Hellmuth vs. Ferguson - Page 4

45suited · #31 05-23-2005, 01:39 PM

It always amazes me how much Hellmuth's play is criticized on a regular basis. The man's track record is almost unparalleled. His game is obviously very unique and does not fit the style of this forum, but at a certain point you just have to take your hat off to the man and admit that he is on a higher level than any of us. Reading the constant cricism of him on this forum, I guess I just gotta believe that those 9 bracelets were the result of luck.

superleeds · #32 05-23-2005, 01:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I just gotta believe that those 9 bracelets were the result of luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, quite the reverse, he won those when their was absolutely no luck involved whatsoever

bchughes · #33 05-23-2005, 02:01 PM

At the end of round 2, Hellmuth took a horribly bad beat. Now what do you do after a bad beat? You can either start steaming, become gun shy, or you can turn it to your advantage. Hellmuth is a very good poker player. His record backs it up. I think he played round 3 brilliantly. I could have read the situation wrong but to me Hellmuth made quite the effort to make it look like he was gun shy and rattled from the bad beat. By folding the trips he basically said "I give up. Go ahead and walk all over me." Which CF did. This allowed CF to do the betting for him. PH can then appear timid, scared, and weak while holding the straight. Phil let Chris beat himself.

Again I could be wrong but that's what it looked like to me.

Rushmore · #34 05-23-2005, 03:51 PM

Setting the record straight, this was not intended as just another Phil bash thread. He made some debatable plays (as did Ferguson), and I wanted to see them discussed.

If it makes you feel any better, I can assure you, I certainly wouldn't want to see Hellmuth at my tourney table.

Now, cash games, that's another story. I doubt anyone here would disagree.

paperboyNC · #35 05-24-2005, 11:19 AM

Phil limped before the flop for two reasons:

A) To keep the pot small. He made it unprofitable for his opponents to go all-in pre-flop. If Phil raised 4x the BB and his opponent came over the top, he'd have a tough decision. By limping with KQs, even if his opponent raises he can call and not be pot committed.

Small pots are designed to make reads easier and to take some of the luck factor out of the game.

B) Avoid getting trapped. By letting his opponent do the betting for him, he didn't have to worry about getting raised over the top in general. He was thus able to get away very cheaply on hands where you'd think the cards would cause him to give most of his chips away.

Rushmore · #36 05-24-2005, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Phil limped before the flop for two reasons:

A) To keep the pot small. He made it unprofitable for his opponents to go all-in pre-flop. If Phil raised 4x the BB and his opponent came over the top, he'd have a tough decision. By limping with KQs, even if his opponent raises he can call and not be pot committed.

Small pots are designed to make reads easier and to take some of the luck factor out of the game.

B) Avoid getting trapped. By letting his opponent do the betting for him, he didn't have to worry about getting raised over the top in general. He was thus able to get away very cheaply on hands where you'd think the cards would cause him to give most of his chips away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you advocate a lot of limping headsup, even with premium hands, in an effort to play small pots and avoid getting trapped?

This is what you're saying, right?

reubenf · #37 05-24-2005, 04:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Come on. It's an easy call. It's a bad fold. If he was short or something, maybe. But here, no way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a question that needs to be addressed is how often can Phil hold a Q in that spot? If it's a lot less often than Chris can, the fold starts looking much better.