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

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
Last March, Hellmuth won the heads-up championship. It paid $500,000. He made two final tables at this year's WSOP (finish 10th in one).

So, I think we'll see a Hellmuth win eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barring physical health issues arising, I think Hellmuth will win again. He just needs to catch better than average hands a few times and get lucky a couple times. This is what all winners get, and it's not like the cards have eyes and can avoid Phil. He is too good not to win again.

[illegit]

I wish i had mediocre players constantly going out of their way to gun for me with what they know are mediocre holdings. Poker would be a lot easier.

I do believe it is entirely possible that Phil may never win a big tourney again; but not for the reasons stated.

Phil's problem is that the game has changed radically over the past few years and he has failed to adjust to it. Doyle Brunson is a fantastic example of a player who has recognized the need to adjust his game over the years to keep up with what other players are doing.

When Phil only had to play against 150 - 300 people in a major tournament he could count on a majority of them being solid players who would only occasionally bluff but who would also know when to get out of hands. His problem now is that most major tournaments involve spending the first couple of days wading through and avoiding the minefield that are the donkeys. Too many people who really do not know how to play well just does not work for a guy like Phil.

Phil's problems are two-fold. First, he really is a mental case. He really has problems with people sucking out and as he puts it, getting lucky. What he has never been able to grasp is that if you go to the river as a 2-1 or even a 3-1 favorite, you will come out of the hand a loser 33 or 25% of the time. It is remarkable that after a 20 year career he cannot accept this. We all hate bad beats but real pros understand that they are a part of the game and move on.

His second problem is that he is still dependent on this style of play that is nearly exclusively limited to letting the other player dig his own grave and bet into Phil when Phil has the best hand. Again, that worked well when Phil played mostly against players who knew what they were doing. But in today's age of tournaments consisting of a majority of average players, I cannot see Phil doing that well unless he changes his game.

It is worth noting that he did well in his head's up tournament win only because he switched back and forth with his game style.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
you have to understand something, that what you see on TV is about less than .5% of what happens that entire day at that table.... you see him bitch and moan for 40% of that .5% of the time.

Think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

There are still plenty of tournaments with 150-300 players that Phil could take down. The man does not play as much poker as he used to. I was reading an interview with him and he says that he makes most of his money off of endorsements these days. If he were to play more I'm sure he'll get a big win. The Heads Up Championship wasn't exactly a minor win either. 500 Grand is a lot of money in my book and that is what this game is about.

[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.

[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]

to misquote raymer/paul phillips/any pro that isnt autistic -

if you pass up a 60/40 edge in a tournament, you are a [censored] donkey and i would be glad to have you and your passive play at my table any time.