Is Phil Helmuth even THAT good?

[RPatterson]

I'm reading his article at http://www.philhellmuth.com/hotw.html and I'm starting to seriously question if he could even turn a profit at online tournaments. His play seems incredibly weak like he always assumes his opponent has him beat. Phil also doesn't seem to adjust to the calibre of opponent he is in the pot with.

Also maybe I'm retarded but it seems like he's making fundamental mistakes like smooth calling with Kings in a multi-way raised pot and then folding when rags flop? What the hell is he doing? Or he knows his opponent is bluffing but rather than shut him down he lets him catch an overcard?

The worst is how Phil will say "I put him on pocket Jacks but I folded my Queens anyways, he showed 7's but that's alright, don't want a 7 to come off and break me". What world does he live in? He gets a read that he is a 4-1 favorite to call all-in but he folds for fear he'll be drawn out on? How will he ever win a tournament playing like that?

I'm starting to think Helmuth sucks.

[sucka]

One thing is for sure...

He is about the whiniest SOB I've ever seen. I especially love the way he is 'entitled' to these pots that he lost and when someone who flops top pair to Phil's overpair and then hits their kicker on the river, Phil's suffered a bad beat.

What the hell is this crap?

Now, near the end, I actually did have tears in my eyes behind my fine mirrored Oakleys, so that no one could see them. Why had all of this BS happened to me? Are you kidding me? Is this even remotely fair? At the break my parents had finally arrived in town to console me, and pump me up.

Mommy and Daddy have to come to town to 'pump him up'?

Good lord. Does this guy really think that with 2500 something entrants that he's going to be at the final table every damn year?

[RPatterson]

Sounds like someone still has self-esteem issues.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading his article at http://www.philhellmuth.com/hotw.html and I'm starting to seriously question if he could even turn a profit at online tournaments. His play seems incredibly weak like he always assumes his opponent has him beat. Phil also doesn't seem to adjust to the calibre of opponent he is in the pot with.

Also maybe I'm retarded but it seems like he's making fundamental mistakes like smooth calling with Kings in a multi-way raised pot and then folding when rags flop? What the hell is he doing? Or he knows his opponent is bluffing but rather than shut him down he lets him catch an overcard?

The worst is how Phil will say "I put him on pocket Jacks but I folded my Queens anyways, he showed 7's but that's alright, don't want a 7 to come off and break me". What world does he live in? He gets a read that he is a 4-1 favorite to call all-in but he folds for fear he'll be drawn out on? How will he ever win a tournament playing like that?

I'm starting to think Helmuth sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't play to win anymore, he plays to not lose.

[West]

Yeah, I was pretty surprised reading his account also. Seems to me with something around 10,000 chips midway through day 1, the time to decide to fold KK because, "I can win the event if I fold my hand" is before you've called almost a quarter of your stack and received a ten high flop. Should have looked in to the guy's soul preflop.

Although I really can understand taking risks in certain situations where you think an opponent may bluff all their chips to you, in this situation, with $11,000 in the pot ($15,000 with his call), and the other guy, who he makes for bluffing, with just $8000 left, I don't see how on earth he just calls.

On ESPN a while back, they showed what I think was the most recent U.S. Poker Championship final table, which had Hellmuth, Eric Seidel, John Hennigan and the guy who won it, Toto Leonidas. It got down to Leonidas, Seidel and Hellmuth, and Leonidas basically ran over them with aggressiveness. One hand, Leonidas raised up with AQ, Hellmuth reraised with AK, and Leonidas reraised him big (can't recall amounts or if it was all in or what)...Hellmuth folded, then as Leonidas turned over his cards to show, he pointed and said, "Aces!", cringing when he saw tthe AQ. Anyway, Leonidas had been throwing chips around left and right bluffing, but on this particular hand, Phil had pocket queens. I think Toto had JT. Board was low cards I think, and Toto made some huge bet relative to the pot with nothing. Phil thought about it for a while, saying out loud, "why so much Toto?"...in the end, he decided to call, rather than reraising him. If I recall correctly, a king came off on the turn, Toto bet again, and Phil called again. I think the river hit one of Toto's cards, and he bet huge again....and Phil folded. It's possible I am remembering this incorrectly, but I think I basically have it right. Very similar play to the one above.

"After all, I could have gone out if he'd hit a seven" is a pretty ridiculous statement.

It could be that because of his reputation, he may be more likely to be bluffed at at the main event by players who want to say they bluffed Phil Hellmuth. He still managed to last quite a while even with the hands I'm sure he'd like to have over, which is to his credit. I wonder if he would have shared some of these hands with us had he not folded those big hands face up, or showed them to the camera? Either way, I do give him credit for talking about them. But it does go to show, the "pros" make big mistakes too.

