I know I shouldn't, but I just can't help it... [Archive]

thomastem

07-11-2003, 11:25 AM

I my humble opinion you guys are duped. Phil Helmuth wants you to believe he is stupid, egotistical, childish, and on tilt at all times. He has berated pros for writing books and giving up the secrets, but when he writes a bunch of nonsense and gets paid to do it we think he is stupid and doesn't know any better. I also think he wants to be invited to your home game provided the stakes are worth his time.

If you assume on the words he says he's an idiot but if you look at the facts, MONEY, what in reality does that tell you? You make these kind of assumptions at the poker it will cost you.

One last thing, if you play me just remember I am an idiot looking for my chicken.

Jimbo

07-11-2003, 11:31 AM

"If you assume on the words he says he's an idiot but if you look at the facts, MONEY, what in reality does that tell you? You make these kind of assumptions at the poker it will cost you.

One last thing, if you play me just remember I am an idiot looking for my chicken.

Thomasterm the difference here is that you are a poker player impersonating a fool and Phil is a fool impersonating a poker player.

thomastem

07-11-2003, 12:16 PM

I disagree. It is the other way around. How much money have I won? How much has Helmuth won? You don't win as much money as Phil has without knowing a little something about Poker.

Look at the responses. How many people want to play this guy? Does any other pro get a bigger emotional response out of would be fish?

Ok, if he can't play how is it that he wins? IMHO it is easier for words to deceive than results.

MaxPower

07-11-2003, 12:34 PM

Agreed. I didn't say that he was stupid or a bad poker player, just that his columns are bad.

Bama Boy

07-11-2003, 02:02 PM

How do you know Phil is doing so well at poker? He won a couple of tourney's at the WSOP this year, but he also spends lots of money on tournament entry fees, and obviously loses alot in ring games and with his internet play. If not for the book/endorsement deals he has very wisely set up, who knows if Phil would be in poker anymore? The man loses A LOT of money. So perhaps you know where we can find out what he spent vs what he made (playing poker) for the year and we can decide just how superb his playing skills are. Otherwise, I'll be glad for Phil to come on down anytime, I've seen him play alot more then he's seen me play /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I think Phil is great for poker. I don't like listening to him, reading what he writes, or even seeing his face on TV playing in the WPT or WSOP. But because he is young, and has faired well in WSOP events, he brings a nice brash to Poker that makes most people love to hate him. If his style brings people to poker, thats great. But I think you give the man too much credit for his actions.

Jimbo

07-11-2003, 02:10 PM

"Ok, if he can't play how is it that he wins? IMHO it is easier for words to deceive than results.

Exactly my point! Phil has written that it costs him in excess of $50k per month throughout the year to stay on the tournament trail. Seems easy to compute that if he wins less than $600K per year he hasn't won anything at all. Remember if you enter every tournament you are going to win some of them, in spite of yourself. Personally as long as you assure me you are a winning low limit poker player I would rather have your "poker income" than Phils.

thomastem

07-11-2003, 02:51 PM

When Doyle Brunson plays his 10-2s or k-x flush draws people don't respect him less? Why? Because of image.

I don't have the numbers on profit loss but according to Cardplayer.com these are the rankings for this year:

Rank Player Points
1 Amir Vahedi 4348
2 Men Nguyen 4333
3 Phil Hellmuth 4080
4 Chip Jett 3732
5 John Juanda 3706
6 David Pham 3646
7 Mark Seif 3526
8 Jim Meehan 3492
9 T.J. Cloutier 3228
10 Erik Seidel 3136
11 Phil Ivey 3028
12 Daniel Negreanu 2944
13 John Hoang 2866
14 Scotty Nguyen 2859
15 Chris Ferguson 2806
16 Howard Lederer 2658
17 Barry Greenstein 2448
18 Christopher Moneymaker 2400
19 Jon Brody 2382
20 Chris Karagulleyan 2380
More ....

Jimbo

07-11-2003, 03:02 PM

Again you demonstrate my point thomastem, thanks again. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Chris Moneymaker is ranked 18th yet has won more money this year than any other player listed in the tournament rankings. Why is Phil there at all you ask? Because he entered many more tournaments though his profit to expense ratio is certainly worse than Mr. Moneymakers. Which would you rather be? Number three and a money loser or number 18 and money ahead by about $2,499,960.00 ?

Bama Boy

07-11-2003, 03:12 PM

Cardplayer shows Phil H. with $677,170 in tournament winnings for the year so far. If his yearly expenses for playing are roughly $600,000 a year, then he obviously is up some for the year, but clearly not alot in comparison to what he spends. He also has 4 1/2 months of poker to win or lose more, but a lot of the bigger events have already taken place.

Good for Phil he has a new book and UB to fall back on.

