Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Yes, I understand Phil Hellmuth is a world class, world champion tournament poker player. No matter what you think of him personally, he's a damn fine texas hold 'em player. But I was just reading his first WSOP 2004 article on his Web site (or you can find it at cardplayer.com) and he offers this gem after picking up queens.

"(I) open for $1800... Incredibly, the big blind moves all in! This time I feel like my opponent has J-J or worse, but I still fold my hand face up. The big blind shows 7-7. I don't mind this at all. After all, I could have gone out if he hit a seven."

This marks the first time I've ever heard of a professional poker player say that he was happy that he folded a 4:1 favorite, even while sensing that he HAD the favorite, because his opponent could have sucked out a two outer to win.

Wha-wha-wha-what?

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Well, I haven't read the article, but I guess his reasoning would be that at that point in the tourney, he didn't want to be getting involved with pre-flop all-ins when he could wait for a flop and evaluate after that. If his standard opening raise was $1800, I'm guess that the blinds were somewhere around 300-600, so it's still in the survival stages rather than the build up chips stage.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

this is one of the things some of the large tournament pros ridicule hellmuth for. hellmuth thinks that he has such an advantage over a player that he is willing to fold a 4:1 advantage, which is simply absurd. i think hellmuth is by far one of the most overrated players on the tour.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

This has been discussed before but I don't know why Hellmuth talks about these embarassing laydowns. I would understand him laying down for reasons other than poker -- ie, his outside businesses suffer if he exits the tourney too early. He NEEDS to make a respectable showing. This would be understandable... but then he talks about laying down 4-1 favorites --- it is so absurd.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

I HAVE to think he made the laydown because he put his opponent on a bigger hand. The statement about catching another 7 was just a weak rationalization. If he didn't take chances he would never be near the leaderboard and would probably cash more often than he does. Since he has been on leaderboards and doesn't cash that often, I'm guessing this was just an isolated incident/excuse.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

it is interesting to see Phil's attitude compared to that of the great cash players like Negreanu, Ivey, and even our own Paul Phillips.

I don't even think that TJ or McEvoy could rationalize this play.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

snore....old news...snore

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

If you're not interested, why even waste your time replying?

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Hellmuth almost certainly had to put the other player on jacks or better. By my calculations, there are 6 ways to make jacks, kings or aces. There is only one way to make queens here beacuase he holds the other two. There is 16 ways to make AK as well. That means that Hellmuth can expect to have the other hand dominated 6/35 times. He can expect to be dominated 12/35 times and break even with Qs 1/35. He can also perform a symbloic coinflip for all of his chips 16/35 times. This means that Hellmuth could expect to double up 6*(.8) + 12*(.2) + 1*(0) + 16*(.5) = 4.8 + 2.4 + 0 + 8 = 15.2/35 or about 43% of the time. Even if this percentage was higher...say 55%, he still may have been right to fold. This is because he is one of the best players in the tournament and it is -EV to risk all of your chips preflop when you are one of the tournaments best players.

Think about it...if you can outplay 75% of the tournament field postflop, why would you want to jeopardize your tournament life getting only 55% odds? However, sometimes in tournaments it is not only appropriate to take these odds, but necessary. The key to being a great tournament player is understanding when to take advantage of +EV, and when to fold when you are getting the worst of it, and sometimes even the best of it when the chance of loss is too great. For a better discussion on this read Tournament Poker for Advanced Players. David gives a few excellent involving coinflips and rolls of the dice.

-Daver

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

I think you misunderstand the point I was trying to make. There's absolutely nothing wrong with folding queens in that spot. I was really commenting on two things. One is that Mr. Hellmuth, self proclaimed soul reader, read his opponent for jacks or worse. Still, I understand, if you don't want to put all of your money in if your read is off, and its very possible that you're a huge dog to an overpair or a slight favorite to AK. But the fact that he said he was perfectly glad folding queens to sevens because his opponent could have hit a seven is ridiculous. That's like saying if he KNEW that his opponent had sevens preflop to his queens, he still wouldn't put his chips in, because there's a one in five shot he'd be sucked out on. That sort of defies any logic in poker.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

I wouldn't say he's overrated. I think that his results speak for themselves. However, laying down a 4:1 advantage before the flop is kind of absurd, although at such a these types of large buy-in events, I guess I could understand his reasoning.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think hellmuth is by far one of the most overrated players on the tour.

