Is this Phil H whining again?

[Easy E]

Is it just me, or should I get Phil a crying towel?

http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=afeature&art_id=13265

[Michael Davis]

Easy E,

You need to show some class when you post about Hellmuth.

-Mike

[HDPM]

What an awful article. WTF is he thinking to write that? The funniest was the line that went, "then he gave Doyle 150000." Here's a pro complaining that a guy gave money to a better player? Huh? He would not have complained if the money found its way to his stack I think. What Phil did is a lot worse than just crying. He needlessly called these guys out. Not exactly what you want if your goal is to improve poker and promote tournamnets bla bla bla

[AceHigh]

Yes, he's a jerk.

Why doesn't Phil talk about the hand in an Omaha final table at the WSOP where he bet the wrong end of a straight draw and knocked Men out of the hand and he ended up losing to K-high? His friend Andy Glazer even reported it as a bad play.

[bernie]

he's an idiot. one of the most overrated players ever. actually thinks a tournament has a long run. yet he plays just as bad at times. the mope. i love to hear him whine and table coach at the table. he still is trying to find out how he almost went broke a little while back. my respect for tourney players grows.... yeah right! hahaha

will he ever come off his pedestal? doubt it.

b

[Easy E]

check the other responses out.
Phil is the former world champ and poker "pro"- he should ACT like one.

His attitude drives me CRAZY! Sorry, but it really rubs me the wrong way.

I think Phil need to grow up.... and so do many others.

Did you read the article? And you had no problems with Phil using his position at CP to complain about the play of others?

[Ed Miller]

[jasonHoldEm]

Quote: "Maybe they’re on to something new regarding no-limit hold’em strategy."

You mean like raising with 32o, Phil??

/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[nycfish]

Seems to me Phil is just trying to manipulate those particular opponents before the WSOP Championship event. This championship means more than anything to him. And he doesn't want three dangerously wild players screwing up his chances. He figures if he throws them off their game, they'll be playing his game which he's much better at.

[Schmed]

Talk about sour grapes......

Gotta give him credit, maybe not as much as he would like, he's at these final tables consistently and he won a bracelet this year.

The funniest thing about that article to me was his line "At my table in the WPT Championship, I saw Alan Goehring make it $5,000 to go and then call my $15,000 bet — a $10,000 raise — with the 7 4 without so much as a blink of the eye. It turned out that I was bluffing with the 8 7"

Of course you are bluffing Phil, especially if you have position. I mean if you're at a table with Phil H and he raises from the button I would have a hard time giving that raise any credit after watching the way he plays. This WPT may be the worst thing for a guy like Phil H. He may want to write an article about that as opposed to whinning. To me at least it makes him come off as a worse player than he is.

He does have some of the best results of any poker players out there. It certainly wouldn't be a surprise to see him at the final table in the big game.

[mrbaseball]

Yeah, watching some of Phils plays on WPT makes you wonder how this guy ever won anything? But watch all the players in these tournaments. Great poker play doesn't generally win these things. Getting the right cards at the right time does. Getting lucky in your all in face off races does too.

I have been playing a lot of small NLHE touneys lately and watching a lot of this stuff on TV. The luck factor is so much bigger in NLHE tourneys than in ring games it's scary. I honestly believe that I could sit at any final NLHE table ever with any hand picked group of past champions and have a decent shot at winning. Read the McManus (pos 5th street) book. He didn't seem to have much of a clue if you ask me /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I believe it takes skill to get in position to win a tournament and luck to actually win it. But throughout any NLHE tournament luck will be a much larger factor than in any ring game ever.

[Homer]

Summary of article:

-- Look at all these calling station amateurs winning major tournaments

-- Can you believe he called [insert name of top professional here]'s bluff?!

-- Homer

[Easy E]

HAHA!

[J.R.]

But the point is that while you may know someone is on a bluff, how can you call with a hand that can't beat a bluff? There is a huge difference between playing aggressively with rags and calling with garbage that is behind all legitamite hands and nearly all bluffs. These plays were taken out of context and presented in isolation, but they demonstrate some questionable decision-making and illustrate how lucky some big tournament winners have gotten (not to say he has never benefitted from luck).

