Phil's soooooooooo lucky

[sleepyjoeyt]

I'd like to put into play a concept that is not being considered.

(Also, try not to write condescendingly in response, stating that I just don't get standard deviation. I have taken multiple classes on the topic in college and do understand it.)

The further out on the curve a stated event is (for example, going from flipping a coin 100 times and having it come up heads every time as compared to doing the same thing 1000 times), the less likely this is just random distribution and the more likely it is that the event is occurring for other reasons unknown to the sampler.

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.

Now, which is more likely. That Phil is way the f out there on the curve to the point that it is actually laughable that he is doing this well? Or that he knows something about what he does, and maybe tries to look like an ass, puts out books that make no sense, and cries like a baby when he doesn't get what he wants for some other purpose?

I am confident that he is an extremely talented tournament player. But that is not the point of my post.

My question is, is there some point in his success where, despite his continued appearance of being clueless and acting like a 6-year old, that the naysayers out there will say that maybe he's pretty good.

There HAS TO BE some point.

What if he won the next 6 world series championships?

Still just lucky?

Now I know that he will not win the next 6 WSOP titles. BUT ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF THIS POST THAT HE DID.

Still lucky but now lucky with a little skill?

It is a given that anyone would have to be extremely lucky to accomplish this task but at what point does it turn into him being pretty good?

If someone cut the deck once and called the exact card prior to doing so, that's pretty lucky.

If he does it three times in a row, maybe he's got a trick.

If he does it ten times in a row, CHECK THE DECK.

Just my thoughts.

Fire away.

[thomastem]

Good to hear someone point out facts. Some people will believe Phil's hustle no matter how rich he gets. These are the people that feed the hustlers.

[Jimbo]

Suppose Phil enters 100 tournaments in a year. Also suppose he made the money in 12 of these tourneys, reached 8 final tables and won 2 but did not cash in the $10K WSOP. Would this show him to be a superstar a vastly superior player, an above average player, just an average player or below average player?

One more question, suppose Phil won the $10K WSOP and that was the only tournament he entered or played in that year. What status if any does this give him? Particularly when compared to the initial annual scenario I provided above.

One comment about your disclaimer, when people ask you not to use an arguement in thier rebuttal it is usually because they do not understand it's application to the relevant arguement. Not saying this is true in your case, you may be the 10,000 to 1 anomaly. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[sleepyjoeyt]

Do we have any translators out there who can tell me what is meant by that last paragraph?

It is difficult to answer your questions without more info. How many people entered each tournament? What is the net dollar amount of all these transactions (winnings minus entry fees)?

If it translates that he is just barely ahead, then he's probably not much more than average. If he is way behind (say only 15 people entered each of these tournaments)then he is probably well below average. If each of these tourneys has 800 entrants, then his stats will probably translate into a pretty nice living.

Again, why does it make sense to take a situation and say that it is that "one in ten million scenario that we know, mathematically, exists" rather than think that maybe something else is going on?

[Jimbo]

Someone else chose 1 in 10 million not me. You seem to have grasped on this straw and are using it for a life raft. As for the translation you requested please ask your philosophy professor if it is too difficult to understand.

[Jimbo]

Now I'll answer yours in the same straightforward manner you used to answer mine.

What if he won the next 6 world series championships?

Still just lucky?

If they were heads up yes, if 15 entrants still probable, if there were the usual 650+ then the tournament was rigged. Why not ask a possible question?

Still lucky but now lucky with a little skill?

Again perhaps but the tourneys would still need to be rigged.

It is a given that anyone would have to be extremely lucky to accomplish this task but at what point does it turn into him being pretty good?"

Again not lucky at all but certainly crooked.


Now what did your questions prove? Do I think PH is a skillful tourney player? yes I do. Do I think I would rather enter him, in a tournament than about 500 other poker players? Now way Jose!! Is he in the top 1000 players? Probably is. Is he the next poker Messiah or even close to a WCP. Nope! Why do I feel this way? You obviousy are too biased to ever understand.

By your questions you seem to believe skill outweighs the turn of the cards in a N/L tourney situation. In the very long run so do I. The problem is that Phil has yet to enter the proverbial very long run and may never reach it during a lifetime of play.

[sleepyjoeyt]

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

Maybe Barry Bonds is just a lucky home run hitter.

Maybe Sklansky is really talking out his ass and doesn't understand anything, but has just gotten lucky to hit on some concepts and guessed at the right reasoning.

These things are certainly possible.

But God (or whatever you believe) gave us the ability to use common sense. And common sense alone says that maybe something that seems EXTREMELY lucky isn't lucky at all but might be based on something else.

And I'm not saying that Phil is the greatest player in the world. I'm just saying that his accomplishments make it hard for me to dismiss what he has done as simply dumb luck.

Here's another concept. We're only talking Hold'em tournaments at the World Series of Poker.

I'll take Phil H to win another championship before any single person that you name. Remember, we're only talking Hold'em tournaments at the WSOP.

So, who's your horse?

Another factor for me: I wonder what the boys in Vegas who set the lines would give on Hellmuth to win the WSOP championship next year? I'll give my left nut if they had 500 people listed as more likely winners than he.

But your probably smarter than those guys, too.

[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.

[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."

[lunchmeat]

He may or may not be a genius at cards, but he was smart enough to post his home phone number on the ineternet. The number's at the bottom of the page at this web address. http://www.philhellmuth.com/play_with_phil.html