Tommy Angelo

07-11-2003, 03:50 PM

As to Phil the writer ... when I pick up a Card Player, I often start with Phil's article because I can count on being entertained.

As to Card Player ... it ain't Harper's and doesn't claim to be. And hey, it's free. Nobody there owes us a thing.

As to Phil ... I've played ring game no-limit with the guy a few times, and we've had a few emails, and he's a-okay in my book. Noisy, but not mean. Kinda like Ulysses. :-)

Tommy

cferejohn

07-11-2003, 04:47 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Cardplayer shows Phil H. with $677,170 in tournament winnings for the year so far. If his yearly expenses for playing are roughly $600,000 a year, then he obviously is up some for the year, but clearly not alot in comparison to what he spends. He also has 4 1/2 months of poker to win or lose more, but a lot of the bigger events have already taken place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, he can only win more, not lose it. The $600,000 figure was for the entire year, meaning he hasn't actually spent it yet. I'm inclined to think he has more skill than he lets on in his writing (not sure if it is intentional or if he is just a crappy writer). Even given that he has the advantage of entering nearly every event, which I can't imagine a lot of players do, I have a hard time thinking that 9 WSOP bracelets is due to luck.

Otoh, it would be nice if those CardPlayer rankings deducted money spent on entry fees in qualifying events (they must have this data, since they know who entered what), and then make the list such that you need to have entered at least 5 events (or some cutoff) to qualify for the list. Kind of like a batting title in baseball.

Ed Miller

07-11-2003, 07:37 PM

You keep saying that Phil has won lots of money, and you can't argue with results. My question is, how much money, exactly, has Phil won? I mean net... wins minus losses (minus poker-related expenses).

You have no idea, and neither do I. So no one is going to be compelled by the "look how much money" argument.

TimTimSalabim

07-11-2003, 08:02 PM

He sure the heck makes it to a lot of final tables of major tournaments. Now, maybe it's because he enters all the major tourneys, but then so do a lot of players who don't do nearly as well.

And, of course, had I bothered to read the rest of this thread before I posted this, I would have seen that someone has already posted his ranking, which looks pretty damn good.

TimTimSalabim

07-11-2003, 08:14 PM

So basically, he'll probably clear over a million by the end of the year, minus 600k expenses. I'd settle for a 400k salary for playing tournament poker and be laughing at my critics all the way to the bank.

bernie

07-11-2003, 08:28 PM

hey, that's a world champion youre besmirchin'.

yknow, i wonder why he didnt also state the reasoning behind this fact. there had to be one. it couldnt have been a stand alone 'fact' without explanation.

ive also noticed when he's on scenes in the WPT that theyve been showing him and some of his actions when he loses. just quick cut scenes, but most dont paint him in the best light.

could you imagine if he didnt bet on that fact? it couldve easliy showed up in his book under a handranking or some crap.

b

bernie

07-11-2003, 08:36 PM

especially if you take away the big win. how much has he won. remember, he was near bankruptcy a little bit ago. personally, i think his column pays for more bills than his playing does. along with endorsements.

i wish cardplayer would add the net money in the tourney player rankings. i think that may suprise alot of believers.

b

bernie

07-11-2003, 08:41 PM

unless youve seen some of the payouts on the final table. the bottom end of the table, places 10-5, dont really pay that much in general compared to the initial buy in.

you have to do more than just make the final table.

b

sleepyjoeyt

07-11-2003, 08:56 PM

i've only read about half these posts but i can't take it any more.

if you guys really think this guy is a horrible writer, fine. if you think he's an A-hole, fine. A childish brat, that's your opinion.

But if you think that he wouldn't eat your lunch at the poker table - you really need to sit down and get some air.

I'm not a rich guy but I'd bet everything I own that 99.9% of the poker players in the world would get their clock cleaned by this guy.

There's a reason he's got more bracelets than an octopus could wear.

And the fact that he has made stupid bets here and there, who cares? A great poker player does not necessarily translate into a brain surgeon or even a great gambler.

But with a deck of cards in front of him he's as good as it gets.

rkiray

07-11-2003, 08:56 PM

Have you seen his book? He has insane card values IMHO. He does not differentiate suited vs. unsuited and he considers 77 one of the "10 best hands for limit hold'em" which is a complete joke, IMHO. The sad think is some of this has leaked over onto these forums. In one post I said someone should fold 77 to a raise against a single opponent, where he reraised. He replied I obviously didn't know that 77 was one of the 10 best hands in limit hold'em. After reading his book, I have no idea how he does so well. Maybe it's just a fraud. He heard Doyle regreted publishing Super/System, so he put out a book with bad advise. That is half in jest.

