How does Phil Hellmuth win tournaments?

[tailspin4540]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that he won 9 of his bracelets before the WSOP exploded. He also did it against extremely small fields when the game was much less sophisticated than it is today. You ever watched any of the old WSOP final tables? I know it may seem shocking, but the play was in fact still horrendous even with the small fields. Alot of the so called "pros" of the late 80s and early 90s would get crushed if they played the same way today. It's not hard to see how much the game has evolved.

Also, the size of the fields when Hellmuth won those 9 illustrious bracelets.

441
398
284
194
178
173
170
88
63

Has to be tough to wade through those huge fields.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your last statement here overlooks two crucial points:

1. Those fields had more good players in relation to bad players
2. Those fields had a lot of the same players, and Hellmuth knew how they played

The impression I get from your posts in this thread is that you think beating bad players and winning tournaments is easy. Yes, Hellmuth beats a lot of bad players. So has every other poker player who's ever won a tournament. But he's also beaten more good players than you seem to want to give him credit for. And you can't win as many tournaments as he has without being able to beat good players.

(God, I sound like such a Hellmuth fanboy in this post and I'm really not.)

[xjimraketex]

i guess you are both right [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
i dont see hellmuth win a bracelet in an event where only world class players play.
but as its often said "i cant win against bad players" you have to think of adaption.
which is a crucial skill of any player that plays in WSOP events where 75%+ are donkeys...
and PH does that...
i think he is one of the best players against weak competition...
in games with the best players he surely is cannonfodder.
he plays his stupid "i bet 2500 in a 50K pot" and claims this bet was excellent because its givin him information as any better hand should raise and worse hands still would pay him...
he just overdoes it.
against good competition that wont work... they should raise with any2...

i dont like him and the last hsp episode and the last wsop tables with him just show how bad he plays some times...
but against most donks that works!
thats why he wins tournaments...

[TheCount212]

Eleven bracelets speak for themselves. His style works because he keeps pots small when he might not have the best hand, and he pushes when he's got the nuts or damn close to it. Why does he win? Because he's figured out that if you're never all-in, you can't be all-out. It's really just that simple. If you can sum up PH's game in one word, it's that he has truly remarkable PATIENCE and DISCIPLINE.. even though he loses the former all the time =P

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Phil Hellmuth hat around here is rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who has a Phil Hellmuth hat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's like an ass hat.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't find it particularly impressive when someone is capable of beating mediocre competition.



[/ QUOTE ] I don't know that I find it particularly impressive when you put it like that. But if you put it like: "He's the best in the world at beating large fields primarily made up of mediorcre competition" isn't that fairly impressive, considering there are plenty of world class players who are also trying to be the best in the world at that?



[ QUOTE ]


If you put me in a foursome of golfers with a 20 handicap I could consistently crush them week in and week out. I would probably think I was very good at golf. If all of the sudden you made me start playing with a foursome of scratch golfers I would quickly realize I'm in fact not good at golf at all, that I was actually only good relative to my competition and that if I want to really be great I will have to adapt.



[/ QUOTE ]

You know this might be an interesting analogy if Phil had won his tournaments playing in four person fields where the other three players were all lousy. Does that describe his accomplishments?

Suppose instead you said it would be like me playing golf against a 2600 person field where large numbers of the field were 20 handi-cappers, some smaller portion of the field were somewhere between my skill level and the the 20 handicappers, and a couple of dozen players were as good or better than me. (You have to concede at least a couple of dozen better players in a 2600 person field, right, since you contend Phil ins't very good?). Now do you like your chances in the golf tourney?

[ QUOTE ]
Just because he is capable of beating mediocre players in a series of events dubbed the " World Series of Poker" does not mean he's a great tournament player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's pretty much a definition of a great tournament player, if you also mean he wins a number of those tournaments, rather than just that he's capable of it.

