Hellmuth Book "Controversy"?

[Still the Spank E]

I'm lost. Many posters have complained that Hellmuth's book is bad, yet the real issue, to me, is whether: a. Hellmuth is a bad poker player; or, b. Hellmuth is purposely giving out bad info in order to mislead the multitude. If his recommendations reflect the way he actually plays, then I don't accept the criticism of anyone who has not bested him at the tables. I mean, the proof is in the field of battle, not on paper. If, on the other hand, one thinks he's being disingenuous, that's a different story--one I would need some evidence for, of course, but it seems the only other authentic criticism one is in a position to make, as the other one amounts to: "Phil Hellmuth can't play poker." Arguing with his style of play without beating him with yours is silly to me.

[Zele]

This has come up many times in the past, and the upshot is that a) is indeed the case. The man can't beat a limit HE ring game. The limit HE section of the book is what attracted so much criticism.

[Still the Spank E]

That's amazing! 'Guess he's found a niche that works for him.

[jdl22]

I think that his strategy is not bad against opponents that pay attention and fold when they think that they are behind. Reading the opponents and knowing their cards is particularly important for his strategy since it is so aggressive. Unfortunately against the calling stations we love so much his strategy is absolutely awful since you can't bluff them off of anything and they are impossible to read because they play everything, and moreover play them the same way.

As for writing the bad book on purpose I don't see what he would gain from this. The odds of someone reading his book and then going to the 1000-2000 tables and playing with him are slim and playing lower limits for him is either not worth his time or he does it so he can make money off of UB. If he really wanted his book to benefit him he would write a good book that made successful players so that someone that read his book would be successful enough to make it up to his table level or helped spread the game as the early 2+2 books are given credit for.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
If his recommendations reflect the way he actually plays, then I don't accept the criticism of anyone who has not bested him at the tables. I mean, the proof is in the field of battle, not on paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a poor argument for justification.

let's see, so when a maniac is winning, he must be playing better than anyone who would be losing at the table, right? bad beat? nope you just got outplayed...i mean, it's all about the shortterm results, isn't it?

nope, it's not. and if you read other books youll see where on paper, it is shown mathematicallly/factually why in the long term his advice sucks.

b

[colgin]

My personal opinion is that Hellmuth was not intentionally trying to mislead players. I believe that Hellmuth cares too much about his integrity (and has too great an ego) to want to be associated with a book that is intentionally dishonest. That said, the advice in his book is largely bad. His book is clearly intended to be a primer (it's original title was "Let's Play Poker" and, thus, reflects that purpose). The problem is that it is a bad primer. Much of the advice, particularly with regards to limit hold 'em, will cause a player to lose a lot of money. You can run a search on the 2+2 boards and find literally hundreds of posts explaining in detail why his advice is so poor. There is no need to rehash those arguments in this thread. You can easily find them if you want to.

[ QUOTE ]
If his recommendations reflect the way he actually plays, then I don't accept the criticism of anyone who has not bested him at the tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Isn't it enough that there are legions of winning pplayers who can explain in specific detail why his advice will lose you money in the long run? Isn't it enough that virtually nobody has come forward to say that they play according to his book and have been a long term winner employing his strategies? His limit hold 'em advice is so weak that you can't even beat the play tables with it. I programmed Wilson Turbo Texas Hold 'Em to play according to his Top 10 hands strategy and it was a big long term loser (over a million hands played). I believe that there are quite a few people here who have played limit hold 'em with Hellmuth and can personally attest to his limitations in the ring. But I don't know why opinions on his book should be limited to those people. Undoubtedly, Hellmuth has won more money playing poker than I could ever hope to do in several lifetimes. So what? I am just interested in whether his advice will make me a winning poker player, which is my goal. I know first hand that following his advice makes me a loser, while following the advice of Lee Jones and to a much, much greater extent, Sklansky, Malmuth and my fellow 2+2 posters makes me a winning player. I actually like Phil H. as a poker personality and tournament player and genuinely wish him the best of luck in future tourneys. I just think the advice in his book largely stinks and players should follow it at their own peril.

