Hellmuth Crushing at the WSOP

[WSOPChump]

Phil is either one or two in the known pros rankings at the World Series (him or Mortenson).

Maybe he is up for making bolder calls this series.

Phil Hellmuth Builds Stack
Hellmuth raises to $4,500 from mid-position and is re-raised $10,000 more from late position and Hellmuth makes the call. The flop comes K76 and Hellmuth checks, his opponent instantly goes all-in for $18,000. Hellmuth calls quickly and shows JJ, his opponent shows A10. The turn brings a Q and river a 2, Hellmuth takes the pot and is up to $100,000.

[JackWhite]

That is an unusual call for Phil. We've seem him play so ultra cautious in many recent events. Hopefully he starts showing a willingness to make calls like this and take a chance. His reading skills are solid, I just wish he'd trust them more.

[sekrah]

With Hellmuth's reading ability, he could become extremely dangerous if he starts trusting his instincts more to pick off pushes like this..

If word gets around that Phil brought his balls to this WSOP and he's picking off bluffs left and right, he might start forcing aggressive players to back off a little and this could make Phil a very dangerous player

[ QUOTE ]
and this could make Phil a very dangerous player

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 'cause he's just a harmless little bunny rabbit right now.

[Dynasty]

It's a good call, of course, since the King is a card to be wary of. But, let's not overrate it.

Each player put T14,500 into the pot pre-flop and Phil neds to call T18,000 on the flop By the time he makes the call, there is T47,000 in the pot. He's getting 2.6:1 on that call.

Hellmuth's stack size after the hand was T100,000. So, he must have had T67,500 before the hand began. When the flop call was made, the T18,000 represented about 1/3 of his remaining stack.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
With Hellmuth's reading ability, he could become extremely dangerous if he starts trusting his instincts more to pick off pushes like this..

If word gets around that Phil brought his balls to this WSOP and he's picking off bluffs left and right, he might start forcing aggressive players to back off a little and this could make Phil a very dangerous player

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Phil does trust his reads and make calls like this when he thinks his opponent is on a stone bluff. He has always said he accumulates the most chips by getting opponents to bluff into him.

I think his weakness is he has trouble pressing his advantage when he is +EV, but where his opponent has a decent chance of sucking out...he prefers to feel around and wait until he feels the outcome is more certain. This actually gives his opponents more chance to suck out in situations where they would have folded to a large bet.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With Hellmuth's reading ability, he could become extremely dangerous if he starts trusting his instincts more to pick off pushes like this..

If word gets around that Phil brought his balls to this WSOP and he's picking off bluffs left and right, he might start forcing aggressive players to back off a little and this could make Phil a very dangerous player

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Phil does trust his reads and make calls like this when he thinks his opponent is on a stone bluff. He has always said he accumulates the most chips by getting opponents to bluff into him.

I think his weakness is he has trouble pressing his advantage when he is +EV, but where his opponent has a decent chance of sucking out...he prefers to feel around and wait until he feels the outcome is more certain. This actually gives his opponents more chance to suck out in situations where they would have folded to a large bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listening to his commentary during last year's Final Table I had the feeling that, even when he's not involved, he seems to feel personally aggrieved when anything that's better than a 60% favourite doesn't hold up. It's like it offends his sense of universal order.

[nuclear500]

If it wasn't for luck he'd win um all I thought /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TomCollins]

I would almost never fold here if I'm Hellmuth.

[Jurollo]

There isnt a hand that villian plays this way that Phil doesnt beat.
~Justin

[AcesUp]

[ QUOTE ]
There isnt a hand that villian plays this way that Phil doesnt beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm...AK?


-Aces

[JackOfSpeed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There isnt a hand that villian plays this way that Phil doesnt beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm...AK?


-Aces

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and why not AA or QQ? Explain pls.

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There isnt a hand that villian plays this way that Phil doesnt beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm...AK?


-Aces

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was wondering about why he couldn't have AK there. Jurollo, are you assuming that he would call in position with AK there and not reraise? Or are you assuming he would pot control/allow Hellmuth to stab, since there aren't many danger cards (the 67 allows a str8 draw, but not extremely likely).