The tone of the post is whinney, but there is some merit in his argument. Some of the plays he cites are worse than the Kevin McBride calling stattion miracle of years ago, although Varkonyi didn't play that bad after getting lucky with QT.

Is Helmuth arrogant? yes. Is he over-aggressive? yes. Is he immature and purile? yes. Is he annoying? yes. Is he a publicity hog? yes. Is he a jerk? yes.

Is he the best tournament holdem player in the history of the world series of poker and arguably the best hold'em tournament player ever? His eight WSOP braclets in that discipline speak for themselves.

[J.R.]

More like

Summary of article:

-- Look at all these calling station amateurs winning major tournaments

-- Can you believe he called [insert name of top professional here]'s bluff with a hand that can't even beat a bluff !

The point is you pick off bluffs by calling with hands such as middle pairs and Ace high (because you want to call with a better hand) or by re-raising (bluffing the bluff). You don't call a likely bluff with a hand that is surely behind if there is no bluff AND is still likely behind even if you are correct in guessing bluff.

[Homer]

I'm not sure how you are disproving my point. These guys are obviously such major calling stations that they will call with anything, yet Hellmuth's article gives examples of hands in which top professionals attempted to stone cold bluff them.

-- Homer

[Easy E]

These plays were taken out of context and presented in isolation, but they demonstrate some questionable decision-making and illustrate how lucky some big tournament winners have gotten (not to say he has never benefitted from luck).
The problem is, EVERY tournament winner in the last 10+ years has gotten lucky at some point... INCLUDING Phil when he won his bracelet.

To write an article whose main purpose seemed to be to denigrate the play of others, because "I'm sooooo much better than you are," is childish and arrogant and ultimately stupid.

The tone of the post is whiney, but there is some merit in his argument. Some of the plays he cites are worse than the Kevin McBride calling station miracle of years ago, although Varkonyi didn't play that bad after getting lucky with QT.

Some merit, but not to the point of writing that article in the manner and tone that Phil did.

Phil DOES know how to play, but he STILL hasn't learned how to act. He needs to shut up and get down to it.

[J.R.]

I wasn't trying to disprove your point as much as I was trying to expand upon it- they are, as you say, MAJOR calling stations. Its one thing to call with something (ie bottom pair, K high), which calling stations are apt to do, but to call with nothing, so that you are a dog to most of your opponents bluffs- that's a new level of foolishness/fishyness. These plays, in isolation, make the culprits look far worse than your average calling station.

[Rushmore]

...and I assume I'll be in the minority here, but...

I believe Phil Hellmuth is saying something that needs to be said. He is absolutely right: for the most part, these players played as if they didn't have any idea what they were doing (at least in the examples cited).

However, there is ONE thing that this should show us very clearly: No-Limit Holdem is a game of relatively small edges. Although the moves Hellmuth cites are, at best, unorthodox, they aren't suicide. They are mere flirtations with death, which can at least yield a result other than death.

Sure, Phil Hellmuth has been known to, well, express himself in the past. He is doing a bit more of the same here.

But I believe he's right. These are players who got extremely lucky, and won major events with fairly weak games.

And NO, I don't believe anyone has stumbled onto some new and revolutionary strategy for NL holdem. I'm going to get out on a limb here and posit that Hellmuth floated that option a bit disingenuously.

Call me crazy.

[Rushmore]

He just won another bracelet. I suppose a fistful of bracelets gives you SOME legitimate voice in the tournament poker community.

[PlanoPoker]

I'm going to stand alone on this one, and say that I am not bothered by the way that Phil handles himself on most occassions. Table coaching is not admirable, and he has done some of that, but I think there is nothing wrong with tackling these sorts of topics and mixing it up a little. Phil was in fact criticizing these players, but he wasn't doing it to deface them. Its not like anyone is giving them credit for their play anyway. I honestly believe he found these happenings to be something of a phenomenon and worthy of thought. I know I did. I am happy to read an article that sheds light on the biggest question I face in NL tournament poker -- exactly how much gamble is really in the game?

[TAFKAn]

I am happy to read an article that sheds light on the biggest question I face in NL tournament poker -- exactly how much gamble is really in the game?