[Bobby Digital]

Once in a while I have a great read on my opponent. When I do I don't like to risk a lot of chips preflop because I know his actions on the flop will tell me what I need to know.

I think the problem is phil has taken this concept way too far. He is so confident in his own reading abilities that he seems to almost never risk his chips before the flop. The causes him to make silly errors because he feels he can make it up somewhere else since he "knows his opponents so well."

[SlickRick]

I remember the first shot I took at the UB 80-160 game was because Phil was sitting in it. Prior to this I had not played anything bigger online than 30-60. I watched Phil play for about an hour and read all the comments that were coming from him like, "How can you play that crap? Call my raise with AT? Are u nuts? This 4k is nothing cause I'm up 50k this month off the 80 (game)". Needless to say I made a quick nice little score off this game (mailnly off of Phil) and subsequently deposited it back with interest in future 80-160 games. To me it was taking a shot but I really thought that Phil was the fishiest guy on the table that night.

Phil is one of the best when he isn't playing against himself. I guess Phil would rather pad his ego than his wallet sometimes.

[joker122]

oh my god phil is such a little b*tch.

[Mastermmmm]

I sure would hate to count Phil out of the running. He has made too much money. The actions he took in that article were there to keep from being put out of the tourney, not to win or lose the hand. I can understand his not wishing to go all in when he did not have the 'nuts'. I may be wrong, but he sure seems to know what he is talking about when I see him on TV. Of course, this is but my own humble opinion... I could be wrong... or bluffing... /images/graemlins/smile.gif <font color="red"> </font>

[laceratedsky]

I think everyone whines from time to time. But this guy has made an art of it. I might be insanely pissed about some jackass who knocks me out of the tournament with 52o or some such, but, I would at least try to find a nice quiet place to punch the hell out of the nearest inanimate object.

Laying down those Kings made Phil seem like he was just plain playing scared. Not a good image for a "Pro" me thinks.

laceratedsky
http://www.wtfman.com/poker/

[brassnuts]

Yeah... he whines.
Yeah... he makes some very weird plays.
Yeah... he often out-thinks himself into making stupid decisions.
What else?
Oh, and yeah... he is that good.

[SuitedSixes]

With all of the complaining that the "pros" did about the internet players, I wonder if the gap has been closed somewhat between the super-pros and the rest of us. Surely the speed of the internet game and the fact that we do not get distracted by body language and learn to just play the cards has to count for something.

[Freudian]

Wonder if he himself realize how he comes off writing stuff like that.

* For someone who credits himself with great reading skills, why on earth doesnt he have the guts to act upon his reads? What good are they if he will chicken out of a call he thinks he has the best of?

* He takes waaaaaaay too much pride in his folds. By now it seems he would rather fold cleverly than win a hand.

I don't know if he plays this weak as it sounds here, but if he does I think he will be a more rare and rare guest at final tables in the future given there are more and more unknown players in each event, and it will probably grow. And PH seems scared of them and their play.

[Syntax]

Lots of comments and Phil hating going on in this thread. I'm pretty sure that not one of the people respoding really understands large field tournament play.

I particularly like the one that "he was playing not to lose, instead of wining"

That is EXACTLY how you are supposed to play Day one (and day two with this field) of the WSOP. You can't win it on Day One no matter how big your stack (Laing). All you have to do is stay one step ahead of the blinds and wait for strong hands.

Going for it all on pocket Queens is exactly what the "real" pro's want YOU to do. Laying down hands is the key to tournament success untill the final table. Phil has been playing this way for 15 years and he is the best tournament player there is bar none. He didnt get 9 bracelets being a fish.

[Freudian]

Do you think it's good play to constantly show his opponents he is folding QQ, JJ etc face up and then continue to folding them?

At this stage I can imagine him having a nightmare in future tournaments simply because everyone knows he is so much in survival mode that he don't have the guts to make calls he figures himself a huge favourite in. Afterall, a 7 might fall.:)

No doubt he is a great player but it seems he is struggling a bit to adjusting to the new face of tournament poker.

[MMMMMM]

...and his book sucks out loud. But hey, somebody has to have been the luckiest tournament player in the world.

As his results regress to his own personal mean, we can expect to hear a LOT more whining.

[KC50]

I'm right there with you Syntax. Phil's "poker brat" demeanor makes him a target by the not so skilled player. Seasoned pros and regular tourney players are able to look past the personalities and in most cases avoid confrontations with each other.

However, I do think he possibly misplayed the KK he speaks of in the multiway pot.

