Is this Phil H whining again?

[PlanoPoker]

I'm going to stand alone on this one, and say that I am not bothered by the way that Phil handles himself on most occassions. Table coaching is not admirable, and he has done some of that, but I think there is nothing wrong with tackling these sorts of topics and mixing it up a little. Phil was in fact criticizing these players, but he wasn't doing it to deface them. Its not like anyone is giving them credit for their play anyway. I honestly believe he found these happenings to be something of a phenomenon and worthy of thought. I know I did. I am happy to read an article that sheds light on the biggest question I face in NL tournament poker -- exactly how much gamble is really in the game?

[TAFKAn]

I am happy to read an article that sheds light on the biggest question I face in NL tournament poker -- exactly how much gamble is really in the game?

If you're even asking that question, then you probably don't appreciate how much luck is involved in a no limit tourney.

Cheating and chip dumping issues aside, a NL tournament is almost all luck .. in a way. It's won by whichever aggressive maniac got lucky that day. The "dead" money is all the tight, timid players who don't understand that it's a structure that forces you to gamble.

The way to win is to play by the rules and the rules make it so that luck is almost the only thing that matters once you join the ranks of those who push all in and gamble like maniacs.

Every once in a while making a good read can help, but mostly you just need to be insane.

[Easy E]

If Phil had REALLY meant to examine the issue seriously, the article would have been written much differently.

Does Phil have a valid point? Probably.

Was the article written with a tone and intent to denigrate the players involved WITHOUT seriously examining the issue? Most DEFINATELY....

... and this is why Phil deserves scorn. If you've ever seen Phil interview on TV at some of the tournaments (earlier WPT one, and PP Million I, if i remember correctly), Phil often talks about how he's going to "get" the bad players, how well he plays the game... and when his JJ runs into QQ, how lucky they are.

That article was NOT written to debate their plays, weak though they may (or may not) have been. The article was written to belittle them and point out how "lucky" they were.... with the implicit point (in my reading, anyway) that Phil didn't deserve his bad luck and the "bad" players didn't deserve their good luck.

But this is the last that I will say on the subject

[PlanoPoker]

Luck is not "almost the only thing that matters". There is a huge body of evidence to support the fact that tournament poker is not all luck. We do know that certain players place consistently in the money, and others never place in the money. Your best argument can be that some players have experienced long term luck. Is that your argument? [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Most everyone would agree that it takes a considerable amount of luck and skill to win a tournament. Over time luck evens itself out.. so what does that leave?

[PlanoPoker]

You're right. I'm sure if I was in Phil's shoes I could do a much better job of handling my reputation. I'll revise my opinion by just saying that I have a tolerance for his overly humanistic behavior. He is one of the most interesting tournament players to me, because I like to see strong personalities.

[Inthacup]

Most DEFINATELY....

If you're going to emphasize a word to the point that you put it in all caps you should learn how to spell it. It's "definitely" not "definately". Disregard any harsh tone here. I'm simply too drunk to post anything more than what is absolutely necessary.

[Easy E]

[Ed Miller]

I believe Phil Hellmuth is saying something that needs to be said.

Why does this need to be said? If the majority of tournament players are not very good, then many tournaments will be won by players that are not very good. In fact, if 80% of a tournament's field consists of poor players, then I would gladly bet even money that a poor player will win the tournament. Poker is not chess... and this is most certainly not news, nor should it be. The reason why Phil thinks this is newsworthy is because he simply does not understand the statistics behind the situation, and he clearly still does not fully appreciate the random element manifest in poker (especially in tournament play with its generally large blinds).

Writing that poor players win tournaments is a waste of paper. Writing that Player X and Player Y are poor players... naming names... is horribly distasteful. Player X and Player Y have done nothing to invite public ridicule beyond having fortune smile upon them for a few short days. Should Phil also publicly humiliate those who win the lottery? Why they are idiots! Look at how they took the worst of it. Everybody needs to know that, even though Mr. Lottery Winner won lots of money, he did so by taking the worst of it. What a person worthy of ridicule.

In fact, the mighty Phil himself has, at times, gambled when he felt that he had the worst of it (at least so he wrote... for example I recall an account of Phil playing Chinese Poker headsup against a superior player). God forbid that he leave that game a winner...

[sleepyjoeyt]

Here are my thoughts:

If I'm going to take on the heroes of the tournament poker world (those who have been extremely successful) I am not going to try to play the exact same strategy as they are. This will clearly benefit the pros, as they have much more knowledge and experience than I do. So in order to counter this I would feel the need to "open things up" and play at least a little unorthodox.

Now what is the correct amount of "unorthodox" play is up for debate but Phil H, Phil I, TJ Cloutier, Chan, Negreanu, etc clearly are superior tournament poker players and trying to play the game the same way they do only plays into their hands.

I am not advocating pushing "all-in" with J 3 offsuit when heads up at the final table but these players are not going to be beaten by someone who cannot change gears and try something different once in a while.

Maybe a second-tier tournament pro (or experienced amateur)can try to match strategies with these guns and do well if the cards fall right but for novices or those who don't play in 100 tournaments a year, the only choice is to mix things up. When to do this, and how far to take this concept, depends on the individual player.

Just my thoughts.

[Mark Heide]

Easy E,

If the article didn't state his name, I'd swear that this story is what I'd expect to hear from a $4-$8 online Hold'em Player. He did say he plays $4-$8 online, right?

Good Luck

Mark