Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

I'd like to put into play a concept that is not being considered.

(Also, try not to write condescendingly in response, stating that I just don't get standard deviation. I have taken multiple classes on the topic in college and do understand it.)

The further out on the curve a stated event is (for example, going from flipping a coin 100 times and having it come up heads every time as compared to doing the same thing 1000 times), the less likely this is just random distribution and the more likely it is that the event is occurring for other reasons unknown to the sampler.

For example, as in the case of flipping the coin, if Tom flipped a coin (in my presence) 10 times and correctly called heads every time I'd probably say that this is an example of just good old-fashioned, horseshoe up the ass luck.

However, if Tom that did it a hundred times, I'd accuse him of cheating and be fairly certain I was correct.

If Tom did it 1000 times I'd kick him in the nuts for wasting my time.

Now, which is more likely. That Phil is way the f out there on the curve to the point that it is actually laughable that he is doing this well? Or that he knows something about what he does, and maybe tries to look like an ass, puts out books that make no sense, and cries like a baby when he doesn't get what he wants for some other purpose?

I am confident that he is an extremely talented tournament player. But that is not the point of my post.

My question is, is there some point in his success where, despite his continued appearance of being clueless and acting like a 6-year old, that the naysayers out there will say that maybe he's pretty good.

There HAS TO BE some point.

What if he won the next 6 world series championships?

Still just lucky?

Now I know that he will not win the next 6 WSOP titles. BUT ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF THIS POST THAT HE DID.

Still lucky but now lucky with a little skill?

It is a given that anyone would have to be extremely lucky to accomplish this task but at what point does it turn into him being pretty good?

If someone cut the deck once and called the exact card prior to doing so, that's pretty lucky.

If he does it three times in a row, maybe he's got a trick.

If he does it ten times in a row, CHECK THE DECK.

Just my thoughts.

Fire away.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

Good to hear someone point out facts. Some people will believe Phil's hustle no matter how rich he gets. These are the people that feed the hustlers.

I\'ll answer yours if you answer mine!
 

Suppose Phil enters 100 tournaments in a year. Also suppose he made the money in 12 of these tourneys, reached 8 final tables and won 2 but did not cash in the $10K WSOP. Would this show him to be a superstar a vastly superior player, an above average player, just an average player or below average player?

One more question, suppose Phil won the $10K WSOP and that was the only tournament he entered or played in that year. What status if any does this give him? Particularly when compared to the initial annual scenario I provided above.

One comment about your disclaimer, when people ask you not to use an arguement in thier rebuttal it is usually because they do not understand it's application to the relevant arguement. Not saying this is true in your case, you may be the 10,000 to 1 anomaly. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Re: I\'ll answer yours if you answer mine!
 

Do we have any translators out there who can tell me what is meant by that last paragraph?

It is difficult to answer your questions without more info. How many people entered each tournament? What is the net dollar amount of all these transactions (winnings minus entry fees)?

If it translates that he is just barely ahead, then he's probably not much more than average. If he is way behind (say only 15 people entered each of these tournaments)then he is probably well below average. If each of these tourneys has 800 entrants, then his stats will probably translate into a pretty nice living.

Again, why does it make sense to take a situation and say that it is that "one in ten million scenario that we know, mathematically, exists" rather than think that maybe something else is going on?

Re: I\'ll answer yours if you answer mine!
 

Someone else chose 1 in 10 million not me. You seem to have grasped on this straw and are using it for a life raft. As for the translation you requested please ask your philosophy professor if it is too difficult to understand.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

Now I'll answer yours in the same straightforward manner you used to answer mine.

What if he won the next 6 world series championships?

Still just lucky?

If they were heads up yes, if 15 entrants still probable, if there were the usual 650+ then the tournament was rigged. Why not ask a possible question?

Still lucky but now lucky with a little skill?

Again perhaps but the tourneys would still need to be rigged.

It is a given that anyone would have to be extremely lucky to accomplish this task but at what point does it turn into him being pretty good?"

Again not lucky at all but certainly crooked.


Now what did your questions prove? Do I think PH is a skillful tourney player? yes I do. Do I think I would rather enter him, in a tournament than about 500 other poker players? Now way Jose!! Is he in the top 1000 players? Probably is. Is he the next poker Messiah or even close to a WCP. Nope! Why do I feel this way? You obviousy are too biased to ever understand.

By your questions you seem to believe skill outweighs the turn of the cards in a N/L tourney situation. In the very long run so do I. The problem is that Phil has yet to enter the proverbial very long run and may never reach it during a lifetime of play.

Call Phil Up and Ask Him
 

He may or may not be a genius at cards, but he was smart enough to post his home phone number on the ineternet. The number's at the bottom of the page at this web address. http://www.philhellmuth.com/play_with_phil.html

Re: Call Phil Up and Ask Him
 

That is his cellphone number.