What are yours or others thoughts on that?

KC

[chrisjp]

I feel quite sure that Paul Phillips would disagree with you. He went out day 1 with an overpair against a bad player who had an 8 outer after the flop. See Paul Phillips Journal http://extempore.livejournal.com/. Paul had a 2-1 edge on this hand to double up. Who wouldn't want to take those odds? Even someone as good as Paul wants to. It's pretty obvious Phil doesn't.

I think this idea of survival is wrong--not early in a big tournament anyway. I watched 20 hours of the WSOP from the rail, and Greg was able to do amazing things because he built up his stake early.

Usually the early leaders are bad, wild, lucky (Day1 and Day2) players so eventually they bomb out. Like the guy who beat Phillips. He was long gone by Day 3 even though he had a large stack.

But someone like Greg, or Phillips, who know what to do with a big stack, have a big edge by getting ahead early.

[fireman664]

Look, He sucks, his book sucks even worse, but the man IS one of the all time greatest tournament players. He may have some serious leaks in his game right now, and even more leaks in his personality, but the guy can play.

[La Brujita]

One of most important things I have learned from Greg on these forums is that you should rarely eschew positive ev situations in tournaments, especially far away from the money. I really hate Phil conisdering his laydowns of pair over pair as good plays (instead of looking at them as bad reads). You only get hands like KK and QQ so often in a tournament and you better capitalize on them when you get them. I am not talking about overplaying them but just playing them right.

My other thought on the matter is the more experience I get the more I realize there is only so much you can outplay an opponent. A significant portion of the time you have to just play solid poker. Of course this is less true for no limit than limit but the "internetization" of poker has made this a bit more true for nl as well.

[MMMMMM]

I played a bit with him online and he played poorly. A good friend of mine played with him at Foxwoods and he played bizarrely and badly. His book shows he does not think about poker very well.

Sure, he can get a good idea or make a great read once in a while, and he got very lucky in tournies. That doesn't make him a great tournament player--it just makes him a tournament player who had great results.

[thylacine]

http://www.cardplayer.com/player_of_the_year/index.php?order_by=poy_points

[salty]

The guy has lost sight of where hes at,he needs to check the ego at the door,stop feeling sorry for himself and realise that tournaments like the WSOP are not going to play the same way they used to due to the very high proportion of online players and newbies.Its no surprise that players like Greg and Chris M. became world champions because they have seen the madness that is on line tourneys,theres a rhythm to on line tourneys and you cant ride roughshot over them like some pros have tried and you also cannot expect text book plays (although it seems Phil saw a few out of his own book).

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Its no surprise that players like Greg and Chris M. became world champions because they have seen the madness that is on line tourneys,theres a rhythm to on line tourneys and you cant ride roughshot over them like some pros have tried

[/ QUOTE ]


not quite sure what this means

[salty]

What i was trying to get at is that in my limited poker experience i think on line tournaments and B&amp;M tournaments play very differently.On line in order to get to the point where people play more correctly you have to negotiate the early part of the tournament where its a bit of a crap shoot ie: players going all in pre flop with 77 (referring to phils article) and it seems the WSOP might (I've never been there) be playing a bit like a big stars or party tournament,where skilled on line tournament players can sail through the mine field that is on line style tournament play.

I am in no way trying to take away from the achievments of either Greg or Chris Moneymaker,but it seems that pros like Phil H. cant play "their" A game against an on line type field.I am basing this on the various whingings I read from pros who busted out of the WSOP because they couldnt bluff at pots or were re raised all in by people with worse holdings than their own.

[RPatterson]

So you should play a very passive defensive game in a large-field tournament? Sorry but I think your the one that doesn't understand large-field tournament play.

[NLfool]

you take your shot early build a big stack so you can take those blows from the guys moving all in with 77 or be done with it early. Still can't believe he folded KK.

[chrisjp]

Exactly. The "Pros", by and large, don't have nearly the experience in online tournaments that players like Greg have. And I do believe that the first 2 days of the tournament play much like those. Most of the Pros didn't adjust. But FossilMan also has a ton of "traditional" tournament experience too. And he has formulated his own tournament strategies and not just taken the experts "word" for how to play. Read Glazers piece at http://www.finaltablepoker.com/view_article.php?article_id=68

It's a fact that Greg has experience against the "traditional" foes like Harrington. Don't get me wrong--Harrington is a GREAT player. But I think Greg knows how to deal with Harrington. Harrington may not be as familiar with Greg's style. In Glazer's article Greg said that he feared Josh Arieh the most. I watched the last 3 days, and I would have feared Josh the most too. Boy can he play. Can't wait to see the hole cards.