Ed Miller

07-11-2003, 09:23 PM

I'm relatively certain that the "fact" was that AKo can make one of two flushes... and the one of two four-flushes comes more often than the one three-flush.

bernie

07-11-2003, 09:39 PM

youd be even a less richer guy if you made that bet.

though i will say, with his style, on the right tables, he'd be much better than average. a nice weak-tight table. but the bar for average is pretty low in a ringgame. against the top grinders, he'd get his @ss handed to him

"But with a deck of cards in front of him he's as good as it gets."

until they cut the deck and deal maybe.

b

bernie

07-11-2003, 09:41 PM

am i understanding this?

it was said that its easier to flop a monotone board than a 2 tone board?

wow....

haha

b

Ed Miller

07-11-2003, 09:45 PM

I'm just guessing, but I think this makes sense.

bernie

07-11-2003, 09:49 PM

or could he mean that flopping 3 to a flush (2 on the flop) is easier than flopping 4 to a flush (2 on the flop, 2 in the hand)

if thats the case, does he mean hed chase to the turn trying to improve his flush?

eek

b

sleepyjoeyt

07-11-2003, 09:57 PM

I'm having trouble figuring out if you are kidding or if you really think you are a better poker player.

IF you really do think so, put down the grocery bag, tell your boss that you don't want to bag groceries anymore, and try playing the poker tour for a while and see how it goes.

bernie

07-11-2003, 10:17 PM

if i was playing for a living, and i did to a certain extent, i sure wouldnt be doing it on the tourney circuit other than to play the side games. which i did locally. and those games were great. the luck factor in tourneys is much higher to overcome.

sorry to say, but phil is highly overrated. as many 'known' tourney players are. especially when they get into the ringgames. not all, mind you.

the big tourneys arent the biggest test of one's holdem skill. oh, it takes some, but not nearly as much as a limit ringgame.

but if you really think phil is all that, then take notes when vince van patten speaks. he must be a genius too.

b

Jimbo

07-11-2003, 10:55 PM

Sleepyjoet since you clicked on my post to post yours I'll respond. You wrote:

"I'm not a rich guy but I'd bet everything I own that 99.9% of the poker players in the world would get their clock cleaned by this guy."

Phil has as good a chance of being the best slot machine player in the world as he does of being the best poker player in the world. As for cleaning clocks without his "outside" income Phil would be lucky to have a job cleaning clocks or toilets for that matter. With his attitude ie: Phil does not play well with others, he needs to be self employed. That attitude is his own worst enemy at the poker table as well. Untill he, and you for that matter, realize that you can only play poker so well and the turn of the cards takes care of the rest he will tilt himself out of as much money as he wins.

"There's a reason he's got more bracelets than an octopus could wear."

Yes there is, as I have said before it is because he enters as many or more tourneys than anyone else. Actually this one is so simple I shouldn't need to mention the reason.

In summary if you choose to bet everything you own I hope the bank owns most of your posessions so that the loss does not hurt you all that much.

Martin Aigner

07-11-2003, 11:03 PM

Maybe he thought it would be easyer to hit a straight with Ako than AKs. Who knows? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Best regards

Martin Aigner

sleepyjoeyt

07-12-2003, 08:28 AM

Did you start B & G Shrimp? Oh, no. That was that OTHER idiot.

Get a grip. HE TRAVELS THE POKER CIRCUIT AND PLAYS FOR A LIVING. Most people who post on this site are obviously into poker, and most would love to be able to play and travel for a living.

As I said before, I'd take him against 99% of the posters on this site IN A TOURNAMENT. As far as I know, he doesn't make his living on the side games. I have no personal or trusted knowledge about how he does in side games.

But in tournament poker he is one of the best players around. And anyone who thinks he's survived on the poker tournament trail this long because he is lucky is fooling themselves.

PuffsNutz

07-12-2003, 10:47 AM

I find it interesting that since UB raised its limits
from $10/20 max to $80/$160 that Phil Helmuth
never played higher than $10/$20....That is until
after this years WSOP and book royalties started
rolling in. Wonder how long it will last.

Jimbo

07-12-2003, 11:29 AM

sleepyjoet just wrote: "As I said before, I'd take him against 99% of the posters on this site IN A TOURNAMENT."

No sleepy what you said before was this: 'I'm not a rich guy but I'd bet everything I own that 99.9% of the poker players in the world would get their clock cleaned by this guy. "

Now 99.9% of all the poker players in the world is not the same as 99% of the poker players here on 2+2 only in tournament play. Either be consistent or quit changing your arguement to suit the situation.

In tourney play if Phil cashes 40% of the time he will be doing extremely well. He could not win 99% of the time if he had a crooked dealer cold decking you.

Bama Boy

07-12-2003, 12:56 PM

Ed Miller

07-12-2003, 04:04 PM

I'm not going to say anything about Phil's play. I am going to tell you a couple of things.

