SS2 Phil Hellmuth Story [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Beavis68

02-09-2005, 12:32 PM

In the tournament section of SS2, Doyle tells a story of Phil Hellmuth raising with K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

the flop comes Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif (may not have been a five but it was irrelavent).

Phil bets, gets raised all in and folds! And Doyle says he admired the play (Phil's fold) - WTF? He says because it was early in the tournament, this fold was correct... I don't get it. 14 or 15 NUT outs?

Ghazban

02-09-2005, 12:40 PM

Its just because its early in a tournament and the edge of the OESFD there over a made hand is somewhat small. Its a good fold if you expect to have larger edges to take advantage of later.

MLG

02-09-2005, 12:41 PM

it is never a good fold.

Ghazban

02-09-2005, 01:06 PM

Never? You're a small dog (something like 57/43) to a set and, if the blinds are still small relative to stack sizes, you might not even have pot odds to call. I'd never fold it myself, but I don't quite believe folding is unequivocally wrong for everybody in every situation everywhere for all time.

naegid

02-09-2005, 01:06 PM

what if your opponent shows you A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and you think you have a pretty big edge over the rest of the table (which i suspect PH probably does)?

Not that i would fold...

Beavis68

02-09-2005, 01:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Never? You're a small dog (something like 57/43) to a set and, if the blinds are still small relative to stack sizes, you might not even have pot odds to call. I'd never fold it myself, but I don't quite believe folding is unequivocally wrong for everybody in every situation everywhere for all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I wish the blinds and bet amounts had been discussed. And A9 is possible, but then you pick up all your pair outs. And you can't looke for every monster under the bed. If he had less than 10% of his stack involved, it was probably not a bad fold - but the fact that Doyle leaves these details out really annoys me.

naegid

02-09-2005, 01:36 PM

yeah, Ghazbans post was exactly what i wanted to type but i lack the ability to but thoughts into words so succinctly...

I agree regarding monsters, stack/bet sizes are essential and we all know how much PH loves a huge laydown.

Paul Phillips

02-09-2005, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In the tournament section of SS2, Doyle tells a story of Phil Hellmuth raising with K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

the flop comes Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif (may not have been a five but it was irrelavent).

Phil bets, gets raised all in and folds!

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember when this happened. It was a few years ago in the tunica $10K event, and I was at the next table over. If I remember it correctly there were three players in on the flop and phil called a raise from one of them; then when the action came around again the first guy went all-in and both folded. The guy who moved all-in had top two.

Aceshigh7

02-09-2005, 02:18 PM

A tournament is not like a ring game. Why risk everything with a draw, even if you have a small advantage? It's just not smart.

rickofcampbell

02-09-2005, 02:27 PM

He did not want to bust out of the tourn early with a coin flip.

Wetdog

02-09-2005, 02:59 PM

I don't know what the moral of the story was supposed to be, but I'm sure Doyle, PH or most any pro would never go all-in on a draw early on. I made that mistake long ago and it makes me almost paranoid about pushing.

Beavis68

02-09-2005, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the tournament section of SS2, Doyle tells a story of Phil Hellmuth raising with K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

the flop comes Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif (may not have been a five but it was irrelavent).

Phil bets, gets raised all in and folds!

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember when this happened. It was a few years ago in the tunica $10K event, and I was at the next table over. If I remember it correctly there were three players in on the flop and phil called a raise from one of them; then when the action came around again the first guy went all-in and both folded. The guy who moved all-in had top two.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was your opinion of the play Paul?

freemont

02-09-2005, 03:18 PM

Voltron87

02-09-2005, 03:29 PM

Phil will fold in these situations early for this reason: He thinks the small favorite he is in these drawing situations is not as large as the favorite he is over the whole tournament.

If I win 80% of my headsup matches against you and you go all in to my A6 and show me KQ, I should not call, assuming we are only playing once. Do you see why?