[AcesUp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There isnt a hand that villian plays this way that Phil doesnt beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm...AK?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was wondering about why he couldn't have AK there. Jurollo, are you assuming that he would call in position with AK there and not reraise? Or are you assuming he would pot control/allow Hellmuth to stab, since there aren't many danger cards (the 67 allows a str8 draw, but not extremely likely).

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem here is that the EV for waiting until the turn against Hellmuth is low. If Hellmuth has a decent piece of this board, he is much more likely to call a big bet on the flop (suspecting a bluff) than he is to put in a lot of money on the turn. In my experience, on the turn, he'd likely make a small probe bet and fold to any raise.

So, IMO, the correct play in this situation with AK against Hellmuth would be to push the flop. But, with the actual hand (a bluff with AT), I think he had a much better chance of taking it down if he waited until the turn.

-Aces

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and this could make Phil a very dangerous player

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 'cause he's just a harmless little bunny rabbit right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't the guy meant he wasn't an elite player, but what if Phil somehow reaches another level in his game?

[ed8383]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and this could make Phil a very dangerous player

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 'cause he's just a harmless little bunny rabbit right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't the guy meant he wasn't an elite player, but what if Phil somehow reaches another level in his game?

[/ QUOTE ]
another level in his game? please! he is a 9 time WSOP bracelet winner. The only problem Phil has is that he makes more money from all his other deals going on rather than poker. He hasn't "played poker for a living" for sometime now which has seen him play fewer and fewer tournaments. You could say his pokerbrat persona and the money it has made him has hurt his game a bit. He nolonger fully concentrates on winning poker tournaments.

[jdblacknines]

I think Phil has realized this and we are seeing this year that he can still be an elite player when he focuses.

[i am run]

i need to change my name to Phil...

he is definitly playing very well at this years WSOP. he will have his 10'th bracelet, if not an 11th to follow this year.

[ed8383]

Phil, Tony G and Humberto Brenes among the chip leaders. Wouldn't that be great tv if all 3 made the final table.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil is either one or two in the known pros rankings at the World Series (him or Mortenson).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah who is that Joe Hachem chump in 3rd, nobody has ever heard of that guy.

Carlos isn't even in the Top 20 but there are players like
Cunningham, Ivey, Boyd and Lindergren who are. Carlos is having a good tournament but he isn't getting many Player points, he is like tied for 27th.

RZ

[KenProspero]

Is there anywhere I can get a complete list of who's left?

[NYWalker]

1. Reading it clearly PF, JJ was re-raised. Unless villain has loose image on the table, the raised indicated AA,KK,AK;
2. Since Phil act first, the call of villain's all-in may indicate Phil put villian on AK but want to get lucky catching J on later street? Pot-odd still doesn't justify?
3. What if Villian acted first on the flop and pushed all-in? Phil still would call?

[ QUOTE ]


another level in his game? please! he is a 9 time WSOP bracelet winner. The only problem Phil has is that he makes more money from all his other deals going on rather than poker. He hasn't "played poker for a living" for sometime now which has seen him play fewer and fewer tournaments. You could say his pokerbrat persona and the money it has made him has hurt his game a bit. He nolonger fully concentrates on winning poker tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when you don't play poker for a living and only think winning will get you extra money for fun, you would play differently.

Remember Chris Moneymakers' 88 all-in on the K9x flop and turned 8 cracked the AA? You can't explain everyhand technically, it has gamble/lucky factors. I think this year's ME winner will have many bad moves at the right time.

[thedarknight]

I think a huge reason Phil is doing so well in the WSOP is he is just better at playing the amateur/chumps than the best pros. his reads are more spot on. When up against the good pros he's the live one (evident by HSP). This is why all these small WSOP events are perfect for him...he's just feasting on these amateur-filled tournaments.

[Solitare]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a huge reason Phil is doing so well in the WSOP is he is just better at playing the amateur/chumps than the best pros. his reads are more spot on. When up against the good pros he's the live one (evident by HSP). This is why all these small WSOP events are perfect for him...he's just feasting on these amateur-filled tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh-Oh. Common wisdom collision. Ahwoogah, Ahwoogah, Dive Dive!!

