Fossilman - A Rare Ethological Find Part II: Focused, Forthright, and Flourishing

Lee Munzer: When we last spoke, we were trying to assist inexperienced players. Can you help fine-tune their no-limit hand-reading skills, or is it simply a matter of focusing on players and studying them at every opportunity?

Greg Raymer: Well, it really is a matter of paying attention. The only other thing we can tell them is what type of things to look for. In other words, I can tell someone to observe Lee carefully, but that doesn't tell him what he should be looking for when he is watching you. I'd tell players to pay particular attention to you when you make a bet. Watch how you put your chips out. Listen, and take note of anything you say, and what your tone is. I always watch how a player bets. Does he put chips in smoothly or splash them in? Some players, like Chris Ferguson, bet the same way every time no matter what they hold. But they are in the minority. Then, when the player shows his cards, match his actions with the strength or weakness of his hand. You can monitor his tempo (how long it takes him to act). Also, I like to look at a player's chest to see if I can determine how fast he is breathing.

LM: What would your most knowledgeable opponents say are your strengths?

GR: Probably my even demeanor. I've also heard from several good players, including guys who are very good at reading opponents, that I am really, really tough to read. Phil Hellmuth once told me that he finds me as hard to read as anybody. And I consider reading players to be, by far, Phil's greatest strength. I think he puts people on hands better than anyone in the world, or at least anyone I've ever played with.

LM: After all the time you have put in playing poker, do you still assess your game, looking for areas to improve?

GR: Oh, yeah! At this point, I think I know the basic strategy of all the games pretty well. So, I've been working on the same thing for years, and that's putting the other guy on a hand. I think even the players who are great at it continue to work on reading people. So, I examine the players as we play the hands. I try to line up what I'm seeing with what they turn over at showdown. I'm looking for patterns of speech, facial expressions, and body language. I try to remember a player's demeanor when he made a big bluff. I look at how they play with their chips and how they move them into the pot. And then, sometimes I just say to myself, "Man, he really looks weak," or at other times, "He really wants me to call." I seem to be able to read players better in a tournament. I played in a cash game last night. It was one of those nights when things just weren't going well. I was thinking it was quite possible that on some of the hands that I folded, I had been bluffed. When I decided my hand was good enough to call, I lost. Maybe if I had played better or been reading better, I might have won for the night. But the problem I had in trying to analyze my play was that I couldn't determine if I had made the right plays when I folded. Maybe I saved a lot of money.

LM: Have you considered why you are a better reader during tournaments than cash games?

GR: My theory is that the difference may not be so much that my ability changes, but that players may be less comfortable in a tournament setting. Players seem to have a grind-it-out mentality in a cash game - more of an "it's one long game" philosophy. They seem to be more apprehensive in a tournament when they bluff, and more excited when they flop a big hand. They just seem to be cooler and more analytical in cash games. And I'm not referring to just the newer players. I find that it's much easier to read even the experienced players in a tournament. But another thing is, you can make the right read and lose the hand. Either you don't follow through on your correct read, or you read a player right and he still wins the hand.

LM: Huh?

GR: Sure. Some of the biggest mistakes I've made have been when I read a guy right, but he was wrong about his hand. In other words, I'll read that a player really wants me to fold, so I'll call. He'll turn over his hand, and I'll think, "Oh, wow, why would you want me to fold when you've got that big a hand?" I'll even say something sometimes, like, "Man, you seemed so desperate for me to fold, that's why I called!" And he'll say something like, "Oh, yeah, I just didn't want to race." He'll have A-K and I'll have A-J. He'll be in a spot that, the way the situation was shaping up, he would want to get all of his money in with A-K, but he just didn't understand that, so it showed when I tried to read him. Sure, sometimes you'll be in a coin-toss situation with A-K, but lots of times, you'll be a big favorite. And, the opposite is true. I've folded big hands when I looked at a guy and he seemed really confident, like he had the nuts. Let's say it was on the river, and I threw away two pair. And then, he turned over one pair with top kicker and said something like, "Oh, man, I needed those chips. I wish you had called." He'd be dead serious because he just didn't read me for anything. He was oblivious to the fact that the river card was a third spade and also could have completed a straight.

LM: I suppose that is partially due to the fact that poker's landscape is changing, and the larger fields are often sprinkled with inexperienced players. Do you have any superstitions?

GR: Not really. The closest thing I have to a superstition is, after I won the main event with the 8 8, I must have played that hand six or seven times in reasonably big tournaments, and have yet to lose with it. I've won at least three or four races in which I've been up against a big ace, and twice I've beaten someone who held a bigger pair. A couple of other times, I've won when my opponent held a worse hand - say, an A-5 or pocket fours. I've even told people that this is my hand to such a point that I would call someone with aces if he showed me his aces. I suppose that would be the test of whether I was superstitious, if someone ever shoved all in and showed me aces, would I call with the 8 8? But, of course, in most tournaments, players can't show what they have while an opponent is debating the call. Anyway, I'm glad I won with pocket eights, because it's a pretty good hand. (Laughing) Poor Joe Hachem, if he starts playing 7-3 offsuit.