If you're even asking that question, then you probably don't appreciate how much luck is involved in a no limit tourney.

Cheating and chip dumping issues aside, a NL tournament is almost all luck .. in a way. It's won by whichever aggressive maniac got lucky that day. The "dead" money is all the tight, timid players who don't understand that it's a structure that forces you to gamble.

The way to win is to play by the rules and the rules make it so that luck is almost the only thing that matters once you join the ranks of those who push all in and gamble like maniacs.

Every once in a while making a good read can help, but mostly you just need to be insane.

[Easy E]

If Phil had REALLY meant to examine the issue seriously, the article would have been written much differently.

Does Phil have a valid point? Probably.

Was the article written with a tone and intent to denigrate the players involved WITHOUT seriously examining the issue? Most DEFINATELY....

... and this is why Phil deserves scorn. If you've ever seen Phil interview on TV at some of the tournaments (earlier WPT one, and PP Million I, if i remember correctly), Phil often talks about how he's going to "get" the bad players, how well he plays the game... and when his JJ runs into QQ, how lucky they are.

That article was NOT written to debate their plays, weak though they may (or may not) have been. The article was written to belittle them and point out how "lucky" they were.... with the implicit point (in my reading, anyway) that Phil didn't deserve his bad luck and the "bad" players didn't deserve their good luck.

But this is the last that I will say on the subject

[PlanoPoker]

Luck is not "almost the only thing that matters". There is a huge body of evidence to support the fact that tournament poker is not all luck. We do know that certain players place consistently in the money, and others never place in the money. Your best argument can be that some players have experienced long term luck. Is that your argument? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Most everyone would agree that it takes a considerable amount of luck and skill to win a tournament. Over time luck evens itself out.. so what does that leave?

[PlanoPoker]

You're right. I'm sure if I was in Phil's shoes I could do a much better job of handling my reputation. I'll revise my opinion by just saying that I have a tolerance for his overly humanistic behavior. He is one of the most interesting tournament players to me, because I like to see strong personalities.

[Inthacup]

Most DEFINATELY....

If you're going to emphasize a word to the point that you put it in all caps you should learn how to spell it. It's "definitely" not "definately". Disregard any harsh tone here. I'm simply too drunk to post anything more than what is absolutely necessary.

[Easy E]

[Ed Miller]

I believe Phil Hellmuth is saying something that needs to be said.

Why does this need to be said? If the majority of tournament players are not very good, then many tournaments will be won by players that are not very good. In fact, if 80% of a tournament's field consists of poor players, then I would gladly bet even money that a poor player will win the tournament. Poker is not chess... and this is most certainly not news, nor should it be. The reason why Phil thinks this is newsworthy is because he simply does not understand the statistics behind the situation, and he clearly still does not fully appreciate the random element manifest in poker (especially in tournament play with its generally large blinds).

Writing that poor players win tournaments is a waste of paper. Writing that Player X and Player Y are poor players... naming names... is horribly distasteful. Player X and Player Y have done nothing to invite public ridicule beyond having fortune smile upon them for a few short days. Should Phil also publicly humiliate those who win the lottery? Why they are idiots! Look at how they took the worst of it. Everybody needs to know that, even though Mr. Lottery Winner won lots of money, he did so by taking the worst of it. What a person worthy of ridicule.

In fact, the mighty Phil himself has, at times, gambled when he felt that he had the worst of it (at least so he wrote... for example I recall an account of Phil playing Chinese Poker headsup against a superior player). God forbid that he leave that game a winner...

[sleepyjoeyt]

Here are my thoughts:

If I'm going to take on the heroes of the tournament poker world (those who have been extremely successful) I am not going to try to play the exact same strategy as they are. This will clearly benefit the pros, as they have much more knowledge and experience than I do. So in order to counter this I would feel the need to "open things up" and play at least a little unorthodox.

Now what is the correct amount of "unorthodox" play is up for debate but Phil H, Phil I, TJ Cloutier, Chan, Negreanu, etc clearly are superior tournament poker players and trying to play the game the same way they do only plays into their hands.

I am not advocating pushing "all-in" with J 3 offsuit when heads up at the final table but these players are not going to be beaten by someone who cannot change gears and try something different once in a while.