[RydenStoompala]

I just checked the top ten list for 2003 on Cardplayer. How bad can the book be? I just wished Phil had written a series of war stories rather than a pseudo-advice book.

[scotnt73]

i think he just wanted to cash in on the holdem book craze so he took a good playing strategy and tweaked it to make it a bit different and more aggressive then waited for the money to come in. it absolutely sucks and he should be ashamed of it. of course as stated on the simpsons-

reporter:"How do you sleep with yourself at night?"
mcbane:"on piles and piles of money with lots of beutiful women." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Still the Spank E]

I think we can both agree that his career (at least since his WSOP win some 14 years ago) is a long enough sample from which to draw conclusions concerning the long term implications of the way he plays. Again, assuming that he has simply transcribed his strategy of play onto paper, the results, in this case, have to speak for themselves. It's NOT like the maniac winning the first few hands upon first sitting down to the table and then declaring: "I'm great! Mine is the best strategy!" I don't understand how NOT to see Hellmuth's playing career as the laboratory in which his theories acquire weight. A lot of weight, in fact.

[Still the Spank E]

I don't actually have a view of Hellmuth's book other than to say that it reads like an attempt to write a readable book on basic hold 'em geared toward, way, 16 year olds. I also do not believe in any way that Hellmuth attempted to mislead in anyway (I was only responding to what I took to be a sarcastic remark I read somewhere). The book is entirely minor and eminently dismissable, but has the odd bit of info I found useful. It is not as good a primer as Lee Jones' book, but reads more like "See Spot Run" than 2+2 books do: something for which there is very certainly a market.

[bernie]

1 point is because he was not the sole support of his own career. he did not make the money using all his own. he's had backers that helped out when he'd have been long gone. where would he be without them? he was nearly broke a year or so ago. good thing his wife makes good coin, from what i read. hell, if someone backed me when i was down so i could still go into tourneys, that's a nice additive. there's also alot of luck in tournies. ALOT of luck. many tourney players suck at a ring game. just as many ringgamers dont do well in tournies.

but to say that just because who he is and what he's accomplished on the surface should be justification enough, and that no one, unless theyve personally beat him, should criticize his theories...is wrong.

his theories have been proven why they dont work. especially in a ring game. which, btw, word is, he's a big donator. if he cant run over a game, he cant handle it. i dont see him having a grinder mentality for that type of holdem.

i will give him credit for a great feel of the game and a great hand reader. but other than that...

play his way in a ring game at you're own risk.

b

[LetsRock]

I've read Phil's book.

I don't suscribe to his tactics, but I do believe that if one were to stumble upon the "perfect" table, his unusual method would do well. I can't imagine a scenario that I would be in position to implement his methods, but I can envision that he could be.

I don't know anything of his play; I know that he is considered a formidable tourney player and is also considered (at least by many on this forum) an "awful" LL Limit player. These two formats have completely different styles and I could see where his more aggressive style would be more effective in tourney play.

Although I wouldn't suggest that anyone use his book as a how-to, I would highly reccommend it as a good read that will give you a clue what his followers are up to. You'll recognize them in about 5 hands and you'll know where they learned from. It's always good to understand where your opponent is coming from.

If you want to throw the table off, play a few orbits at a new table in his style and you won't have any trouble getting action on your AA raises later on.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can both agree that his career (at least since his WSOP win some 14 years ago) is a long enough sample from which to draw conclusions concerning the long term implications of the way he plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

His success has come in tournaments (mostly no-limit). His advice is for limit ring-games.

[ QUOTE ]
It's NOT like the maniac winning the first few hands upon first sitting down to the table and then declaring: "I'm great! Mine is the best strategy!"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's like the maniac winning the local no-limit tourney, then trying to run over the 3/6 game by playing the same way.

