Annie vs. Phil... Luck or Skill?

[durron597]

Post your opinion here: Did Annie beat Phil with luck or skill?

[$DEADSEXE$]

Based on the play showed it was luck...but if Phil switched positions with Annie..it would be the same.
You really would have to go with Fox Sports and run the event like 10 or 20 times to get a good idea who the actual TOC is...but since they dont do that you have to give it too...
Dan N.

[ohkanada]

Most of the key hands they played, Annie outflopped Phil. Call it luck or skill it really doesn't matter. Annie won. Phil may well be a better player but Annie won.

Phil got one big break against Chan early on. Annie survived many all-in hands when she was short stacked early.

Ken

[lastchance]

She got hella lucky, based on the hands ESPN showed, but don't we all from time to time? She played well enough to win, and she did win. At the end, I certainly think she outplayed Phil, especially with showing the nine there. That's good enough for me.

[Dynasty]

How come so many of you seem to dismiss the skill involved with getting your opponent to go all-in (and put his tournament life on the line) with a 3-outer?

[binions]

A better question would be:

If the hands were reversed heads up, would Phil have won quicker than Annie?

The answer is probably.

[West]

Obviously there's a lot of luck in heads up poker (there's a lot of luck in poker period).

It seems like a lot of you are ignoring the fact that Phil got a critically lucky board that enabled him to take a significant chip lead when both he and Annie hit trip 3s, but he had her outkicked Q to J. Playing with 2 million for first and nothing for second, that had to be a devastating hand to lose.

Not saying she didn't get some lucky flops, but she did have to crawl back from a chip deficit (in other threads she has said she check raised bluffed him on 4 different hands to get back in it)...now maybe Phil was missing all those flops too for all we know...but remember, you're not seeing all the hands. Personally, from all that I've seen of him on TV, he might be the pro that I'd be least afraid of with a stack. Anyway, of course there was a lot of luck involved. Honestly though, if you put a gun to my head and made me bet on one or the other heads up, I'd have to go with Annie at this point.

[poboy]

[ QUOTE ]
. Personally, from all that I've seen of him on TV, he might be the pro that I'd be least afraid of with a stack. Anyway, of course there was a lot of luck involved. Honestly though, if you put a gun to my head and made me bet on one or the other heads up, I'd have to go with Annie at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Than you are a complete fool. Annie did outplay Phil in this particular game(it wasn't all luck), along with catching some great flops. However if they played heads-up 10 times or more my money is on Phil or any one else that was sitting at that table. I do think Annie is a great player but she is not on the same level as the other 9 at that table. She really should have been gone long before it got to heads-up. By that I mean she survived some all-ins where she had to come from behind more than just once. Phil made some amazing reads and laydowns. Annie on the other hand just put her stack in and gambled, and got lucky.

[Beavis68]

She knew when to count on luck, the only time we saw her with the worst hand was when she knocked out Howard, and she had him out chipped.

[Fingulfin]

Sure, she hit the flush. That doesnt mean she was a favorite.

Just nitpicking.

[Mr. Morati]

[ QUOTE ]
. Annie on the other hand just put her stack in and gambled, and got lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes she gambled... that is poker. She even had the advantage going into the hands when she did. If you call Annie's win "lucky" you are a fool. She crawled her way back up from the short-stack. Then she TOTALLY out played Hellmuth. Hellmuth had no idea what she had on the hands that espn showed. The check-raising had him soo confused. And he just made bad reads on her at the end. If you say Annie got "good cards", then there will never be a legit winner becasuse you have to have good cards to help you win. All in all, Phil got out-played that night, and congrats to Annie on a great WSOP.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
By that I mean she survived some all-ins where she had to come from behind more than just once. Phil made some amazing reads and laydowns. Annie on the other hand just put her stack in and gambled, and got lucky.



[/ QUOTE ]

She just gambled? Like when she layed down TT against Fossilman, or JJ against Dan? I thought she chose her spots very well and outplayed the hell out of Phil when it came down to HU. Phil was playing predictably - betting with the goods and checking without them. Annie shows the nine and he goes and tilts away hundreds of thousands of chips with top pair no kicker. Saying Phil made ridiculous laydowns against her is retarded, as even some of the chumps who play online 50+5 sng's have done the same with a lot less banter. Annie might have had some grace on her side in getting to the final 2, but once there, she crunched him.
-James

[Freudian]

This was basically a SnG (but with big stacks or low blinds, depending on how you want to view it) with ten highly skilled poker players. Luck plays a huge role here. If you don't get very lucky, you won't win. That doesn't mean that they aren't skilled of course but you need cards to fall your way to win a tournament like this.

