Hellmuth's gotta be pissed - WSOP $3000 PL Hold 'Em

[bvaughn]

I am one of the few who like Phil Hellmuth, even though he has some childish outbursts. He usually has a good reason to be upset because most of the time, he is getting the money is as a favorite yet gets outdrawn. I think some players like to suckout on him just because he's Phil and they know he'll get upset.

Well, right about now Phil's probably fuming. He had come back from an all-in at the final table to build a decent stack, only to have two runner-runner suckouts put him out in 7th for $34,880.

His next to last hand he had QQ against A4s and got his opponent all-in preflop, only to have his opponent catch his flush on the turn and river. And his last hand he flops middle pair against his opponents bottom pair, gets put all-in, turns two pair but his opponent rivers a flush and Phil's done.

I think I'd be pretty pissed as well if that's how I went out of a huge buy-in WSOP tourney.

[daryn]

if you think about it, the best player in the world would be the guy who got sucked out on the most, because he would always be in there with the best of it.

phil is near the best in the world, that's why he gets drawn out on seemingly more than others.

[JTG51]

Oh man, this will make for some good TV.

[JTG51]

if you think about it, the best player in the world would be the guy who got sucked out on the most, because he would always be in there with the best of it.

That's some fuzzy logic. Always getting your money in with the best of it doesn't mean you get sucked out on more often. The converse is true. Getting your money in with the worst of it all the time will make you suck out more often. So great players probably don't get sucked out on more often than other players, but they definitley suck out less often.

[Packerfan1]

[ QUOTE ]
even though he has some childish outbursts

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying Attilla The Hun had an active outdoor lifestyle.

(credit to George Carlin) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Pack

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
That's some fuzzy logic. Always getting your money in with the best of it doesn't mean you get sucked out on more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's fuzzy logic at all. Your logic however is quite puzzling. The more times you get your money in with the best hand, the more times you'll get sucked out on. If you're constantly getting your money in with even money hands or the worst hand, there's less opportunities for you to be sucked out on, right? Hellmuth gets his money in with the best hand a lot of the time, so there's more chances for him to get sucked out on and he does.
-Andy

[MicroBob]

"He usually has a good reason to be upset because most of the time, he is getting the money is as a favorite yet gets outdrawn."


why is this a good reason to be upset??


just because someone beats you with a lousy hand is not justification to act like a 3-year-old. i'm not even sure it's justification to be upset at all....it's just the breaks of the game.
it happens everyday in poker and Phil acts like he has never seen a suck-out before.


if you have 5 consecutive all-in's where you are an 80% favorite then the odds are that you will lose one of those hands.

a lot of players seem to think '80% favorite' actually means '100% favorite'

[Grivan]

If your putting money in when you aren't the best of it, you are more then likely putting your money in when you are the best of it too. You are just putting your money in more often in total, so you will be sucked out on just as often.

[PAUL-IN]

there was a hand in the 2K PLHE event where Esfandiari had his chips all in preflop with QQ, vs. Hellmuth's KK. 4.5:1 favorite to win. what happens? you saw it. that was pretty damn brutal. runner runner boat beats 2nd nut flush? PLEASE. that's bad bad luck! if that river card hadn't paired esfandiari would have been in the hunt somewhere else. it seems to happen so often, and at such critical times for him that the other players can almost count on him to get KRAKKKED. simple: just go all in against him with a hand you KNOW is beat, and "DING!" you will get your miracle!!!!

anyway it's usually phil's bad beats especially at the final tables that get more attention than most, simply because he both reacts predictably dramatically, AND it's a hand that would have changed the course of the endgame.

[toots]

Seems to me that if you can't handle suck-outs and bad beats, you should find a different activity. As close as I can tell, they're just part of the poker landscape, and there's little you can do to avoid them, other than avoiding the game entirely.

[Tosh]

He maybe the world's biggest ass but he is still one the very best.

[daryn]

i stand by my logic. say a player never got his money in with the best of it, in other words he ALWAYS got his money in with the worst of it, and never else. this player would never be sucked out on. how could he? it wouldn't be a suckout if he went in with the worst of it and lost.

now take a guy who NEVER goes in with the worst of it. any time he loses a hand, it's a suckout!

sounds like solid logic to me!

also i think it was mentioned in theory of poker. if my memory serves me well, sklansky was saying that this was the opinion of bobby baldwin.

[Daliman]

course it's solid logic because it's true. However, he doesn't get drawn out on more often per hand involved, just more often per hand overall,as he is risking more often, which
there is something to be said for also. He'd probably get sucked out on less if he wasn't so loose aggressive and pushing every hand he is in.
That said, when's the last time you saw him NOT get knocked out or crippled late stages of a tournament by a suckout?
I can think of 4 suckouts off the top of my head, alothough Esfandiari's firstt WPT appearance, AE had PH dominated on his last hand

[balt999]

I know I'd be pissed if I got runner runnered when I have all my money in as a huge favorite...but 34K should ease the pain. On the flip, like most competitors, it's the winning that matters..

[toots]

I'd sure like to get to a point in my life when winning's more important than the money.