OrangeKing

02-09-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what the moral of the story was supposed to be, but I'm sure Doyle, PH or most any pro would never go all-in on a draw early on. I made that mistake long ago and it makes me almost paranoid about pushing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't say never - there are draws that are a whole lot stronger than made hands I'm sure you'd go in with. For instance, if Phil held the KQd with the JTd on board, I have a feeling he would have had no problems going all-in.

kuro

02-09-2005, 03:35 PM

The problem is that PH lays down hands where he has the edge so much that people play back at him with junk and take down pot after pot. Then Phil takes a bad beat (which are going to happen to almost everyone at some point) and his stack isn't big enough to let him survive. You've got to be willing to gamble it up and go for the big stack early or you just don't have much of a shot in these big mtt.

nut case ace

02-09-2005, 04:05 PM

Bottom line is this, he has no more than a 5% edge on his opponent and the only way he can win is with the best hand. maybe if the guy had raised before him, then he could have gone all in with the possibiliy of his opponent folding increasing his overall EV for the play. However, i'm sure he knew he most likely had a small edge and knew that he'd have better opportunities to outplay his oppenents later on. Also, as far as what kuro was saying is concerned, i dont think that what you were describing is a flaw in phil's play. maybe his nine NLHE bracelets can back me up on that one. If you can get reads on your opponents as well as he can, you don't need to gamble when you know you'll get a better chance later.

mcteecho

02-09-2005, 04:08 PM

That's just not true. I know from experience that you can win big MTTs without "gambling it up and going for it early", and lots of others on this board will have had the same experience.

binions

02-09-2005, 04:23 PM

The worst hand he can see is A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif With his flush draw blocked and 2 of his straight outs blocked, Phil is 36% against that hand. But, there is 1/1081 chance that hand is out.

He is 40% against A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif Pair and flush draw. Again, 1/1081 chance that hand is out.

He is 42% against a set and Ax diamonds (except A9 and A5). There are 9/1081 possible hands that have a set, and 6 possible Ax hands not A9 or A5).

He is 50-50 v. AA. 6/1081 AA hands out.

He is over 52-58% against 2 pair, top pair hands, and KK.

He is 66% against any other KJ or a pair+lesser flush draw (6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif ), and 85% against lesser, unpaired flush draws.

slickpoppa

02-09-2005, 05:12 PM

I think that this is a good fold. Not because Phil is probably a small favorite and could find a better spot, but because he is most likely NOT a small favorite to the range of his opponents hand. I think that even an OESFD is an underdog to the range of hands that someone would go all-in with on such a board so EARLY in a tournament.

wall_st

02-09-2005, 08:36 PM

One of phil's recent cardplayer articles details this hand.

morello

02-10-2005, 12:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But, there is 1/1081 chance that hand is out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not with the way the action unfolded. You can't just ignore the action on all streets and say "well, he's only dealt that hand x% of the time."

binions

02-10-2005, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, there is 1/1081 chance that hand is out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not with the way the action unfolded. You can't just ignore the action on all streets and say "well, he's only dealt that hand x% of the time."

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. You put him on a range of hands, and weight the range by their likelihood. So, instead of 1 in 1081, it's more like 1 in the 50 hands you think he might have.

Deftoner

02-10-2005, 02:27 AM

Wh should Phil gamble this early on when he knows he's better than most the players in the tournmaent? He wants to play poker, not flip coins for money.

TStoneMBD

02-10-2005, 02:58 AM

the fold is standard.

microbet

02-10-2005, 03:40 AM

PH figures he's behind at the moment and needs to catch his draw. He thinks, what are my chances of winning the tournament if I make this call and what are my chances of winning this tournament if a fold? He decides he has a better chance of winning if he folds.

Beavis68

02-10-2005, 12:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wh should Phil gamble this early on when he knows he's better than most the players in the tournmaent? He wants to play poker, not flip coins for money.