[/ QUOTE ]
He has, what, nine bracelets? GMAFB...you do not win nine bracelets unless you're a helluva player. Now, you may not like Phil, that's your perogative...but don't say he's overrated, not with nine bracelets...


Doc JS

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

There is a lot of important information that is not included. Hypothetically, in the first hand of a ten thousand person tourney in which I'm better than 95% of the field and the starting stacks are 1 million deep, I fold a 4 to 1 advantage for all my chips with only 18,000 invested easily.

Also, if I could cheat and could always see exactly what my opponent's hole cards were, I would never get all of my money in preflop. On the flop I could frequently take advantage of at least 5 to 1 situations, and on the turn I could get money out of 8 to 1 situations and up, and on the river I would always know when I had the best hand, so why would I ever settle for 4 to 1 with five cards to come? I'm not saying Phil Hellmuth is so good that he always knows exactly what he's up against, but he seems to believe he's the best card reader in the world, and I certainly wouldn't argue with him.

From what I've read, Hellmuth uses a hyper-conservative strategy early on in big tourneys. He chooses not to get involved in any big pots early on, regardless of what his preflop advantage might be. He instead steadily builds his stack, winning small pots by outplaying his opponents post-flop when he has larger advantages. If you've seen him play much, you know that he frequently (though not always) loses most of his chips when he gets involved in a big pot with a big advantage. When you call all-in with queens against someone else's jacks and they spike a jack to take you out, you say it's a part of poker and move on. Maybe Phil doesn't accept that. You could say he's a fool for trying to take the luck completely out of poker, but I won't knock him for trying, and you certainly cannot argue with his results.

It's the reason I practice my card-reading at every table I sit. I definitely am not crazy enough to even consider laying down a 4 to 1 in ANY situation, but I hold out hope that one day I'll be good enough that it might cross my mind.

Regards, Steve

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think hellmuth is by far one of the most overrated players on the tour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe around here. Not by the other players. If some of the worshippers around here heard what various other tournament players thought, there would be some frantic repositioning of the altars.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
He chooses not to get involved in any big pots early on, regardless of what his preflop advantage might be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh-huh. What do you think the effect of such a "strategy" is on the other players?

[ QUOTE ]
He instead steadily builds his stack

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder he's winning every tournament in sight lately. He doesn't have to gamble like the rest of us suckers!

[ QUOTE ]
If you've seen him play much, you know that he frequently (though not always) loses most of his chips when he gets involved in a big pot with a big advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

In reality he loses most of his chips leaking them to people who raise and re-raise him with absolutely nothing because they know he folds way too much. You're seeing him lose his last few chips. "Most" of his chips are already gone.

[ QUOTE ]
you certainly cannot argue with his results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you can. What do you think his lifetime earn is in buyins won per tournament entered? That's a rhetorical question because I know you have no idea; you're just another of the "bracelet count" guys phil has worked so hard to develop.

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely am not crazy enough to even consider laying down a 4 to 1 in ANY situation, but I hold out hope that one day I'll be good enough that it might cross my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever achieve that dream where you are so "good" that you intentionally lay down 4-1 favorites, you will have achieved the unenviable position of being so "good" that you have a (much) lower expectation than someone who moves all-in blind every hand. I say aim higher.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

You are correct, I do not know Mr. Hellmuth's total tournament history, or even whether he is positive or negative on the whole. I in fact have very little info on his play outside of his book, website, and television appearances which are all very unreliable sources of information. If he is really a big long-term loser, then I guess he shouldn't be taken seriously. I haven't gotten any information suggesting that though, so for the moment I'll stick with my silly "9 bracelets = pretty good" theory.

I am very aware of the effect that his supreme weak-tight play will have on his opponents, and I considered mentioning it as a P.S. at the bottom of my post. He briefly references this in a hand on his website actually, saying that he now tries to keep pots small because all of his opponents expect him to fold anything to a raise. I have my own doubts about whether this strategy is a sound long-term solution to the problems that his extremely tight table image has caused him, but it's not my style of play, so I'll let Phil figure it out himself.