[BabyJesus]

I remember seeing that hand. Phil had QQ other guy had QJo. The turn was a King which made it so the other guy was drawing dead but phil folded his confidently face up.

[Syntax]

You don't think Harrington knows how to deal with a player like Raymer? You got to be kidding me. The guy has come in top 4 in the two largest fields in WSOP history. He won another one. I don't want to knock Greg, but his best tourney showing was third at a Foxwoods event before this.

And you don't think the "pros" have the same tourney experience as an online player? What they can't afford computers? Im willing to bet that every single "pro" out there practice their tourney skills online quite frequently.

[Syntax]

I do think he misplayed the Kings in that hand. Not when he layed them down, but I think he should have put the raise in before the flop.

I can't tell you exactly what he was thinking when he decided to lay them down, but when there was a $3500 bet and call, I think he made the right move. He may have already been beat with a set or Aces. If he was up against QQ or some other pair and Ah Kh, he only wins that pot 46% of the time, and have to risk ALL his to get there. If you ask me, thats not the type of situation I want be all-in in the WSOP.

He made a read and got off the kings. Too many players can't do either of those things.

[KC50]

Yes I agree. I cant see me picking up KK and allowing it to be a multiway pot. The laydown is questionable but he made it questionable on the safe side. And you're right not too many player could do that.

KC

[Syntax]

Once upon a time, Mike Sexton created something that lasted like one year, called "The Tournament of Champions". I was in Vegas and watched the final table of this event. There was one hand I will never forget. I think it was two or three handed. Louis Asmo raises, David Chiu reraises, and then Asmo goes all-in. Chiu thinks long and hard about it, folds and then flips over his pocket Kings. The crowd gasps in awe. Louis shows his Aces. This fold allowed Chiu to go on and win the tournament.

Champions know how to lay down a huge hand. Its a certainty that many times they are way ahead, but a wrong decision to fold may cost you from obtaining some chips, while a wrong decision to play it can cost you the tournament. Think about it.

[lefty rosen]

Phil sounds like he has happy feet. He maybe just mentally shot. There is a reason why Fischer can't beat top chess pros anymore, it could be the same reason why Phil can't win anymore..........

[Syntax]

What the heck are you talking about? He won two friggin WSOP bracelets last year!!!!

[Morbo]

He did outlast 2200 people despite these plays, and his overall winnings in the WSOP are about $3,600,000. I find it hard to believe that someone will reach that amount without being THAT good.

[chrisjp]

They will now. But prior to this by and large they are not use to large field NL tournaments. Why should they be? Until now it would have been a waste of their time. How much could they make per hour anyway at these things?

But since they are tremendous talents there will become expert at these real fast. They won't even have to play much, but just think about it a little, and discuss it among themselves.

But, no, I don't believe they had the experience. Read some of Daniel's comments.

[Syntax]

Ive seen Daniel play money games on PokerStars. And I am not so nieve to believe that he (or any other big name pro) had never invested in a couple $200 buy in tourneys to try and win a cheap seat in the WSOP or the PP Million etc.. These tourneys can be played any night of the week from the comfort of your own couch in front of the TV and youre telling me that its a waste of a pro's time to play a few of these events to win buy-in's to major events and keep their skills sharp. Keep dreaming.

[cassise]

Whoever said tournament poker is about survival is right, however there is no better chance to build up you stack then when u have a situation where your opponent has two outs (other than no outs, but that is far less common).

If anybody ever reraised phil, pushed him out of the pot, and showed him two rags, I am fairly certain he would immediatly go on tilt.

Just a thought.

[jumpthru]

[ QUOTE ]
Fischer can't beat top chess pros anymore

[/ QUOTE ]

are you kidding?

[theBruiser500]

At first I thought Helmuth had just complained once and was getting a bad reptuation because of it but apparently Helmuth deserves that bad reputation. I watched him play for a few minutes at the $25/$50 Nl table on UB once and he lost all his chips within 20 minutes.

[joedot]

I think Phil is mentally insane. I am basing this on the interviews I've seen of him on several poker commentary shows, and wsop coverage, and what i've read from him online. That said, the problem I see with the way he plays, is that every time he folds a big hand, he folds it face up. WTF man. If you're doing that, you are showing your opponents that you fold big hands, and are encouraging them to bluff you. That is fine, and that is what they do the next time. Except, the problem is, he folds again the next time, and shows his cards again. I can only concur that he is showing his hands for egotistical reasons, so that the rare time that he makes the laydown and they had the hand beat, everyone can say "wow Phil, what a great laydown you just made. You are an amazing poker player." So he is obviously making moves based on egotistical reasons rather than practical reasons. Great poker players don't play like that imo.