According to this board, Phil H. either:

A: Has had trouble winning in recent WSOPs because he is unwilling to take marginal +EV situations against amateurs overplaying their hands. Even though he has the right reads, he doesn't follow through with them.
B: Is having a great WSOP because he is better than most pros at taking advantage of amateurs mistakes. He has the right reads and is taking advantage of them.

Contridiction alert!!

Much more likely situation:

C: Phil H. always has been, and still is, one of the best tournament NLHE players. He hasn't been that successful in recent WSOPs due to varience (which has increased dramatically with larger, donk-filled fields). He is doing well this year because varience has swung back in his direction.

[willie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a huge reason Phil is doing so well in the WSOP is he is just better at playing the amateur/chumps than the best pros. his reads are more spot on. When up against the good pros he's the live one (evident by HSP). This is why all these small WSOP events are perfect for him...he's just feasting on these amateur-filled tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is so completely ridiculous....

[trying2learn]

[ QUOTE ]
Much more likely situation:

C: Phil H. always has been, and still is, one of the best tournament NLHE players. He hasn't been that successful in recent WSOPs due to varience (which has increased dramatically with larger, donk-filled fields). He is doing well this year because varience has swung back in his direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is so true, I'm amazed some people have such a hard time admitting it. the act is for publicity - it's the howard stern philosophy - it doesn't matter if they're tuning in because they like you or because they hate you - as long as they're tuning in. pair that with his skills in holdem tournaments, and you have a f'n gold mine.

the only thing i've ever thought was truly silly about phil was his insistance he can beat the large cash games...everything else he says is either for the cameras or it's true. it's all great tv though.

[kolotoure]

If you played every event at the wsop for 10 years you probably wouldn't even get close to your true ROI

[jdblacknines]

Phil has to win a bracelet this year or the whole run in going to be a failure in his eyes.

[rothko]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and this could make Phil a very dangerous player

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 'cause he's just a harmless little bunny rabbit in eagle's clothing right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[thedarknight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a huge reason Phil is doing so well in the WSOP is he is just better at playing the amateur/chumps than the best pros. his reads are more spot on. When up against the good pros he's the live one (evident by HSP). This is why all these small WSOP events are perfect for him...he's just feasting on these amateur-filled tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is so completely ridiculous....

[/ QUOTE ]

how is this completely ridiculous? he is the best at reading amateurs..he can make huge laydowns. what part do you think is COMPLETELY ridiculous? you state something but don't counter with anything back. speak up.

[JoaoPinto]

It's completely ridiculous because the exact opposite is true. Phil won his 9 bracelets when pros vastly outnumbered amatuers at the WSOP. He was the national heads up champion against an all elite field and has done well at various tournament of champion and invitational events with all superstars. He has struggled if anything with the weaker fields because his reads are not spot on with bad players, especially bad hyper aggressive players who are a post moneymaker incarnation. Coming to terms with that plus variance evening out for him is responsible for his good run this year.

He went on monster tilt on HSP after getting cold decked on the QQ - KQ hand. How would you feel if someone took footage of you having a bad night and used it to dismiss everything you ever have achieved and are ever going to achieve? I don't think there's a player in the game that would do well on a night where barry greenstein was cold decking them.

[AtTheMovies]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there anywhere I can get a complete list of who's left?

[/ QUOTE ]

is this what you were asking about? from cardplayer:

Seat 1 - Ralph Perry $235,000

Seat 2 - Terris Preston $164,000

Seat 3 - Antanas 'Tony' Guoga $77,000

Seat 4 - John Spadavecchia $122,000

Seat 5 - Elio Cabrera $95,000

Seat 6 - David Plastik $121,000

Seat 7 - Empty

Seat 8 - Juha Helppi $436,000

Seat 9 - Phil Hellmuth $768,000

Seat 10 - Daryn Firicano $450,000

[nath]

that is a sick final table
GO DARYN

[thedarknight]

[ QUOTE ]
It's completely ridiculous because the exact opposite is true. Phil won his 9 bracelets when pros vastly outnumbered amatuers at the WSOP. He was the national heads up champion against an all elite field and has done well at various tournament of champion and invitational events with all superstars. He has struggled if anything with the weaker fields because his reads are not spot on with bad players, especially bad hyper aggressive players who are a post moneymaker incarnation. Coming to terms with that plus variance evening out for him is responsible for his good run this year.

