An Interview With Greg Raymer - Pt. I

I didn't find it too surprising that when Greg Raymer called me for our over-the-phone interview I had to wait for just a minute or so as he played down to his blind in a couple of cash games on PokerStars (30-60 Duece-to-Seven Triple-Draw Lowball and 5/10 Pot Limit Omaha Hi/Lo). In fact, Greg was a little late on the call, but I don't blame him. Put to the decision of being late for a phone call or continuing with a $1000+ session of poker, I'd choose the latter. Nevertheless, Greg apologized for his tardiness and we were off to the races.

Truth be told, I was caught more than a little off-guard by Greg's first call earlier in the day, as I hadn't heard back from his PR rep since the week before. I'm getting off topic here, but I have to say I've been doing this kind of thing for a few years now, and there are still moments that pull me right back in, fill me with that same boyish sense of wonder I had when I first started writing about poker. This was one of those times. After all, how many people can say they were caught off guard by a phone call from a winner of the World Series of Poker main event?

If anyone who has had a chance to talk with Greg Raymer were to be asked of his character, I'm sure he/she would get behind the following statement: Greg is a genuinely nice guy. Before this interview I'd never spoken with him so I was curious to judge for myself, but after spending more than half an hour on the phone with Greg I have to agree. The guy is just plain... well, nice, and a heck of a lot more so than I'd be if I made millions playing cards. Hate to say it, but it's probably true. I'd be the jerk in the Ferrari, blaring my horn and skating in a drunken stupor down Sunset Boulevard at three in the morning. Greg is the unassuming guy behind the wheel of an SUV.

Justin: Greg, first of all thanks for taking the time to speak with me.

Greg: You're welcome, Justin. My pleasure.

J: I didn't get a chance to talk with you during the World Series of Poker, so first and foremost what were your thoughts on the events this year?

Greg: Well, in many ways I liked having two tournaments at once because it let us get into a lot of events without extending the WSOP even longer than it already is, gave us the opportunity to play for more bracelets.

J: Multi-tabling seemed to be quite popular among the professionals this year...

Greg: I didn't do that, myself. I played in as many events as I could, but I did not do things like sign up for the noon event then sign up for the 5 o'clock event at the same time, not knowing whether or not I was going to be available at five.

A lot of guys were running back and forth, and instead of going to the restroom on their break they're running over to play a few hands in another tournament. Personally, I'm perfectly happy to have seated at my table one of those guys that's playing multiple events and isn't going to be there for a while. It lets you just pick up their blinds for free.

J: You say you wouldn't do it. Why?

Greg: It's definitely costing you a lot of equity. I think that because of the fact that we had two events almost every day this year, there were just a lot more opportunities for people to do the multi-tabling at the World Series, for them to enter one event and still be in day two of another. I think that's what was going on.

It obviously increases your opportunity to win a bracelet. And if you're a good enough player you might still have a positive monetary expectation, [even] when you're in a tournament where maybe half your chips are gonna be thrown away because you're not present to play them. For example, if I look at someone like Chris Ferguson, who was playing every event possible, including playing multiple events at the same time, he's a good enough player that if he buys into a $2k tournament you can take away half his chips before he starts and he would still be able to make a long-term profit

I wouldn't do it because I think it hurts too much of your equity. In other words, I think even if you could make a profit, [multi-tabling is] going to eat up most of it. So that is [to say], I think Chris Ferguson is worth double his buy-in. It's not like he's worth five times his buy-in. I don't thing anyone's worth a number like that.

If Chris was worth five times his buy-in, he'd have $10,000 on a $2000 buy-in. If he lost half his chips he'd still have a $5,000 value, and he'd still be making a pretty good profit on his $2k. He'd be putting up $2k and winning an average profit of $3k for his risk. But he's not that good. No one is. So instead, he's taking a tournament where maybe his profit would have been $2,500 or so, and turning it into a $500 profit. He's throwing away so much value that I wouldn't want to do it.

