Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?

I have noticed a lot on the 2005 WSOP coverage that he is dark checking a lot on the flop. Not just in the main event, either.

This seems to be a dumb play. Yes you can get lucky with the flop and not give out any info until after your opponent acts. However, most new players are not up on reading people and Phil should be able to hide his emotions when checking.

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.

Just curious if anyone else has noticed this. I have done it in some NL cash games and small tournaments, but only in very special circumstances.

P.S.--For someone that thinks he is one of the best players in the world, a lot of the other pros don't agree. I was reading Daniel N's blog about a week ago and he was talking about being really excited to play in a live gave with Phil. Kind of like I am really happy to play against a couple guys that just started playing. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[closer2313]

Danny N was excited to play in a cash game. I really doubt Danny would want Phil at his table in a NLHE Tournament.

Hellmuth is a genius.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
Danny N was excited to play in a cash game. I really doubt Danny would want Phil at his table in a NLHE Tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you are so smart.

If he is so bad at cash games, he must be dangerous in tournaments.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
Hellmuth is a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

if genius means thinking that AKo is a favorite vs AKs, then yes you are correct.

[PassiveCaller]

I doubt Daniel would care either way. Cash Game, Tournament whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
Hellmuth is a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if your post was sarcastic or legit. I will assume (probably wrong) that you really think he is a genius.

That is a nice opinion. When I was starting out, I really liked his play. I got his book and all his instructional DVDs. I saw the way he acted on TV but assumed that it was a tactical ploy. I mean if he is one of the best players in the world, that isn't much of a stretch.

Since then, I have changed my opinion a lot. I think he does a lot of things right in a poker tournament and is a great player but I no longer rate him among the "best in the world."

Besides that, he is a HORRIBLE ambassador for poker. His book was awful. A couple of the DVDs were decent for new players but the tournament DVD was so bad. And not like he doesn't know much about tournaments. He just threw that DVD together and got it out to make some money. Really sucks.

Okay thread drift over. Does anyone have any opinions on dark-checking and why he chooses to do it so often?

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt Daniel would care either way. Cash Game, Tournament whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

From watching his play and reading descriptions of him, I get the impression that part of what makes him so great at tournaments is that he is very good at exploiting players with glaring weaknesses. A good player like Daniel is not going to let him control the table like he wants to.

[Kaeser]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Danny N was excited to play in a cash game. I really doubt Danny would want Phil at his table in a NLHE Tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you are so smart.

If he is so bad at cash games, he must be dangerous in tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link
Barry Greenstein rated Phil as a 3 of 10 in side games. Not sure how much credit you can give that.

[ QUOTE ]
He feels he has enough technical skill to win at higher limits, but when he has tried in the past, he often gotten derailed by his lack of self-control.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Notorious G.O.B.]

You understand that there are different skill sets for tournaments and cash games, right? Doyle Brunson would probably arm wrestle a Crododile for a shot at Stu Ungar in a cash game, but I doubt he wanted to sit next to him at a tourney.