He went on monster tilt on HSP after getting cold decked on the QQ - KQ hand. How would you feel if someone took footage of you having a bad night and used it to dismiss everything you ever have achieved and are ever going to achieve? I don't think there's a player in the game that would do well on a night where barry greenstein was cold decking them.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah A4 and 66 was some terrible cold deck hands. poor phil.

in regards to his 9 bracelets when the the pros outnumbered the amateurs, those were the days when mainstay pros like doyle, barry, chip, etc. didn't give a damn about the bracelets. todd brunson mentioned back in the day, "why does phil try so hard to get these bracelets?" then admitted..."well I guess he knew something we didn't." The big time pros didn't play in these dinky small events..they were there to make the cash in the big games...now they're playing in more of them because they carry prestige. whether that makes winning bracelets easier is up to debate....Phil knows how to read the amateurs well...he makes certain folds because he doesn't want to take the gamble. he makes these lay downs to wait for a better spot...sometimes even foregoing a huge edge.

[JoaoPinto]

yeah A4 and 66 was some terrible cold deck hands. poor phil.

The KQ hand was a cold deck and the 66 was not an unreasonable move. Granted Phil shouldnt have been in the pot with the A4 but he was tilting and it was very hard for him to put Negreanu on what he had. We've seen worse from other players who don't get anything like the grief Phil gets.

in regards to his 9 bracelets when the the pros outnumbered the amateurs, those were the days when mainstay pros like doyle, barry, chip, etc. didn't give a damn about the bracelets.

Chip Reese cashed in hellmuth's 1989 main event. http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=r&n=8011 as did todd brunson himself in an event hellmuth won in 1997
http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=r&n=7811

Phil has consistenly won and cashed in events with top players in them. What about the 2nd in this years $5,000 NLH event? That contained just about every top pro around today.

[WSOPChump]

the big named pros have always played the main event.

he means the 1K to 5K events in the past.

[ QUOTE ]
There isnt a hand that villian plays this way that Phil doesnt beat.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

You joker. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[WSOPChump]

it would not be a contradiction to say that perhaps phil has adjusted his game and is not as willing to get runover by lags as he was in the past?

negreanu has stated this is phil's problem (he wont play a big pot unless he's a huge favorite) and he made alot of big laydowns on TV tournaments in the past.

yeah variance explains it but it also sounds like phil may have tweaked his strategy a bit.

[eclinchy]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Reading it clearly PF, JJ was re-raised. Unless villain has loose image on the table, the raised indicated AA,KK,AK;


[/ QUOTE ]

I have my doubts. Against a random amateur, a reraise might mean AQ-A9 or QQ-88 or so. It depends on reads, which Phil has and we don't. So let's not speculate that much.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Since Phil act first, the call of villain's all-in may indicate Phil put villian on AK but want to get lucky catching J on later street? Pot-odd still doesn't justify?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, of course not. Phil's getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 3:1 on his money, and with two jacks left in the deck, he's like 9:1. Not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
3. What if Villian acted first on the flop and pushed all-in? Phil still would call?


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume so. I don't think that really changes much of anything.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember Chris Moneymakers' 88 all-in on the K9x flop and turned 8 cracked the AA? You can't explain everyhand technically, it has gamble/lucky factors. I think this year's ME winner will have many bad moves at the right time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your "you can't explain everyhand technically" claim. I think that's one of the great things about poker -- that any hand can be dissected and any decision can be re-examined. (In the case of your Moneymaker example however, my technical explanation is little more than "Moneymaker's a donk who got lucky.") /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

And as for the ME winner, of course he's going to get lucky with good timing. No one, especially not in a tournament field as huge as this year's ME will be, wins a tournament without doing so. But to say he will make "many bad moves" is going a bit overboard. I think the ME winner, whether any of us have heard of him or not, will be a good player. The Varkonyi/Moneymaker days are over -- you don't just outlast thousands of players on luck alone.

