Phil's soooooooooo lucky

[sleepyjoeyt]

As Sameul L Jackson says in Pulp Fiction:

"Correctamundo"

[Jimbo]

I read this and ignored the rest of your post:

So does this mean that everyone's only lucky at everything? Phil may not play enough cards in a lifetime to enter the proverbial "long run"? Conceptually, this may be true. But by this theory, we could never make comments about anyone's skill at anything.

Poker has more luck than many other sports. End of this discussion for me.

[Timer]

I'll bet you even money he doesn't make the final six for the next ten years.

[rigoletto]

For example, as in the case of flipping the coin, if Tom flipped a coin (in my presence) 10 times and correctly called heads every time I'd probably say that this is an example of just good old-fashioned, horseshoe up the ass luck.

However, if Tom that did it a hundred times, I'd accuse him of cheating and be fairly certain I was correct.

If Tom did it 1000 times I'd kick him in the nuts for wasting my time.

Do you really think Phil is cheating!?

[sleepyjoeyt]

I'll assume that you are not being sarcastic and that you don't understand my point.

If something happens a few time, maybe it's really lucky.

If it happens a few more times, maybe it's even more lucky.

If it happens an absurd amount of times, then there is something going on that we are overlooking.

In the coin example, either it is an even, 50-50 proposition or the game is rigged.

To put this analogy to use in Phil's case, the fact that he has been so successful (9 WSOP bracelets, etc.) makes it begin to appear that something else is happening that we are not considering.

Maybe it's not just luck.

People have talked about the fact that, statistics prove to us that someone like Phil will exist. Someone will just be the luckiest son of a gun you've ever seen.

My point is this: Before assuming that, why not consider that maybe it's not just an unbelievable string of luck.

The fact that he writes about some DUMB bets that he has made, and the fact that he writes a book that apparently makes no sense (I say apparently because I haven't read it) does not, conclusively, prove that he is bad at poker.

He could be a poker phenom, but just elects to act like an idiot. He may opt to write a book that goes against all poker concepts, perhaps as a way to throw off some competitors.

He may act like a 6 year old, either because that is really his maturity level or maybe he just wants to piss people off, thinking it will give him an edge.

I'm not saying that I am sure of any of this. All I'm saying is that just because someone puts out a stupid book doesn't make them stupid.

If Sklansky wanted to put out a crappy book he could. It would not diminish his knowledge concerning poker. Would it?

[punkass]

Ok, I have been on the rails looking in on what seems like a gang attack on sleepyjoeyt.

My Calc teacher in high school said that people are stupid for playing the lotto. Someone said to him "But someone has to win the $200 million jackpot". He replied, "Yea, but it won't be me, and it won't be you."

Phil has skills for winning even 1 bracelet. I think in order to get even 1 bracelet, you have to have the skills, and then have luck carry you to the win. Yes it is possible for the luck to carry you to the end alone (getting AA all the time, hitting draws every hand, and such). But like my teacher said, "It won't be you."

So Phil Hellmuth is a guy we all love to hate. I don't know if we'd be having this discussion if he was a nice guy, who didn't act like a A-hole all the time, bragging about everything.

But to discard it as nothing-but-luck for winning 9 bracelets I think is too much.

[rigoletto]

I'll assume that you are not being sarcastic and that you don't understand my point.

Nah, just yanking your chain Joey, sorry I couldn't help myself! It was not sarcasm by the way, just a joke.

I was thinking: is there anyway to get information about how many and wich tourneys Phil has entered in say the last 3 years. Cardplayer.com gives the rankings but only mentions the tourneys where he placed.

Instead of sharing ignorance here, maybe we could actually crunch some numbers!

Just a hypothetical example: if we assume that Phil is among the top 25% in any turney he enters and that the average turney has 400 players. Then we would expect him to be at the fianl table in 10 out of 100 turneys (please correct me if I'm wrong). Then we could start figuring out SD and all that other fun statistical stuff.

[ACBob]

In the hand when Phil had A club against Sam, who was short stacked, why did Phil not go all in?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The problem is that Phil has yet to enter the proverbial very long run and may never reach it during a lifetime of play.

To quote John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead."

[TimTimSalabim]

Since Phil's hand is not the nuts (there is a potential straight flush or full house on board), he must have figured there is more to lose by moving in than there is to gain. Although it seems to me Sam would have called an all-in if he had any club, but hey, who knows. I think Phil knew he was bluffing and called just so he could see his cards and chide him some more.