1) The posters on this site are not idiots. In fact, many of them are top notch players and thinkers.

2) Because of the hugely high variance inherent in tournament play, it is virtually impossible for anyone to have enough bankroll to ensure against ruin. This means that no matter how good any player is he is still likely to go broke if he plays the tournament circuit long enough.

3) Tournament players make lots of financial deals among one another... to the point that it's basically impossible for someone like you to know whose money he's playing at any given time. For someone as high-profile as Phil, he would have no problem finding someone else's money to play for a long time.

I'm not making any allegations about Phil's finances. What I am saying, though, is that just the fact that Phil has played consistently for twelve years on the poker tournament circuit alone is no proof whatsoever that Phil is even a winning player. When you combine this with observations about Phil... his attitude, his tendency to tilt, and his lack of understanding of the mathematics of the game (none of which are characteristics associated with winning poker play), hopefully you can understand the skepticism expressed on this site.

You should read Nolan Dalla's article on Pokerpages about playing tournaments for a living.

sleepyjoeyt

07-12-2003, 08:13 PM

You are correct that I need to watch the precise words I type. Here is my bottom line about everything that I have written.

I believe that Phil Hellmuth is an excellent tournament poker player.

I do not have any knowledge about how he does in side games.

If there were a huge tournament involving all the regular writers on this forum and Phil Hellmuth, I would bet on Phil Hellmuth, based on the concept that he has done extremely well in previous tournaments, and most of the other posters have not done as well (again, only basing this on info that I am aware of)

Obviously Phil would not beat anyone 99.9% of the time. NO ONE can beat anyone 99.9% of the time, just based on the randomness of cards.

However, I believe that he would be the one to bet on, based on his chances of placing in the money compared to other's chances.

I don't know anything specific about who is bankrolling who, who is out of money, who is bad at poker but makes good money bankrolling others, etc.

I believe that Phil makes people think he is a completely loose cannon with bad poker skills, either as a strategy or as a side effect of the fact that he often appears to be an ass.

I believe people on this site are kidding themselves if they think they would be a better tournament player than Phil.

Again, I don't know about ring games, but Phil has made his name as being an extremely successful tournament player.

And I believe it is not just a factor of entering all the tournaments. He won (I believe) two separate bracelets this year. I didn't do long math but I believe his winnings (after entry fees) cleared $500,000 for this year's WSOP. I would think that would cover his tournament entry fees for the rest of the year, no matter how many tournaments he enters.

I do not believe there are many people out there who have the ability to have this type of tournament success that he has had over the last 15 years. To read some posts make it sound like anyone could have this success if they just entered all the tournaments that he entered. I believe this is simply not true, and if it were true, I believe that most (if not all) of those people would enter all of the tournaments.

I believe we will never agree on this.

I believe at least 95% of the players in the world ( and probably on this site as well) grossly overestimate their own abilities.

I believe we keep track in poker by who makes the $, and I believe, at least in tournament poker, that Phil has made enough money to be above the petty shots people take from afar without venturing into his arena and seeing how they would fare.

Andy B

07-12-2003, 08:18 PM

Most people who post on this site are obviously into poker, and most would love to be able to play and travel for a living.

Let's see--I'm into poker. I have occasionally thought about trying to play for a living. In fact, I did try it, sort of, for a while. I might try it again some time. I would even like to travel to some of the larger tournaments some day, especially if I can tie it in with visiting the various friends and relations I have in CT, AZ, and other places. I have absolutely no interest, however, in traveling the circuit week in and week out. None. Why would you presume that that is what other people want to do? Is that what you want to do? Is it what you are doing, or are you taking steps in that direction? It may look like a glamorous lifestyle, especially on TV, but I suspect that playing tournaments week in and week out is about as much of a grind as playing in ring games week in and week out. Traveling is fun in small doses is fun, but I get tired of it very quickly. Do you want to spend all of your time living out of suitcases?

I'm not advocating either lifestyle, but I think that many, not all, and certainly not most, but many full-time middle-limit pros enjoy a much better quality of life than a lot of the big name pros. Whether or not that includes Phil Hellmuth I don't know, and I don't much care, either.

And Jimbo is no idiot.

Jimbo

07-12-2003, 08:45 PM

"And Jimbo is no idiot. "

Many thanks Andy B, after responding to some of these posts I ocassionally begin to wonder myself. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

As far as your last post sleepyjoyt I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote. You were much more realistic in your analysis of Phil's potential and success. Personally I never claimed to be a better tournament player than Phil although statistically there are other posters on this site that probably both cash in tournays a higher percentage of the time than Phil and use their own money as well.