[jwvdcw]

Everyones saying how bad he plays online and how terrible he is...the man gets results, bottom line.

[Toro]

Helmuth, sounds like Hell Mouth, very appropriate.

[Rooster71]

Regarding Phil Hellmuth's poker skills, I think he is still a very good player. I would not say he is a "great" player because I just don't see him as being in the same category as Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan or any of the other long time greats. He seems to have some strange views on some situations, almost like he has a self-defeating attitude. As far as Phil Hellmuth the person, I think he is the whiniest most childish loser I have ever seen. Everybody loses at some time and it's never a pleasant experience, so I hate hearing that crap about how he gets so irate because he "takes SO many beat beats." Good God, why can't he just be a man about it? The times I have seem him get irate, it seems like he somehow thinks he is "entitled" to win the pot just because he is Phil Hellmuth and if there is a showdown, then it is because his opponent is just being disrespectful.

I thought is was ridiculous how Card Player Magazine put him on the cover a few months back with the heading "Phil Hellmuth: The Bad Boy of Poker" or something very similar. The heading should have read "Phil Hellmuth: The Big Crybaby of Poker who Can't Control His Temper."

[Aceshigh7]

I like Phil because he acts almost exactly like me at the poker table. Not saying that's admirable, and it is something I'm trying to change by the way, but I can understand where the anger and indignity comes from when you get bad beat.

Hellmuth gives me inspiration that one can be a great player and still be a whiner.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Fischer can't beat top chess pros anymore



are you kidding?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true. He is not at all a strong GM by today's standards.

[theriverwild]

Fisher doesn't play in tourneys or anything he went into hiding 4 the 2nd time. And Phil is a good tourney player but poor attitude and ring game player

[joker122]

Is your Party Poker name AcesHigh1?

[Kenshin]

If by chance you are AcesHigh1. PLEASE, stop berating fish at the table. It makes you look like a total jackass (possibly an accurate characterization). More importantly, it damages MY win rate.

[joker122]

Yeah, that guy (whoever he is) needs to get things under control.

[trillig]

Phil is good, I think he purposely created this persona to get more press... seems to have worked... I read he was definitely not happy about poker books coming out, and wonder if he put in 'bad' advice in his own book on purpose, it's not like Phil is a crackpot in general, he just occasionally plays one at poker tables.

To get as far as he has, he can't be a slouch....

We all have our moments.... grand and not so grand...

And yes I still want to show Phil 72o when I take a pot away from him. 8)

-Bri

[lefty rosen]

I haven't seen Phil place high in a tourney in a while (WPT tournies at least) and he is a horrible limit player, I would say he is fish or a steamer at least......... As for Fischer he is crazy.

[Army Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen Phil place high in a tourney in a while (WPT tournies at least) and he is a horrible limit player, I would say he is fish or a steamer at least......... As for Fischer he is crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often do you watch the WPT? He finished third at Foxwoords not long ago, the one that Hoyt Corkins won.

And he's not a good limit player? LMAO.

[Syntax]

He won two bracelets at last years WSOP.

[Grivan]

You have to remember that Phil is the type of player that wouldn't put his money in in slightly marginal situations ever if he could avoid it. This is why you see him make big folds maybe a bit to often. This also means when his money does go in he is ormally a big favorite, this just makes the bad beats sting that much more.

[durron597]

You know... after reading this entire thread something occurred to me. Maybe Phil makes these huge laydowns so that when he DOESN'T lay it down, people respect his bets more - because they SAW him lay down QQ vs. 77 two outer. I think Phil (and, as an example of another extremely whiny player, Annie Duke) want to make their chips getting people to fold, because that way there is no luck involved.

The only problem with this strategy is that with the aggressiveness that's so prevalent in online tournaments, they are more likely to get rebluffed than they are to be given the pot. And that's why a guy like Dan Harrington makes it to the final table for two years in a row, because he adapted his strategy to the field.

Also, in Phil's defense, didn't Sam Farha, Chris Moneymaker, and Phil Ivey all go out this year on the first day to equally bad beats? And didn't Jason Lester take a huge pot off of him in 2003 for spiking his 3rd jack on the river in QQ vs. JJ? I don't know... if you are supremely confident (and I mean SUPREMELY CONFIDENT, not just pretty sure) that you can get people to fold their cards into a path to the final table, maybe you don't want to ride even the big edges. Remember this is the WSOP, not a cash game - you can't rebuy if you take a bad beat. Greg as much as said himself that he only had two bad beats the entire tournament...

Comments from anyone more experienced than me?

