Was Paul Phillips *GASP* WRONG?!?

[Daliman]

I couldn't find it in a search, but at some point in time last year, Paul Phillips entered into the fray of an argument concerning Phil Hellmuth's place in history with regards to him having 9 bracelets and whether or not anyone will ever surpass that. IIRC, PP said something to the effect of "of course PH will have the most bracelets now. The fields are too big for anyone ever to catch him now."

Personally, at the time, I thought this was total BS. Last year, with the biggest overall fields in history to that point, 2 people were able to win 2 bracelets each, and a 3rd person had a 1st and 2nd,(although, had he won 1st, he'd have bumped one of the 2-time winners off the list from last year). Many top players won bracelets last year, and once again this year, at least 4 of the bracelet winners already have one, (or several), and top pros litter the top ten of all of these tournaments. Now, I love PP about as strongly as is possible for a married, heterosexual man can love a man he has never met, but I'm surprised to find that I was actually more right about this than he was it appears,(small sample size, blah, blah,). It always seemd to me that if you had a tournament with 100 players, and 80 top pros, and a tournament with 1000 players, and the same 80 top pros, plus 800 literally dead money players, a single pros' chances are not that grossly diminished, i'd say by no more than 50% less likely for him to cash or win, but that's a wild, unsubstantiatable guess. The good pros know how to get chips out of bad players, and in these smaller buyin events, it can add extra cushion for when the cards aren't coming.

Anyways, whenever I hear another big name winning a bracelet, I think of what PP said, and I die a little inside each time, for he attempted to lead me astray. /images/graemlins/frown.gif It actually DOES bother me that someone I consider one of the great minds in poker, the "poker dickhead exposer" himself, could be so far off.

I'm sure he'll come in here and rebut me brilliantly, which I await with breath that smells like bait. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[johnnybeef]

hes human, same as you and me. we all make mistakes.

[Nottom]

I still think he is probably not too far off. People will still get a couple bracelets, but unless one of the guys with quite a few bracelets already are able to outrace Phil its unlikely that any new players are going to get 9-10.

But then again, Scott Fischman has 2 and has had some strong showings this year so maybe it is just a matter of time before some of the young guys start accumulating bracelets and pass Phil.

[Freudian]

He didn't say that pros weren't going to win bracelets though.

As long as someone doesn't get 10, one could argue that his view is valid. But with the number of events at the WSOP annually, someone who plays most of them will definately have a shot of getting a bracelet/year. Will be exceptional to do so but still.

What I really think PP tried to say is that some of Hellmuths bracelets were of the kiddie pool variety, compared to todays competition. Doyle beat less than 40 players for his both main event bracelets back in the days. Even the most minor events of this days WSOP dwarf the competitions of old. And the number of players who have a good grasp of poker is skyrocketing.

[Daliman]

I agree with this, but it's hard to say ANY of PH's bracelets are "kiddie pool" Even if only 90 competitors, when 80 of them are the topplayers in the world, you earned yer f'n bracelet, period. Now Doyle's, I agree, probably half of his are under 50 players, but also, he admits to dumping in at least one of his early events,(he wanted to stay under the radar, and thought the notoriety would cost him $$$). But still, the fields have been growing every year, and there are guys like Jesus, Layne Flack, and Phil Ivey who have 4 or 5 bracelets in just the last 6 years alone, plus more than a few second place finishes between them.

His opinion at the time just seemed a bit "chicken little" to me.

"The fields are growing, the fields are growing! No one will ever topple the evil one, he is too far ahead!"

[jomatty]

other than doyle and johnny and a handfull of other guys who have 5-7 bracelets,i would put the odds of anyone else joining there company at nil. certainly nothing he said is currently being proved wrong. great players willl still win bracelets and may even win multiple bracelets, but to win 9 in this era of 2000+ fields is almost implossible in my mind.
matty

[Malachii]

Does anyone know why Paul Phillips dislikes Hellmuth so strongly? Did Phil ridicule his play or something?

