A Rare Ethological Find Part III: A Big Man in Every Way

Lee Munzer: Let's continue our discussion about playing tournaments and your mindset. Do you have a game plan?

Greg Raymer: I never formulate game plans because I have seen too often, someone comes up with a plan, and they decide to make the plan work. Here's an example that I see with a lot of players. They tell themselves that by the end of day one they'll need to double their chip count to be in contention. Well, that's BS. Let's say there's 10 minutes left in the final round on day one and you have $10,000 in chips. Why force the situation just to double up and meet your game plan goal? It's better to come back the next day and try to get to $20,000 or more with correct plays. The end of day one is simply an artificial breaking point; it's just like any other break when the blinds move up. If the daily break occurred 20 minutes earlier or later everyone would probably have a different count. But, I've seen people alter their play just to get to $20,000 at the end of day one. They'll make a stupid bluff or make a bad raise just to adhere to what they set up as a game plan. That's not to say as a tournament progress, I play the same way. I always keep my position and the rough chip count of everyone at the table in mind when making decisions. I factor in, from what I know about them, how likely each opponent is to play the next hand in a certain way. But, that's more of a situational plan that changes almost with each hand.

LM: After making a raise, you watch your opponent stoically behind now famous sunglasses. Tell us the story of the shades.

GR: I had taken Sophie and Cheryl to Disney World in 2002. I bought a pair of 3-D hologram, lizard eye sunglasses and planned to use them as a one-time goof. I figured everyone would bust out laughing, and that would be it. But when I put them on, some guy freaked out - he almost fell out of his chair - before he threw his hand away. It made me think that there was more to the sunglasses than I had realized, so I wore them the next day. Several players demanded that the directors stop me from wearing them, but their requests were denied and I've worn them ever since.

LM: What's with the fossils and the nickname? Where do you buy them?

GR: My wife grew up as a "rock hound." Her father enjoyed exploring abandoned mines and finding mineral samples. He often took the family on vacations to areas like upper Michigan and North Carolina where they all dug around. So, she took me to a mineral show in San Diego in 1996 or 1997 where I bought a fossil, an orthoceras. I thought it would make a good card protector. When I took it to the Oceanside card club, everyone started asking me what it was. They passed it all over the poker room. Players were fascinated by the look and it's history (an orthoceras is an ancestor of the squid and thought to be about 330 million years old). They thought it must be worth a fortune based on the estimated age, but it was really cheap. So, I went back to the rock show the next day, bought about six of them, and sold them all instantly in the poker room for a good profit.

So, I went back and bought some ammonite fossils, some fish fossils from Green River, Wyoming, and two or three other types of fossils. Whenever I went to play poker, I'd put one of each on the table and people would always ask me about them. I'd answer their questions and often they would ask me if they could buy one. I probably averaged one fossil sale every time I played when I lived in California. The players loved them.

LM: You headed into the 2004 WSOP on a ferocious losing streak. Did you ever consider skipping the event, and what advice do you have for our readers concerning breaking a slump?

GR: Yes, from the time I won $40,000 in February in a PokerStars.com tournament, up until the main event (of the WSOP) began, I was on a horrendous losing streak. The only positive result I had during that whole period of time was, just six days before the main event started, I won my seat on PokerStars. As for considering passing on the championship, no I never did. I had the trip booked, the room reserved, and, I mean, I knew I had been experiencing bad luck. You know, it's true that we always tend to reexamine our play when we're losing rather than winning. Of course, the truth is, just because you're winning doesn't mean you might not be playing poorly. You could be getting good luck. But, during that time, when I reviewed my play, let's say I lost $10,000 playing in a $150-$300 mixed game, I'd look back on the night. I'd ask myself how many times did I get lucky and win a pot and how many times did I have a big hand and my opponent had few outs, but he got there. I'd conclude that if luck had never intervened, I would have been much better off. Maybe I would have won four more pots, net. Well, that would turn a $10,000 loss into a good win. I kept seeing that pattern, so I said to myself, "Greg, I don't think you're playing badly. You seem to be getting your money in good, you just don't seem to be getting it out." Things just weren't going my way. In hindsight, I believe it was just a short-term run of bad luck.

LM: For newer players can you provide some suggestions on breaking slumps?

GR: There's really not much you can do aside from taking a break and reexamining your strategies and play. But, there's one thing you should never do, and that's go on tilt. I've seen a lot of players go on a losing streak and press, thereby making losing players out of themselves, instead of being winning players suffering through a bad period. They start to lose due to bad luck, and then they start to make poor decisions due to bad play. They are trying to get that lost money back, now. So, players have to ask themselves whether they are in a bad card slump, or have they changed their play and become losing players. If you ever believe that you're not playing your absolute "A" game, you should quit for, at least, the day, and examine why you are not playing at 100 percent. And, that's not always easy, because we all think we're better than we really are.