[WSOPChump]

I dont think its fair to call moneymaker a donk. he took second in a wpt event, also, and he is not a WPT regular. so im assuming he is positive for the last two years excluding the WSOP win.

i think paul phillips said moneymaker is a good player who is very aggressive and that a good aggressive player has alot better shot in a tourney than a good somewaht conservative player. moneymaker might not be an elite player but i think he is above average.

varkoni is another story. i dont think he plays very much but he has not had a big score since then. though not having seen him play it would be unfair to call him a donk.

[eclinchy]

Of course, this is all relative. A "donk" at the WSOP could still do fine at tons of smaller online and live games all over the world.

But still, you look at some of the plays that both Moneymaker and Varkonyi made, and you do have to wonder how they managed to win millions. Now, it's possible that both men are better players now than they were three or four years ago, but back then, they both had a lot of learning to do. In Moneymaker's case, I think the call he made against Brenes is a good example.

[jdblacknines]

Moneymaker will cash in the shootout Limit he is in now and that will be his first cash in a couple YEARS.

[mlagoo]

more like smellmuth

[WSOPChump]

he did not call against Brenes.
i beleive he checkraised all in on a king high flop.
he stated Brenes was betting alot of flops so he made a play and Brenes happened to have pocket aces.
moneymaker has played few events at the WSOP in the last couple years.
although i beleive he stated that he was playing alot of events this yr. so he probably has not had a good world series. but i dont think he's aweful.

[boo5000]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Reading it clearly PF, JJ was re-raised. Unless villain has loose image on the table, the raised indicated AA,KK,AK;
2. Since Phil act first, the call of villain's all-in may indicate Phil put villian on AK but want to get lucky catching J on later street? Pot-odd still doesn't justify?
3. What if Villian acted first on the flop and pushed all-in? Phil still would call?

[ QUOTE ]


another level in his game? please! he is a 9 time WSOP bracelet winner. The only problem Phil has is that he makes more money from all his other deals going on rather than poker. He hasn't "played poker for a living" for sometime now which has seen him play fewer and fewer tournaments. You could say his pokerbrat persona and the money it has made him has hurt his game a bit. He nolonger fully concentrates on winning poker tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when you don't play poker for a living and only think winning will get you extra money for fun, you would play differently.

Remember Chris Moneymakers' 88 all-in on the K9x flop and turned 8 cracked the AA? You can't explain everyhand technically, it has gamble/lucky factors. I think this year's ME winner will have many bad moves at the right time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Phil had any feeling at all that he was bluffing, or being overagressive with a weaker hand, then he will check that flop. If he wants to get it all in anyway, might as well let the other guy hang himself instead of folding to a decent contiuation bet.

Phil probably picked up on something during the reraise.

[eclinchy]

I think Moneymaker checkraised, and then called when he got reraised all-in. But I admit, my memory of the hand from three years ago isn't perfect. Either way, I think his reads are fairly mediocre. Again, I never said he was completely awful, but compared to the world-class pros, he's a _bit_ of a donk.

[Aceshigh7]

[ QUOTE ]
the big named pros have always played the main event.

he means the 1K to 5K events in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

There weren't that many 1K WSOP events during the period we're talking about. They are much more plentiful these days.

[thedarknight]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah A4 and 66 was some terrible cold deck hands. poor phil.

The KQ hand was a cold deck and the 66 was not an unreasonable move. Granted Phil shouldnt have been in the pot with the A4 but he was tilting and it was very hard for him to put Negreanu on what he had. We've seen worse from other players who don't get anything like the grief Phil gets.

[/ QUOTE ]

So just because you're tilting means it's ok? Steam control is probably the most single key factor into being a great player. You can't simply put an excuse.."Oh he's a great player, he only lost because he was just tilting." Those hands were poorly played....he was calling so many marginal hands preflop..and then CHECING them...I understand the notion that you can call with any 2 and try to outplay, but he wasn't doing that. He was going with this check/call, check in the dark style trapping with terrible hands.

Are you also saying Phil gets more unlucky than any other players? Perhaps his beats are more impressionable by his tantrums...vs. say Phil Ivey's beats who gets up and leaves the table.

[ QUOTE ]
in regards to his 9 bracelets when the the pros outnumbered the amateurs, those were the days when mainstay pros like doyle, barry, chip, etc. didn't give a damn about the bracelets.