[Willy]

It is even quite possible that Phil will win number 10 before he's done.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
It is even quite possible that Phil will win number 10 before he's done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's WAY more than possible. Less a question of if than when.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
It always seemd to me that if you had a tournament with 100 players, and 80 top pros, and a tournament with 1000 players, and the same 80 top pros, plus 800 literally dead money players, a single pros' chances are not that grossly diminished, i'd say by no more than 50% less likely for him to cash or win, but that's a wild, unsubstantiatable guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree with that estimate.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It always seemd to me that if you had a tournament with 100 players, and 80 top pros, and a tournament with 1000 players, and the same 80 top pros, plus 800 literally dead money players, a single pros' chances are not that grossly diminished, i'd say by no more than 50% less likely for him to cash or win, but that's a wild, unsubstantiatable guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree with that estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thus a wild, unsubstantiable guess, but in the past I did an exhaustive, (by my standards; half assed by PP's I'd bet) analysis on this and found that this can EASILY be the case.

[jojobinks]

to reiterate the scott fischman issue:

after playing in one wsop plus one even this year, he had 2 bracelets and a second place. why does it seem so unlikely, then, that he (or some other youngster) could win 10 over the next 30 years?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is even quite possible that Phil will win number 10 before he's done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's WAY more than possible. Less a question of if than when.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

PH is still fairly young in poker terms, look at TJ, still going strong.

I think today though the World Series is very different to its origins in some respects.

Back in the 70's, 10 G's was alot more than it is now, and the whole concept was "the best of the best" duking it out ... guys that lived and died by the turn of cards, out on their own makin' a living the best way they know how.

Now it's changed, you got the kids who most of them don't have to play for their food and rent (most ... not all) and with the Internet and satellites, any disciplined player with a computer and a bit of luck can sit there next to Doyle & co.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WSOP doesn't mean anything anymore, it's a very hard field and anyone who makes it through day 1 has serious bragging rights IMHO, it's just that now its harder for the pro's, and the WSOP is so different these days I think in a couple of years they may be forced to raise the buy-in to keep it inline with the original concept.

My 0.2

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
to reiterate the scott fischman issue:

after playing in one wsop plus one even this year, he had 2 bracelets and a second place. why does it seem so unlikely, then, that he (or some other youngster) could win 10 over the next 30 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's too unreasonable for one of the top 10 players in these tournaments, who plays almost every event, could win a bracelet on average once every 3-4 years. That would be sufficient to break double-digits.

This is not to say that Fischman is one of the top 10 players in the world, but I just threw that in as a requirement.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
My 0.2

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOA there, buddy, that's TWENTY cents worth!

That's fully ten times more than you are entitled to give!

[Spook]

It is also possible that with these new larger feilds, we will get actual better players.
There might be an amazingly good Stu Ungar type player who would have never thought to play poker, but because of all the hype, started a home game with friends. Eventually this player turns out to be amazing and wins a ton of events.

[freemont]

I thought the same exact thing myself, Dali, when I read that statement from Paul Phillips. Since I can't remember exactly how he worded it, I'd be curious to hear him explain what he meant in more detail.

If he truly believes that no one will win more than nine bracelets (excluding Helmuth, Chan and Brunson of course,) I would gladly bet against that, it just seems likely that with the number of relatively young players, who already have multiple bracelets, and play (almost) every event one of them will wind up with 10 or more.

[dogmeat]

I don't know what tournament you are thinking of that might attract 80 top pros (except the WSOP) in a field of 1000 - and believe me, there aren't 800 dead money spots in any of the WSOP tournaments I've seen so far this year. Now in the main event, there will probably be more, but then we might be looking at a field of 6600.

The first event this year with 2300 and the next with 1500 might have had 800 spots of dead money between them, but then again that's just 22% - not 80%.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[InfernoLL]

It was an off the cuff statement. If you think PP believes that it's impossible for anyone to ever reach 10 bracelets you should think harder. I didn't see the quote you're talking about, but I'd guess that he was just saying that it would be much harder to amass bracelets now that the fields are so much larger. This implies that Helmuth's 9 will remain the best for a longer time than Helmuth deserves. Also, you overestimate the difference in skill of the "top pros" and the average non professional player in tournament poker, a subject which PP has written a lot about.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
to reiterate the scott fischman issue:

after playing in one wsop plus one even this year, he had 2 bracelets and a second place. why does it seem so unlikely, then, that he (or some other youngster) could win 10 over the next 30 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because your method is wrong. Of course if you take the most winning young player in the past years and extrapolate his result you will find that he will have more than 10. Sample bias.

