Raymer: king of the massive events!

[JJNJustin]

He has an ideal strategy for playing tournaments with large fields with mostly weak players but a small percentage of pros. I believe this is what has made him successful in recent years tournaments. His aggression and all-in early strategy keep top pros from outplaying him and he gets profitable calls from weak fish with lesser hands.

Sklansky has commented in his Tournament Poker book on the value of such a simple tournament strategy. Raymer has combined what poker skills he has with a strong but simple strategy and it is producing good results.

But if you watch him play on smaller tournaments with tougher players such as the TOC 2004 and the poker superstars he doesnt fair as well. He is very mathematically and statistically oriented. I think he is a solid-rigid sort of grinder type player turned successful tournament player. But his play doesnt ever strike me as creative, insightful, risky, nor brilliant. And that's okay! Actually, it makes for very boring poker.

That's not good nor bad. His playing style has worked out extremely well for him, financially. So, really, who cares?

And of course I'm forming my opinions based on what I've seen on television. Am I supposed to wait until I play him heads up to form an opinion or get a first impression?

You cant make any judgement on the guy's post flop play because he always seems to be all-in preflop or right on the flop!?!? I cant even think of any hands where there was significant post flop drama.

Prove me wrong. And who cares? It doesnt matter.

-J