GREG RAYMER= OVERATTED ON 2+2??

[AngryCola]

EOMs = End of Messages

Period.

[The13atman]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you didn't mean to respond to my post in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I just clicked reply on your post since at that time it was at the bottom of the page. I didn't feel like going back to page 1 just to click reply. Otherwise I would have quoted you. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Edit: sorry for bumping this again.

[sketchy1]

i haven't read half of this thread.

but whatever argument you had you just nailed the coffin on.

saying 66 dominates AK is saying "i don't know what i am talking about."

if you think greg "got lucky" in this pot, you're 100% wrong. or the AQ v 99 pot. his TT v AA, and AT v AK were all fairly routine plays.

[zaxx19]

Try just reading the first post....maybe you will know what the thread is about then.

[sourbeaver]

All you need is love.

[lastchance]

Yeah, Raymer's overrated. Any 2+2er who wins the WSOP ME would be overrated. He's not Juanda or Negreanu, but those players are the best of the best. Raymer played very, very well during the WSOP ME, even though he got very lucky in many coinflips, especially the one where Mike Matusow had put him in a lot of danger by calling with just second pair against Raymer's flush draw with 2 overs. (of course, Mike put himself in a lot of danger too)

Raymer has a 1/1000 chance of winning the WSOP that year but only a handful of people in the world have that kind of shot.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
he got very lucky in many coinflips, especially the one where Mike Matusow had put him in a lot of danger by calling with just second pair against Raymer's flush draw with 2 overs.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was a favorite in that hand. Even though Matusow had a pair, Raymer was still ahead. He was the favorite before the flop, after the flop, and then made the nuts on the turn. Raymer was never behind in that hand.

[silversurfer]

[ QUOTE ]
The original thread referred to the poker playing ability of Raymer did it not?? It didnt ask whether Raymer was overatted as a : swell guy, poster on 2+2,fossil collector, poker theorist,....etc etc etc. The point is, in order for us to ascertain where he is skill wise arent results gonna have too play a major role ??


[/ QUOTE ]

He has very good results....more on that in a second. His poker acumen is something you won't ever come close to having. He has clear, logical advice that many have benefitted from. If something is logical and well-spoken - if something works - why does it matter who is giving it or what their results are? You and Desidia are simply arguing to argue here.

Now, while he doesn't have the results of Desidia's hero John Juanda, he has done very well in several major tournaments, and quite a few local tournaments at Foxwoods. His results are something that 90% of the posters on this board won't ever duplicate, yet you still think his career to date is some sort of ruse. What do you struggle with here? Why do you keep arguing?

This has all been been pointed out several times - in this very thread, so why don't YOU pay attention - but I can't resist making you look foolish. It's too easy and too much fun.

You are still spelling over-rated wrong. I love it.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The original thread referred to the poker playing ability of Raymer did it not?? It didnt ask whether Raymer was overatted as a : swell guy, poster on 2+2,fossil collector, poker theorist,....etc etc etc. The point is, in order for us to ascertain where he is skill wise arent results gonna have too play a major role ??


[/ QUOTE ]

He has very good results....more on that in a second. His poker acumen is something you won't ever come close to having. He has clear, logical advice that many have benefitted from. If something is logical and well-spoken - if something works - why does it matter who is giving it or what their results are? You and Desidia are simply arguing to argue here.

Now, while he doesn't have the results of Desidia's hero John Juanda, he has done very well in several major tournaments, and quite a few local tournaments at Foxwoods. His results are something that 90% of the posters on this board won't ever duplicate, yet you still think his career to date is some sort of ruse. What do you struggle with here? Why do you keep arguing?

This has all been been pointed out several times - in this very thread, so why don't YOU pay attention - but I can't resist making you look foolish. It's too easy and too much fun.

You are still spelling over-rated wrong. I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what's your point? there are MANY other players (non-world class) who have done well in a FEW major tournaments, so what. local-wise (Foxwoods), i could care less. he's not playing against the likes of Ferguson, D Pham, Juanda, Ivey, Greenstein, or Negreanu in those local tourneys. i'd be willing to bet that he has the extreme majority of those tourney fields outclassed in both poker knowledge and skill. WOW! you should'nt even have to bring up the fact of 90% of 2+2's posters never achieving his results as evidence that his over-hyped results mean something. if you wanna be a poker coach, be one. but if folks are hyping you up on the felt like one championship means you're a dynasty, i expect all that poker knowledge to translate into more titles.

[ThaSaltCracka]

just because a player is not a pro, does not mean they are not very good at poker.