GREG RAYMER= OVERATTED ON 2+2??

[zaxx19]

I am a regular of the MTT forum and I have to say Greg Raymer seems to be an untouchable g-d on these boards. While I am appreciative that he frequently lends advice to the 2+2 boards sometimes I believe there is a certain degree of bias for Raymer and his style of play on 2+2. While watching the WSOP i marvelled at Raymer's fearless blunt style...and also his luck. I think Raymer played the WSOP the optimal way for someone who only wants to win a 2500 person tourney and could care less about placing. All this does/did not make Raymer a worlclass player...and quite frankly he isnt one. Both Williams and Arieh have exceeded Raymer in successes since the WSOP but threads keep popping up discrediting their play and belittling their ability.

Is their a bias in favor of Raymer on 2+2?? DISCUSS....



DISCUSS.............

[phixxx]

You sir, are an idiot.

Someone ban this clown.

[sammysusar]

yeah if you dont like someone's ideas ban them. as for raymer nobody really knows how good anyone is at tournament poker due to the volitility but i think you could safely say he is cant be regarded in the same class as negreanu, ivey (the absolute best) without a few more high finishes.

[The T.A.]

Has Greg Raymer played in any large tournaments after WSOP 2004?

And regarding Greg Raymer mearly being "lucky," you sir, are incorrect. Judging from his the ESPN footage of WSOP04, I'd say his fearlessness (not bluntness) largely contributed to his victory. So, he won a lot of coinflips and had some great hands during the final table -- remember, everyone needs to have some luck to win a tournament.

Greg Raymer has all of my respect.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Has Greg Raymer played in any large tournaments after WSOP 2004?

And regarding Greg Raymer mearly being "lucky," you sir, are incorrect. Judging from his the ESPN footage of WSOP04, I'd say his fearlessness (not bluntness) largely contributed to his victory. So, he won a lot of coinflips and had some great hands during the final table -- remember, everyone needs to have some luck to win a tournament.

Greg Raymer has all of my respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

on one hand, you're saying the original poster is incorrect in saying he [Raymer] was'nt lucky. then you turn around and point out WHY he was lucky:

[So, he won a lot of coinflips and had some great hands during the final table] quote

*most of his coinflips were on the dog end*

then you go on to say:

"everyone needs to have some luck to win a tournament".

???

[The T.A.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has Greg Raymer played in any large tournaments after WSOP 2004?

And regarding Greg Raymer mearly being "lucky," you sir, are incorrect. Judging from his the ESPN footage of WSOP04, I'd say his fearlessness (not bluntness) largely contributed to his victory. So, he won a lot of coinflips and had some great hands during the final table -- remember, everyone needs to have some luck to win a tournament.

Greg Raymer has all of my respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

on one hand, you're saying the original poster is incorrect in saying he [Raymer] was'nt lucky. then you turn around and point out WHY he was lucky:

[So, he won a lot of coinflips and had some great hands during the final table] quote

*most of his coinflips were on the dog end*

then you go on to say:

"everyone needs to have some luck to win a tournament".

???

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you need to read over my post a second time, kid.

Clearly, you aren't used to posts that consists of more than "greg raymar wuz teh suck."

[Russ McGinley]

Greg was definitely lucky and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit it. He took out McClain on the TT v AA hand and Mattias with AT v AK with runner-runner for the straight. You absolutely have to have luck on your side to win a 2500 player tournament that lasts a week, that fact cannot be disputed, but you also have to play pretty damn good, make smart plays, read opponents, avoid the disaster situations, and keep mentally focused through all those long hours of play.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah if you dont like someone's ideas ban them. as for raymer nobody really knows how good anyone is at tournament poker due to the volitility but i think you could safely say he is cant be regarded in the same class as negreanu, ivey (the absolute best) without a few more high finishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

even if he does achieve a few more high finishes, he still has along way to go before he's in ivey or negreanu's class. both of these players have achieved great and consistent success in national tournaments against some of the best players in the world and their MULTIPLE WSOP bracelet winners. yet some guy a couple months back tried to pass off some final table and ok results in local and lower buy-in tournaments (over a 3 or 4 year span) as evidence of Raymer's tourney prowess. now this guy has a book deal about tournament essays with 2+2. what kind of essays are they gonna be? :

page 19:

"I put on my patented sunglasses and stared the tight-playing shortstack down. he pondered, then went over the top all-in. with only 10,000 more to go, pot odds dictated that i call the all-in with my 10 9 offsuit. my opponent doubled up after i got no help.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
You sir, are an idiot.

Someone ban this clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

why, because he's telling the truth? i certainly think Raymer is a good player, yet, his play and results over the last couple of years (on a national stage) don't deserve the hype or bias.

[phixxx]

I didn't even read it. I just assumed it was ignorant and negative, like every other one of your posts.

Maybe thats a bit contradicting, considering I made a comment on his post without reading it. Oh well...