Chip Reese cashed in hellmuth's 1989 main event. http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=r&n=8011 as did todd brunson himself in an event hellmuth won in 1997
http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=r&n=7811

Phil has consistenly won and cashed in events with top players in them. What about the 2nd in this years $5,000 NLH event? That contained just about every top pro around today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like someone had already stated...all the big name pros play the main event..and I was talking about the SMALLER ONES..the days when poker was dying and the fields were small. I have no idea if this was easier or not..it's just a conjecture.

[Whitewash]

Even more significant than many of the top players not playing preliminary events, overall there are just so many more people playing NL Hold Em nowadays, and as a result a LOT more really good NLHE players.

10 years ago, pretty much everyone never ever played NL Hold Em outside of a couple tournaments at the World Series.

There is a lot more parity among the best 20% or so players in the field of a $2,500 (and higher) NLHE WSOP event than a decade ago.

[cookieb]

[ QUOTE ]
Moneymaker will cash in the shootout Limit he is in now and that will be his first cash in a couple YEARS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly how much does he play? Just curious, it seems he rarely plays.

[sekrah]

Moneymaker finished 10th in a Pot Limit Omaha WSOP event in 2004... Finished 18th at a UB poker classic.

From what I've seen he spends most of his time online. He hardly ever gets out and does the live tourneys.

He's a money guy (an accountant) so he's probably pretty responsible/conservative with money and doesn't go out too often to throw his millions around. Probably has most of it in the stock market.

[Ditch Digger]

[ QUOTE ]
Moneymaker finished 10th in a Pot Limit Omaha WSOP event in 2004... Finished 18th at a UB poker classic.

From what I've seen he spends most of his time online. He hardly ever gets out and does the live tourneys.

He's a money guy (an accountant) so he's probably pretty responsible/conservative with money and doesn't go out too often to throw his millions around. Probably has most of it in the stock market.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've heard the opposite is true.

[eclinchy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moneymaker finished 10th in a Pot Limit Omaha WSOP event in 2004... Finished 18th at a UB poker classic.

From what I've seen he spends most of his time online. He hardly ever gets out and does the live tourneys.

He's a money guy (an accountant) so he's probably pretty responsible/conservative with money and doesn't go out too often to throw his millions around. Probably has most of it in the stock market.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've heard the opposite is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? This sounds interesting. Please do share details.

[JoaoPinto]

So just because you're tilting means it's ok? Steam control is probably the most single key factor into being a great player. You can't simply put an excuse.."Oh he's a great player, he only lost because he was just tilting." Those hands were poorly played....he was calling so many marginal hands preflop..and then CHECING them...I understand the notion that you can call with any 2 and try to outplay, but he wasn't doing that. He was going with this check/call, check in the dark style trapping with terrible hands.

I don't disagree but just because Phil does it on one show doesn't mean he's a bad player. Stu ungar was a fierce tilter as were ppl like Negreanu when he was younger. Phil is one of those guys who when he's on fire (as he is now) he's the best in the world but when he off his game he's a donator. Someone like Greenstein or Reese may never hit fire the way a guy like phil or stu ungar does they are an 8/10 guy every night where Phil fluctuates between 5 and 10.

Are you also saying Phil gets more unlucky than any other players? Perhaps his beats are more impressionable by his tantrums...vs. say Phil Ivey's beats who gets up and leaves the table.

No he's not any less lucky but he'll suffer more bad beats because he plays more hands and bets weaker than Ivey. Also Ivey is more socially reserved how do you know he isn't going "What a stupid donkey can I catch a break..... etc" in his head as he's walking away.

Like someone had already stated...all the big name pros play the main event..and I was talking about the SMALLER ONES..the days when poker was dying and the fields were small. I have no idea if this was easier or not..it's just a conjecture.

I dont think we can easily put Phil's earlier wins into modern context but the idea that Phil Helmuth can only beat bad players just doesn't hold up. Even going by this year alone he's made three final tables in events packed with superstars and was very unlucky no to win the $5,000 NLH event which is probably no.4 in terms of prestege behind the main event, the horse and the $10k PLO.

[Rick Diesel]

[ QUOTE ]
that is a sick final table
GO DARYN

[/ QUOTE ]

How many bracelets does it take to remove yourself from the hot tub?