[jmill2511]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you put it like: "He's the best in the world at beating large fields primarily made up of mediorcre competition" isn't that fairly impressive, considering there are plenty of world class players who are also trying to be the best in the world at that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't find this impressive at all. Just a matter of opinion though.




[ QUOTE ]
You know this might be an interesting analogy if Phil had won his tournaments playing in four person fields where the other three players were all lousy. Does that describe his accomplishments?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not meant to be an interesting analogy, it just gives an example of how someone can be good or bad relative to their competition.




[ QUOTE ]
Actually, that's pretty much a definition of a great tournament player, if you also mean he wins a number of those tournaments, rather than just that he's capable of it

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the definition of a great tournament player to me is not someone who is capable of beating fields consisting of primarily mediocre competition. Just because the field is littered with a small % of great players, is on TV, and is called The "World Series" doesn't make it a big accomplishment to me have success in such an event.


I think he will always be a very successful tournament player so long as he can play against weak players, and that he will always be a dog in a lineup with strong players. That to me is not a great player.

For someone to be great or be known as the best at something, they have to consistently beat the best. I don't think he does anything close to this, nor do I think he's capable of anything close to this.

[qk1234]

Just curious when phil shattered the record of most cashes in a wsop in 2006, why didnt any of the internet players beat it? Not one internet pro(and theres probably hundreds at the wsop) cashed more times than phil did. Tells me hes at a WHOLE nother level than u guys. Theres the champions then theres you guys( the wannabes and haters, players who cant accept that this guy is 10 times the player they are even when the facts are clear as day right in front of their faces.)

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious when phil shattered the record of most cashes in a wsop in 2006, why didnt any of the internet players beat it? Not one internet pro(and theres probably hundreds at the wsop) cashed more times than phil did. Tells me hes at a WHOLE nother level than u guys. Theres the champions then theres you guys( the wannabes and haters, players who cant accept that this guy is 10 times the player they are even when the facts are clear as day right in front of their faces.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're asking why no one broke a one year old record? Wow. Because it's only been a year. Two people (Binger and Chad Brown) did tie it this year.

I think Hellmuth is in the top tier of players, I think he could win any tournament he's in. But I could probably name at least 5 people I'd rather pick in any tournament over him.

[McCutter]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious when phil shattered the record of most cashes in a wsop in 2006, why didnt any of the internet players beat it? Not one internet pro(and theres probably hundreds at the wsop) cashed more times than phil did. Tells me hes at a WHOLE nother level than u guys. Theres the champions then theres you guys( the wannabes and haters, players who cant accept that this guy is 10 times the player they are even when the facts are clear as day right in front of their faces.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that most internet donks dont understand why Hellmuth wins is key. Internet donks think reading skills dont matter. Guys like Hellmuth and Negreanu and Cunningham (and Bobby Baldwin against SBRUGBY) know that reading skills do matter. In the last week on tv, Hellmuth and Negreanu called out a player's exact hand. THEY CALLED OUT A PLAYER'S EXACT HAND.
Internet donks will dismiss these exact reads as being inconsequential. Guess what? THEY'RE NOT.

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just curious when phil shattered the record of most cashes in a wsop in 2006, why didnt any of the internet players beat it? Not one internet pro(and theres probably hundreds at the wsop) cashed more times than phil did. Tells me hes at a WHOLE nother level than u guys. Theres the champions then theres you guys( the wannabes and haters, players who cant accept that this guy is 10 times the player they are even when the facts are clear as day right in front of their faces.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that most internet donks dont understand why Hellmuth wins is key. Internet donks think reading skills dont matter. Guys like Hellmuth and Negreanu and Cunningham (and Bobby Baldwin against SBRUGBY) know that reading skills do matter. In the last week on tv, Hellmuth and Negreanu called out a player's exact hand. THEY CALLED OUT A PLAYER'S EXACT HAND.
Internet donks will dismiss these exact reads as being inconsequential. Guess what? THEY'RE NOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

This whole post had me in giggles.

HIS EXACT HAND GUYS.