[/ QUOTE ]

A. He probably doesn't have as big of an advantage as he thinks he does.

B. Tournaments are time contrained and the blinds raise continually.

You need to get the chips when you have the chance.

drewjustdrew

02-10-2005, 01:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the fold is standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say it is standard for his playing style.

brokedickrooster

02-10-2005, 02:17 PM

I think a simple way to look at it is this...Even if HALF the deck would give him a winner (which it wouldn't), he is at that point 50-50 to catch. Would you literally flip a coin early in a big tournament to see if you would play on?

swarm

02-10-2005, 03:15 PM

If he had half the cards in the deck he would be over a 50/50 shot, he has two shots at it...

As it was with the amount of outs that he had (17) he was over a 50/50 shot, probably close to 58/42...

What would be curious is to see what he finihsed up in that tourney

tpir90036

02-10-2005, 04:19 PM

Makes sense to me... If you are a good tournament player (not trying to start an argument as to whether or not Player X is considered good or not) why would you risk your entire tournament on a coinflip-ish situation early on when you think you can get your chips in as a bigger favorite later? And yes, I know that the "wait for a better spot" argument does not always hold water since the better spot may or may not come along blah blah blah.

Personally, I would take the shot... but that is because I am not good.

37offsuit

02-10-2005, 04:29 PM

This is a good gamble. The pot odds say you should call, so call. If you can build your chips without putting your tournament on the line with a coin flip, especially early, you should avoid these situations.

Paluka

02-10-2005, 04:32 PM

I have no idea what the correct play was given in this situation because we don't have enough information, but anyone who says they would never fold this needs to do some studying.

DC_Camel

02-10-2005, 04:34 PM

Phil would have many other good opportunities to double up in an average tournament with better hands. Avoiding coin flips for your entire stack early on in a tournament is how you get to the money, and i have played post and fold down to 1/3 of my stack and still ended up in the money in MTT's by picking good spots and playing them instead of being tempted by boredom or illusion of a good hand to mix it up early and be gone... I never cease to be amazed by the veritable stampede to the exits in the first stage of a big mtt when all the "sure things" get creamed.

MCS

02-10-2005, 05:02 PM

Hellmuth's play may have been okay. I don't know. That's not really my point.

The point is that I think people take the idea of passing up small edges WAY too far. I'm not a great NL tournament player or anything, but every time someone actually does some real analysis instead of just saying "you can't flip coins for money" or "Hellmuth has 9 holdem bracelets" it seems to support the idea that you need to gamble at least a little.

You cannot consistently pass up 50/50 shots getting 2-1 on your money. You cannot consistently lay down hands where you KNOW you have a 70% chance to win. You are not that much better than everyone else, no matter what you say.

The point is, you have to take most of the edges you can get. There are, of course, plenty of cases where it's okay to pass up small edges, but the emphasis is on the word small. In Phil's case, he has convinced himself that QQ against 77 is an edge he can pass up because he has an 90% shot to double up later somehow, which is insane.

I can sure as hell flip coins for a dollar if the coin is weighted, or if I stand to profit twice what I risk.

Beavis68

02-10-2005, 05:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Makes sense to me... If you are a good tournament player (not trying to start an argument as to whether or not Player X is considered good or not) why would you risk your entire tournament on a coinflip-ish situation early on when you think you can get your chips in as a bigger favorite later? And yes, I know that the "wait for a better spot" argument does not always hold water since the better spot may or may not come along blah blah blah.

Personally, I would take the shot... but that is because I am not good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to think this way, but guys like Paul Phillips changed my thinking.

I can't say what Paul would do, but a quote of his that I think is fitting is "calling here IS my edge over the field" that is not an exact quote and I maybe taking it out of context.

Again, it does depend on the pot size and how much Phil had invested, but Doyle said he would probably call.

tpir90036

02-10-2005, 05:41 PM

Are you agreeing with my post or did you not see that I said the exact same thing you did?

If I were a tournament master I would probably fold here... however, like Paluka said, we are kind of shy on information. I jokingly said that *I* would probably call because I suck at tournaments and would take a gamble here....

