Raymer: king of the massive events! - Page 4

JJNJustin · #31 07-02-2006, 08:00 PM

1) People on here seem to think you have to have proven yourself in some way to make any sort of comments about other successful players, yet they themselves are regularly dissing other non professional players to a much harsher degree.

2) Nobody on here ever has the ballz to say anything but ass-kissing all emcompassing praise to well known figures who frequent this site.

3) Apparently you can only make value judgements about a pro's playing style if you have seen them play on some other genre besides cable television. And apparently everyone else has but me.

4) I take back EVERYTHING I said. Greg Raymer is just a super duper player with no faults whatsoever. I really like the way he plays poker because he is just such a great poker player. He does everything right and he is just great great great. He is the kill phil and stop and go king. He is the massive field king. He is the king period. All hail king Raymer. We're not worthy. We're not worthy.

5) moran ----> moron Hey guy, you're an ideeyut.

-J

DesertCat · #32 07-02-2006, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]

3) Apparently you can only make value judgements about a pro's playing style if you have seen them play on some other genre besides cable television. And apparently everyone else has but me.

-J

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please do some more strategic analysis of players you've never played with or even seen play more than a few hands on TV? I find it so fascinating.

ClassicBob · #33 07-02-2006, 08:23 PM

Is there anyway we can add the moron vs. moran explanation to a FAQ or something?

henrikrh · #34 07-02-2006, 11:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]

4) I take back EVERYTHING I said. Greg Raymer is just a super duper player with no faults whatsoever. I really like the way he plays poker because he is just such a great poker player. He does everything right and he is just great great great. He is the kill phil and stop and go king. He is the massive field king. He is the king period. All hail king Raymer. We're not worthy. We're not worthy.

5) moran ----> moron Hey guy, you're an ideeyut.

[/ QUOTE ]

4) Yep, you can always tell the loser of an argument by their sarcastically agreeing tirade at the end.

5) Moran is an internet colloquialism, moran.

NCAces · #35 07-02-2006, 11:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1) People on here seem to think you have to have proven yourself in some way to make any sort of comments about other successful players, yet they themselves are regularly dissing other non professional players to a much harsher degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine that, we might value the opinion more of one who actually knows what they are talking about. Does it not make sense that I would like to know your level skill when you opine about a well known, successful, poker player. For example, whose critique of Pete Rose's hitting capabilities would you put more faith in ... mine, or Ted Williams (when he was alive). You should answer Ted Williams because someone who is also an accomplished hitter is in a better position to judge ... hence my wanting you to explain the expertise that you have to judge professional poker players. From your lack of an answer, I am assuming you have no tournament wins, have never played a WPT or WSOP event, and are not even a champion at your local World Tavern League event. Therefore, while you hav a right to your opinion, I have a right to discount it as having no basis in fact or knoweldge.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Nobody on here ever has the ballz to say anything but ass-kissing all emcompassing praise to well known figures who frequent this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you have not been on the TV/WSOP forum for long (which, by the way, speaks well of you). Many a well known figure has frequented these forums for a few posts before realizing that they are going to be criticized by numb nut know-it-alls who tell them how badly they play from the 15 televised hands they have seen. Oh, wait a minute, that's you.

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you can only make value judgements about a pro's playing style if you have seen them play on some other genre besides cable television. And apparently everyone else has but me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah. You do realize how stupid it is to make value judgments based on TV hands, yes?

[ QUOTE ]
4) I take back EVERYTHING I said. Greg Raymer is just a super duper player with no faults whatsoever. I really like the way he plays poker because he is just such a great poker player. He does everything right and he is just great great great. He is the kill phil and stop and go king. He is the massive field king. He is the king period. All hail king Raymer. We're not worthy. We're not worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even those who are his biggest defenders here don't think that. But, they are smart enough to know not to judge him or anyone else by TV hands. You are not alone in getting rediculed for that. However, you are turning out to be one of the more enjoyable people to redicule about that.

[ QUOTE ]
5) moran ----> moron Hey guy, you're an ideeyut.

