with the lunacy,

citanul