Aceshigh7

02-10-2005, 05:48 PM

Phil has no problem with coin flips, when he isn't the one all in. Taking a 50/50 shot getting 2-1 on your money would be smart if you're putting one of the small stacks all in for example, but not if you risk going out yourself. So many of you guys are transposing a ring game mentality onto tournaments, and it just doesn't apply.

drewjustdrew

02-10-2005, 07:02 PM

You are confusing your terminology, but I think I see your point.

Your theory misses a very important point. He is not wagering even money. By calling, he gets more than what he risks. If you bet 10,000 and get 14000 in return, you should be willing to bet on an even money situation.

mostsmooth

02-10-2005, 11:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are confusing your terminology, but I think I see your point.

Your theory misses a very important point. He is not wagering even money. By calling, he gets more than what he risks. If you bet 10,000 and get 14000 in return, you should be willing to bet on an even money situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
you get 14000 for your 10000 if you win the hand, what if losing eliminates you? say its 50-50 and your probably behind at the moment, i dont think the 4000 balances out the risk of being knocked out. no? (im still new at this tourney stuff)

GFunk911

02-11-2005, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are confusing your terminology, but I think I see your point.

Your theory misses a very important point. He is not wagering even money. By calling, he gets more than what he risks. If you bet 10,000 and get 14000 in return, you should be willing to bet on an even money situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
you get 14000 for your 10000 if you win the hand, what if losing eliminates you? say its 50-50 and your probably behind at the moment, i dont think the 4000 balances out the risk of being knocked out. no? (im still new at this tourney stuff)

[/ QUOTE ]

It does. If you are an average player, getting "knocked out" is not some magical thing. Having 0 chips is worse than having 1 chip, just like having 1 chip is worse than having 2 chips.

If you were to graph stack size against Tourney EV, the bottom doesn't suddenly drop out at 0. It's a steady curve, with a relative gigantic but absolutely tiny blip from 1 to 0.

Very early in a tourney (assuming an average player) 2000 chips give you roughly twice the Tourney EV of 1000 chips, and 2400 chips gives you about 2.4x.

Sorry, this post (my post) is pathetic and probably incoherent. Hopefully somebody else will fight off the barbarians for the umpteenth time. Do you see why?

p.s. I love that PP quote, about "the call being your edge." I'd never heard it before

MissOt

02-11-2005, 09:59 PM

phil cant win at cash games so it was a good fold lol. for another poker player, maybe a better cash/tourney play, prob not

JohnG

02-20-2005, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wh should Phil gamble this early on when he knows he's better than most the players in the tournmaent? He wants to play poker, not flip coins for money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then he should be playing cash games rather than tournaments.

If it's the hand I think it was, it was a bad fold.

MicroBob

02-21-2005, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that I think people take the idea of passing up small edges WAY too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...many players do.
but pushing relatively small EV edges in early tournament play is NOT the same as doing pushing your EV in ring-games.

It would be one thing if Phil got aggressive with his mega-draw....it's another thing entirely to call someone else's aggressiveness here (see: gap concept).

Obviously we don't know all the details here....but laying down this draw if it puts him all-in early in a tournament isn't completely terrible and is FAR FAR FAR from being the tightest lay-down Phil has ever made.

Unless I was bored and looking for something else to do I would make this lay-down every time in the early rounds of a big tourney unless, of course, I didn't.

I consider myself to be a fairly aggressive tourney player...to the extent that I'm probably too aggressive much of the time.
But calling all-in bets early on with a strong (or even not-so-strong) draw is going to be a common method of exit for many of your opponents.