[jayrutz2]

UNFRIGGINGBELIEVABLE. When you win a single event at WSOP you can start the first sentence of the conversation

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
I especially love the way he is 'entitled' to these pots that he lost and when someone who flops top pair to Phil's overpair and then hits their kicker on the river, Phil's suffered a bad beat.

What the hell is this crap?



[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say its a bad beat.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, Leonidas had been throwing chips around left and right bluffing, but on this particular hand, Phil had pocket queens. I think Toto had JT. Board was low cards I think, and Toto made some huge bet relative to the pot with nothing. Phil thought about it for a while, saying out loud, "why so much Toto?"...in the end, he decided to call, rather than reraising him. If I recall correctly, a king came off on the turn, Toto bet again, and Phil called again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know people LOVE to bash old Phil but I have to correct you here as it is not even close to what happened. On the hand in question Hellmuth had QJ and Toto had A7. The flop was I believe (and this is from memory) Q-7-x. Toto totally jumps the gun and goes all in with middle pair for a ton of chips. Then Hellmuth, who was outchipped looks at him for a long time and says, "why so much Toto...I call" and commits his entire stack with the far superior hand. Toto rivers a 7 and the rest is history.

Everyone loves to get on Hellmuth but I have to say that pretty much every big hand I've seen him lose, and there have been a lot, are ALL pretty bad beats where he played it right.

[miamikid]

I think he has more bracelets than any other player, period.
miamikid

[Justin A]

He's practically taken the whole last year off except for a couple of the really big tourneys. Something to do with his new book and video.

Justin A

[Justin A]

Wrong hand, they're two completely different hands.

Justin A

[Smasharoo]

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone loves to get on Hellmuth but I have to say that pretty much every big hand I've seen him lose, and there have been a lot, are ALL pretty bad beats where he played it right.


[/ QUOTE ]
As opposed to the pros who loose not to bad beats when they play it right?

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong hand, they're two completely different hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

The hand I was refering to was the one in which Hellmuth said, "Why so much Toto?" and that is the hand I described. I was responding to a post where this quote was attributed to a different hand.

So who exactly has the "wrong" hand?

[Justin A]

You're right about the comment being attributed to the wrong hand. He said that on the hand he was knocked out on. They were discussing a different hand in which Toto bluffed him out when he had the best hand. I apologize if you were only trying to say they had the comment wrong. But the comment was not the main point of the hand being discussed.

Justin A

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
But the comment was not the main point of the hand being discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but the original post also has Phil calling the turn after another big Toto bet and as I recall Phil folded face up on the turn when the K fell, he didn't call. So I took the liberty of just saying "this isnt what happened". You're right though the original post was about a different hand. No biggie. I just feel that people go out of their way to rip on Phil.

[Justin A]

That's weird that he's been getting lucky in tournaments for sixteen years. That's quite a winning streak.

As Doyle Brunson says, "...this style that's fostered a lot of comment from countless players about how 'lucky' I am. I've been hearing that lot for years... Everyone gets lucky once in a while. But no one is consistently lucky."

Justin A

[Justin A]

To get near the top of the POY standings, you actually have to play tournaments. Check out the second paragraph of this link.

Phil's Big Bluff - Cardplayer Article (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=14011)

Justin A

[Justin A]

After reading through this thread, it seems that everyone has something to say about his weak plays. The guy has so much money it's ridiculous. He's one of the few tournament pros who doesn't use backers. In fact, he backs other players. (Check out Tom McEvoy's Tournament Book, he talks about being backed by Hellmuth) If the guy loses a shitload of money in an online session, it should tell you that he has money to burn.

Even this year, he still cashed in five events at the WSOP, and made two final tables. He's second all time in the first category, and has more final tables than anyone in WSOP history. Not to mention NINE gold bracelets.

Say what you want about his personality, because he does whine too much, but asking if he's really that good at poker? Results and money speak for themselves. He didn't become obscenely rich by being lucky.

Respectfully,
Justin A

[Ed Miller]

He didn't become obscenely rich by being lucky.

I'll believe that you are privy to Phil Hellmuth's bank balance if you can tell me what mine is.

[Smasharoo]

He's good at poker, not so good at managing money. He's said as much on numerous occasions.

[deacsoft]

Poker Accomplishments


1. 1989 World Champion of Poker (World Series of Poker).
2. # 1 with Nine World Championships of Poker (9 World Series of Poker titles-two of them in 2003).
3. First place on the WSOP (World Series of Poker) all time money list with over $3,524,000 in earnings
4. 1995 Hall of Fame Big One Champion
5. 2000 European Champion-Poker EM, the Worlds Biggest Seven-Card Stud event in Vienna at Casinos Austria.
6. #1 with 4 Hall of Fame Poker titles
7. My winning three WSOP titles and one second in 1993; is considered the best feat in the history of poker.
8. Late Night Poker III Champion (LNP is being played on FOX right now. I won it in 2000.
9. Won the Bicycle Clubs Championship event in 1988.
10. Numerous other titles in poker tournaments all over the world.