LM: What are your views on players making financial deals when playing tournaments?

GR: I have nothing against dealmaking on a moral basis, assuming the players involved will play hard against each other. If you and I play in a tournament and agree to save 5 percent, as long as I'm not going to soft-play you or avoid you just to keep my 5 percent interest alive, and vice versa, that's fine. I think that's the way most players handle the situation, not letting a piece of another player affect their decisions. Oftentimes, the blinds will get so high at the final table that players agree to a deal that flattens the payout. I think that's perfectly acceptable, as long as the players have put up all or most of the prize money. For example, in the World Series of Poker main event, every penny in the prize pool comes from the players, and we pay a big, big vig (entry fee) on top of it. So, the players should and do have the right to deal with their money. I believe it's inappropriate that the World Poker Tour (WPT) makes players sign a form that precludes dealmaking at the final table, because the WPT doesn't put in a penny, and there is an entry fee on top of the players' buy-ins that generate the entire prize pool. The problem for poker is that dealmaking is one of those things that looks bad even when it's clean.

LM: When not playing tournaments, what games and limits do you play?

GR: I mostly play limit structure and mixed games like H.O.R.S.E. (hold'em, Omaha eight-or-better, razz, stud, and stud eight-or-better), with some triple-draw thrown in. We played a game that I really liked the other night; it was ace-to-five triple-draw high-low split. A funny thing happened, though. Since the gaming commission in Las Vegas doesn't sanction the game, the floorman came over and told us we had to stop playing it. As far as limits, anything from $150-$300 to $800-$1,600. Before I won the World Series, I used to play in a regular $150-$300 game at Foxwoods. I played $300-$600 once at that time. When I'm in Europe, I'll play various pot-limit games.

LM: What about online limits?

GR: I mostly play $75-$150 Omaha eight-or-better on PokerStars. I think once or twice I played $100-$200 limit hold'em, but I really don't like limit hold'em. I also play some $10-$20 blinds pot-limit Omaha. I play both of those games occasionally. I don't play as high online because, even given my analytical background, I think a big part of my edge is reading my opponents well, and I can't do that online because I can't observe what my opponent is doing.

LM: I'd be remiss if I didn't ask if you're worried about collusion when playing on the Internet. For example, I'm thinking of players sharing information by telephone as they play, or even worse, a team setting up a computer network and playing together.

GR: Well, I mean, it's certainly a concern that crosses your mind. But, on the other hand, I have so many friends who are winning on the Internet, and I know they wouldn't cheat. And I win online, although I don't really win much. I'm not a big winner by any stretch. I have to say, if my opponents are cheating, they are doing it really badly. (Laughing) I mean, honest to God, some of these guys can play so badly in the bigger online games. You know, it's funny, I play against people I know, and I know their online screen names. It's like they're two different people. When I play with them live, they're so much more conservative. Online, they'll call raises with hands they wouldn't even steal with from the button in a casino. I'll see them show down a hand at the river, and I'll say, "Wait a second, didn't he call a raise before the flop?" I'll go into the hand history, and I'll see that he did. Sure, the guy who made the first raise is a maniac, but still, this is Omaha (eight-or-better). You can't call with 3-5-6-9, even if a maniac raises.

LM: I also see loose play online, albeit at lower stakes. What's the reasoning?

GR: I equate it to an avalanche. It's like they see some of their opponents playing badly, so they loosen up. And when they loosen up, other players loosen up. Soon, the only ones who are playing tight see everyone else gambling with weak hands, and they start doing it a little, too. It also may be that it's easier, psychologically, to click on a mouse when you have to call a big bet with a weak hand than actually put black chips into the pot and watch your opponent turn over the winner.

LM: When taking a break from poker, how do you spend time?

GR: My hobby is golf. When my family moved from Connecticut to North Carolina, we picked a home on a TPC course in Raleigh, so I've been playing quite a bit. I enjoy the game and I can use the exercise. In the spring, we're going to put a pool in the backyard with one of those current machines, so I'll be able to swim against the current. Other than golf, what I mostly do is spend time with my family (Greg has been married to Cheryl for 11 years, and his daughter, Sophie, is 9 years old). I love spending time with my daughter - playing golf with her, helping her with homework, playing board games, and so on. I do the typical things, like going out to dinner and a movie with my wife and some friends. Sometimes we'll barbecue, kind of ordinary stuff.

LM: How has fame and success changed your life?

GR: Well, as far as my life, there are changes, and I think they're more positive than negative. The big downside is that I'm out of town a lot more these days. From June 2004 through August 2005, I'd say I was away from home 70 percent of the time, making appearances and playing tournaments. I'm heading toward 50 percent now, maybe even less, and I'm happy about that. The big positives are that Cheryl knows I'm a lot happier being a poker player than a patent attorney, and we're a lot better off financially.

LM: When you go out to a restaurant, are you recognized?

GR: Pretty much always. It's very rare, especially with ESPN rerunning the World Series a hundred times, for me to go out in public and not be recognized. Cheryl sees it more than I do, because when I'm looking to my right, there may be people to my left who are staring, pointing, and whispering. If I turn toward them, they look away. But they don't do that when she's observing them staring at me. The only ones I notice are those who come up to me and want to say something, shake my hand, or get an autograph.