I don't recall saying that Phil's strategy of trying to win continuous small pots with postflop play was so successful that he won every tournament in sight, but perhaps that's the impression I gave. To clarify, I was trying to give an explanation of what Phil's logic might be, based on his writings, as a possible explanation for why he would make the play in question. As for whether it is a great play or a great style, I leave that to others to determine. I don't bother keeping track of how well the big stars like Phil Hellmuth and Paul Phillips are doing because I don't really care. I just thought I'd throw in an explanation of Hellmuth's play based on what I've read from his book and website, since it appeared that no one had really addressed what he might have to say on the matter.

And as for laying down 4 to 1 preflop favorites early in a tournament giving me a (much) worse expectation than someone who goes all-in every hand... I believe Mr. Sklansky had a proposed strategy for going all-in preflop, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include going all-in on every single hand, and I'm also sure it excluded going all-in during the early rounds. I personally don't know what one's expectation would be if they went all-in on every single hand of a large tournament from start to finish, but I can't expect it to be very high. Your statement does not include any surrounding information (blind level, number of players at the table, number of players in the tournament, stack sizes, etc...) and I never proposed passing on every 4 to 1 situation that crossed your path so... I'm not really sure how to respond. I think I presented a hypothetical situation in my original post where it might be reasonable to fold a 4 to 1 advantage, and I'm sure that I could conceive a more convincing situation involving bubble play against a big stack with a short stack at the table, though I don't think it's really worth it.

By the way, I think the logic, at least, stands: the better you are at reading players and situations(in relation to the field), and the more chips you have in relation to the blinds, the more you have to gain by staying out of large pots, and the more inclined you should be to lay down advantageous situations. An omnipotent player with a million big blinds should never go all-in preflop, and someone who doesn't know how to play poker with only ten big blinds should go all-in every hand, and everything between the two extremes has its own answer. I don't think Phil is going to fold even a coinflip when he has five big blinds left, but if he's as good as he seems to think he is, I wouldn't blame him for folding a 2 or 3 to 1 for all his money on the first hand of large tournament. a 4 to 1 is closer to the borderline, but that is for him to judge.

Thank you for responding.

Regards, Steve

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Based on what I've read, Hellmuth has a strong aversion to getting all his chips in during the early stages of a tournament, even when he has much the best of it. In many of his trip reports, he brags heavily about how rarely he is all in.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

I think that this strategy actually makes a lot more sense than people are saying. If he's 4-1 pre-flop, by winning this hand it won't guarantee that he'll finish in the money, or even to get much closer to finishing in the money. So we're basically looking at an 80% chance of doing marginally better in the tournament, and a 20% chance of getting knocked out. I think that smart post-flop play is generally a much better strategy than pre-flop all-ins every time that you have an advantage in the early stages of the tournament. I'm not trying to be a Hellmuth worshipper, just trying to understand his reasons for folding a clear favorite before the flop. Also, does anyone know what the stack sizes were here? If he folded to an all-in that was 1/5 of his stack that's one thing, if the all-in put HIM all in, that's another.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
ust trying to understand his reasons for folding a clear favorite before the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is rarely ever a good reason to fold a 4:1 favorite...

You would have to come up with an pretty convoluted tournament situation to end up with it being the right play. It's definitely not correct early in a tournament.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Unfortunately, Phoenix, it really doesn't get too much better than 4-1 preflop. Hellmuth later mentions that he made a mistake laying that down, and he was too impressed by his own (horrible) laydown to accept that he's way too tight to be any real competition against a good LAG.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

My point was that avoiding pre-flop all-ins, even with the advantage, could be a valid tournament strategy. If you feel that you can outplay your opponents, why leave it to chance pre-flop when you can play more skillfully post-flop?

I'm not saying that this is the tournament strategy that I use, have used or would ever consider using, just that some players may feel that they don't need to take ANY risk early in a tournament, when they can take no risk.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Your skill post flop does not make up for what you lose by folding a 4:1 favorite most anytime during a tournament. It doesn't add up.