That doesn't mean Annie Duke didn't play well or didn't deserve to win. She did and she did.

[Ionphore]

This thread bothers me. Because there aren't any logical spots on the poll question. Its not so black and white.

Clearly she beat phil with some luck, some skill, and lots of voodoo magic, anyone knows that...

[poboy]

[ QUOTE ]
All in all, Phil got out-played that night, and congrats to Annie on a great WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please re-read my post as that is what I said. Do I think she can consistently beat Phil or any of the other guys at the table, doubtful.

[poboy]

Again please re-read my post as that is exactly what I said. Also I did not say Phil made good laydowns against her, although he did in a couple of spots. He made some good laydowns prior to that. Laying down 2 pair on the hand where Howard hit his straight was pretty impressive, to say it's not is RETARDED(you know damn good and well you would have paid him off). I agree completely Annie took it to him heads-up, all I'm saying is she was lucky to even be in that position. I saw Phil get lucky once(against Chan), Annie got lucky several times.

[BadVoodooX]

It's a given that the winner of a tournament will catch cards. Annie was shortstacked quickly because she was the very unlucky in the early going, her first 3 hands she had were the 10-10, loses a coinflip to Daniel but plays it well and loses the minimum to Daniel, #2 she is dominated before the flop by Doyle's QQ to her Q-10 and has the misfortune to hit both a 10 and have a scary board that tempts her to bluff at it on a hand where Doyle has an overpair and the 2nd nut flush draw. #3 was the JJ hand where she was a very slight favorite but made a disciplined laydown under pressure on a very scary board. I can't fault her play on any of those hands, that is why she was in catch up mode later which she played very well, managing to get her money in as the favorite which is your sole goal when short stacked. Did she win those close races? Sure but her play was correct.

She made another disciplined laydown of her 10-10 when Raymer came over the top with KK.

As for her preflop play later, in her showdowns with Greg, she was the favorite for every one of those hands preflop, her play was correct. She was a big dog in 2 later hands, the AQ vs A8 vs KK hand and the other was the 66-77 showdown with Howard but she can hardly be faulted for going in with those circumstances with those hands. If you have a specific hand or play to point out please do so. I can point out numerous mistakes that were much more serious than any I can remember that Annie made, such as Phil's checking of the flop heads up with bottom pair or Daniel's 2 hands with Chip where he got schooled on the river both times.

BadVoodoo

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Than you are a complete fool. Annie did outplay Phil in this particular game(it wasn't all luck), along with catching some great flops. However if they played heads-up 10 times or more my money is on Phil or any one else that was sitting at that table. I do think Annie is a great player but she is not on the same level as the other 9 at that table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize Phil Hellmuth is as accomplished as anyone when it comes to tournament NL hold em. But all his past World Series success aside, going by what I've seen of him on television (for whatever that is worth), etc., I've just developed the impression that he is not as good a player as advertised, at least currently. I agree with the opinion expressed in another thread about Phil being too weak tight. I wonder if living off past glories and being in love with the camera has affected his game. Success can breed bad habits. Obviously Phil has the ability to make a big laydown, something that can distinguish the best from the rest. Unless you become so enamored with doing it, and so overconfident, that you start misplaying/throwing away your best opportunities. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, regardless of who it was he was going against, I honestly would have liked anyone at the table to beat Phil heads up. That's just my gut feeling. That's not to say he couldn't change my opinion with future play, but I don't know that I see that happening until his ego comes down a notch or ten, and he considers the possibility that sometimes when he loses, maybe he could have done a few things differently himself - rather than focusing on how unlucky he was.

[toots]

All of this speculation about who was or wasn't lucky is, to me, trying to make an informed decision based on less information than you'd have playing a hand in the dark.

There are a few givens about what they'll put on a poker show.

If there were exactly N dramatic all-in suckouts, then they'll show us exactly N dramatic all-in suckouts.

If there's an all-in that results in a player being knocked out, they'll show it.

If there's a dramatic hand, including a good (or bad) laydown and/or a huge bluff, they'll show it.

