Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?

[nath]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is because Phil likes to play small-pot poker, not push his edges, not commit too much to any hand, keep players in pots, then complain when they outdraw him or beat him with aggression, usually to his wife or parents.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This logic is faulty.

TOP says expressly that u should not give ur opponent infinite odds on a draw, even if you cannot charge him enough (IE limit games) to make it a bad call on his part. If he knows the flush draw wants to hang on, he should charge him the price of admission.

However, I highly doubt this move is -EV for PH. He knows his game well enough to understand when to employ this move and precisely what he is trying to exploit when he does.

We probably saw it so much on TV due to his pomposity.
EDIT -- (which would make it -EV in the short term due to the overuse)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This logic is faulty.

TOP says expressly that u should not give ur opponent infinite odds on a draw, even if you cannot charge him enough (IE limit games) to make it a bad call on his part. If he knows the flush draw wants to hang on, he should charge him the price of admission.

However, I highly doubt this move is -EV for PH. He knows his game well enough to understand when to employ this move and precisely what he is trying to exploit when he does.

We probably saw it so much on TV due to his pomposity.
EDIT -- (which would make it -EV in the short term due to the overuse)

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with you about needing at least some kind of bet. Proper odds is still better than infinite odds.

I heard he was doing it a lot of times. Not only at the WSOP but also the TOC. If he only did it occasionally, I would be inclined to believe that it was meant to mess with his opponent's mental game. Since he is doing it quite often, I don't think that is the case.