I have played in mid-limit ring games with Phil with no concern as to who he is or his mighty psychic abilities. I have watched him play in high-limit ring games where he is the one trying to identify the sucker in the game. There is zero chance he is $500K ahead in net profit for the year in tournament play but I don't really care all that much about his finances since I do not intend to loan him a $100 for a massage.

sleepyjoeyt

07-12-2003, 09:58 PM

He won in excess of $600,000 at the WSOP. His buy-ins could not be more than $75,000 for the WSOP (assuming he played all tourneys except seniors and women). So, if he had some side financing, then that throws this whole thing into array. But if he was playing his own money all the time at the WSOP, then he walked away from there ahead at least $500,000.

All I'm saying is that you cannot get that far ahead and win as often as he does without having some strategy that is effective. Robert Varkonyi and Chris Moneymaker are examples of flash in the pan, lightning in a bottle, unbelievable luck, whatever. I say that they are examples because they won the biggest tournament in the world without ever having won anything else (to my knowledge). If either of them starts to win consistently, then logic would say that maybe one of them, although unorthodox, has found some strategy that works for them.

Again, in ring games, I know nothing about Phil. But from what I know, the skills needed for side games are vastly different (maybe even vastly more advanced) than the skills needed for tourneys.

Either way, Phil, historically, will go down as a far superior tournament player than all but a handful of people. He HAS to at least have a little bit of a clue regarding tournaments. And for several posters on this site to claim how clueless he is just makes no sense to me.

How many of you guys think you could play in the NFL too, only if you wanted to?

Jimbo

07-12-2003, 10:25 PM

"All I'm saying is that you cannot get that far ahead and win as often as he does without having some strategy that is effective."

Yes you can, it is called standard deviation and winning often because you enter more often. Two facts you or Phil may bever recognize to be true but that non-belief does not make them false. In all reality if there was not at least one average tourney player with Phil's statistics that would be an even bigger anomaly than the fact that Phil does exist.

sleepyjoeyt

07-12-2003, 10:42 PM

My understanding of standard deviation is the Robert Varkonyi, Chris Moneymaker situation.

How many tourneys has Phil placed in the money? It can't be just random luck.

He has 8 or 9 bracelets, and I'd guess he has placed in the money in AT LEAST 25 MAJOR TOURNAMENTS. Standard Deviation does not cover this.

If you want to have a discussion of standard deviation, this is an area that I am very comfortable in discussing. 25 tournament payouts is beyond "standard deviation" even considering the # of tourneys he enters.

Here's a question for you:

I have two coins: 1 is gold on both sides and the other is gold on one side and silver on the other. I flip one coin and see the result is gold. What are the odds that the other coin also shows gold?

HINT: 99% of the world gets this wrong!!!!

Ed Miller

07-13-2003, 06:34 AM

This is my last post in this thread. You simply don't understand Jimbo's argument, sleepyjoeyt. Jimbo's argument can be rephrased this way...

Say there are 10 million poker players of equal ability in this world. Say they all start at zero and play non-raked (zero sum) poker for an equal (but long) period of time. Even though the players are equal in strength, only 66% of them will fall within one standard deviation of zero for any given time period. Not only that, but at least one of them will likely experience results that are five standard deviations above the mean! This would translate to being ahead an absolutely immense amount of money.

No doubt this person would be heralded as a genius... a poker savant. No one can quite understand why he has performed so well... his understanding of the game seems no better than anyone else's. Yet he has performed head-and-shoulders better than anyone else. Ergo, there must be something we are missing... he must be more talented than all the others... otherwise, how could he have performed so remarkably well for so long?

Well, obviously the answer is that he has experienced 1-in-10 million luck. He was the one that was magically struck by lightning. Jimbo's point is that, out of the innumerable people who play tournament poker, at least one is bound to be struck by lightning and be an immense lifelong winner without any more skill than anyone else.

Jimbo's (and my) point that you are simply missing is that one cannot evaluate someone's tournament poker skill based on results alone. It is simply impossible to do, as any person could be the one struck by five standard devs above the mean lightning. We have to evaluate poker skill based on a person's knowledge of poker theory... his intellect... the quality of his decision-making process. I am confident that David Sklansky is a good poker player because he can explain why he is a good poker player.

Phil Hellmuth, try as he might, simply cannot explain why he is a good poker player. His understanding of poker theory is very sketchy... exemplified by the bet he made that AKo wins more hands than AKs and the theoretical disaster-area that is his book. He believes in money management voodoo and clearly doesn't appreciate the random aspects of the game... leading to his bizarre emotional outbursts and incessant whining. Could you imagine Sklansky ranting as Hellmuth does? Is it because Sklansky has superhuman-like self-control? No... it is because Sklansky understands the math behind the game and knows that he wins just as often as he is "supposed" to and loses as often as he is "supposed" to.