Kerplunk

02-21-2005, 04:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]

laying down this draw if it puts him all-in early in a tournament isn't completely terrible and is FAR FAR FAR from being the tightest lay-down Phil has ever made.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's something to think about when considering how and why phil played the hand like he did. Hellmuth usually makes a lot of noise when he makes a "big" laydown. I find it interesting that Paul Phillips was at the next table yet still remembers the hand clearly years later. I wonder if Phil made a big deal during the hand, or if he even flipped his cards. I can think of multiple televised occasions when he's been rather dramatic about tough folds, even somewhat proudly showing his holdings. He wants his opponents to know that he's capable of tough laydowns, and he'll use this planted info in later hands to induce bad decisions from his opponents. Against certain players, he will get them to overplay their hand, thinking they can push him off a marginal situation when in fact he has them dominated. Against other players, he will use his tight "wait for a better day" image to steal when they have the best of it.

Not everyone can take Phil's style and make it work for them. Same goes for Harrington, Hansen, and pretty much any player, especially if they have a "trademark" style.

JohnG

02-21-2005, 01:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if Phil made a big deal during the hand, or if he even flipped his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's the hand I am thinking about, Phil wrote about it in his hand of the week column. At least, it's a very similar hand where he folded an open ended straight flush draw getting 3-2 pot odds on the flop. It was discussed on here also, with Fossilman making a lot of good points.

Kerplunk

02-21-2005, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if Phil made a big deal during the hand, or if he even flipped his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's the hand I am thinking about, Phil wrote about it in his hand of the week column. At least, it's a very similar hand where he folded an open ended straight flush draw getting 3-2 pot odds on the flop. It was discussed on here also, with Fossilman making a lot of good points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what I was really asking was if Phil made a big deal about it during the hand itself. I was guessing that he did, since Paul Phillips recalls being at the table next to Phil's when the action went down. Why would Paul have known, much less remembered, that he was present for this hand if Phil didn't bring attention to it while it was happening? It wasn't even at his table.

Whatever the case, it's still pretty clear from other instances that Phil's M.O. is to be dramatic and vocal when he makes a big laydown. Like when he (correctly) folded his top pair while heads up against Annie Duke during the T.O.C. (he showed his King for good measure). Or, during the World Series when he called over a camera crew to show that he was folding pocket kings when some (I think) unknown put him all-in off a ragged looking flop.

Again, I think Phil is trying to reinforce the image that he's willing to fold strong hands so that a) players will be more likely to overplay a hand b) when he does move in, players feel an extra pang of fear.

knifeandfork

02-21-2005, 11:40 PM

my thoughts on the hand are if you are going to open you should open big with a draw like this. pushing even is not out of the question depending on the unknown variables of players stack sizes pot size etcetc (the idea being let your opponent be the one calling while a dog and add in some fold equity i think). if i open then its pushed to me in this spot im going to call 7 or more out of ten depending on above variables of course.

the more interesting point of Phil's play to me is the theoretical. Phil is of the school of thought that he is better than his opponenets so why should he take risks early on? I think this school may have fallen behind the (insert your choice here ill use Daniel N.) school that sees a need to get to the "easy" (dead) money earlier in order to be able to survive the ups and downs one will face in the increasingly huge fields full of players willing to mix it up with questionable hands/plays.

this leads me to believe that the former pupil is now doing the teaching and overall results for the last few years would seem to confirm this. that and a buk gets you a cup of coffee.
VI,
jason
PS curious to hear thoughts on the proposed "schools" here sorry if this has already been thoroughly covered i skimmed some of the replys

zaxx19

02-22-2005, 01:04 AM

This is a good gamble. The pot odds say you should call, so call.

This is a fairly simplistic and imho specious way to look at MTT play even in the early stages....

There are however many in the MTT forum who would agree whole heartedly.

Factors other than pot odds to consider imho:

1) field size

2) relative skill edge + or -

3) Playing style(how well one plays a larger stack versus smaller one

4) Relative skill of table..passivity..looseness

5) length and structure of tourney

college kid

02-22-2005, 02:19 AM

Because it's a coinflip (slightly better than) and Phil doesn't want to take the cahnce to bust. Gap Concept. If Phil had shoved with it that's another story, but calling with it is clearly wrong early on in a tourney. Cash games, I'll gamble with that all day, but not early on in a big tourney.