Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

I have noticed a lot on the 2005 WSOP coverage that he is dark checking a lot on the flop. Not just in the main event, either.

This seems to be a dumb play. Yes you can get lucky with the flop and not give out any info until after your opponent acts. However, most new players are not up on reading people and Phil should be able to hide his emotions when checking.

What happens when he has 10 10 and dark checks, then the flop comes 4-5-6 with 2 to a flush? That could be dangerous for his hand.

Just curious if anyone else has noticed this. I have done it in some NL cash games and small tournaments, but only in very special circumstances.

P.S.--For someone that thinks he is one of the best players in the world, a lot of the other pros don't agree. I was reading Daniel N's blog about a week ago and he was talking about being really excited to play in a live gave with Phil. Kind of like I am really happy to play against a couple guys that just started playing. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

Danny N was excited to play in a cash game. I really doubt Danny would want Phil at his table in a NLHE Tournament.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

Hellmuth is a genius.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Danny N was excited to play in a cash game. I really doubt Danny would want Phil at his table in a NLHE Tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you are so smart.

If he is so bad at cash games, he must be dangerous in tournaments.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hellmuth is a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

if genius means thinking that AKo is a favorite vs AKs, then yes you are correct.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

I doubt Daniel would care either way. Cash Game, Tournament whatever.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hellmuth is a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if your post was sarcastic or legit. I will assume (probably wrong) that you really think he is a genius.

That is a nice opinion. When I was starting out, I really liked his play. I got his book and all his instructional DVDs. I saw the way he acted on TV but assumed that it was a tactical ploy. I mean if he is one of the best players in the world, that isn't much of a stretch.

Since then, I have changed my opinion a lot. I think he does a lot of things right in a poker tournament and is a great player but I no longer rate him among the "best in the world."

Besides that, he is a HORRIBLE ambassador for poker. His book was awful. A couple of the DVDs were decent for new players but the tournament DVD was so bad. And not like he doesn't know much about tournaments. He just threw that DVD together and got it out to make some money. Really sucks.

Okay thread drift over. Does anyone have any opinions on dark-checking and why he chooses to do it so often?

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt Daniel would care either way. Cash Game, Tournament whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

From watching his play and reading descriptions of him, I get the impression that part of what makes him so great at tournaments is that he is very good at exploiting players with glaring weaknesses. A good player like Daniel is not going to let him control the table like he wants to.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Danny N was excited to play in a cash game. I really doubt Danny would want Phil at his table in a NLHE Tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you are so smart.

If he is so bad at cash games, he must be dangerous in tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link
Barry Greenstein rated Phil as a 3 of 10 in side games. Not sure how much credit you can give that.

[ QUOTE ]
He feels he has enough technical skill to win at higher limits, but when he has tried in the past, he often gotten derailed by his lack of self-control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

You understand that there are different skill sets for tournaments and cash games, right? Doyle Brunson would probably arm wrestle a Crododile for a shot at Stu Ungar in a cash game, but I doubt he wanted to sit next to him at a tourney.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

It seems to be well known that until Hellmuth proves different his playing style is not one that is successful in cash games

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You understand that there are different skill sets for tournaments and cash games, right? Doyle Brunson would probably arm wrestle a Crododile for a shot at Stu Ungar in a cash game, but I doubt he wanted to sit next to him at a tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're overstating the difference quite a bit here.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

if you want to beat him in a cash game, you have to get out of the kiddy pool and start making some moves!

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

I think he does it because he seems to believe that everyone wants to take him down. So in a sense he's alowing you to "trap" yourself by overplayign a hand against him when he is sitting on a big hand?

Either that or he lets his "ESP super reading powers" make to correct post flop decision?

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

He does it to take some of the importance out of his positional disadvantage, the only problem with it is that his opponent can take a free card in draw heavy flops (like you said), but since almost everyone would rather semi-bluff there than take a free card it's not as bad as it looks

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

I think it's a huge tell. Everytime I see him do this on TV he has a marginal hand for NL. He will either when a decent pot if he flops a set or he loses alot of his chips when he tries to make a "master read" which he tries to do often.

His checks in the dark indicate weakness and the cards he's playing when he does this are weak. It puts him in a terrible spot.