So the evidence that matters tends to discredit the notion that Hellmuth is a superstar poker mind... and his record of tournament success does little to prove his case.

This is the point trying to be made to you, sleepyjoeyt.

sleepyjoeyt

07-13-2003, 08:10 AM

So, is it universally agreed that Phil Hellmuth is this anomaly to the general rules regarding standard deviation? I guess I'm asking if it is commonly believed that Phil is clueless and wins despite this, as the one in 10 million example you've given.

I've just seen other threads in this site referring to other champions as "bad poker players". Someone started a thread saying Gus Hansen is a horrible poker player. This was an easy thing for someone to say, based on Gus' play of cards like 10 7 off or 5 6 off. However, he seemed to play extremely well after the flop and was impossible to put on a hand. I thought this made him extremely effective in tournament poker, but someone else thought he was a horrible player simply because he didn't play only the top cards.

Whatever. I've read a few books, although I have not read Hellmuth. My theory, in most situations, is that legal phrase: Res Ipsa Loquitur, which roughly translates to the thing speaks for itself.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, etc. than it is usually a duck.

His record creates a rebuttable presumption that he is an exceptional tournament player. I have never taken the time to try to rebut this presumption.

If you have, and are confident that he is not as good as his record, then I don't have any evidence to prove otherwise.

Maybe Phil is the one time where the coin is flipped and comes up heads 100 times in a row.

I just want to make it clear that this is usually not the case, and that absent any real solid evidence, one ought to assume that if the coin comes up heads 100 times, maybe its not just luck. Maybe the game is rigged.

rigoletto

07-13-2003, 12:23 PM

So, is it universally agreed that Phil Hellmuth is this anomaly to the general rules regarding standard deviation?

The point is that it isn't an anomaly!

nicky g

07-14-2003, 06:51 AM

For the hell of it, I'm going to come in on Phils's side here. He may know nothing about poker theory, believe a bunch of nonsense about money management etc, (and sounds liek a flake ina dozen other ways) but it seems to me he's nonetheless a very aggressive tournament player who also seems to know when to make big calls etc, which IMHO is a recipe for (tournament) success. He would have been a serious contender for both this year's and last year's world championship had it not been for a couple of bad beats towards the end. Granted, that is not unusual in tournament poker, but both times he'd accumulated huge stacks and lost them all-in with the best hand. Last year his decision to call was at least debatatable, this year it wasn't. He also made the final table in 2001, let us remember.
I have to say, even if this is bound to happen to someone at some time, assuming that Phil is the 10 million-to-one shot person who gets a fantastic run of cards for his whole life over simply assuming he's a very good tournament player is not very rational. Also, I doubt there are eough people playing the big buy-in tournament circuit for Rigoletto's assertion that this wouldn't be an anomaly to hold true.
Also, noone has convincingly shown how Phil could have blown his $600,000 win at this year's WSOP in tourney fees alone. I'm quite happy to admit that he may well lose the lot playing Chinese Poker and heads up Omaha 8 against world experts and various other stupid things I've read about him doing, but I think you guys are being a bit perverse trying to argue that as a tournament player he is simply lucky or an expected blip. Even Mason said that the limit holdem section of his book is very good, and as I understand it that's the only part if the book that deals exclusively with tournament play.
Apologies if I have misunderstood or misrepresented anyone.

rigoletto

07-14-2003, 09:37 AM

First of all: I don't know much about Phil except from some of his writing and the talk on this board. I commented on the anomaly thing since none of the phil supporters seem to understand the concept of standard deviation in the tournament contex and with your comment:

assuming that Phil is the 10 million-to-one shot person who gets a fantastic run of cards

you don't seem to understand either. Let me quote from Majorkongs post:

Even though the players are equal in strength, only 66% of them will fall within one standard deviation of zero for any given time period. Not only that, but at least one of them will likely experience results that are five standard deviations above the mean!

The hard part to grasp is probably that a tournament is one event in the statistical world - it is like 1 hand played with 400 people (or however many entered the tournament) - and in ring games 1 hand is 1 event. If you posted on this board that you had won 10BB/hr in 500 hands everybody would tell you that it was luck and that your sample was to small. Of course it is harder to win against 400 people than against 10. But if you drew numbers amongst 400 people on 100 occasions, instead of playing poker, you would also have somebody that was 5 standard deviations over the mean - does that make them better at drawing a number!

Even Mason said that the limit holdem section of his book is very good, and as I understand it that's the only part if the book that deals exclusively with tournament play.

Mason actually wrote:

To accurately review the book, the three limit hold ’em strategy chapters need to be separated from the rest of the text. Simply put, this is some of the most bizarre advice I have ever read!

