Why Phil Hellmuth will never win another big tourney...

[mtdoak]

Its simple. The way he treats the dead money. He's already a very well known pro with all the the players at the WSOP. You don't think even the bad players know that if you suckout on phil he's going to be a shell of himself the next few hands? He might as well have a big sign that says 'bust me, it'll be a story you can tell everyone at a party for the the rest of your life' And even after a bad beat, he tells the bad (or even good) player exactly what he did bad and why. Isn't the whole point of poker to get players to MAKE mistakes? How much further would have Phil H. gone if he just sat quietly, played well, and not ejaculated his ego all over the table when a 2-1 underdog sucks out on him?

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think even the bad players know that if you suckout on phil he's going to be a shell of himself the next few hands? He might as well have a big sign that says 'bust me, it'll be a story you can tell everyone at a party for the the rest of your life'

[/ QUOTE ]

So Phil Helmith will never win another big tournament because he has put himself in a position where people are quicker to get all their chips in with the worst hand against him than they are against anybody else.

That's your argument?
That's what you want to go with?
You sure?
Cause it's a free country, you can go with that if you want.
But in your position I might be inclined to go with something else... something not stupid.

[NLfool]

I'm going to agree with KneeCo here. But I think you neglect that in tournaments sometimes you don't want your opponents to make a mistake that could cripple or end your tournament.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
That's your argument?
That's what you want to go with?
You sure?
Cause it's a free country, you can go with that if you want.
But in your position I might be inclined to go with something else... something not stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

fantastic.

[mtdoak]

Get yourself in enough positions is a big tourney where even your 'only' a 2-1 favorite for all your chips with a field of 1000+, your not winning that tourney.

[Kaeser]

[ QUOTE ]
Get yourself in enough positions is a big tourney where even your 'only' a 2-1 favorite for all your chips with a field of 1000+, your not winning that tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine that If I constantly got all my money in as a 2-1 favorite I would win so many tournies it would be ridiculous.

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get yourself in enough positions is a big tourney where even your 'only' a 2-1 favorite for all your chips with a field of 1000+, your not winning that tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine that If I constantly got all my money in as a 2-1 favorite I would win so many tournies it would be ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get all your money in as a 2-1 favorite 12 times and you win them all less than one percent of the time.

The key methinks is to get SOME of your money in as a favorite.

[mtdoak]

And this is my point. Is Phil a great player? Yes. But the fields today are so large that by painting a target so large on his chest by drawing attention to himself by his actions. Even the blind shooters will hit the target eventually if its big enough, they just need to be aimed towards it....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get yourself in enough positions is a big tourney where even your 'only' a 2-1 favorite for all your chips with a field of 1000+, your not winning that tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine that If I constantly got all my money in as a 2-1 favorite I would win so many tournies it would be ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get all your money in as a 2-1 favorite 12 times and you win them all less than one percent of the time.

The key methinks is to get SOME of your money in as a favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all true, but still a bit unfair. First, it's extremely unlikely that you're even going to get a chance to put all your money in as a 2-1 favorite 12 times, even assuming you never lost. If you start with x chips, go all-in against a bigger stack 12 times and win each time, you'll have 4096x chips, which would be more than enough to win a 1000-person tourney (with 1000x total chips in play). Even if you only survive around 1% of the time, most people would love to win 1% of the time in a 1000+ person tournament. And being more realistic about it, after you double-up a few times you'll have such a significant chip lead over most of the other players that you'll be free to play "normally" for a long time, using your big stack to bully the table and accumulate even more chips, before you'd face another situation where your whole stack was in jeopardy.

I think a lot of good MTT players would dispute the idea that you wouldn't take a known 2-1 edge, even if it was for all your chips. You pretty much have to take some chances and get lucky a few times if you're going to win against such a big field. Just because your chances of winning with a particular strategy are less than 1% doesn't mean it's a flawed strategy when there are thousands of people in the field.

[Kaeser]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get yourself in enough positions is a big tourney where even your 'only' a 2-1 favorite for all your chips with a field of 1000+, your not winning that tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine that If I constantly got all my money in as a 2-1 favorite I would win so many tournies it would be ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get all your money in as a 2-1 favorite 12 times and you win them all less than one percent of the time.

The key methinks is to get SOME of your money in as a favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's already been posted but obviously I would not always be covered by my opponent, at least not after the first few times I double up anyways. I think passing up opportunities to get your money in as a 2-1 favorite because it's risking your tournament is just incredibly weak tight. I'll stand by my statement that I would be a ridiculous winner if I got the money in every time I had a 2-1 edge.