[ohgeetee]

I don't think he said more than 10 bracelets, i believe he said more bracelets than Hellmuth. And the statement wasn't really a dig, it just makes sense that with increased fields, and a 9 bracelet head start that was largely earned in much smaller fields, the likelihood is low that someone will catch up.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My 0.2

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOA there, buddy, that's TWENTY cents worth!

That's fully ten times more than you are entitled to give!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to read this post through Phil Hellmuth's sunglasses and translate it to:

"WHOA there, buddy, that's TWENTY cents worth!

That's fully ten times more than you are entitled to give, yet you went out of your way to impart a great post to us, you are a legend!"

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what tournament you are thinking of that might attract 80 top pros (except the WSOP) in a field of 1000 - and believe me, there aren't 800 dead money spots in any of the WSOP tournaments I've seen so far this year. Now in the main event, there will probably be more, but then we might be looking at a field of 6600.

The first event this year with 2300 and the next with 1500 might have had 800 spots of dead money between them, but then again that's just 22% - not 80%.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I played in event #2, and had about a total of 18 players come and go at my table, and 16 of them were dead money. Absoutely horrendous, raise-with A9o-UTG, call-that-raise UTG+1 w/ 44, call-from-MP- with- 97o morons were EVERYWHERE.

And OF COURSE I mean the WSOP when I say 80 top pros, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WSOP! If you think there aren't 80 top pros, you are either sorely mistaken, or have a WAY different threshhold of "top pros" than I do. I am a pro. I am not a TOP pro.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
It was an off the cuff statement. If you think PP believes that it's impossible for anyone to ever reach 10 bracelets you should think harder. I didn't see the quote you're talking about, but I'd guess that he was just saying that it would be much harder to amass bracelets now that the fields are so much larger. This implies that Helmuth's 9 will remain the best for a longer time than Helmuth deserves. Also, you overestimate the difference in skill of the "top pros" and the average non professional player in tournament poker, a subject which PP has written a lot about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said he said specifically that no one will ever get ten, but that WAS the insinuation, so I really don't need to think harder. And the difference betweeen MY play and the average WSOP player was huge when I played in it, why wouldn't the difference between actual TOP pros be less?

Seriously, if you haven't played in a large field WSOP event, you just dont know. The overall skill of the average player is pathetic. Now, maybe my table was just bad, but seriously, even Kristy Gazes made a TERRIBLE play on my table, and she's considered a top pro,(kinda, she's a name pro at least.)

[OrangeKing]

It seems like everyone who has played in these tournaments remarks on just how bad the competition is. What amazes me is that people actually think this is bad for the top pros (well, in monetary terms - obviously it's "bad" in terms of bracelet accumulation).

[Dacoops3]

[ QUOTE ]
even Kristy Gazes made a TERRIBLE play on my table, and she's considered a top pro,(kinda, she's a name pro at least.)

[/ QUOTE ]
After seeing almost every televised poker event she has been on, I have come to the conclusion that she is WAY OVERRATED. She sucks.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
even Kristy Gazes made a TERRIBLE play on my table, and she's considered a top pro,(kinda, she's a name pro at least.)

[/ QUOTE ]
After seeing almost every televised poker event she has been on, I have come to the conclusion that she is WAY OVERRATED. She sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. Imagine being recognized mainly for being the ex-wife of a third-tier pro.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WSOP doesn't mean anything anymore, it's a very hard field and anyone who makes it through day 1 has serious bragging rights IMHO, it's just that now its harder for the pro's, and the WSOP is so different these days I think in a couple of years they may be forced to raise the buy-in to keep it inline with the original concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original concept was to promote the casino and make money.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WSOP doesn't mean anything anymore, it's a very hard field and anyone who makes it through day 1 has serious bragging rights IMHO, it's just that now its harder for the pro's, and the WSOP is so different these days I think in a couple of years they may be forced to raise the buy-in to keep it inline with the original concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original concept was to promote the casino and make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell, the CURRENT concept is too. You Poker players are a bunch of gambling degenerates.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WSOP doesn't mean anything anymore, it's a very hard field and anyone who makes it through day 1 has serious bragging rights IMHO, it's just that now its harder for the pro's, and the WSOP is so different these days I think in a couple of years they may be forced to raise the buy-in to keep it inline with the original concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original concept was to promote the casino and make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct, actually.

*wanders down street to ponder mysteries of life*