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

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

i was responding to how Greg says he feels about his statistics versus other players who played more over the same time frame. also, his tourney statistics has been brought up by others, which seems to me that those folks think his stats were worthy enough to bring up in why they regard him a good player. i never invented an attack by Greg directed at me out of thin air, i think his responding out of feeling he's personally being attacked. the beauty of having two sides to a coin is being able to debate those two sides. it's not my place to should on anyone's right to an opinion. their what makes an individual interesting.

[citanul]

I'm sorry, but I felt like the first 2 paragraphs of the other post were responding to an imaginary attack. I don't think he was responding out of "feelings," rather looking to inform you of things you asked to be informed of, and to ask you a simple question or two. It really didn't seem to me like his response was in any way that of a hurt man.

Desdia, in many of your posts, you seem to be missing the point of debate. Others come and offer big piles of evidence and opinion. You come and offer your evidence and your opinion. You state that your opinions vary from those of other people, and that your standards for judging people are different than other people's. They say "ok" or they say "that's crazy talk." You repeat your statement. They say "you're repeating yourself." You repeat yourself.

You could say "That's just my opinion, I'm not going to respond to people attacking my opinion, because it's based on a set of standards." And then let the topic die.

Now, if you had an opinion like "Hitler was a Nazi," and someone didn't agree, you could argue forever on your point because you're dealing with facts, not opinions. With opinions there are some people who cannot be swayed, there are others that can. Whatever.

It is not what makes people individuals that they cudgel others with their opinions. You are not the only one guilty of this, and I don't mean to direct this totally at you.

But, this is what I have a problem with, basically the mentality behind this statement:

[ QUOTE ]
the beauty of having two sides to a coin is being able to debate those two sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The beauty of having two sides of a coin is that you can flip a fair one to decide things randomly. You cannot debate which one is heads and which one is tails. You just label them, and get on with your life. You have proven in your posts, at least to me, that you are completely willing to argue any stupid tangent til the cows come home.

citanul

[jedi]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who was arguing eloquently here?

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, let me get this straight. You call Greg "lucky" for winning 1 tournament (which no one has really disputed, BTW. Every WSOP winner needs more than his fair share of luck). Then you say that Greg needs to prove it to you with statistics and in more than one locale. Greg then challenges you to look at his results and tell him what results he needs to put up to earn your respect (not that he cares). Then you basically say "i don't feel that your stats in tournies warrants any kind of mention" because 4 years isn't enough.

Whatever.

[Ulysses]

I haven't read this whole thread, but from Greg's post-WSOP posts here, I've never seen him claim to be a world-class player nor in the top group of NLHE tourney players, whatever you think that list should be. What I've seen Greg and others claim, which I find hard to argue with, is that Greg is a "very good to excellent" NLHE tourney player (and poker player). Now that he's doing this for a living, playing in many more tournaments, and presumably playing in bigger cash games, he'll be able to see a little better how his ability measures up against the more well-known players.

I think it's fair to say that we don't have a basis to really compare Greg's ability to someone like Barry Greenstein or Phil Ivey at this point. But I also think it's fair to say that Greg has provided plenty of evidence (through a history of success in live tourneys, online tourneys, and cash games as well as his contributions to this forum) that he is a very good poker player. To ignore all of this and call him a "flash in the pan" is silly.

[znup]

are you dating chris brown?

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who was arguing eloquently here?

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, let me get this straight. You call Greg "lucky" for winning 1 tournament (which no one has really disputed, BTW. Every WSOP winner needs more than his fair share of luck). Then you say that Greg needs to prove it to you with statistics and in more than one locale. Greg then challenges you to look at his results and tell him what results he needs to put up to earn your respect (not that he cares). Then you basically say "i don't feel that your stats in tournies warrants any kind of mention" because 4 years isn't enough.

Whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

i never told Greg to prove anything to me. that's not his job. results speak for themselves. if you're trying to lobby your case for having good results and your results don't support your thinking, you don't have a case to lobby. Greg feels proud of his results, good for him. i just don't see it that way. the 4 year thing had to do with a small sample over that period of time as oppossed to having a large successful sample over the same period. i feel like it's easy to get geeked over success in a small sample, but that does'nt mean you would have the same success had you played more. that's like praising good fortune in the short-term as if you would get the same results over the long run. excuse me for not acting as if he he came up with a cure for AIDS or something.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of them even went so far to say that if Raymer played in our home game, he would have a shot at beating him. Pfft! My friend wouldn't have a prayer!


[/ QUOTE ]

Your friend would have a shot. It's not like playing a game of chess or 1 on 1 in basketball. Why doesen't anyone in this thread get it? Your friend could easily have the right cards against Greg. That doesen't mean anything. Playing a winning game of poker consists of loosing pots. Especially in tournaments. I don't understand why people equate winning a pot against someone as being better then them. Or winning 20 pots against them. Or beating them in a final table. Thats not where poker is won or lost. The micro results matter so very little. Just whether you made the correct play.

On a side note. Is Desdia your friend Karak?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree...this post is utterly ridiculous to suggest that your friend would have no shot.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair point.

However he did push in - which is a lot different than being called. He also pushed in with 2 over cards and the Nut Flush draw. I don't think many people would have called here, and also I think Mike had about a 3-2 chip lead on him. He was very crippled after losing this.

I think it would have been looked at much differently if Greg called the all in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely...I was just pointing out that Greg did win some 50/50s where it would've either knocked him out or severely crippled him.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
are you dating chris brown?

[/ QUOTE ]

is CrisBrown a bunny (woman)? do we somehow sound and think alike?

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
The man has been on here answering tourney questions for a long time. Many, Many (myself included) people on here have soaked up a wealth of information from him. He was HIGHLY regarded well BEFORE the WSOP... So why is it now, when he cashes, people want to bring him down? I'll tell ya, JEALOUSY!! Look, EVERYONE got BOTH lucky AND unlucky at times in that tourney, but the facts are he WON it (with class I might add). So those of you who want to bash, you have no ground to stand on. His results speak.

Thanks Greg for continuing to lurk and post here, WE appreciate it (most of us)

fireman

if you think he got lucky, so be it. Your just not going to convince those of us who have used him to further our own game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the large majority of people here have it right...

Hes a very good player, who played at the top of his game for a few days, got very lucky, and won a huge tourney.

Its a select few who are unfortunately more vocal than the majority that makes us think that a lot of people here view him as either one of the two extremes: totally lucky or a poker god who can't be beaten.