Wether Phil has made any money or not is hard to tell but I think you should read Nolan Dalla's article (http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/dalla27.htm) about tournament play as suggested by Majorkong, and be sure to read Daniel Negreau's response (http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/negreanu12.htm). I found both very enlightening.

it seems to me he's nonetheless a very aggressive tournament player who also seems to know when to make big calls etc, which IMHO is a recipe for (tournament) success.

You are probably right here. Guts and handreading skills are good tournament qualities and it is probably enough to make phil an above average tournament player. Let's just say that Phil is among the top 30% of players in the tournament circuit, this only makes it more likely that his results comes from a normal statistical distribution of wins among the top 30% of players. Let's remember that the argument of this thread is wether his wins/placing in tournaments proves that Phil is an outstanding pokerplayer (at some point reduced to tournament player) or not - would you say that a tennis pro is outstanding if he's among the top 30%?. I would guess that he's above average at tournament play, but putting him on a pidestal as some obviously do seems to be overdoing it (end understatement!).

nicky g

07-14-2003, 10:21 AM

Gah! I meant to say the limit hold'em tournament section, not the limit hold'em section.

I really doubt that Phil is only in the top 30% of tournament pros. I would say top 5% at the very, very least. I understand that he could just have got a better than average distrubution of cards, but I don't see that this is a more logical or likely explantation than the possibilty that he might be a top class tournament player, or any strong evidence for it. There is plenty of evidence that he is a bad cash player, a bad gambler, a bad accountant, and has little grasp of poker theory, but little that I can see that he is a merely average or lucky tournament player.

I've read the Nolan Dalla article. The point of it, as far as I can see, is that the expenses of living on the road etc, the short term luck and large swings (leading people to overestimate their true win rate and thus overspend) and the constant pressure to gamble makes it virtually impossible to make a good, steady living out of it or to avoid going broke at some point, and has reduced a lot of "stars" to conmen and thieves. I'm sure it is very difficult to make a living on the circuit, and Phil's expenses alongside his obvious major leaks may well eat up all his winnings. But I have to think that purely in terms of tournament buy-ins versus wins he is coming out very far ahead. Incidentally, though it's hard to know for sure, most of the stories you hear of deals etc are about Phil bankrolling other players (eg Tom McEvoy) rather than vice-versa.

nicky g

07-14-2003, 10:44 AM

I really don't think that a solid theoretical grasp of poker is what makes the better tournament players great players. Phil is not the only example of someone who says pretty dumb things about poker but seems to do well. TJ Cloutier's books are pretty crappy (think of his theory about "timing" - ie blind luck - in his PLHE and NLHE book), nowhere near as good as any Sklansky book you care to mention, including his tournament book. If I had the choice between backing TJ or Sklansky in a tournament, I know who I'd chose. I doubt if any of the top tournament winners are Sklansky-style theoreticians - they can't all be predictable standard variation blips. I don't accept that being able to explain how to play well and being able to play well are the same thing.
Regarding Phil's outbursts, you can understand the randomness of the game and still lose your temper over outdraws etc. That's just human nature; people don't want to wait for the long term to even out, they want their reward now.

rigoletto

07-14-2003, 10:54 AM

Hi Nicky

The point has been explained in different ways by now and you still insist that Phils tournament results is proof that he's in the top 5%, which tells me that you still don't understand the statistical concepts behind this. When you state the following:

I really doubt that Phil is only in the top 30% of tournament pros. I would say top 5% at the very, very least. I understand that he could just have got a better than average distrubution of cards, but I don't see that this is a more logical or likely explantation than the possibilty that he might be a top class tournament player, or any strong evidence for it.

You are putting the argument upside down: when you (and others) say he's a top notch player it becomes your job to argue that position. The argument so far has been based on phils results and it has been shown that they are not proof of the claim. Now you are actually saying that because we can't prove you wrong your claim is valid. You might aswell argue that Phil is god (he'd probably enjoy that) - we can't prove you wrong on that point either.

The posters here are very sceptical about Phil's abilities based on his own writing. They could, of course, be wrong but to keep citing Phil's trackrecord as unrefutable proof of his abilities is not prooving them wrong!

rigoletto

07-14-2003, 11:01 AM

I have two coins: 1 is gold on both sides and the other is gold on one side and silver on the other. I flip one coin and see the result is gold. What are the odds that the other coin also shows gold?

So! What's the answer - I've been holding my breath to long on this one, please!

nicky g

07-14-2003, 11:31 AM

I don't think you quite understand what I am saying. I understand the point that someone's tournament results cannot be taken as incontrovertible, 100% reliable indicators of their tournament skill. But they nevertheless consititue pretty damn strong evidence in favour of it, simply because the vast majority of tournament players with consistently good results over many years are strong players rather than extreme standard variations. Answer me this:

We have a tournament player who has had excellent results for 15 years, let us call him Pete Hotmouth. In the absence of any evidence regarding his playing abilities other than his results, which of the following is more likely:

A) He has been the beneficiary of an unusual-but-to-be expected-very-very-occasionally standard variation in the cards he has been getting.