[ArchAngel71857]

2. # 1 with Nine World Championships of Poker (9 World Series of Poker titles-two of them in 2003).

I had heard Doyle and Chan each had nine bracelets, too.

3. First place on the WSOP (World Series of Poker) all time money list with over $3,524,000 in earnings

not any more. Greg Raymer 1st, Dan Harrington second, Williams?? Ferguson?? 3rd fourth??? Chan and Cloutier weren't too far behind Hellmuth before all this.

7. My winning three WSOP titles and one second in 1993; is considered the best feat in the history of poker.

By who? Phil Hellmuth Sr.?

10. Numerous other titles in poker tournaments all over the world.

I hope it includes some MTT on UB.

-AA

[Aloysius]

Thank you for this list - I think it underscores an important point. Unless you've regularly played with Phil Hellmuth (or any of the other "name" poker celebrities currently on the tour), how can you really say one way or the other if he's good, bad, rich, poor, whatever?

Poker is best judged (as I've learned from these message boards) from long-term results. It's possible that Phil's record may diminish if he does not continue to post similar type results. But if past performance is indicative of anything...

And while the WSOP Championship event will continue to field a large number of Internet entrants... a majority of tourneys will be comprised of the same types of players (pros, semi-pros, serious non-pros) that Phil has been beating for his entire career.

When I read something like "Phil is definitely pretty good, but not as good as Doyle or Phil Ivey or etc..." I just have to wonder what this judgment is based on? Reading Super System? The fact that Doyle Brunson won back to back WSOP titles when the field was at around 100 entrants?

This isn't like baseball, where there are reams of statistics to back up quality assessments. We see probably, at most, .1% of the hands Phil Hellmuth, or any other pro, plays throughout the course of a year (assuming they got on say WPT 2x, and play 8 hours 5 days a week for the entire calendar year). That's not a very good basis for opinion in my estimation.

I think it's fair to note that the hands we actually do get to see (usually in big tourneys with a lot at stake) are somewhat reflective of a player's true abilities, even if it's a tiny % of his overall hands played. But to feel really strongly one way or the other, with so little to base it on, just seems ludicrous to me.

[deacsoft]

I just thought it might be useful to post this list from his website. I hear talk about Mr. Hellmuth and if he's good or not all the time. What doesn't surprise me is that 99% of the people talking about it (not including most 2+2ers) don't know anything about whoever it is they're talking about. They have no background information about any players accomplishments. It makes them all look like idiots when they just puke up misinformation they overheard from someone else's conversation or took from Vince Van Patten or something.

I figure this way before any more of us comment on how much he sucks because he's a cry baby we can all look at his lengthly list of accomplishments and give credit where it is due. Phil Hellmuth, Jr is one of the best poker players over the las 15 or so years. Period.

[deacsoft]

Very adult post, by the way. I wish we had more of those on 2+2. It's clear that you can set aside personal feelings and look to the facts for the correct answer. Nice to see it and keep it up. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jumpthru]

[ QUOTE ]
We see probably, at most, .1% of the hands Phil Hellmuth, or any other pro, plays throughout the course of a year

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the amount of poker these guys play, more like .000001%...

[West]

I think I got the right quote with the wrong hand. I know that Hellmuth folded pocket queens to Toto on a different hand in a scenario like I described.

[daryn]

Mass. ave ed? are you in boston?

[Lazymeatball]

I believe 70 Mass Ave. may be the address for M.I.T.
By making this his location Ed might be "representin'" his MIT alumni status regardless of his present location.

ps. I have no clue whether this is in fact the actual address of MIT or whether E. Miller N.P.A. is an MIT grad.

[Army Eye]

here are the two hands so we can all just get along:

Toto raises pre-flop, Phil calls.
Flop 8-7-2. Toto bets out, Phil calls.
Turn K. Toto bets big, Phil folds QQ face up. Toto shows QJ.

Toto raises pre-flop, Phil calls.
Flop Q-8-7. Phil checks, Toto goes all-in, Phil says "why would you bet so much Toto.." and calls. Phil has QJ. Toto has A7.

River is a 7.

[Ed Miller]

I believe 70 Mass Ave. may be the address for M.I.T.

It is.

By making this his location Ed might be "representin'" his MIT alumni status regardless of his present location.