This leaves precious little time for them to show the meat-and-potatoes hands interspersed amongst all the human interest clips. Someone could steal the antes 20 times in a row, and at best, we'd see one of them on the show.

What we will probably not see is any sort of strategy that takes more than one hand to execute (for example, Annie Duke's string of check-raises, or during the main event, Fossilman's undoubted campaign of beating people over the head with his chip stack).

We simply see an extract of what the producers feel will be the most dramatic hands, and if PaulP is to be believed, the ones we see might even be "enhanced" to make them extra dramatic.

Based on this paucity of evidence, some significant subset of viewers feel fully qualified to Monday morning quarterback the entire game, and make definitive comments on who was or wasn't lucky or skillful.

They played for about 10-11 hours, and we see maybe an hour and a half of actual hands (after subtracting out all the commercials, "remember when" segments, and bare-chested Hellmuth pieces). The only thing anyone can say with any certainty is that there was probably a lot more going on than we were allowed to see.

[West]

Agree on all counts. I'm just saying, from all the information I've been exposed to, if you put a gun to my head, I'd have taken Annie Duke or anyone else at the table to beat Phil Hellmuth heads up. Just my humble opinion. The guy who thinks I'm a complete fool is certainly entitled to his.

[BadVoodooX]

Well judging from Doyle's comments we were spared at least an hour of Phil's drama queen antics.

[poboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Agree on all counts. I'm just saying, from all the information I've been exposed to, if you put a gun to my head, I'd have taken Annie Duke or anyone else at the table to beat Phil Hellmuth heads up. Just my humble opinion. The guy who thinks I'm a complete fool is certainly entitled to his.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have been more clear. I do not think you are a fool to take Annie or anyone else at the table over Phil heads-up. What I thought was foolish was your comment that you would be least afraid of playing Phil. I mean come on, what more can the guy do to prove he is a great poker player. Everyone considers Doyle to be among the greatest ever, Phil has accomplished everything Doyle has in less time. The only difference is Phil has some serious personality flaws, to me this has no effect on my opinion of his game. I don't recall the exact numbers but when Doyle won his championships the fields were like 30-50 people, Phils were much larger(though not as big as todays). As far as the what has Phil done lately goes, well what has Doyle done lately? Myself I would not want to sit down with anyone from that table , they are all phenomenal poker players.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have been more clear. I do not think you are a fool to take Annie or anyone else at the table over Phil heads-up. What I thought was foolish was your comment that you would be least afraid of playing Phil. I mean come on, what more can the guy do to prove he is a great poker player. Everyone considers Doyle to be among the greatest ever, Phil has accomplished everything Doyle has in less time. The only difference is Phil has some serious personality flaws, to me this has no effect on my opinion of his game. I don't recall the exact numbers but when Doyle won his championships the fields were like 30-50 people, Phils were much larger(though not as big as todays). As far as the what has Phil done lately goes, well what has Doyle done lately? Myself I would not want to sit down with anyone from that table , they are all phenomenal poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, that does sound somewhat foolish to say, when you look at the tremendous amount of success he's had. And I went and looked again and saw he won two bracelets just last year (2003) at the series, one of them in NL. And I'm pretty sure he had a number of cashes at the series this year including the main event.

Still, that's just my honest impression from all that I've seen of him, the things I've seen him say, etc. Things like the fact that he advertises his willingness to lay down big pairs on occasion preflop, that kind of thing. I still remember the way he got ran over by Toto Leonidas at the U.S. Poker championship, I think it was, saw it on ESPN a while back (not saying that kind of thing couldn't happen to anyone - obviously even the best of players make mistakes). The fact that his book is so lousy, IMHO (although as a footnote, I will say that I think there was one great piece of advice in there that I found very helpful to me, which was Phil saying that you won't be a good player if you don't occasionally lay down the best hand). Maybe it's erroneous, but his total lack of composure combined with his almost comical self absorption makes him hard for me to take him too seriously, which I think reduces the respect a player of his caliber ought to be able to command at the table. Now I say that without really having any idea what it would be like to sit down and play against him, but my perception is, I'd much rather be playing against him than say, Howard Lederer. On a side note, I think Doyle Brunson just recently won a big tournament, Legends of Poker or something like that. And the hands shown in the 2004 main event made him look nothing but great.

Anyway, Toots is right, it's all just speculation without really having had the experience of actually playing against him for any length of time. But isn't speculating one of the things this forum is for? /images/graemlins/smile.gif