LM: So, you never go on tilt?

GR: Not really. Sometimes I get upset when I'm taking a series of bad beats. There is one thing along the same lines that I am guilty of, and that's quitting a loser. Lots of poker players hate quitting the game when they're behind. And, I have that problem. Sometimes I'll stay in a game that has become tougher (better players have entered). When that happens, you can be pretty sure that I'm behind.

LM: Let's talk about goals. Do you assign any self-objectives in poker and/or in life?

GR: My only real goal is to make the best possible decision at all times when I play poker. I try to do the same thing with my everyday decisions. But, I'm a lot lazier in life than I am at a poker table. Of course, it's easier to not be lazy at a poker table because you have a finite set of options; you can check, bet, fold, call, raise, or quit the game, and that's about it. I don't make goals like, "I'm going to win at least one major tournament next year," because that's unrealistic based on the size of the fields.
Even if you entered all the events and had three times the chances of the average player, you'd win once in maybe five or 10 years.

LM: What were your thoughts when you tabled the winning hand and realized you had become the 2004 world champ?

GR: Actually, when the river card was dealt, I looked up and sort of behind me at Matt Savage and said, "I'm all in." In all the commotion, I wanted the TD (tournament director) to hear me declare all in, because then I know it's a bet. If the dealer hears, and no one else hears, we could have a problem. Well, before I could turn my head back to look at David (Williams), he had already said, "I call" and had turned his hand over. My first thought was, if he called so quickly, he must have me beat. So, I began staring at his hand and saying to myself, "Wait, how did I lose?" I looked back at the board at almost the same time I turned my hand over. I couldn't see where he had beaten me and it finally dawned on me that I had won. I'm sure you saw the noticeable pause when I was sure his quick call meant he beat pocket eights. Then, with the emotion of a week's play and the hugeness of the moment weighing on me, I raised up my arms and screamed. My initial thought was, "I can't believe I won." Then it popped into my head, "David must feel like s--t." I immediately walked to him, shook his hand, and told him truthfully how great he played. Then, I said to myself, "Oh, wait, my wife's here." I realized I wanted to give her a kiss. She was standing and crying like crazy. Thinking about it, even now, makes me tear up a little (Greg's glistening eyes verified this statement).

LM: David did play very well, but he was critiqued for the last call. What's your opinion?

GR: I don't blame him at all for making that call, but I do think he could have taken more time to think. Remember, the flop was 2-4-5 with two diamonds. Now, I called his preflop raise. He was on the button. My check-raise on the flop could very easily represent two big diamonds. I might have played the hand the same way with the A 10 or the K J. His call on the end could have doubled him up and gone down as a great read in that case. Instead of being criticized, he becomes a genius for the same decision.

LM: Let's talk about no-limit hold'em from a skill and pure aggression standpoint. While a combination of skills may exist in the very top players, do most winning players possess acumen or do they simply have the strongest set when it comes to risk taking?

GR: People who routinely fire $400 bets into $70 pots do not win money at this game. At least, not unless they and their opponents are very deep, like a few thousand in chips apiece. Actually, no-limit poker really has nothing to do with who has the biggest balls. It's about who can read opponents the best, keep from being read, and know what to do with this information. Yes, you must have the courage to follow through and make big plays when your reads and knowledge are correct. But, without putting players on hands and knowing how to take advantage of knowledge, having big balls just gets you broke in a more grandiose manner than a wimpy player. Sure, some people don't have the courage to make a play even when they know they should, but my point is having nerve without brains is a sure recipe for going broke. Many of us, especially me, would argue that reading your opponent is the hardest skill to learn in poker. Thus, if it is the most valuable and most-essential skill for pot-limit and no-limit poker, then it is implied that pot-limit and no-limit are the most skill-requiring forms of poker.

LM: Your big win ameliorated any bankroll concerns, but I know an almost unlimited poker bankroll is new to you. So, what advice would you give our readers concerning bankroll management?

GR: I think the first thing I'd tell them is to never play above your comfort level and to pick a bankroll that you can afford, whether it's $1,000, $10,000, or a million - whatever your personal finances allow. Play that amount as if you were a full time poker pro and you were living off that money. Don't play games that would be dangerous to your bankroll. Don't take a shot at a bigger game if that would make you vulnerable to going broke; just play within your bankroll. In some of his writings, Mason Malmuth has done some good work on projecting the amount of money one needs as a bankroll based upon a given game, and players should follow his guidelines.

