I know I shouldn't, but I just can't help it... - Page 4

bernie · #31 07-11-2003, 10:17 PM

if i was playing for a living, and i did to a certain extent, i sure wouldnt be doing it on the tourney circuit other than to play the side games. which i did locally. and those games were great. the luck factor in tourneys is much higher to overcome.

sorry to say, but phil is highly overrated. as many 'known' tourney players are. especially when they get into the ringgames. not all, mind you.

the big tourneys arent the biggest test of one's holdem skill. oh, it takes some, but not nearly as much as a limit ringgame.

but if you really think phil is all that, then take notes when vince van patten speaks. he must be a genius too.

b

Jimbo · #32 07-11-2003, 10:55 PM

Sleepyjoet since you clicked on my post to post yours I'll respond. You wrote:

"I'm not a rich guy but I'd bet everything I own that 99.9% of the poker players in the world would get their clock cleaned by this guy."

Phil has as good a chance of being the best slot machine player in the world as he does of being the best poker player in the world. As for cleaning clocks without his "outside" income Phil would be lucky to have a job cleaning clocks or toilets for that matter. With his attitude ie: Phil does not play well with others, he needs to be self employed. That attitude is his own worst enemy at the poker table as well. Untill he, and you for that matter, realize that you can only play poker so well and the turn of the cards takes care of the rest he will tilt himself out of as much money as he wins.

"There's a reason he's got more bracelets than an octopus could wear."

Yes there is, as I have said before it is because he enters as many or more tourneys than anyone else. Actually this one is so simple I shouldn't need to mention the reason.

In summary if you choose to bet everything you own I hope the bank owns most of your posessions so that the loss does not hurt you all that much.

Martin Aigner · #33 07-11-2003, 11:03 PM

Maybe he thought it would be easyer to hit a straight with Ako than AKs. Who knows? [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Best regards

Martin Aigner

sleepyjoeyt · #34 07-12-2003, 08:28 AM

Did you start B & G Shrimp? Oh, no. That was that OTHER idiot.

Get a grip. HE TRAVELS THE POKER CIRCUIT AND PLAYS FOR A LIVING. Most people who post on this site are obviously into poker, and most would love to be able to play and travel for a living.

As I said before, I'd take him against 99% of the posters on this site IN A TOURNAMENT. As far as I know, he doesn't make his living on the side games. I have no personal or trusted knowledge about how he does in side games.

But in tournament poker he is one of the best players around. And anyone who thinks he's survived on the poker tournament trail this long because he is lucky is fooling themselves.

PuffsNutz · #35 07-12-2003, 10:47 AM

I find it interesting that since UB raised its limits
from $10/20 max to $80/$160 that Phil Helmuth
never played higher than $10/$20....That is until
after this years WSOP and book royalties started
rolling in. Wonder how long it will last.

Jimbo · #36 07-12-2003, 11:29 AM

sleepyjoet just wrote: "As I said before, I'd take him against 99% of the posters on this site IN A TOURNAMENT."

No sleepy what you said before was this: 'I'm not a rich guy but I'd bet everything I own that 99.9% of the poker players in the world would get their clock cleaned by this guy. "

Now 99.9% of all the poker players in the world is not the same as 99% of the poker players here on 2+2 only in tournament play. Either be consistent or quit changing your arguement to suit the situation.

In tourney play if Phil cashes 40% of the time he will be doing extremely well. He could not win 99% of the time if he had a crooked dealer cold decking you.

Bama Boy · #37 07-12-2003, 12:56 PM

Ed Miller · #38 07-12-2003, 04:04 PM

I'm not going to say anything about Phil's play. I am going to tell you a couple of things.

1) The posters on this site are not idiots. In fact, many of them are top notch players and thinkers.

2) Because of the hugely high variance inherent in tournament play, it is virtually impossible for anyone to have enough bankroll to ensure against ruin. This means that no matter how good any player is he is still likely to go broke if he plays the tournament circuit long enough.