Plus, there's always the fact that in some cases you're really throwing away more, because some of these guys find themselves in two events [at once] where the blinds have really gotten high. For example, I was playing with Rafi Amit in the Duece-to-Seven Triple-Draw Lowball event and I got knocked out just short of the money. Rafi ended up going on that night to make the final table, and he was kind of disappointed because he wanted to play the Pot-Limit Omaha. He had won a bracelet in the $10k PLO a couple of years previous, and that was his favorite tournament.

So, Rafi bought into the Pot-Limit Omaha event even though he had made the final table of the Duece-to-Seven. But his final table didn't start until six or seven o'clock, so he played the PLO for a while, ran the chips up, then went over to the final table. By that point he was losing so many chips in the PLO that if he hadn't won during that early period he would have actually gone broke. Rafi would have been blinded out of the tournament because the blinds had gotten high enough that they were eating up that many chips.

(AUTHOR'S NOTE: Just an FYI, Rafi did not end up cashing in the PLO tournament. Rafi did, however, win his second bracelet, in the Duece-to-Seven event.)

J: One of the things I learned early on was never to really put a time limit on yourself when you're playing cards. You just won't do well in that situation in the long run. It seems to me that there's a tremendously negative psychological aspect to multi-tabling in a live tournament.

Greg: It's quite possible. Certainly if you come over and decide you're going to play really aggressively for a short period of time, and your opponents are aware of that, your aggression isn't going to allow you steal pots because your opponents know what you're doing. So if you're forced to play stronger hands, most of the time you're just going to fold for 15 minutes.

Rafi actually took advantage of that, because when they were heads-up for the bracelet in the Duece-to-Seven, the players got a break and instead of going to the bathroom or meditating in the corner figuring out "what do I need to do to win this bracelet?" Rafi went over to the PLO and played two hands. Rafi got dealt aces, got all his money in before the flop, they held up and Rafi doubled up. Rafi said: "Well, doubling up, that's pretty good. That'll be good enough. I guess I will be using the bathroom," and then ran off to the bathroom while he still had some break time.

I'm sure part of the reason he got all the money in the middle was because his opponent knew that Rafi was still over there at the final table and might be playing faster [and] more aggressive than normal, and therefore his opponent didn't give Rafi credit for having the aces. So it's an amusing situation, but I think the money you give up and the value you give up is too much. Plus, like you said, it's gonna be psychologically difficult to go back and forth and really play your best.

J: After Jerry Yang won the 2007 World Series of Poker, people said that given the gracious way he won the event and some of the positive things he did thereafter, that Jerry would be a good "ambassador" for the game. I've always been curious as to what, exactly, that meant. Since you were and still are considered an "ambassador" for poker, what does that mean to you?

Greg: Well, I think you're right. What being a poker ambassador means is a little ambiguous. But I think that just means doing things and behaving in a way that will help the game grow, instead of doing harm to the game.

If you have someone who's doing things... who's this NFL player that was caught with the dogs? Michael Vick? That kind of thing going on? So if any of us had won and then had been arrested for something like that, most people are going to consider that to be an essentially evil thing to do. Most people love animals a lot, so whether you agree or disagree with that position doesn't matter. The majority of people are going to think that that is a horrible thing, to have these dogs trained to fight each other for you enjoyment, whereas if someone were arrested for a crime like drugs or prostitution, a lot of people consider those to be essentially victimless crimes, so the effect would be much less negative.

Right now, especially, we really need a lot of positive public perception because we want the public to help us pressure congress to repeal the UIGEA and put some reasonable legislation in effect that would legalize, regulate, and tax online poker, rather than try and outlaw it or try and shove it underground to get rid of it.

To Be Continued...

Greg Raymer is on the Board of Directors for the PPA. We delve heavily into the fight to legalize online poker, the UIGEA's effect on poker and Greg's sponsorship, and Greg's thoughts on "exclusive" deals in the poker biz, all in part two of this interview, tomorrow!

- J

Justin West played poker since the age of 17, he spent more than a year earning a living on the green felt; a modest living, to be sure, but a living nonetheless. His aim was at one point to win the WSOP main event, thus causing Hell to freeze over. However, given his penchant for sin and his extreme dislike of cold weather, Justin has put that dream to rest.

Previous Article | Article Listing | Next Article

part I | part II

More Interviews