LM: In a way, you have been exposed. Your opponents can tape and study the many hands you play on television. They may know your tendencies in certain situations. Is this a negative?

GR: No, it's not, because they really don't know squat about my strategies. The way things are shown on these edited TV programs, you can't trust what you see. These shows are not really educational; they are put together for entertainment purposes. For example, if you think you're going to be able to read a tell on me, because I made a bet and it was a bluff, the close-up you see of me while my opponent is thinking about calling may be from a totally different hand. Without a doubt I have seen hands where the close-ups were from a different hand. It's like the producers get together and say, "Here's a tight shot of Harrington (or whomever), and we love this shot, let's use it here." The most obvious example I can relate, even though it has no relevance to reading players, is when I knocked out Mike McClain (in the 2004 WSOP championship). You see Matt Savage congratulating Mike for his ninth place finish and announcing he had won $470,400. Then the camera cuts to a profile shot of my wife in the front row. She's clapping and teary-eyed. But, she wasn't there! She didn't get to Binion's until I knocked out Glenn Hughes in fifth place. She was delayed getting a rental car and getting our daughter to a day care place. She simply wasn't at Binion's when that hand took place. They showed the exact same shot of her when I knocked Josh (Arieh) out.

LM: In 2004, ESPN showed Jonathan Kaplan seated during a hand after he had been eliminated, so they obviously edit the chronology of hands. Let's leave this subject by cautioning readers not to put too much emphasis on reading players from what they see spliced together on TV. You portray professionalism at the poker table. A player's cool may never have been tested more than when Mike Matusow tried to get to you in the 2004 WSOP. What are your thoughts on the new breed of demonstrative "jump up and shout" players?

GR: Well (sighs), it depends. If I think they're hamming it up for the camera, then I think they're dorks. But, if I think they're just so excited and exuberant that they simply can't contain themselves, and there's no acting in what they're doing, it doesn't bother me a bit. But, if they're acting, I always think, "This guy looks like a fool." Sometimes you'll see a guy just sitting there, and then he realizes the camera is on him, and suddenly he let's out a big whoop. It's almost like he thinks, "Oh, they want me to do something after the dealer pushed me that pot, so I'll scream." As for Mike Matusow, he isn't simply an excited player. He'll sit there and insult you. I think that's a negative. Mike's very entertaining and frequently funny, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing for the game.

LM: Do you think you'll ever get tired of the poker life?

GR: Traveling kinda sucks. Having to get to airports, get on planes, and stay in hotels is definitely a negative. The other big negative is, because of the luck factor, you can play great and still lose. But playing tournament poker, getting to do paid appearances, and doing interviews are cool things. It's a fun lifestyle that I don't foresee myself getting tired of, as long as I can adequately support my family.

LM: I heard you are writing a poker book.

GR: I am. It will be a tournament strategy book as opposed to a "Here's the Story of Greg Raymer" biography. Most of the information will be generalized, while some will be game (such as no-limit hold'em) specific. An example would be, when do you rebuy and when do you not rebuy. I have made hundreds of posts on the Two Plus Two poker forum over the years. I'll use these detailed explanations of poker strategy as a springboard to teach readers how to improve their play at poker tournaments. I hope that it will become the best tournament poker book ever written.

LM: Can you give us an "in stores" date?

GR: Unfortunately, no. It should have been completed a year ago, and it's still not finished. If it's completed by the summer of 2006, I'd be happy. The delay is noone's fault but my own. I really need to get some fire in my pants about putting a lot of effort into the book. In truth, I'll go on trips like this and won't have time. Then, when I'm home I'll want to spend time with my family or go play golf. I guess you could say I'm a pretty lazy guy.

LM: I could also say I received many e-mails from readers who requested this interview, and I know they won't be disappointed.
Thanks for your time.

On May 28, 2004 Greg Raymer sat patiently behind $5 million in cash while he bathed in the flashing lights from the many cameras trained on him at Binion's. He appeared to be soaking in the realization that he had just become the champion of the poker world. A week later, Greg left Pfizer after winning the most coveted bracelet in poker. A share of Pfizer sold for $34.11 on the day Greg resigned. Although the broad market is up strongly during the last 21 months, a share of Pfizer now sells for less than $25. Poker is far better off with Greg, while Pfizer sorely struggles to fill the void left by the big man.

E-mail Lee with comments, questions, or suggestions for feature articles at [email protected].