Was Paul Phillips *GASP* WRONG?!?

[Daliman]

I couldn't find it in a search, but at some point in time last year, Paul Phillips entered into the fray of an argument concerning Phil Hellmuth's place in history with regards to him having 9 bracelets and whether or not anyone will ever surpass that. IIRC, PP said something to the effect of "of course PH will have the most bracelets now. The fields are too big for anyone ever to catch him now."

Personally, at the time, I thought this was total BS. Last year, with the biggest overall fields in history to that point, 2 people were able to win 2 bracelets each, and a 3rd person had a 1st and 2nd,(although, had he won 1st, he'd have bumped one of the 2-time winners off the list from last year). Many top players won bracelets last year, and once again this year, at least 4 of the bracelet winners already have one, (or several), and top pros litter the top ten of all of these tournaments. Now, I love PP about as strongly as is possible for a married, heterosexual man can love a man he has never met, but I'm surprised to find that I was actually more right about this than he was it appears,(small sample size, blah, blah,). It always seemd to me that if you had a tournament with 100 players, and 80 top pros, and a tournament with 1000 players, and the same 80 top pros, plus 800 literally dead money players, a single pros' chances are not that grossly diminished, i'd say by no more than 50% less likely for him to cash or win, but that's a wild, unsubstantiatable guess. The good pros know how to get chips out of bad players, and in these smaller buyin events, it can add extra cushion for when the cards aren't coming.

Anyways, whenever I hear another big name winning a bracelet, I think of what PP said, and I die a little inside each time, for he attempted to lead me astray. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] It actually DOES bother me that someone I consider one of the great minds in poker, the "poker dickhead exposer" himself, could be so far off.

I'm sure he'll come in here and rebut me brilliantly, which I await with breath that smells like bait. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[johnnybeef]

hes human, same as you and me. we all make mistakes.

[Nottom]

I still think he is probably not too far off. People will still get a couple bracelets, but unless one of the guys with quite a few bracelets already are able to outrace Phil its unlikely that any new players are going to get 9-10.

But then again, Scott Fischman has 2 and has had some strong showings this year so maybe it is just a matter of time before some of the young guys start accumulating bracelets and pass Phil.

[Freudian]

He didn't say that pros weren't going to win bracelets though.

As long as someone doesn't get 10, one could argue that his view is valid. But with the number of events at the WSOP annually, someone who plays most of them will definately have a shot of getting a bracelet/year. Will be exceptional to do so but still.

What I really think PP tried to say is that some of Hellmuths bracelets were of the kiddie pool variety, compared to todays competition. Doyle beat less than 40 players for his both main event bracelets back in the days. Even the most minor events of this days WSOP dwarf the competitions of old. And the number of players who have a good grasp of poker is skyrocketing.

[Daliman]

I agree with this, but it's hard to say ANY of PH's bracelets are "kiddie pool" Even if only 90 competitors, when 80 of them are the topplayers in the world, you earned yer f'n bracelet, period. Now Doyle's, I agree, probably half of his are under 50 players, but also, he admits to dumping in at least one of his early events,(he wanted to stay under the radar, and thought the notoriety would cost him $$$). But still, the fields have been growing every year, and there are guys like Jesus, Layne Flack, and Phil Ivey who have 4 or 5 bracelets in just the last 6 years alone, plus more than a few second place finishes between them.

His opinion at the time just seemed a bit "chicken little" to me.

"The fields are growing, the fields are growing! No one will ever topple the evil one, he is too far ahead!"

[jomatty]

other than doyle and johnny and a handfull of other guys who have 5-7 bracelets,i would put the odds of anyone else joining there company at nil. certainly nothing he said is currently being proved wrong. great players willl still win bracelets and may even win multiple bracelets, but to win 9 in this era of 2000+ fields is almost implossible in my mind.
matty

[Malachii]

Does anyone know why Paul Phillips dislikes Hellmuth so strongly? Did Phil ridicule his play or something?

[Willy]

It is even quite possible that Phil will win number 10 before he's done.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
It is even quite possible that Phil will win number 10 before he's done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's WAY more than possible. Less a question of if than when.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
It always seemd to me that if you had a tournament with 100 players, and 80 top pros, and a tournament with 1000 players, and the same 80 top pros, plus 800 literally dead money players, a single pros' chances are not that grossly diminished, i'd say by no more than 50% less likely for him to cash or win, but that's a wild, unsubstantiatable guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree with that estimate.