[JTG51]

...you are more then likely putting your money in when you are the best of it too.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Everyone else seems to be assuming that players that put their money in with the worst of it a lot don't put their money in with the best of it. That's not true. They put their money in all the time, so they put it in with the best of it just as often as good players.

[JTG51]

say a player never got his money in with the best of it, in other words he ALWAYS got his money in with the worst of it, and never else. this player would never be sucked out on. how could he?

That's fine, but players who get their money in with the worst of it all the time also get their money in with the best of it all the time. Probably even more often than great players since players who always put their money in don't make big laydowns, which are of course wrong sometimes. In order for your logic to be correct, the bad player would have to put his money in with the worst of it, but fold when he has the best of it. That's the fuzzy part.

Since we're making up imaginary players, lets make up two more. Player one goes all in every single hand. Player two only gets his money in with the best of it. Player one is horrible. He consistently gets his money in with the worst of it. Player two is the best player ever. So who gets it in with the best of it more often? Who's going to get sucked out on more often?

Player two will get sucked out on a higher percentage of the hands he actually plays, but the total number of suckouts will be exactly the same.

Maybe that's why we're disagreeing? You're talking about ratio of suckouts to hands played and I'm talking about total suckouts?

[JTG51]

also i think it was mentioned in theory of poker. if my memory serves me well, sklansky was saying that this was the opinion of bobby baldwin.

I looked this up. Bobby Baldwin actually said that a bad player will suck out on a good player more often than a good player will suck out on a bad player, which is obviously true and irrelevant to the question of who gets sucked out on more often overall.

[BettnTibetn]

was he crying when he lost in the 2003 world series...i think he was

[daryn]

exactly, i'm talking about suckouts to hands played. obviously if one guy plays a billion hands and another guy, who has an identical style plays only 10 hands, the billion hands guy will have more suckouts.


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
That's fine, but players who get their money in with the worst of it all the time also get their money in with the best of it all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not true. you probably misunderstood what i said. i was speaking of a hypothetical player who somehow ended up getting his money in with the worst of it ALL THE TIME. by "all the time" i don't mean often, i mean every single time. in other words, he NEVER gets his money in with the best of it.

[Easy E]

I think some players like to suckout on him just because he's Phil and they know he'll get upset


I'd bet this is a particular strategy that they plan for
when playing against Phil

[RowdyZ]

JTG51,

Come on dude, you made a silly statement stop digging yourself in deeper trying justify it.
Example 2 players heads ups, Good player who only gets his money in with the best of it and a bad player who put his money in regardless of situation, who is going to get sucked out on more? The good player, Because if the bad player IS putting his money in with best of it the good player isn't going to call him and suck out on him because he knows he has the worst of it.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
if you think about it, the best player in the world would be the guy who got sucked out on the most, because he would always be in there with the best of it.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely incorrect. The best player in the world is the one who plays with the highest expectation. It has nothing to do with how often he sucks out or gets sucked out on.

I can think of plenty of players who I am much better than who get their money in with the best of it more often (%-wise) than I do. They're mostly passive players who wait until they're sure they have the best of it before committing chips. This leads to them losing tons of small pots AND occasionally losing big ones when they get sucked out on.

To illustrate, I knew a guy in college who got his money in with the worst of it like twice over 3 years in our NL game. But he was CLEARLY a loser in the game. He folded the best hand so often that it didn't matter that he always got his money in with the best of it.

Phil "seemingly" gets drawn out on more than others because he makes a HUGE deal of every suckout and never shuts up about them, even years later.

[ QUOTE ]
phil is near the best in the world

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as Hold 'Em tournament play goes, I think this fact is indisputable.

The Bear

[deacsoft]

I couldn't agree more... with half of that. He truely is one of the world's best. He maybe seen as the world biggest ass by some, but allow me to be the first to point out that for every one Hellmuth childish episode there are 20,000 more through out the world. Just because Mr. Hellmuth is one of the world's best and he's on T.V. doesn't make him any bigger of an ass then the cry baby at your local poker room or casino. Not to mention the dozens or cry babies I see every day while playing on-line.

[daryn]

ok then, let me just say that the guy who gets his money in with the best of it most, takes the most bad beats.

that above statement is true, because in order to have a "bad beat" you have to get your money in with the best of it.

[TimTimSalabim]

It seems to me that Phil's greatest strength is his greatest weakness. He is able to make great reads, which causes him to call big bets knowing his medium-strength hand is the best hand, whereas other good players would fold, not being confident enough in their read. Thus, Phil often gets all his money in (or most of it) as a small to moderate favorite, and when he gets sucked out on, game over.

[fat_nutz]

Captain Obvious strikes again!

[Grivan]

[ QUOTE ]
this is not true. you probably misunderstood what i said. i was speaking of a hypothetical player who somehow ended up getting his money in with the worst of it ALL THE TIME. by "all the time" i don't mean often, i mean every single time. in other words, he NEVER gets his money in with the best of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This player cannot possibly exist, unless your implying that someone who is trying to win actually folds AA every time he has it, but yet somehow plays hands were he is behind.

[daryn]

of course i was talking about a hypothetical player, the "worst player in the world" or something like that. of course nobody could ever ALWAYS be in there with the worst of it.