Suppose he has tens raises preflop and gets reraised. He call's and checks in the dark. Well if the reraiser has AK and takes a free card he risks losing the chips in the middle when he could have protected his hand. It's a terrible play. Terrible.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

From what ive heard stuey definitely lacked the patience for limit poker. That was probably a big part of his weakness in cash games.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Doyle Brunson would probably arm wrestle a Crododile for a shot at Stu Ungar in a cash game, but I doubt he wanted to sit next to him at a tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree 100% with that statement.

I agree that Stu was better at tournaments than side games but still a very good player there.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
From what ive heard stuey definitely lacked the patience for limit poker. That was probably a big part of his weakness in cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, on Barry's site, he rates Stu and 8 for NL and a 7 for limit. So, he would disagree with you.

I think when Stu played his worse, was when there wasn't much money riding on it. It is like he didn't care about winnning a small game. There was an instance in "On of a Kind" where he was waiting to play in the big game and played some middle limit holdem. He played very badly and lost a lot of bets before going to his real game.

I don't think he was bad at limit, just low limit.

I thought a funny part of that book was when he was starting to get into cash games, someone suggested him play 30/60 and he said he didn't want to play that low-limit [censored]. lol

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a huge tell. Everytime I see him do this on TV he has a marginal hand for NL. He will either when a decent pot if he flops a set or he loses alot of his chips when he tries to make a "master read" which he tries to do often.

His checks in the dark indicate weakness and the cards he's playing when he does this are weak. It puts him in a terrible spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

he does it all the time with any hand, check cardplayers' live updates in the toc final table

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

I love Barry's stories.

[ QUOTE ]
I first played with Phil in a no-limit side game in Los Angeles in 1992. I didn’t pay attention to tournament poker back then, but I had heard that he was a cocky kid who had won a big tournament. He was playing fast and loose and showing his hands and needling people whenever he outplayed them. Well, I was pretty cocky too. Phil opened for a raise, I reraised and Phil called. After the flop, I bet, Phil raised and I reraised him all-in. He thought for a while, showed me top pair and then folded. I showed him Deuce-Three offsuit which bore no relation to the flop.

Phil stood up and said, “Nice play buddy, but that’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever done. Do you realize that giving me that kind of information is going to cost you all of your money? It’s because of players like you that I make millions of dollars a year playing poker.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]

What happens when he has 10 10 and dark checks, then the flop comes 4-5-6 with 2 to a flush? That could be dangerous for his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to realize that there is no chance Hellmuth is putting significant chips into the pot in that situation even if he is sure he has the best hand. He wouldn't be able to protect his hand from the draw because he isn't going to bet large enough to make a drawing hand fold.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

Obviously I've never played Stuey in a cash game. Based on what Barry Greenstein and other's have written, my understanding is that he was not a strong cash game player. Not a top tier player, anyway. For the sake of argument, though, let's say Scotty Nguyen or Huck Seed instead.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]

You're overstating the difference quite a bit here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was countering Beavis's assertion that Hellmuth can't be a bad cash game player and also a good tourney player. Brunson's edge over Ungar in a cash game might've not've been all that large, but it was there. Tourney's are a whole different story. Of course, it's possible that Doyle still has the edge when he's sitting at the same table with Ungar in a tournament, but Ungar probably had a better overall edge against the field.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

I may be a little biased because I just finished "One of a Kind." The way that book talks about Stu, it was like he could look into your soul. It mentions once about a hand that he called a very large bet on the river (side game) with pocket 2's and no help from the board. Also, there is another mention about him calling an all-in (tournament) on the river with 10 high and taking it down. That is just sick.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I may be a little biased because I just finished "One of a Kind." The way that book talks about Stu, it was like he could look into your soul. It mentions once about a hand that he called a very large bet on the river (side game) with pocket 2's and no help from the board. Also, there is another mention about him calling an all-in (tournament) on the river with 10 high and taking it down. That is just sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being significantly biased. The default response seems to be "You never hear of a big laydown Stu Ungar ever made." I think it was Paul Phillips who mentioned that he was sick of everyone going on about Ungar, since we really have no clue about his true tournament record.