Maybe a second-tier tournament pro (or experienced amateur)can try to match strategies with these guns and do well if the cards fall right but for novices or those who don't play in 100 tournaments a year, the only choice is to mix things up. When to do this, and how far to take this concept, depends on the individual player.

Just my thoughts.

[Mark Heide]

Easy E,

If the article didn't state his name, I'd swear that this story is what I'd expect to hear from a $4-$8 online Hold'em Player. He did say he plays $4-$8 online, right?

Good Luck

Mark

[Michael Davis]

Easy E,

Sorry I took so long to respond, I hope you get this.

I was merely making a reference to Hellmuth's immature actions on the WPT, when he told the Magician to "have some class when you shake my hand." I was being sarcastic, and attacking the irony of Hellmuth's comment, not you. I apologize if I have offended.

-Mike

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I went and read the PH article and have a few comments.

1. PH frequently claims that he's a great player because he wins tournaments. Yet he points out that what appears to be terrible plays won for these three players. Could it be that their play is not as bad as it seems. David Sklansky gives a pretty good explanation in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players as to why play that appears too loose and aggressive does well in tournaments. Could it be that these examples, while maybe poor play, are also extreme cases of loose and aggressive play?

2. Assuming the PH is right, then there should be virtually no prestige attached to being able to win a major tournament. Thus when he is interviewed, shouldn't he say, "Well I've won lots of tournaments, but it really doesn't mean anything since since these three guys also won major tournaments."

3. Most of us will think that the examples (in the article) are terrible plays because we think in terms of side games. When reading PH's book, it clear to me that he draws very little distinction between the two. The fact is that correct tournament play is at times very different from side games. Again, going back to Sklansky, David points out that in a tournament, you generally want to stay away from close gambles. But David also states that this assumes you are one of the better players. On the other hand, if you're not one of the better players it might become right to take the worse of it in a tournament if winning the hand will put you in a commanding position. So when looking at it from this point of view, none of the plays that PH gives is so bad. Yet in a ring game they would all be terrible.

Best wishes,
Mason

[bernie]

i really like #2 /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

"PH frequently claims that he's a great player because he wins tournaments. Yet he points out that what appears to be terrible plays won for these three players."

ive also found, after seeing him play and reading his column, that many times this is the pot calling the kettle black. it's only expert if he's the one snapping off the bluff with a bad hand, or winning with crap. i dont see phil ever really giving credit to players who may actually be reading him well at times. he comes across as thinking that because of who he is, that should be enough to run over the table. and anyone calling his moves is nuts. it's a rare occurence when he commends a player for a good read on him. in fact i dont think i can recall him ever doing that. yet he loves to table coach too. which really shows what a 'pro' he is.

there are very few tourney winners i have respect for as far as overall game. and he definitely isnt one of them.

i dont mind phil ivey, yet im still wondering what the hell he was thinking during a recent WPT tourney holding A6o on the button in a 4 way game, and it's folded to him. and he folds? that's a nice holding in this spot.

but i havent seen him play enough to really have an opinion on his play. but at least he has a helluva better demeanor than highhorse phil.

still waiting for your review of his book. ive only skimmed it a little in the store and wasnt super impressed with what i saw. but if anything, it may help draw some people to the table as he is identifiable to a newcomer. i think the best parts would be the stories from the tournies he may have in there.

anyways...

now back to your regularly scheduled forum

b

[sleepyjoeyt]

This sounds strikingly similar to a brilliant post, two spots up.

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[J.R.]

The fact is that correct tournament play is at times very different from side games. Again, going back to Sklansky, David points out that in a tournament, you generally want to stay away from close gambles . But David also states that this assumes you are one of the better players. On the other hand, if you're not one of the better players it might become right to take the worse of it in a tournament if winning the hand will put you in a commanding position. So when looking at it from this point of view, none of the plays that PH gives is so bad.

I couldn't diasgaree more. I am not questioning David's advice, but your characterization of these plays as close gambles is a gross misstatement of fact. Calling raises (and not at least re-raising and putting the pressure on your opponent) when some of the raises are fairly big in relation to the play at that time, with 73, 74 and J4 suited as well as J3 offsuit is not taking on a close gamble when you know you are not the best player and need to catch a big hand. You are not just taking the worst of it on a close call, you are playing like a fish.

