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

Karak567 · #1 09-30-2004, 12:58 PM

I watched the final table live on PS, and kept track of what was happening in the tournament as it went on. I know Raymer just didn't "get lucky and win a few coin flips," as my friends in my home game like to say. I wish EPSN would show some of the chipping and cutting he did to build up his stack.

He is a really good player, and no one I know will believe it.

Does anyone know where I can access a replay of the full final table or even descriptions of each hand so I can prove it?

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!

You don't win a tournament with thousands of people in it, over the course of several days, on "luck."

Ionphore · #2 09-30-2004, 01:07 PM

If you can't explain to them why he is a very good player then your persausive communication skills may not be in the highest percentile. There is also just a good of chance that they lack the intelligence or the poker know how to understand the concept.

XPac · #3 09-30-2004, 01:08 PM

Honestly, and I don't speak for Greg (obviously), but if it were me I'd LOVE for people to think I was just "lucky". From my experience I get a lot more action when people don't respect my play.

Dan Mezick · #4 09-30-2004, 01:09 PM

The sample size in the WSOP was in the range of 1400-1700 hands total. That is probably too small to size out the random luck factor. Yes he won alot of 'coin flips' but give me a break-- he pushed alot of people by bluffing also. Q-2 on the BB comes to mind....

Regardless, Fossilman is quite a player and NOT a flash in the pan. Search posts by 'barryg1' (Barry Greenstein) for discussions on hi-stakes cash game success vs. tournament success. Tournaments are not the ultimate measure of skill.

That being said, Greg CERTAINLY has excellent skills. Plus, he's one aggressive player.

I'm sure Greg will more than hold his own against the best players in these big cash games. He will certainly find out now that he has the cash, the backers, and the opportunity to be invited to some of the most interesting cash games in the world.

The downside is, only insider elite player guys like 'barryg1' will know the current and/or final cash-game scores for Greg and others.

STLantny · #5 09-30-2004, 01:30 PM

Think of it from their perspective. He DID get lucky, you can concede that, theres no denying that luck is involved in a 2000 persons tournement, Greg would be the first to agree. BUT what seperates the winners from the losers, is the fact that he had the SKILL to go along with the luck. You DO need both. So youre both right.

Desdia72 · #6 09-30-2004, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The sample size in the WSOP was in the range of 1400-1700 hands total. That is probably too small to size out the random luck factor. Yes he won alot of 'coin flips' but give me a break-- he pushed alot of people by bluffing also. Q-2 on the BB comes to mind....

Regardless, Fossilman is quite a player and NOT a flash in the pan. Search posts by 'barryg1' (Barry Greenstein) for discussions on hi-stakes cash game success vs. tournament success. Tournaments are not the ultimate measure of skill.

That being said, Greg CERTAINLY has excellent skills. Plus, he's one aggressive player.

I'm sure Greg will more than hold his own against the best players in these big cash games. He will certainly find out now that he has the cash, the backers, and the opportunity to be invited to some of the most interesting cash games in the world.

The downside is, only insider elite player guys like 'barryg1' will know the current and/or final cash-game scores for Greg and others.

[/ QUOTE ]

friends were'nt discussing success in high stakes cash games. they were discussing the WSOP ME Tournament. if you're talking about luck, then the short-term luck factor in winning the WSOP ME is the issue here. skill is not. you could be the least skilled and least experienced player in the whole tournament and if all of your favored premium hands held up, even in coin flip situations, you would have an excellent chance to win. does skill matter in those situations? no. tournaments may not be the true testament to skill but consistent success in tournaments, IMO, is. right now, he is a flash in the pan, the same way Moneymaker is and his previous tourney stats support this. there are alot of lesser known pro players who have better tourney stats, who are also cash game players (i.e. John Phan- who's heard of him?). he may be the World Champion right now, but until he's consistently winning or placing high in final tables over and over again, i could care less how skilled he is in cash games. the ultimate poker player is one who excels in both tourneys and cash games: players like Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein, and Howard Lederer. his WSOP ME win was one incredible and memorable feat, but the key word is ONE.

Dan Mezick · #7 09-30-2004, 02:19 PM

I tend to agree with Barry Greenstein regarding skills and tournaments and cash games. If you read the barryg1 posts, they are very enlightening. I believe that Raymer will stand the test of time in terms of his poker skills. I believe he's a true talent and is not cut from the same cloth as Moneymaker. They are both good for poker; Raymer will prove to be a real talent, I do believe.

I believe anyone who wins the WSOP ME is hugely lucky. Anything can happen in a small sample size of 1600 hands.

Desdia72 · #8 09-30-2004, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with Barry Greenstein regarding skills and tournaments and cash games. If you read the barryg1 posts, they are very enlightening. I believe that Raymer will stand the test of time in terms of his poker skills. I believe he's a true talent and is not cut from the same cloth as Moneymaker. They are both good for poker; Raymer will prove to be a real talent, I do believe.

I believe anyone who wins the WSOP ME is hugely lucky. Anything can happen in a small sample size of 1600 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

it was'nt just luck for Doyle, Johnny Chan, or Stu Unger to win multiple WSOP MEs (they also happens to be playing against much better opposition, skill-wise per entrant), even if the fields were smaller. it was'nt luck for Dan Harrington to win in '95 and make two more final tables, which happened to to be the biggest two fields in WSOP ME history. in reference to Moneymaker, who cares whether Greg is cut from a better and more exotic fabric. none of that means anything. the Menendez brothers' were seemingly cut from a better cloth than i was, and yet, they murdered their parents and are serving life sentences in prison. your true talent opinion is still based solely on Raymer's cash game abilities and maybe more from him being a known and long standing, respected 2+2 member. proving to be a real talent does'nt always translate into consistenet tourney success.

Justin A · #9 09-30-2004, 11:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it was'nt luck for Dan Harrington to win in '95 and make two more final tables, which happened to to be the biggest two fields in WSOP ME history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it was. If you watched the coverage, Dan was all in as a significant underdog in the middle stages of the tournament, and sucked out to stay alive. Dan is a good player, but has been the recipient of some extraordinary luck when it comes to the main event.

Justin A

fnurt · #10 09-30-2004, 02:30 PM

No one is going to consistently win 2000 player tournaments, or "reach final tables over and over again." Those who are looking to denigrate a particular player's skill will always have a long list of tournament failures to point to.

Greg was one of the most respected tournament players at Foxwoods for some time before he won the WSOP. Did he consistently crush the game and make the final table week after week? Of course not, no one in the world is that good.

What's really disturbing is that people can look at Raymer side by side with the last 2 WSOP champs and think that they all just got lucky, without understanding the fundamental differences in the way they played. At the end of the day, the champ still has to win a lot of coinflips, but you have to look at how he got there. Did he make a strong bet with a lot of folding equity, and won the coinflip after the opponent called anyway? Or did he call an all-in with QTo and win a coinflip?

There will always be people who don't understand the difference between these situations and claim "it all looks like luck to me." Those are the people who just don't get it, and thank god they exist, because this game would be pretty hard to beat if everyone understood it.