Go Daryn!

[wiper]

[ QUOTE ]
more like smellmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha....good hand, buddy.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moneymaker finished 10th in a Pot Limit Omaha WSOP event in 2004... Finished 18th at a UB poker classic.

From what I've seen he spends most of his time online. He hardly ever gets out and does the live tourneys.

He's a money guy (an accountant) so he's probably pretty responsible/conservative with money and doesn't go out too often to throw his millions around. Probably has most of it in the stock market.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've heard the opposite is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? This sounds interesting. Please do share details.

[/ QUOTE ]

In his book there are several times where he gets himself in too deep gambling. I'm going on memory here, but believe he blew the majority of his bankroll in just a few days betting sports after having had an extended good run to build the roll.

[imsobroke]

Phil has about 1/2 of all the chips left at the table. $1.1 million with 4 left.

[jdblacknines]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil has about 1/2 of all the chips left at the table. $1.1 million with 4 left.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has a good lead, but really anyone's tourney. PH has to keep pushing the action, IMO.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moneymaker finished 10th in a Pot Limit Omaha WSOP event in 2004... Finished 18th at a UB poker classic.

From what I've seen he spends most of his time online. He hardly ever gets out and does the live tourneys.

He's a money guy (an accountant) so he's probably pretty responsible/conservative with money and doesn't go out too often to throw his millions around. Probably has most of it in the stock market.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've heard the opposite is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? This sounds interesting. Please do share details.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read his book. It's actually pretty interesting and surprisingly honest. He is anything but conservative with money. He blew tens of thousands of dollars he didn't have (he was jointly bankrolled with his dad) on a drunken sports-betting whim.

The night he won the WSOP main event he went out and spent something like $30K at a strip club.

Granted, I would have done the exact same thing. I'm just saying that Dan Harrington wouldn't have. Just because Moneymaker comes from an accounting background doesn't mean he's a tightwad like Harrington. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[octop]

do u realize how many smoking hot chicks u can [censored] for that same 30k?

[EricOF]

He won't get his 10th this year.

[lastsamurai]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moneymaker finished 10th in a Pot Limit Omaha WSOP event in 2004... Finished 18th at a UB poker classic.

From what I've seen he spends most of his time online. He hardly ever gets out and does the live tourneys.

He's a money guy (an accountant) so he's probably pretty responsible/conservative with money and doesn't go out too often to throw his millions around. Probably has most of it in the stock market.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've heard the opposite is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? This sounds interesting. Please do share details.

[/ QUOTE ]
I heard before he won the ME he was 50K in bad debt. He was thinking of cashing out his seat and not play in the wsop because he needed to pay his bills.

[ohkanada]

[ QUOTE ]
He won't get his 10th this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

He may not but he has a 5-1 chiplead.
errr, 7 to 1 chiplead. 2.2 to .3

Ken

[imjoshsizemore]

Hellmuth raises to $80,000 from the button and Helppi moves all in. Hellmuth immediately calls all in for $1,055,000 and shows KhKs. Helppi shows Ah10d and the board comes Q8226. Phil Hellmuth has doubled up.



Phil Hellmuth $2,200,000

Juha Helppi $300,000

[imjoshsizemore]

Juha Helppi Doubles Up

Helppi moves all in for $215,000 and Hellmuth makes the call. Helppi shows AcQc and Hellmuth turns over Ks4d. The board comes AhJc4s10d2d and Juha Helppi has doubled up.

So now its 430k to 2070k , back to 5-1

[EricOF]

I was wrong!

[lastsamurai]

2006 37TH ANNUAL WORLD SERIES OF POKER:
No-Limit Hold'em
Phil Hellmuth Wins 10th Bracelet!!!
238. Phil Hellmuth limps in from the button and Juha Helppi moves all in. Hellmuth immediately calls with AJ. Helppi turns over A9. The board comes Q82K6 and Phil Hellmuth has won the tournament.

Juha Helppi finishes in second place and earns $331,144.

Phil Hellmuth earns his 10th gold bracelet and $631,863.

[Photoc]

[ QUOTE ]
He won't get his 10th this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Open mouth, insert foot /images/graemlins/grin.gif