|
|
#1
10-20-2005, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On Phil (H)
The guy's an egomaniac. His enormous success in the past has lead to an inflated ego which has seriously hurt his play in past years. His play has become based entirely on self-weighting decisions (which is hard to avoid, since he plays so incredibly well), but this has lead to catastrophe in the main event in the last two years. Seriously, with his top notch skills, he could have eaten up the field but instead busted out early.
IMO, he puts too many chips at risk pre-flop with small edges, without considering the consequences to his stack and ability to continue on if he loses. For example, this year he made a very large re-raise with AQ against that one donk to put him all-in (the "isolation play"), without realizing the consequences to his stack if the donk got lucky or if someone behind him woke up to a hand (which someone did, QQ). IMO, the risk was to his stack was not worth the reward (3.5 to 1, or 50/50). I mean, seriously, Phil can play so incredibly, incredibly well after the flop why does he constantly insist on jamming the pot pre-flop in race situations or with small edges, if he's not short stacked. I mean, I once saw him make a guy lay down trip jacks in the WSOP. How the hell do you make someone laydown trips heads up? I mean, Phil had two pair and he makes the guy lay down JT on a board of KJJ? That is incredible, incredible play. Phil should have busted on that hand, instead he makes a guy lay down a true monster. Given his incredible skill post flop which is 2nd to none, why does constantly jeopardize himself by getting making risky all-ins pre-flop? This not jeopardizes way too much of his stack, but more importantly, takes away his ability to out play his opponent post flop, WHICH IS WHERE HIS GREATEST ADVANTAGE IS. Essentially, he's giving his opponents their best shot to beat him out of a lot of chips, which is by getting lucky. And of course, they do from time to time. Not only that, but he leaves himself vulnerable to getting busted. With his top notch skill, the possibility of getting busted or getting short stacked should be the one thing he avoids more carefully. Given his tremendous skill, no other player suffers as much detriment by getting busted or by being short stacked as he does. By crippling his stack he cripples his game, and his overall game is so much stronger than the pre-flop odds he gets by getting it all-in with the best hand. What I mean is, what does it matter to a donk if he gets busted early? Chances are, if he doesnt bust now he will inevitable bust later. It makes little difference to his overall result. But to someone like Phil, who has all the skill and potential to chop down Douglas fir with a small hatchet, why EVER jeopardize your chip stack with a small edge (the way a donk would) if you arent absolutely forced to? With his skills (edge over his opponents), even playing AA preflop against a smaller pair for an all-in raise isnt worth it (4.5 to 1). His skills and potential are much greater than that to leave it up to chance to take him out of the tournament. He needs come down off that delusional grandiousity, stop focusing his attention on how lucky his opponents get (he almost gets on tilt like a someone who doesnt understand the game would?), and let himself play his best game, which is mostly undoubtedly post-flop, not pre-flop. He needs to be protective of his chip stack and not allow inferior players to get lucky on him when his edge cards/wise is small compared to his edge playing wise. He also needs to give other player's some credit for their play and the cards they hold and come back down off of that delusional ego stance and join the human race. Why is 77 a bad hand to go all-in on against two overs when someone else holds it, yet 66 is okay when Phil goes all-in on it versus KK (vs Chan in the TOC). IMO, his delusional egocentricity is causing him to play poorly and look at the game from the point of view similiar to that of a young player without experience who expects to win just by virtue of playing better than average starting hands. Given Phil's incredible skill, this type of lapse in his judgement and lack of ability to look at his game objectively, is really a shame. -J -J 
|
|
#6
10-20-2005, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On Phil (H)
[ QUOTE ]
this is so funny on so many levels. my favorite is this though: [ QUOTE ] -J -J [/ QUOTE ] classic. [/ QUOTE ] Instead of pointing out the humour and significance of what is obviously a typo, why dont divulge exactly why you think my post is funny, and on which "levels?" Obviously the "levels" you dwell in would be at the top, and the inherently complexity of the humour is too intellectually confusing to be posted without the wealth of some background information, which you obviously have, being at the top of so many different "levels". Instead, you have deemed an obvious typo the overriding significance, and obviously, by your response, was the only part of the original post you were able to comprehend fully enough to illicit a response. -J
|
|
#7
10-20-2005, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On Phil (H)
I get the feeling based on the length of this response that you don't believe in yes or no questions.
|
|
#8
10-20-2005, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On Phil (H)
I thought that was just a neat way of signing off as 'JJ'.
Hellmuth, moreso than any other pro on TV, doesn't get involved in big preflop raising. Your appraisal of his style of play seems to come from watching 4 or 5 hands on TV. Lastly, you are an idiot.
|
|
#9
10-20-2005, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On Phil (H)
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but I felt it was hijacking the thread so I reposted it with its own thread. In what way is it nonsense? [/ QUOTE ] The fact you are judging his play by a handful of hands you have seen on TV and couldn't be farther off.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