Re: Call Phil Up and Ask Him
 

All I can say about this discussion is, like him or hate him, the guy's got 9 WSOP bracelets. There's no way that anyone less than a world-class tournament player does that. Scoreboard, baby.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

"The problem is that Phil has yet to enter the proverbial very long run and may never reach it during a lifetime of play."
So does this mean that everyone's only lucky at everything? Phil may not play enough cards in a lifetime to enter the proverbial "long run"? Conceptually, this may be true. But by this theory, we could never make comments about anyone's skill at anything.

Maybe Barry Bonds is just a lucky home run hitter.

Maybe Sklansky is really talking out his ass and doesn't understand anything, but has just gotten lucky to hit on some concepts and guessed at the right reasoning.

These things are certainly possible.

But God (or whatever you believe) gave us the ability to use common sense. And common sense alone says that maybe something that seems EXTREMELY lucky isn't lucky at all but might be based on something else.

And I'm not saying that Phil is the greatest player in the world. I'm just saying that his accomplishments make it hard for me to dismiss what he has done as simply dumb luck.

Here's another concept. We're only talking Hold'em tournaments at the World Series of Poker.

I'll take Phil H to win another championship before any single person that you name. Remember, we're only talking Hold'em tournaments at the WSOP.

So, who's your horse?

Another factor for me: I wonder what the boys in Vegas who set the lines would give on Hellmuth to win the WSOP championship next year? I'll give my left nut if they had 500 people listed as more likely winners than he.

But your probably smarter than those guys, too.

Re: Call Phil Up and Ask Him
 

As Sameul L Jackson says in Pulp Fiction:

"Correctamundo"

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

I read this and ignored the rest of your post:

So does this mean that everyone's only lucky at everything? Phil may not play enough cards in a lifetime to enter the proverbial "long run"? Conceptually, this may be true. But by this theory, we could never make comments about anyone's skill at anything.

Poker has more luck than many other sports. End of this discussion for me.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

I'll bet you even money he doesn't make the final six for the next ten years.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

For example, as in the case of flipping the coin, if Tom flipped a coin (in my presence) 10 times and correctly called heads every time I'd probably say that this is an example of just good old-fashioned, horseshoe up the ass luck.

However, if Tom that did it a hundred times, I'd accuse him of cheating and be fairly certain I was correct.

If Tom did it 1000 times I'd kick him in the nuts for wasting my time.

Do you really think Phil is cheating!?

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

I'll assume that you are not being sarcastic and that you don't understand my point.

If something happens a few time, maybe it's really lucky.

If it happens a few more times, maybe it's even more lucky.

If it happens an absurd amount of times, then there is something going on that we are overlooking.

In the coin example, either it is an even, 50-50 proposition or the game is rigged.

To put this analogy to use in Phil's case, the fact that he has been so successful (9 WSOP bracelets, etc.) makes it begin to appear that something else is happening that we are not considering.

Maybe it's not just luck.

People have talked about the fact that, statistics prove to us that someone like Phil will exist. Someone will just be the luckiest son of a gun you've ever seen.

My point is this: Before assuming that, why not consider that maybe it's not just an unbelievable string of luck.

The fact that he writes about some DUMB bets that he has made, and the fact that he writes a book that apparently makes no sense (I say apparently because I haven't read it) does not, conclusively, prove that he is bad at poker.

He could be a poker phenom, but just elects to act like an idiot. He may opt to write a book that goes against all poker concepts, perhaps as a way to throw off some competitors.

He may act like a 6 year old, either because that is really his maturity level or maybe he just wants to piss people off, thinking it will give him an edge.

I'm not saying that I am sure of any of this. All I'm saying is that just because someone puts out a stupid book doesn't make them stupid.

If Sklansky wanted to put out a crappy book he could. It would not diminish his knowledge concerning poker. Would it?

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

Ok, I have been on the rails looking in on what seems like a gang attack on sleepyjoeyt.

My Calc teacher in high school said that people are stupid for playing the lotto. Someone said to him "But someone has to win the $200 million jackpot". He replied, "Yea, but it won't be me, and it won't be you."

Phil has skills for winning even 1 bracelet. I think in order to get even 1 bracelet, you have to have the skills, and then have luck carry you to the win. Yes it is possible for the luck to carry you to the end alone (getting AA all the time, hitting draws every hand, and such). But like my teacher said, "It won't be you."

So Phil Hellmuth is a guy we all love to hate. I don't know if we'd be having this discussion if he was a nice guy, who didn't act like a A-hole all the time, bragging about everything.

But to discard it as nothing-but-luck for winning 9 bracelets I think is too much.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

I'll assume that you are not being sarcastic and that you don't understand my point.

Nah, just yanking your chain Joey, sorry I couldn't help myself! It was not sarcasm by the way, just a joke.

I was thinking: is there anyway to get information about how many and wich tourneys Phil has entered in say the last 3 years. Cardplayer.com gives the rankings but only mentions the tourneys where he placed.