I hate to say it...but Paul Phillips is right.
::shudder::

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that this strategy actually makes a lot more sense than people are saying. If he's 4-1 pre-flop, by winning this hand it won't guarantee that he'll finish in the money, or even to get much closer to finishing in the money. So we're basically looking at an 80% chance of doing marginally better in the tournament, and a 20% chance of getting knocked out. I think that smart post-flop play is generally a much better strategy than pre-flop all-ins every time that you have an advantage in the early stages of the tournament. I'm not trying to be a Hellmuth worshipper, just trying to understand his reasons for folding a clear favorite before the flop. Also, does anyone know what the stack sizes were here? If he folded to an all-in that was 1/5 of his stack that's one thing, if the all-in put HIM all in, that's another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand if Hellmuth is unwilling to take preflop risks early in a tournament, but in a meta-sense, I would think that the fact that the other players are aware of this would make him easy to bully around in the early stages.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

I understand how in a meta-sense, this could lead to other players bullying Hellmuth a bit more, but I also feel that Hellmuth would suffer a lower variance as a result of the fact that he limits the situtations in which the outcomes is truly left up to luck.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Lower variance doesn't = better.
Unless you are on a short bankroll or late in a tournament.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
lower variance doesn't = better

[/ QUOTE ]

This much I understand, but I also understand that if you're a good enough player that you could extract as much money as possible while you're ahead and as little as possible when your opponent does in fact hit his set, it could prove to be a better strategy for some in the early, "survival" stages of a tournament. If I were at that level, I might want to play more conservatively in order to build a stack, rather than get sucked out on and leave the tourney.

Note: I'm not saying, and I don't think that I have said that I think Hellmuth made the right fold. I don't. I'm just playing Devil's advocate for the sake of discussion.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
a 4 to 1 is closer to the borderline, but that is for him to judge.





[/ QUOTE ]
4:1 is so far beyond the border line its not even funny

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Wild conjecture, but maybe Hellmuth tries to cultivate an image of weakness so that aggressive players will overplay their hands against him trying to get him to make a laydown. Think about it, with a weak image, not only could he have people trying to push him around with marginal hands, but if he DOES show strenth by going over the top they are more willing to give him credit for having a great hand.

I've never played against him, never read his book (or anything he's written now that I think about it), etc. It just seems to me that a good player could take advantage of being thought weak. The way that Hellmuth advertises such weakness (examples being this hand, and a televised tourney when he called the cameraman over so he could show that he was laying down KK) makes this seem at least plausible.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I think the logic, at least, stands: the better you are at reading players and situations(in relation to the field), and the more chips you have in relation to the blinds, the more you have to gain by staying out of large pots, and the more inclined you should be to lay down advantageous situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phoenix,

The better someone is at making these reads is all the more reason that they should be inclined to capitalize on advantageous situations.
Part of being great is realizing when you have tremendous edge and pouncing on it. There is nothing skillfull about recognizing your a 4-1 edge and taking a pass. Sklansky talks about passing up small edges. FWIW, I think he was just trying to save face in this article.

Regards,
Jarid

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you feel that you can outplay your opponents, why leave it to chance pre-flop when you can play more skillfully post-flop?


[/ QUOTE ]

Recognizing you have a 4-1 edge and taking a pass is not outplaying your opponent.

-Jarid

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

He is quickly losing his mind. The suckouts have taken there toll and he will be a shell of his former self for years to come.

Fear has no place in a Tournament structure, not if you want to win. Maybe he just wants to hang around long enough to make the TV table and get some more false recognition.

You can't be so afraid of going broke that you pass up profitable situations. QQ used to be a small pair, compared to what some people are shoving with nowadays, it's the mortal nuts.

The really funny thing is that he feels the need to make the claim that he read his opponent right and still felt good about the fold. HaHaHaHa. Don't make me laugh, you figured you had a chance at getting beat and you didnt want to go home just yet. Congratulations, you got to stay a little longer.

FJM

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

I don't think anyone has countered anything that I said in my second post. The answers seem to center around the "folding a 4 to 1 preflop advantage is NEVER EVER ok" theory, even though I presented hypothetical situations where it is indeed plausible. Again, if Phil Hellmuth is at the weakest table in the WSOP championship event and folds pocket queens on the very first hand with 10,000 chips and blinds at 25/50 against a weak player who he knows for a fact has pocket 7's and has just gone all-in for his own 10,000, I do not blame him. I also will forego a 20% risk of ruin if I feel I have all the time in the world exploit larger advantages post-flop while risking smaller percentages of my stack. If anyone has a counter-argument for anything I said in my post, that doesn't include absolutist mandates that disregard surrounding situations, I'm listening. No one even brought up that I used "omnipotent" instead of "omniscient." Oops.

