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

[PoBoy321]

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.

[Doc JS]

[ 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

[Phoenix1010]

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

[Paul Phillips]

[ 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.

[Paul Phillips]

[ 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.

[Phoenix1010]

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

[3rdEye]

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.

[PoBoy321]

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.

[AngryCola]

[ 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.

[Chaostracize]

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.