[/ QUOTE ]

No apology necessary, moran, it's somewhat of an inside joke.

NCAces

JJNJustin · #36 07-03-2006, 12:17 AM

I never said I thought the guy was a bad player. Quite the contrary. All I said was he happens to employ a style that is working very well against large fields of mostly weaker players with a smaller proportion of strong players. I then went on to comment that from the relatively little I've seen on television, he seems to be playing the big stack in such a fashion to put his opponents to tough decisions by getting them all-in early on in the hand.

I then commented on why I think this strategy is successful, and for him it has been extremely successful, earning him millions of dollars.

But then I've also observed that if you put him in a smaller field of relatively tough players, he might not fair as well. Conversely, I think players like Negreanu and Hellmuth might fair better than Raymer against smaller tougher fields, but poorer compared to Raymer against these large fields with mediocre opposition.

Replying to my original post with all these extra posts is really unnecessary. It's not like I said anything extraordinary. You guys are making a big deal out of it. Sorry if you felt I was being harsh towards your big 2+2 hero. I wasnt trying to be.

This is my opinion, I dont think I am being harshly judgemental. If you want to spend time picking my posts apart, making sarcastic comments, quoting me out of context, and entertaining yourselves in that way it makes me no difference to me.

-J

tubasteve · #37 07-03-2006, 12:30 AM

one of my best friends' last name is moran

NCAces · #38 07-03-2006, 12:56 AM

JJN ...

The problem is that you have absolutely no idea what Raymer or any other pro's "style" is. Period. That is what is so humerous about your posts. I couldn't care less what you say about Raymer or any other pro, so I am not defending them.

Just realize that when you make broad, definitive statements about anyone's "style" when you've seen less than a percent of the hands that they had dealt to them in a televised tournament, you look the fool.

Step back from the keyboard for a minute and you will see that those giving you a hard time are not defending Raymer, but rediculing that you believe you can do this with such certainty, with such limited input.

NCAces

JJNJustin · #39 07-03-2006, 01:12 AM

I suppose then the only people allowed to form opinions about top pros are those who have logged a certain number of hours playing with them personally? And I suppose that would be you? And the rest of us who just watch ESPN are all clueless morAns?

-J

NCAces · #40 07-03-2006, 01:52 AM

I am going to try one last time, so please think this through.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose then the only people allowed to form opinions about top pros are those who have logged a certain number of hours playing with them personally?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, anyone is allowed to form opinions. But those of us who waste our time here can question the basis upon which one forms and then expresses those opinions. If we feel that there is no basis in fact, skill or knowledge for one to form and express those opinions, our right to question the foundation of your opinions is equal to your right to express them.

It has to make sense to you that I would be far more likely to assign any amount of credibility to your opinions if you were a pro player and had played with the pros (or maybe even sweated a few thousand hands of the pro). In this instance, you have made definitive statements about a pro's - Greg Raymer's - style, when you have never played with, never spoken to, nor even met the pro (I am assuming all these to be true has you have said your full basis for your opinion was TV).

So, opine all you want about things you know nothing about, and you will be rediculed endlessly here. For good reason.

[ QUOTE ]
And I suppose that would be you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not me. I met Greg last year at the WSOP and we spoke for about 2 minutes and he signed a chip for me (yeah, I was WSOP wannabee boy that day). I sweated his table for an hour. I have probably seen the same hands on TV you've seen. I wouldn't even think about coming on this forum and start making definitive statements about his playing style. All I can say is (1) he has proven that he is a good player, and (2) he is a heck of a nice guy based on my short personal interaction, as well as all the posts he made here that has helped many 2+2ers.

You are the one extrapolating all sorts of information from a couple dozen hands you've seen on TV, not me.

[ QUOTE ]
And the rest of us who just watch ESPN are all clueless morAns?

[/ QUOTE ]

We almost agree. Most people who watch ESPN don't go around talking as if they actually think they have can definitively peg someone's style from a few hands. They know better. Those that do, like you, are clueless morans.

NCAces