Instead of sharing ignorance here, maybe we could actually crunch some numbers!

Just a hypothetical example: if we assume that Phil is among the top 25% in any turney he enters and that the average turney has 400 players. Then we would expect him to be at the fianl table in 10 out of 100 turneys (please correct me if I'm wrong). Then we could start figuring out SD and all that other fun statistical stuff.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

In the hand when Phil had A club against Sam, who was short stacked, why did Phil not go all in?

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

The problem is that Phil has yet to enter the proverbial very long run and may never reach it during a lifetime of play.

To quote John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead."

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

Since Phil's hand is not the nuts (there is a potential straight flush or full house on board), he must have figured there is more to lose by moving in than there is to gain. Although it seems to me Sam would have called an all-in if he had any club, but hey, who knows. I think Phil knew he was bluffing and called just so he could see his cards and chide him some more.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

In the hand when Phil had A club against Sam, who was short stacked, why did Phil not go all in?

I kind of felt he did it to jerk the guy around and leave him an almost insignificant amount of chips. I think he knew he had the best hand. Just my take on it...

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

I agree, Phil just wanted to rub Sam's face into the dirt for a little longer before he was put out of his misery.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

I'm more or less with rigoletto and Jimbo on this one.

How about crunching some numbers so we can see just how unusual Phil's performance has really been? Get some data: approximate number of tourneys entered, approximate size of the fields, finishes, net playing tourney profit (prizes vs. total entry fees ignoring other expenses)...at least that much.

Maybe his record, viewed statistically, isn't nearly as outstanding as the general impression created by a number of wins.

I think it's likely Phil does have, at least at times, a special talent which stands him well in tournaments. However before we worship it or dismiss all as luck, how about some data and SD's etc.? This should be right down your alley;-)

My guess is that he's better than the average tourney player but that his luck factor has been very significant too.

There's also clearly a lot more luck in poker than in hitting baseballs or golf balls.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

Sure there's more luck. I could beat Phil (or you) in a poker game, if the stars lined up for me that day. But I couldn't beat Tiger unless his arms were broken (and then it would be close).

An earlier poster had written that we would not be able to quantify Phil's "luckiness" or "skillfulness" because even his whole lifetime would not be enough for us to enter the "long run". That argument gets us nowhere, unless you want to say that we cannot accurately judge anything.

We measure golf by championships and $ won. We measure baseball players by either individual records or world championships.

In poker, specifically tournament play, we measure by how much $ and how many championships. And Phil's record, in my opinion, is driven much more by skill than luck, but certainly both are involved.

29 WSOP events this year (exclusing ladies and seniors) I think. He placed in the money in 5, winning 2.

Made about $520,000.

If this was lucky, we wouldn't expect him to have similar success again. But I expect him to have similar results most years.

Only 10 more months and we'll know.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

So you are saying his net profit from tournaments so far this year (all prizes minus all entry fees) is about $520,000?

Now how long has he been playing major tournaments, how many major tourneys has he entered lifetime, and net profit of these events? Also how much of that net profit is due to a few mega-bucks finishes? If the variance hit a decent player with the deck on say 2 huge events, that could be enough to skew the total $ results hugely.

You really aren't addressing the issue of SD's here. You're more or less skirting it--not having sufficient hard data.

I agree it looks like there is a good bit of skill at work herem, but what appears very vague and intuitively correct is not, as you know, necessarily even close to what is actually statistically meaningful.

If you feel so inclined feel free to do a little more research, and post the data you come up with, and explain the meaning of it in statistical terms. Then we can get Mason involved in this discussion;-)

In the absence of sufficient hard data this entire discussion is so general as to be able to be summarized thus:

"It certainly looks, intuitively speaking, that Phil Hellmuth is onto something. But looks can be deceiving. And even if he is onto something (meaning he has special poker tournament skills), there is the question of just what the skill/luck ratio has actually been regarding his lifetime tournament results."

Well I think damn near everyone would agree with that assessment (except perhaps those who think Phil just plays awful;-)). But until it is somewhat more precisely quantified and analyzed, it just doesn't say very much.

Re: Phil\'s soooooooooo lucky
 

I'm saying that his net at the WSOP this year is somewhere around +$520,000. I have no stats on any other tourneys.

I'm not going to do any further analysis. I pretty much agree with your post, except I think your comment regarding a couple of big wins skewing the analysis is more pertinent to Moneymaker or Varkonyi. Phil has 9 world championship bracelets.

My point is that it is possible (and I think you would agree) to write a bad book and act like a child and still be good at poker. Many people have commented something to the effect of "Have you read his book? This guy knows nothing about the probabilities / mathematics involved with poker decisionmaking. He's been very lucky to be as successful as he has been." The presence of a bad book does not make a bad player.

I also believe you'd agree that there is at least a good chance that his results have something to do with poker skills and not just the random distribution of cards and his good fortune (luck).

That's my main point.