3) Tournament players make lots of financial deals among one another... to the point that it's basically impossible for someone like you to know whose money he's playing at any given time. For someone as high-profile as Phil, he would have no problem finding someone else's money to play for a long time.

I'm not making any allegations about Phil's finances. What I am saying, though, is that just the fact that Phil has played consistently for twelve years on the poker tournament circuit alone is no proof whatsoever that Phil is even a winning player. When you combine this with observations about Phil... his attitude, his tendency to tilt, and his lack of understanding of the mathematics of the game (none of which are characteristics associated with winning poker play), hopefully you can understand the skepticism expressed on this site.

You should read Nolan Dalla's article on Pokerpages about playing tournaments for a living.

sleepyjoeyt · #39 07-12-2003, 08:13 PM

You are correct that I need to watch the precise words I type. Here is my bottom line about everything that I have written.

I believe that Phil Hellmuth is an excellent tournament poker player.

I do not have any knowledge about how he does in side games.

If there were a huge tournament involving all the regular writers on this forum and Phil Hellmuth, I would bet on Phil Hellmuth, based on the concept that he has done extremely well in previous tournaments, and most of the other posters have not done as well (again, only basing this on info that I am aware of)

Obviously Phil would not beat anyone 99.9% of the time. NO ONE can beat anyone 99.9% of the time, just based on the randomness of cards.

However, I believe that he would be the one to bet on, based on his chances of placing in the money compared to other's chances.

I don't know anything specific about who is bankrolling who, who is out of money, who is bad at poker but makes good money bankrolling others, etc.

I believe that Phil makes people think he is a completely loose cannon with bad poker skills, either as a strategy or as a side effect of the fact that he often appears to be an ass.

I believe people on this site are kidding themselves if they think they would be a better tournament player than Phil.

Again, I don't know about ring games, but Phil has made his name as being an extremely successful tournament player.

And I believe it is not just a factor of entering all the tournaments. He won (I believe) two separate bracelets this year. I didn't do long math but I believe his winnings (after entry fees) cleared $500,000 for this year's WSOP. I would think that would cover his tournament entry fees for the rest of the year, no matter how many tournaments he enters.

I do not believe there are many people out there who have the ability to have this type of tournament success that he has had over the last 15 years. To read some posts make it sound like anyone could have this success if they just entered all the tournaments that he entered. I believe this is simply not true, and if it were true, I believe that most (if not all) of those people would enter all of the tournaments.

I believe we will never agree on this.

I believe at least 95% of the players in the world ( and probably on this site as well) grossly overestimate their own abilities.

I believe we keep track in poker by who makes the $, and I believe, at least in tournament poker, that Phil has made enough money to be above the petty shots people take from afar without venturing into his arena and seeing how they would fare.

Andy B · #40 07-12-2003, 08:18 PM

Most people who post on this site are obviously into poker, and most would love to be able to play and travel for a living.

Let's see--I'm into poker. I have occasionally thought about trying to play for a living. In fact, I did try it, sort of, for a while. I might try it again some time. I would even like to travel to some of the larger tournaments some day, especially if I can tie it in with visiting the various friends and relations I have in CT, AZ, and other places. I have absolutely no interest, however, in traveling the circuit week in and week out. None. Why would you presume that that is what other people want to do? Is that what you want to do? Is it what you are doing, or are you taking steps in that direction? It may look like a glamorous lifestyle, especially on TV, but I suspect that playing tournaments week in and week out is about as much of a grind as playing in ring games week in and week out. Traveling is fun in small doses is fun, but I get tired of it very quickly. Do you want to spend all of your time living out of suitcases?

I'm not advocating either lifestyle, but I think that many, not all, and certainly not most, but many full-time middle-limit pros enjoy a much better quality of life than a lot of the big name pros. Whether or not that includes Phil Hellmuth I don't know, and I don't much care, either.

And Jimbo is no idiot.