I am not trying to sell Ungar's accomplshments short, and "One of a Kind" is a good read, but if you believe that it does not delve into hopeless hyperbole, you are mistaken.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may be a little biased because I just finished "One of a Kind." The way that book talks about Stu, it was like he could look into your soul. It mentions once about a hand that he called a very large bet on the river (side game) with pocket 2's and no help from the board. Also, there is another mention about him calling an all-in (tournament) on the river with 10 high and taking it down. That is just sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being significantly biased. The default response seems to be "You never hear of a big laydown Stu Ungar ever made." I think it was Paul Phillips who mentioned that he was sick of everyone going on about Ungar, since we really have no clue about his true tournament record.

I am not trying to sell Ungar's accomplshments short, and "One of a Kind" is a good read, but if you believe that it does not delve into hopeless hyperbole, you are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I can realize when I have "one sided" infomation in front of me. And that is what I was trying to say. My previous post meant that IF the book gave an objectional outlook on Stu's play, then he was a poker god. Key word = if. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

these days there are some many guys tired of this god-like image stu ungar has that you'll hear exagerations from both sides of the argument.
I seriously doubt a 3time world champion was as bad in side games as people want it to look like

PS: and quoting Paul Phillips I also "doubt he had a life long +EV calling all-ins on the river with T-high"

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He wouldn't be able to protect his hand from the draw because he isn't going to bet large enough to make a drawing hand fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean,what if he overbets the pot,how can a flush draw call then?

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He wouldn't be able to protect his hand from the draw because he isn't going to bet large enough to make a drawing hand fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean,what if he overbets the pot,how can a flush draw call then?

[/ QUOTE ]

What he is saying is that Phil's betting strategy is not to overbet the pot very ofter, if ever. So, him checking is the same as his normal bet, which usually would get called.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What he is saying is that Phil's betting strategy is not to overbet the pot very ofter, if ever. So, him checking is the same as his normal bet, which usually would get called.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is because Phil likes to play small-pot poker, not push his edges, not commit too much to any hand, keep players in pots, then complain when they outdraw him or beat him with aggression, usually to his wife or parents.

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He wouldn't be able to protect his hand from the draw because he isn't going to bet large enough to make a drawing hand fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean,what if he overbets the pot,how can a flush draw call then?

[/ QUOTE ]

What he is saying is that Phil's betting strategy is not to overbet the pot very ofter, if ever. So, him checking is the same as his normal bet, which usually would get called.

[/ QUOTE ]

This logic is faulty.

TOP says expressly that u should not give ur opponent infinite odds on a draw, even if you cannot charge him enough (IE limit games) to make it a bad call on his part. If he knows the flush draw wants to hang on, he should charge him the price of admission.

However, I highly doubt this move is -EV for PH. He knows his game well enough to understand when to employ this move and precisely what he is trying to exploit when he does.

We probably saw it so much on TV due to his pomposity.
EDIT -- (which would make it -EV in the short term due to the overuse)

Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He wouldn't be able to protect his hand from the draw because he isn't going to bet large enough to make a drawing hand fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean,what if he overbets the pot,how can a flush draw call then?

[/ QUOTE ]

What he is saying is that Phil's betting strategy is not to overbet the pot very ofter, if ever. So, him checking is the same as his normal bet, which usually would get called.

[/ QUOTE ]

This logic is faulty.

TOP says expressly that u should not give ur opponent infinite odds on a draw, even if you cannot charge him enough (IE limit games) to make it a bad call on his part. If he knows the flush draw wants to hang on, he should charge him the price of admission.

However, I highly doubt this move is -EV for PH. He knows his game well enough to understand when to employ this move and precisely what he is trying to exploit when he does.

We probably saw it so much on TV due to his pomposity.
EDIT -- (which would make it -EV in the short term due to the overuse)

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with you about needing at least some kind of bet. Proper odds is still better than infinite odds.

I heard he was doing it a lot of times. Not only at the WSOP but also the TOC. If he only did it occasionally, I would be inclined to believe that it was meant to mess with his opponent's mental game. Since he is doing it quite often, I don't think that is the case.