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

[JJNJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
"Similiarly, watch him try to bluff out Murphy in 2004 main event and get rebluffed off of the best hand when Murphy holds a straight flush draw and Raymer holds king high. choke."


Murphy had an inside straight draw as well. I agree that Raymer should have called him down with King high instead of folding. What a pussy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice sarcasm. You get 10 points for sarcasm and 0 for content. Him and Murphy were like gigantic cheap leaders and this was a recipe for disaster. Both of them were getting very aggressive, and neither of them had a hand. Lucky for them both the hand ended when it did.

And what was up with the 8-9 all-in against Annie Duke in the TOC? Was this a bluff? What was this?

-J

[Ignignokt]

(Most of the backhanded compliments snipped)

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it makes for very boring poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn't realized that the goal in poker is to be exciting.

[[Phill]]

Ive played with him briefly in an online tournament, and can guarantee youve misunderstood just how capable a player he is. He isnt the all in specialist, one trick pony, that he seems to have been portrayed as.

To give you an example, this is the guy who either:
a, invented the stop and go
b, put a name to the stop and go and delivered it to the masses on here

His archived posts formed the basis for most of the modern thinking on how to approach big field tourneys like you find online (and now in live events like the WSOP).

He really is the man.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
His archived posts formed the basis for most of the modern thinking on how to approach big field tourneys like you find online (and now in live events like the WSOP).

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know of any specific posts of his I can search for where he writes about this?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Raymer, the master of the Kill Phil philosophy.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound quite the authority ... 2 questions or stfu!

1. What exactly are your qualifications to making these judgements. Hendon Mob site to you would suffice. Or, just some details on the results of your "exciting" play.

2. How often and where have you sweated Raymer that would give you this insight into his game? Or, is it all from TV.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind on 2. You've proven you're a moran. You come to all these conclusions from a few televised hands that you've seen? Go away, Troll. Seriously, I am not one that defends Raymer as a matter of reflex. But, your post is just dumb if all you have to go by are a few televised hands.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, you think? So, out of the 50 hands or so you've seen from the 2004 ME (where he played several thousand, at least), you think you have his game down? Ever think about that fact that post-flop play isn't as exciting to ESPN as the "all-ins," never mind that they take too long when you have an hour show?

[ QUOTE ]
Prove me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've not even come close to proving you're right. Televised hands ... sheeeesh.

NCAces

[NCAces]

Just search the archives for posts he made and start reading.

NCAces

[rothko]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, you're right. i can't think of even one hand with aaron kanter in last year's ME that had an iota of postflop drama.

[Topnoevili]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, you're right. i can't think of even one hand with aaron kanter in last year's ME that had an iota of postflop drama.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU can't make any judgement because all YOU have to go on is ESPN... you shouldn't judge too many people by the hands ESPN shows in its coverage which we all know is a few hands and a bunch of commercials with Jesus in some dopes fridge... Greg is a nasty poker player who has worked really hard to get where he is now...

*edit* NCAces said it right... didn't read too much of the thread

[Hollywade]

I played right next to Greg (fortunately on his left) for the first several hours of event #2 on Tuesday. Obviously, you see a lot more in person than on TV, but he is even better than I previously gave him credit for. He opens a lot of pots and plays quite aggressively preflop. This seems to allow him to quietly build a stack without risking a lot in big confrontations. He also isn't afraid to call raises/reraises with hands that aren't very strong with the hopes of flopping a big hand or outplaying an inexperienced opponent. Another weapon in his arsenal is that he is very good at putting people on hands. He nailed me on what I had two different times. Something else that doesn't quite come across on TV is his personality. He has a sense of humor and is quite friendly. This light-hearted attitude seems to have the effect of relaxing most of the table. The problem for me is that when I'm relaxed and having a good time, I'm not always completely focused and playing my best poker. I assume other players are the same way. There were a couple times when I think he got me to make sub-optimal plays or at least give away some information that I shouldn't have. Basically, Raymer just does a lot of things right that allow him to do very well in tournaments.