Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?

[DesertCat]

I love Barry's stories.

[ QUOTE ]
I first played with Phil in a no-limit side game in Los Angeles in 1992. I didn’t pay attention to tournament poker back then, but I had heard that he was a cocky kid who had won a big tournament. He was playing fast and loose and showing his hands and needling people whenever he outplayed them. Well, I was pretty cocky too. Phil opened for a raise, I reraised and Phil called. After the flop, I bet, Phil raised and I reraised him all-in. He thought for a while, showed me top pair and then folded. I showed him Deuce-Three offsuit which bore no relation to the flop.

Phil stood up and said, “Nice play buddy, but that’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever done. Do you realize that giving me that kind of information is going to cost you all of your money? It’s because of players like you that I make millions of dollars a year playing poker.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

What happens when he has 10 10 and dark checks, then the flop comes 4-5-6 with 2 to a flush? That could be dangerous for his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to realize that there is no chance Hellmuth is putting significant chips into the pot in that situation even if he is sure he has the best hand. He wouldn't be able to protect his hand from the draw because he isn't going to bet large enough to make a drawing hand fold.

[Notorious G.O.B.]

Obviously I've never played Stuey in a cash game. Based on what Barry Greenstein and other's have written, my understanding is that he was not a strong cash game player. Not a top tier player, anyway. For the sake of argument, though, let's say Scotty Nguyen or Huck Seed instead.

[Notorious G.O.B.]

[ QUOTE ]

You're overstating the difference quite a bit here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was countering Beavis's assertion that Hellmuth can't be a bad cash game player and also a good tourney player. Brunson's edge over Ungar in a cash game might've not've been all that large, but it was there. Tourney's are a whole different story. Of course, it's possible that Doyle still has the edge when he's sitting at the same table with Ungar in a tournament, but Ungar probably had a better overall edge against the field.

I may be a little biased because I just finished "One of a Kind." The way that book talks about Stu, it was like he could look into your soul. It mentions once about a hand that he called a very large bet on the river (side game) with pocket 2's and no help from the board. Also, there is another mention about him calling an all-in (tournament) on the river with 10 high and taking it down. That is just sick.

[silles]

[ QUOTE ]
I may be a little biased because I just finished "One of a Kind." The way that book talks about Stu, it was like he could look into your soul. It mentions once about a hand that he called a very large bet on the river (side game) with pocket 2's and no help from the board. Also, there is another mention about him calling an all-in (tournament) on the river with 10 high and taking it down. That is just sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being significantly biased. The default response seems to be "You never hear of a big laydown Stu Ungar ever made." I think it was Paul Phillips who mentioned that he was sick of everyone going on about Ungar, since we really have no clue about his true tournament record.

I am not trying to sell Ungar's accomplshments short, and "One of a Kind" is a good read, but if you believe that it does not delve into hopeless hyperbole, you are mistaken.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may be a little biased because I just finished "One of a Kind." The way that book talks about Stu, it was like he could look into your soul. It mentions once about a hand that he called a very large bet on the river (side game) with pocket 2's and no help from the board. Also, there is another mention about him calling an all-in (tournament) on the river with 10 high and taking it down. That is just sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being significantly biased. The default response seems to be "You never hear of a big laydown Stu Ungar ever made." I think it was Paul Phillips who mentioned that he was sick of everyone going on about Ungar, since we really have no clue about his true tournament record.

I am not trying to sell Ungar's accomplshments short, and "One of a Kind" is a good read, but if you believe that it does not delve into hopeless hyperbole, you are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I can realize when I have "one sided" infomation in front of me. And that is what I was trying to say. My previous post meant that IF the book gave an objectional outlook on Stu's play, then he was a poker god. Key word = if. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Fallen Hero]

these days there are some many guys tired of this god-like image stu ungar has that you'll hear exagerations from both sides of the argument.
I seriously doubt a 3time world champion was as bad in side games as people want it to look like

PS: and quoting Paul Phillips I also "doubt he had a life long +EV calling all-ins on the river with T-high"

[Noodles]

[ QUOTE ]
He wouldn't be able to protect his hand from the draw because he isn't going to bet large enough to make a drawing hand fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean,what if he overbets the pot,how can a flush draw call then?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He wouldn't be able to protect his hand from the draw because he isn't going to bet large enough to make a drawing hand fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean,what if he overbets the pot,how can a flush draw call then?

[/ QUOTE ]

What he is saying is that Phil's betting strategy is not to overbet the pot very ofter, if ever. So, him checking is the same as his normal bet, which usually would get called.