B)He is a very strong tournament player.

Both are possible and both are irrefutable, but I don't see how you can argue that A) is more likely than B). Of course in Phil's case there is other evidence, but I have made several arguments regarding it. You haven't answered my points about other strong tournament players who are less than eloquent about poker theory, nor the simple fact that Mason did in fact describe Phil's limit tournament section, the only section exclusively about tournament play, as "very good". Is the order in which he wrote those words just an exected statistical variation too?
/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

nicky g

07-14-2003, 11:44 AM

"They could, of course, be wrong but to keep citing Phil's trackrecord as unrefutable proof of his abilities is not proving them wrong! "

I'm not offering irrefutable proof. I'm just saying that your scenario is less likely than the more obvious possibility that he is a very strong tournament player.

Kurn, son of Mogh

07-14-2003, 02:49 PM

Between the empiricist and the statistician!

This is one debate I enjoy to the max. While I tend to agree with Negreanu that the best poker players in the world may not be playing in tournaments (just as the best rock bands may not be touring at the behest of big record labels), I also mistrust arguments based solely upon statistics.

Well, obviously the answer is that he has experienced 1-in-10 million luck. He was the one that was magically struck by lightning. Jimbo's point is that, out of the innumerable people who play tournament poker, at least one is bound to be struck by lightning and be an immense lifelong winner without any more skill than anyone else.

This sounds like, "I think Phil H sucks and I can use statistics to prove it." Personally, I prefer to think of limit ring-game poker and NL tournament poker as two distinctly different games, and I think you provide a window to that difference here

because Sklansky understands the math behind the game and knows that he wins just as often as he is "supposed" to and loses as often as he is "supposed" to.

In this respect, limit poker is a bit like chess, but in big-bet poker, the best players know how to manipulate *both* the odds *and* their opponent's psyches in such a way that they win when they're "supposed to" lose and their opponents make mistakes and lose when they're "supposed to" win.

For me, I'll grant that the statistical explanation that Phil H sucks and is just one tiny tail of the Bell Curve is a valid observation. But just 'cause it's possible doesn't mean it's true.

rigoletto

07-14-2003, 04:19 PM

Like Nicky you have the statistical argument reversed! The discussion goes somewhat like this:

Someone makes fun of poor Phil and his inability to understand simple concepts in poker!

Some noble people comes to his defence arguing that his trackrecord proves that he is a poker prodegy.

Enter the statistical argument in the form of a rebuttle: Phil's trackrecord is not proof (note that nobody claims that this proves anything, it's just a rebuttle of the trackrecord argument).

Now the noble defenders say: but his trackrecord proves that he is a sublime tournament player.

The sceptics say: his trackrecord doesn't constitute proof, explains about SD (again) and adds that if you enter a lot of tournaments you are bound to get in the money sometimes.

The nobles say: but his trackrecord proves that he is a sublime tournament player and you can't prove otherwise.

etc.

nicky g

07-15-2003, 05:35 AM

Aarg. No. We are saying that his track record consititues very strong evidence that he is a class tournament player.

Jimbo

07-15-2003, 10:16 AM

Aarg. No. We are saying that his track record consititues very strong evidence that he is a class tournament player.

Wherupon you are just as likely incorrect due to what we have been saying. I'm not saying he is terrible, simply that he displays more traits of an average player than a WCP. In my mind this makes it much less likely he is a WCP and much more likely that he is in the right place at the right time.

Kurn, son of Mogh

07-15-2003, 10:41 AM

Nine bracelets is evidence. 5 SD's is speculation. Then again, the evidence clearly demonstrated that OJ was guilty, too.

Never let the facts get in the way of opinion.

There are three increasingly evil forms of untruth: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

folded_a_monster

07-16-2003, 01:50 AM

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Who wants to sit at a table with the top grinders? How can that game be profitable for anybody? As poker players we search for games which are weak, loose, soft, or crazy. Poker players who make their living that way make their money not by sitting down in any game and beating it, but by using game selection as their number one tool. Can Phil beat the best players in the world? Maybe, maybe not. But can he extract the most money from a no foldem game? No doubt. While a nuts and bolts pro will play by the book and win his fair share, the true hand/people readers like Phil and Men the Master will exploit every weakness and make moves at the right time, and take a bundle off the game. I'd rather be an above average player who uses great game selection than a great player who doesn't know how to choose a game. I'm not a fan or supporter of Phil's, but to make as many final tables as he has consistently for 15 years, it's just not possible for him not to be a great player.