By the way, thanks for bringing up the possibility that he was just trying to save face. Come to think of it, I believe that is by far the most likely explanation. I took what he said at face value, and we all know that's just silly when you're dealing with poker players, especially celebrity poker players. I find it difficult to rationalize his posting this hand in his hand of the week article, since I think if he thought he had made a collosal mistake, he'd probably just leave it out. Although, I have no idea what goes through his head on public relations issues.

Regards, Steve

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, thanks for bringing up the possibility that he was just trying to save face. Come to think of it, I believe that is by far the most likely explanation. I took what he said at face value, and we all know that's just silly when you're dealing with poker players, especially celebrity poker players. I find it difficult to rationalize his posting this hand in his hand of the week article, since I think if he thought he had made a collosal mistake, he'd probably just leave it out. Although, I have no idea what goes through his head on public relations issues.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats what he is counting on. That he is speaking to an audience that doesn't know any better. That his audience will say "wow, Phil is so good, he doesn't need a 4-1 edge because he can "look into peoples souls", ooohhh maybe someday I can be that good." Not that you buy-in to all that, its just that many do. Well, at least I think.

Regards,
Jarid

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Phoenix,

I think I can speak for all of twoplustwo in saying; whenever you pass up a known 4-1 advantage, you are making a serious poker mistake.

There are good reasons to fold QQ early in a tournament vs an All-In... but facing 77 is not one of them.

There are hundreds of pros willing to expoit edges much smaller than 4-1... if others are being aggressive with 3-2 edges and you are laying down 4-1 edges, you are being outplayed -- there is no way to rationalize this.

Hellmuth exits lots of tournaments out of the money so it is not like all that looking into the soul stuff is any better than just taking your swings with the occassional 2.5-1 all-in...

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

I think that from now on, anytime someone doesn't understand what David and Mason mean by "exploitable strategy," we should refer them to this beauty.

Can you say "all in with any two"?

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

Im a pretty tight player early on but for example will never EVER throw AA or KK early on in a MTT. Hands like AK and QQ are very throwable IMHO. If he really had him on an underair this was a horrible fold. Otherwise...it isnt as bad as you guys are making out. QQ is a grewat hand and I almost never get moved off it but there are times I just muck it myself.


THIS IS INCORRECT:

Fear has no place in a Tournament structure, not if you want to win

Just absolutely not true IMHO. There are plaenty of spots where you SHOULD BE afraid of gambling and getting busted when you dont need the chips.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

I'm going to say this one more time:

Folding queens is NOT a bad move in many situations. It's not even that bad when you put your opponent on a smaller pair, because reads can always be wrong. Saying he was still glad after seeing the sevens, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE HIS OPPONENT COULD HAVE HIT A SEVEN to send him packing is ridiculous. Does that mean he'd fold aces to a pre-flop all-in, and then be perfectly glad when his opponent shows twos, because his opponent could've hit a runner runner straight to bust him? It just doesn't make sense.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Of course you can. What do you think his lifetime earn is in buyins won per tournament entered?

[/ QUOTE ]


This has always been a statistic I'd love to hear. Sure, it's interesting to hear that Pro X won Y millions in Z year, it would be MORE interesting, I think, to see this:

Player X - tournament buy-ins $1.3 million - tournament wins - $1.2 million

Player A - tournament buy-ins $50,000 - tournament wins $700,000

If you just know the wins ... you'd think X > A, but when you see the buy-ins, you'd have to respect the results for A > X.

You'd think it wouldn't be that hard to do, either, as ALL of these tournaments every weekend are listed somewhere...


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

You guys are utter idiots.

He did not fold because he could have gone out with his 4.5:1 edge. He folded because it wasn't worth it to risk it that early.

His comment about 7's was not a strategical statement, merely a soothing thought to calm the burn which always comes from a bad laydown.

Re: Wait, but... wha... huh? Hellmuth knowledge.
 

I agree kinda like when he acted like Duke's 2 pair raise bothered him. He even basically told her he knew she had 2 pair..

The guy is still a top 25 player. He is still a factor. And he still has 9 bracelets. Does he need to loosen up a little bc of the influx of skilled players...probably. Will he....probably.