I just want to state the obvious. Greg Raymer is not a pro poker player. I feel confident that everyone within these forums would agree with me that Raymer is an amateur that picked up a good run of cards in the WPT when he won it. He rarely made any good plays, he did what most amateurs do: He played the cards exactly how they were dealt. So with that said, the insults he made aren't even worth a drop of sweat. Raymer is in no way, near DN's playing level. He is now invited to televised events only because of him winning the event. It is inevitable that with the rise of NL hold em's popularity, many amateurs will be seen within the top 10 of multiple events. If you have thousands of amateurs entering tournaments, you are bound to see a few place every now and then. Raymer happened to be one of them. With that said, I also want to apologize for everything I just ranted about. I am not the type to insult, and aside from his poker skills, DN's ability to be the bigger man is the reason he has been my favorite poker player.

Is this a joke account?

Just because he wasn't a household name before winning the WSOP doesn't mean he isn't/wasn't a pro. Moneymaker wasn't a pro before entering the WSOP. Raymer was. He played for a living. For years from what I have read. In your little world only players you know from TV are pro's and everyone esle isn't. Open your mind a little and use some common sense and things will be much better for you.

I think he was referring to Raymer's skill in NL tournament poker. In that sense he's right. Raymer waited for the cards and played only the nuts. That's going to inevitably work every once in a while, but it is not going to accomplish what it takes to be an NL tournament great or someone who will revisit final tables many times. By literal profession, sure, he plays poker for a living now. If you want to talk about "for years", no, he was a lawyer previously by profession.

I do also believe the lack or presense of skill or profession doesn't invalidate Raymer's opinion on the lawsuit. Hell, any aspiring poker player has a valid opinion on the matter. It's important to respect and accept incongruencies in opinion and not resort to slander especially amongst the big poker tycoons because they are, in a way, the face of poker itself.

Pretty impressive if you ask me.

http://www.cardplayer.com/players/results/Greg_Raymer/4018

I can't believe you can actually say that he is not a poker pro. He does this for a living, which makes him a professional. I find him to be an amazing poker pro. You guys watch the television and see him playing good hands and playing the nuts. Because you saw him play on tv you think that you know how he plays? TV coverage isnt even a fraction of the play that goes on. None of you have any idea how he plays. Anyone that can win the main event and then out last twice the field to finish 25th or whatever the next year is a pretty good accomplishment and shows to me that he can play the game.

And before the wsop win he was playing 100/200 limit at Commerce casino for years before anyone knew him, and from what I have heard from some people i know that play out there, he did very well.

Not trying to start a huge argument b/c i really dont like the guy b/c of this whole WPT lawsuit thing, but dont tell me that "he only plays the nuts and his cards and got lucky" b/c none of you know how he plays.

just my 2cents.

That might be the most ignorant statement ever. Raymer is known for being very very aggressive and bullying the table when he has chips. Forget the fact that the television shows are so heavily edited that you can't form an accurate opinion about how somebody plays, did you even watch the middle episodes from the 2004 world series where he was at the table with Mike Matusow and John Murphy? Raymer might be one of the best right now when it comes to playing a big stack. Second, I wouldn't call making the final table of a prelim event in '05, 25th in the main event that year because of a beat, then final tabling the 2-7 even this year a fluke or someone who won't make it in tournament poker.

Alright, fine, he's a good player. I've always said that he was. I'm extremely embittered by the actions he's been taking recently. I suppose my opinion at this point is biased. Don't freak out over it. It's not really fair to calling me ignorant for assuming one way or the other if you are assuming as well and then going on to explain one would never know because of TV edits. Personally, I haven't seen enough of him to make a serious judgement.

Do you kids have nothing better to do than pick fights all day with people simply expressing their opinion?

Please come back home. We've missed you.