LM: What's the best and worst thing about playing poker for a living?

GR: Well, the worst thing is the losing streaks. When Tiger Woods loses a golf tournament, he can always blame himself, to some extent. Of course, there's a small element of luck in golf; for example, you may hit a good shot, but your ball takes a funny bounce. All in all, it's a skill game. But in poker, I can play great and get my butt kicked for weeks at a time. You have to be careful, because these losing streaks can lead to self-doubt. That's when I look at how I'm playing and review some of the specific hands I lost, as we talked about before. I try to decide, did I make mistakes or am I playing OK? The best thing about playing poker is the freedom. It's not true freedom, because I'm supposed to play in certain events and people pay me for scheduled appearances, but if I want to pass on a tournament, I will, so my schedule is pretty flexible.

LM: I recall (communicating via poker newsgroups) that you once solicited partners to back you financially in the World Poker Finals events. How did that work out?

GR: In 2000, I had won a seat in the upcoming championship event of the World Poker Finals, but that $5,000 seat was a pretty significant part of my bankroll. I also wanted to play in several of the $1,000 preliminary events. It just wasn't mathematically sound to spend $1,000 a pop on those buy-ins. So, I decided to sell a couple thousand dollars worth (at par - fair value) of the $5,000 seat that I had won. Basically, if you bought 1 percent, you got 1 percent of what I won. So, I posted on the two newsgroups that I frequented that I was selling pieces of myself. After I sent the messages, I went to Foxwoods and entered a supersatellite - and won. So, now I didn't want backers, but by the time I got home a few hours later, I had phone messages and e-mail from interested people, so I had to honor their requests. It came to 22 percent of my action. I immediately posted that I had received as many backers as I could take. So, the offer was up for only a few hours. I remember one lady bought two units, or $100 worth of me. Anyway, I ended up coming in third, and won almost $50,000, so I sent her a check for just under $1,000. She sent me an e-mail thanking me and telling me how happy she was that I did so well, because her husband had been "riding" her for weeks after she sent me the $100. He would come home from work and say something like, "Now, honey, let me get this straight. You sent $100 to some guy you don't know, who put a post on the Internet telling people to send money and he was going to gamble with it, and if he won, he was going to send back some of the profits. Is that what you did?" She told me she had waved the check in his face when she received it. Then I sought backers in 2002, after losing most of my poker bankroll during a bad run at the World Series, including losing $10,000 in cash in the main event. They actually had shares in me for cash games and tournaments. At the end of that period, each $500 share was worth $488 if you cashed out. Almost everyone let the $488 shares ride. At the end of 2003, "the fund" had become marginally profitable; each share was worth about $550 at the conclusion of the 2003 World Series. Most re-upped, and their shares climbed to $600. Then, we did it again in a period that included the 2004 World Series events, and each share became worth $36,000. Most of my backers were people who knew me and had met me. Some didn't know me personally, but we knew each other from the newsgroups. Then there were some I had never even heard of, like a guy from Poland who wired me $1,000 and let it ride. At the end, I wired him back about $70,000, less my tax responsibility. One of my backers had 10 shares.

LM: If only I hadn't had all of my money in pork bellies at the time. Let's say that a genie pops in and invites you and three guests (living or back from the dead) to a fabulous two-hour dinner party. You must select an entertainer, an athlete, and someone from the political arena. Which three people do you invite?

GR: Well, I'm going to invite dead people, because I may actually get a chance to have dinner with my living picks. Let's see, entertainer … who would be most interesting? (Nine seconds pass). My first thought was John Wayne, but I'm not sure he'd make an interesting dinner guest. OK, I know. I'll go with Johnny Carson; he'd be funny and interesting. My athlete would be Babe Ruth, because I'm interested in that era and he had the reputation of being a party animal, so he'd keep things lively. I'll pick Lincoln as my politician. He's such a famous president, but I'd really like to find out how he thought about things.

LM: You are about to be marooned on an island for 10 years and can take only one person with you, and it can't be a family member. Who do you take?

GR: Well, if it's gonna be 10 years, I'm sorry, honey (referring to his wife); it'll have to be a woman. Cheryl will understand that I'll need sex. But, I won't name any particular woman, because that's the part that'll get me in trouble.

LM: No fair. Give us a name.

GR: Well, it's tough. That's a long time, so she'd have to be someone I could talk to. She'd also have to be able to help me survive on an island, and she'd have to be someone who's not gonna be a pain in the ass to deal with. (More thinking) OK, the famous person who pops to mind, based on her reputation of being smart and likable, is Catherine Zeta-Jones.

LM: Case closed; good pick. Sandra Bullock is mine. In one of your Pokerstars commercials, you say, "Same guy, different watch." So, what are you driving these days?

GR: The same car, a Mitsubishi Outlander. It's like a midsize SUV. It was less than a year old when I won the World Series, and I saw no reason to trade it.

In Part III, Lee and Greg will return to talk about busting slumps, poker goals, fossils, what it takes to be a winning no-limit hold'em player, going on tilt, and bankroll management.