Were Goehring's plays with 52 and 65 offsuit when he had a big stack good plays as well? Why would he need to take such the worst of it, according to David's theory, when he already had a commanding chip position?

[Easy E]

Were Goehring's plays with 52 and 65 offsuit when he had a big stack good plays as well? Why would he need to take such the worst of it, according to David's theory, when he already had a commanding chip position?

Did he face big raises? Those hands sound like bust-em hands to me. If you have the big stack, you can take a flyer in NL with those type hands, since the flop could hit you hard and bust your opponents.... Now, whether it works with GOOD players, I can't say.

[bernie]

this would include a play i saw with devilfish where he limps with 43o. the bigger the stack the more hands you can also play. but the 43o was a stretch. and no, he wasnt in a blind.

b

[Toro]

Love him or hate him, you have to at least admit that Hellmuth has made himself into arguably the most recognizable name in the poker world today. And he is obviously cashing in on it.

[J.R.]

Bust'em for Alan. I agree with you and bernie about the play of a big stack. But when you loose over 2/3rds of your stack playing this garabge (as Goehring did), you have to question things. The time to bust players is not when your opponents have big stacks as well and there is still a lot of play and players left. No doubt I'll limp with lots of stuff that can make a big hand when I have a huge stack and my opponents are agressive, but I don' think that was this situation.

[J.R.]

I presume you are talking about the final table of the WPO, and the keys there are he has a HUGE stack, he limps, and he knows how to play the hand so that he does not lose over 2/3rds of his stack like Goehring. There's a big difference between limping and calling a raise, and its my understanding that Alan called (not re-raised) decent raises with each of these hands.

I am not saying tournament players are infallible or clairvoyant, as they, like all of us, make mistakes, but some of them deserve more credit than the contempt and scorn with which you regard them.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I've always said I think Phil is good for poker; a recognizable personality about whom most people have an opinion. And as for his performance at this year's WSOP so far, to quote Dizzy Dean, "It ain't braggin' if you can do it."

[bernie]

who's alan?

youre right, i dont have much respect for many tourney players. are their some i do? yes. anyone recent? not really that ive seen. they are highly overrated. highly. i do not consider the tourney winners being the best in the world. and im not alone in this thought. yet they are presented as such. however, i think alot of guys in tourneys are cool guys, i just dont think their games are as good as many make them out to be. and phil h is at the top of the list. actually, the primary lightning rod, poster boy for it.

on the other side, you wont find many grinder/ringgamers in tourneys, winning or finishing in the top 3. they may make the final table but rarely win. i will give tourney players credit for having more gamble in them than the ringers. which is what you need to win or place well in the tourney.

sometimes you can tell some ringers from the tourney guys by their display in emotion. hardened ring gamers dont really display much. no real pro or con on this, just an observation.

most of my scorn is reserved for those tourney players that think they are better than they really are. ive noticed this on a local level to a degree too. as i welcome them on my table.
and on a higher level, phil h is a prime example. he's the pot calling the kettle black when he analyzes otheres hands saying how bad someone played.

i think it's funny on the local level how some guys get scared when some 'known' tourney winner is in their game. and i have seen this. then the tourney guys tilts off a rack or 2 after a couple bad beats. yet these are the players that many 'revere'. gimme a break.

my respect for players games goes to the grinders in the trenches. i wonder how many of these 'known' tourney guys would fare if it were a limit game with no escalating blinds? or even a no limit game with the same deal. it wont happen, since the tourney would last forever. but who knows...i may be suprised at who would last and make it to the final table. my guess is that it would be alot of no-names.

cant wait to read phils book, if i do. after only skimming it, i saw the ridicualous animal analogies that he used to describe players.

anyways...

b

btw...i have given credit to some tourney players for a great play. one that comes to mind was scotty N's fold after rivering 2 pair in an earlier WPT tourney. it was a helluva fold. i just obviously lean the other way.

i will give tourney players one benefit, especially the ones on the WPT. if they bring new players in to the tables that think they can win playing the same way as what they see on tv, more power to em.