[Still the Spank E]

If this is so (his sucking in cash games), and EVERYONE says that it is, then you (and pudley4) are, of course, quite right. I didn't know this about his being almost bust last year. Interesting. Thanks for the info.

[SheridanCat]

This has been mentioned, but could stand repeating. Phil Hellmuth is a respected and successful no-limit holdem tournament player. The advice that is most controversial in his book is for limit holdem. There is a vast difference between limit holdem ring games and no-limit tournament games. I think this may be a distinction you're not fully understanding.

The style of limit play advocated in "Play Poker Like The Pros" is highly aggressive and loose. This is a recipe for trouble for an experienced player, but it spells disaster for the target audience for this book.

"So," you may be asking, "if Phil is just priming players to come to the tables and play badly against us, that's a good thing."

The problem is, people who play as suggested in this book will lose all of their money fast. People who lose all their money fast may decide they're not cut out for the game and we lose that player.

Anyhow, that's my problem with the book. I think there is okay advice to be found in other parts of the book, but not the limit holdem parts.

Regards,

T

[crockpot]

though i have seen hellmuth play like an idiot on UB many times, i'm convinced it's just because he wants to generate attention and the money means nothing to him. (also, his play is more suited to tournaments than ring games.)

i think the real problem is that he wants to teach poker to people who aren't willing to study hard to get better. and to be fair, if i took two people who sucked at hold 'em, gave them HFAP and play poker like the pros and a half hour each to read them, the hellmuth reader would play better at the end of the half hour.

of course, people who do well at poker don't learn it in a half hour. but impatient people who think they're getting better through an easy read make up a large market, so hellmuth's book rockets to the bestseller's list of poker tomes.

[TimTimSalabim]

I would certainly agree that much of the advice in the limit holdem section is questionable, however, I found it did one important thing, which is cause me to examine my own game and see where I was being too conservative and predictable. I also like using the animal names as a shortcut for making quick notes on players when I'm playing online. Overall, I think that his advice works better in a game where there are lots of "jackals" and very few "elephants", which is probably the case in certain higher-limit games that he's used to playing in.

Book aside, I don't see how anyone can argue that he's less than a world-class tournament player.

[bernie]

most of those top tourney players have backers and are not self supported. nolan dalla(?) wrote a great article about it. im not sure if it was on pokerpages or in cardplayer. but someone should be able to provide a link to it. others have also written about this subject in various articles.

b

[Still the Spank E]

I saw the Nolan Dalla article I think you're referring to. It was pretty depressing.

[TimTimSalabim]

In order to have backers year in and year out, they must be winning tournament players. Neither backer or player is going to continue doing what they're doing if they don't profit from it.

[Still the Spank E]

I realize it's just me, but I'd rather live free or die! But that's just me. I do, of course, realize that backers cut down on one's exposure to bad cards at inopportune moments. It STILL diminshes my respect for the players slightly.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Tim:

What you're saying isn't correct. By switching backers when you're losing, it i very possible for the player to make money and his backers to lose overall.

Best wishes,
mason

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
In order to have backers year in and year out, they must be winning tournament players. Neither backer or player is going to continue doing what they're doing if they don't profit from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually an otherwise losing player could quite easily profit from this situation, mainly by seeking payouts of high variance. Classic principal-agent problem. See also financial options or bonus-based compensation, among others.

[bernie]

i think dan negreaneu also did a good article on it also. but im not sure what it's called. it's probably on his website.

b

[Still the Spank E]

There's a link to it at the end of the Dalla article at Poker Pages.

[JTrue]

The link for Nolan Dalla's article on Tournament Players is http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/dalla27.htm. Don't miss Daniel Negreanus response on the the bottom of the page.

[Aceshigh7]

[ QUOTE ]
The style of limit play advocated in "Play Poker Like The Pros" is highly aggressive and loose. This is a recipe for trouble for an experienced player, but it spells disaster for the target audience for this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all respect, have you actually read the book? Highly aggressive, yes. But loose? Of course not. Phil's advice is bordering on super tight.

