Greg Raymer??

I just watched the entire 2004 Main Event today on pokertube because I was very bored and taking a small break...
As I was watching the final table, even though it is a small percentage of the hands that are shown, Greg Raymer won just about every all in race there was except for maybe one. I know he has proved himself to not be a fluke but it seemed to me that he got quite lucky, but I guess that is part of the game. You cant ever win a tournament on pure skill, you have to get lucky once in a while in order to win the big one.

Thoughts?

Nowadays it's a given that you couldn't win on just pure skill, but back when the field was smaller, very smaller, it was most probably the case. That's why you see Mr. Hellmuth whining all the time.

Robert Varkonyi was probably the last man to win on pure skill.

wsorbust said:

Robert Varkonyi was probably the last man to win on pure skill.

Click to expand...

i disagree. i think jamie gold won on pure skill.

























hhahahhahahahahahaha ok ok im kidding. couldnt resist. but no seriously no one can win on skill alone. you have to get at least some luck (or not get unlucky, whichever way you look at it) to win any tournament.

wsorbust said:

Robert Varkonyi was probably the last man to win on pure skill.

Click to expand...

I really hope you are making a joke right now, about the "forgotten champion"

if so then LOL

Olga is better than Robert

The skill is in the playing, the luck is in the races.

If you ever see the ESPN Classic replay of the 2004 table with commentary from Raymer, he says someting to the effect of he thought he was only in bad shape in 2 of his all-in hands the whole tourney. I find that to be hilarious because I remember watching suck-out upon suck-out from him.


I feel one of the main reasons hold'em has become more luck than skill is because of how aggressive the pre-flop play has become.

well its not always about skill luck is involved too. i mean its like phil hellmuth said if the game was all skill he would always win lol

IamBP said:

I feel one of the main reasons hold'em has become more luck than skill is because of how aggressive the pre-flop play has become.

Click to expand...

i completely agree with that...I have never really thought of it that way...

what ever happened to the good old fashioned post flop play?

wkonevich said:

i completely agree with that...I have never really thought of it that way...

what ever happened to the good old fashioned post flop play?

Click to expand...

i think this might partially be the reason that a lot of the pros are playing a lot of omaha bc preflop aggression isnt nearly as much in omaha compared to hold'em.

i cant say i know how preflop play used to be, id like to find out so if you have any videos or anything i can watch to see how it used to be please link them.

also i think thats why pot-limit holdem should be the game for the main event, though its always been NLHE =/

KMC1828 said:

i think this might partially be the reason that a lot of the pros are playing a lot of omaha bc preflop aggression isnt nearly as much in omaha compared to hold'em.

i cant say i know how preflop play used to be, id like to find out so if you have any videos or anything i can watch to see how it used to be please link them.

also i think thats why pot-limit holdem should be the game for the main event, though its always been NLHE =/

Click to expand...

No the MAIN EVENT should be the HORSE tournament... and the pro's play the other events because the smaller fields..!
They even started their own tour sort of like bring back the good old days of pro's only - haven't you heard of the PPT??

It's not that nobody played aggressively preflop, I think that now it's just so many people will put their chips in preflop that it has taken some of the skill out of the game. A lot of non-pros know the professionals will out play them post-flop so they are not scared to put their chips in pre-flop.