I am.

ps. I have no clue whether this is in fact the actual address of MIT

It is.

or whether E. Miller N.P.A. is an MIT grad.

I am.

[Daliman]

This,
[ QUOTE ]
Phil Hellmuth, Jr is one of the best poker players over the las 15 or so years. Period.


[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree with completely..however...
[ QUOTE ]
Phil Hellmuth, Jr is THE best TOURNAMENT HOLD'EM poker player over the lasT 15 or so years. Period.


[/ QUOTE ]
..I can say with little reservation.

It seems to me any riches he has currently comes as much from marketing deals, book sales, and endorsements as tournaments, and i'd wager that he loses money every year in live non-tourney play. Put him at a ring game table for a year with Ivey, Brunson, Reese, Greenstein, Flack, Forrest, Harrington, Harman, and Negraneu, and i'd wager BIG money that he'd be furthest on the negative side of the ledger by a LONG shot.

[aaronjacobg]

what makes you think this? How do you distinguish good play in tournies from ring games? this is not rhetorical; i really want to know.

Jake

[MMMMMM]

Give it another sixteen years. Besides, those years weren't all great years (and some years may not even have been good). Also, if you play a zillion tournaments, and play even half-decently, you'll win some.

Just read his limit HE section and you'll see some very bizarre advice.

[Aloysius]

I've also heard that Hellmuth is a very poor ring game player, granted, completely unsubstantiated rumors, but it gets referenced quite a bit.

How did you come by your information? Is it a gut thing based on his essays, or have you played with him? (Only because he usually writes about tourney play, not cash games.)

I'm just curious to see how you came to this conclusion (enough to bet major dollars on at any rate)

[Aloysius]

I've also heard that Hellmuth is a very poor ring game player, granted, completely unsubstantiated rumors, but it gets referenced quite a bit.

How did you come by your information? Is it a gut thing based on his essays, or have you played with him? (Only because he usually writes about tourney play, not cash games.)

I'm just curious to see how you came to this conclusion (enough to bet major dollars on at any rate)

[Daliman]

seen him play alot on UB, and heard from many players, some top players, that they LOVE having them in their ring game, but hate having them at their table in a tourney.

[Easy E]

and get a damn hint

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, Leonidas had been throwing chips around left and right bluffing, but on this particular hand, Phil had pocket queens. I think Toto had JT. Board was low cards I think, and Toto made some huge bet relative to the pot with nothing. Phil thought about it for a while, saying out loud, "why so much Toto?"...in the end, he decided to call, rather than reraising him. If I recall correctly, a king came off on the turn, Toto bet again, and Phil called again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know people LOVE to bash old Phil but I have to correct you here as it is not even close to what happened. On the hand in question Hellmuth had QJ and Toto had A7. The flop was I believe (and this is from memory) Q-7-x. Toto totally jumps the gun and goes all in with middle pair for a ton of chips. Then Hellmuth, who was outchipped looks at him for a long time and says, "why so much Toto...I call" and commits his entire stack with the far superior hand. Toto rivers a 7 and the rest is history.

Everyone loves to get on Hellmuth but I have to say that pretty much every big hand I've seen him lose, and there have been a lot, are ALL pretty bad beats where he played it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the hand described above was at the Sands, and I believe it was Paul Wolfe, not Toto (I know it wasn't Toto).

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading his article at http://www.philhellmuth.com/hotw.html and I'm starting to seriously question if he could even turn a profit at online tournaments. His play seems incredibly weak like he always assumes his opponent has him beat. Phil also doesn't seem to adjust to the calibre of opponent he is in the pot with.

Also maybe I'm retarded but it seems like he's making fundamental mistakes like smooth calling with Kings in a multi-way raised pot and then folding when rags flop? What the hell is he doing? Or he knows his opponent is bluffing but rather than shut him down he lets him catch an overcard?

The worst is how Phil will say "I put him on pocket Jacks but I folded my Queens anyways, he showed 7's but that's alright, don't want a 7 to come off and break me". What world does he live in? He gets a read that he is a 4-1 favorite to call all-in but he folds for fear he'll be drawn out on? How will he ever win a tournament playing like that?

I'm starting to think Helmuth sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't play to win anymore, he plays to not lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what I was thinking! I am a big fan, I have been able to play with him on UB, he is always great on there, I love his book, it got me playing NLH better, and got me playing Omaha very quickly. But, if you read those hands, he just didnt want to take any risks, and ended up getting whittled down 'til he had to go in with crap.

some of those hands I just couldnt beleive, the KK is a good example, why even play if you are just going to toss it to any heat on the flop.