[jdl22]

Bordering? He says to play ten hands. Granted he doesn't mention suited or not and two of them aren't pairs so it's actually twelve, but this is super tight by any definition.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
He says to play ten hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit of a misconception. He tells BEGINNERS to play 10 hands. Later in the book he adds all pairs, KQ, Axs, and suited connectors above 67s and the situations where these hands become playable. I'm all for bashing Phil's book, but in fairness lets keep the facts straight.

[DonWaade]

[ QUOTE ]
With all respect, have you actually read the book? Highly aggressive, yes. But loose? Of course not. Phil's advice is bordering on super tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I forgot that 77 being a top ten hand meant "super tight." Where DID I put my HEFAP? Oh thats right, it is with the other books that have poker theroy value.

[SheridanCat]

Yes, I read the book. I'll have to take another look at it, as I almost instantly ignored the advice given in the limit holdem section.

Regards,

T

[JTrue]

That is the section this thread is about. THE misinformation in the LIMIT HOLDEM SECTION!!!

[el_grande]

I have the book on order because I actually like Phil Hellmuth (the dude cracks me up), but I'm going to be taking everything in it with skepticism.

After reading his "hand of the day" archives from http://www.philhellmuth.com/ I'm not sure the guy is always honest. I mean, 3 times he mentions that he made the wrong play because he forgot what his hole cards were. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm lost. Many posters have complained that Hellmuth's book is bad, yet the real issue, to me, is whether: a. Hellmuth is a bad poker player; or, b. Hellmuth is purposely giving out bad info in order to mislead the multitude. If his recommendations reflect the way he actually plays, then I don't accept the criticism of anyone who has not bested him at the tables. I mean, the proof is in the field of battle, not on paper. If, on the other hand, one thinks he's being disingenuous, that's a different story--one I would need some evidence for, of course, but it seems the only other authentic criticism one is in a position to make, as the other one amounts to: "Phil Hellmuth can't play poker." Arguing with his style of play without beating him with yours is silly to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Style described in phil's book is not the one he plays himself.
He's a terrible writer.
Advice is too dumbed down and in few sections incorrect, making it unusable.
There is zero information in the book that's not found in earlier publications.

[LionelHutz]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Hellmuth cares too much about his integrity (and has too great an ego) to want to be associated with a book that is intentionally dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please explain the controversy with that UB tournament that had no real prize pot?

[Easy E]

yet the real issue, to me, is whether: a. Hellmuth is a bad poker player; or, b. Hellmuth is purposely giving out bad info in order to mislead the multitude. If his recommendations reflect the way he actually plays, then I don't accept the criticism of anyone who has not bested him at the tables

What if he is "accidently" giving out bad info? As in, he doesn't know better?
And if people are busting him up at the low limit tables, does that mean they can criticize?

Just because he has done well at tournaments doesn't mean he is a good poker player or that his written advice should be followed.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because he has done well at tournaments doesn't mean he is a good poker player or that his written advice should be followed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with this if he had just won one or even two tournaments. Sure any reasonable player can win the big one (see R. Varkonyi) but this man has 9 bracelets. I don't think that an average or even slightly above average player could win 9 bracelets. He's is better than good. His poker skills are clearly top notch.

As for the quality of his character and his book writing skills, those are more questionable.

[daryn]

i think you're missing the point here. no sane man on earth would argue that phil h. is not an incredible no limit holdem tourney player.. maybe the best!

when people criticize him they are talking about his limit holdem game.

but he did actually win a limit holdem tourney at the wsop , so whatever!

[daryn]

were you trying to be sarcastic? being tight isn't about what hands you play, it's about how many. say i played no hand other than 72o, i would be the tightest player in the world!

[Easy E]

because I agree with you, Phil's tournament skill have to be very good in order to have his record.

However, based on his written advice and what I've heard about his limit poker play, I'm not sure Phil's tournament mastery carries over.

Anyone know how he does in bigger ring games? Either higher limits or PL/NL?