Re: Is this Phil H whining again?
 

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

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

Re: Is this Phil H whining again?
 

Summary of article:

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

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

-- Homer

GREAT summary!
 

HAHA!

Re: Is this Phil H whining again?
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Is this Phil H whining again?
 

More like

Summary of article:

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

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

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

Re: Is this Phil H whining again?
 

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

-- Homer

Phil H has skills, but that attitude has to go
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Is this Phil H whining again?
 

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

I have not read any of the other responses...
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call me crazy.

and another thing:
 

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