Come on Beaneh, you can't say his record means nothing! You'd have to say Doyle's meant nothing too. Different times etc..etc. Credit where credit's due - they did the biz in their day and they have my respect for it. Snooker was similar in the 80's but Steve Davis' record still stands & commands respect.
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : Hellmuth is a proven winner in games which had minuscule fields and where people found check raising to be rude. His record doesn't mean anything, he is totally outclassed by many many online players nowadays. His making an entrance turning up late is alot do with sponsorship (he will be payed more than the value of the tournies he is entering to do all that rubbish) combined with the fact that he doesn't want to make a mistake or be outdrawn early in the tournament. He obviously believes that he gains more by never gettign sucked out on than he does by being there. IMO he's an idiot but w/e it's good for the rest of his table as they play slightly shorthanded without an experienced player at their table. Golfs different too btw it's you versus the course, poker is u versus the field and the toughness of the field can increase each year. The golf course is X amount of tough whilst the poker field varies in terms of how tough it is depending on who is working it out. Posted by beaneh
I assume u think the same of Stu Unger " ????? is a proven winner in games which had minuscule fields and where people found check raising to be rude. His record doesn't mean anything"
Come on Beaneh, you can't say his record means nothing! You'd have to say Doyle's meant nothing too. Different times etc..etc. Credit where credit's due - they did the biz in their day and they have my respect for it. Snooker was similar in the 80's but Steve Davis' record still stands & commands respect. Posted by NoseyBonk
his record means nothing.
watch him play, he has no clue against experienced young players.
Do you hear doyle sitting professing to be the best in the world constantly, being arrogant rude and obnoxious? No he is normally quietly keeping the game moving, understating everything he does and playing down super system. By opening so many peoples eyes to the actual strategy aspect of the game with that book Doyle did more for the game and for his own image than any amount of bracelets could for Hellmuth.
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : I assume u think the same of Stu Unger " ????? is a proven winner in games which had minuscule fields and where people found check raising to be rude. His record doesn't mean anything" Posted by ACA
I don't know him very well personally, but from what I've heard he was a gin superstar.
similarly the fact he crushed at nlh multiple times in a row shows he had a mastery of the strategy of the game that hellmuth doesn't even have today.
If he could play up against the best of today i'd be more likely to bet on him beating current players than I would bet on Phil breaking even against current world class players.
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : You do rather state the obvious about winning!!!,but it seems that the good/skilful players ( yourself included ) have a philosphy that denigrates the first 3 levels???,as though they are only for bad/unskilful players. If everyone who plays 'holdem' were to have that same view ( now that you have let the cat out of the bag ) there would be no point in having any levels at all!!!,a little confusing old chap don't you think?. Kind regards Posted by ALIVEHAT60
It a simple fact, Mr ALIVE, & any experienced Tourney player will tell you. The early Levels are by far the most dangerous to navigate, because of the Blind sixes relative to starting stack. I've just played my 2nd hand, (my first was A-A, which I showed) 1 hour into the tikay Sleepie, I made it SIX x BB to call PF, & got looked up by K-9.....that cannot happen in the middle to late stages.
Poker is a game of imperfect solutions, & we all have the absolute right to play it our "own way", without being ridiculed. And if a geezer with ELEVEN WSOP Bracelets - more than anyone - does certain things, we don't have to copy him, but it's probably a good thing to at least take note of his comments & think them through.
Most peeps mock him these days, when, to be fair, they do not have the right, as he has the Bangles, & they don't.
So, I'm sorry if it's "confusing", but it is factual, whether we like it or not.
Some people LIKE to play the early Levels, they can splash around in a lot of pots, others prefer to sit-out for a while. Neither method can be proven to be optimal.
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : On the other hand he could have the 88. i think tikay is right on this one tbh Didnt phil12uk win one of the deepies a few weeks ago after missing at least the first hour? You cant win the tourny in the early stages but you can lose it. You can turn 5k into 10 k or lose the lot.The differance is you can still win the tourny wiith 5 k you can't win it with zero. just my opinion lol Posted by igimc
And a certain Mr Patrik Antonius won an EPT after turning up FIVE HOURS late.
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....: Now that is interesting! so the poker strategist arrives late and targets certain players? and I play this game purely for fun, but you and that nice Mr Kendal ( 1 L of a guy who is always saying it's a fun game ) can't!!! really have any fun because you're too busy making stratagems Kind regards
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : It a simple fact, Mr ALIVE, & any experienced Tourney player will tell you. The early Levels are by far the most dangerous to navigate, because of the Blind sixes relative to starting stack. I've just played my 2nd hand, (my first was A-A, which I showed) 1 hour into the tikay Sleepie, I made it SIX x BB to call PF, & got looked up by K-9.....that cannot happen in the middle to late stages. Poker is a game of imperfect solutions, & we all have the absolute right to play it our "own way", without being ridiculed. And if a geezer with ELEVEN WSOP Bracelets - more than anyone - does certain things, we don't have to copy him, but it's probably a good thing to at least take note of his comments & think them through. Most peeps mock him these days, when, to be fair, they do not have the right, as he has the Bangles, & they don't. So, I'm sorry if it's "confusing", but it is factual, whether we like it or not. Some people LIKE to play the early Levels, they can splash around in a lot of pots, others prefer to sit-out for a while. Neither method can be proven to be optimal. Posted by tikay1
Everyone can have their own strategy etc etc but but you need an equal or greater amount of bracelets to criticise someone ?
Since Daniel Neagreanu only has 4 bracelets was he out of order when he tried to explain to his good friend Hellmuth that he sucked and really needed to work on his game?
The whole point is your early game strategy should be based on a whole number of factors including the skill level of the field as a whole, your current table and table draw and on the utility costs of attending the tournament. Hence my question about how big an edge would have to be before you take it. The better a player you are and the bigger your edge on the field the more you can pass up at the start however in less well structured tournaments or in situations where you don't have an edge on the field you shouldn't be passing up any edge no matter how small it is.
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : I don't know him very well personally, but from what I've heard he was a gin superstar. similarly the fact he crushed at nlh multiple times in a row shows he had a mastery of the strategy of the game that hellmuth doesn't even have today. If he could play up against the best of today i'd be more likely to bet on him beating current players than I would bet on Phil breaking even against current world class players. Posted by beaneh
IMO your spot on with the Ungar/Hellmuth comparison , where I totally disagree with u is the record at the WSOP meaning nothing, the guy has won 11 bracelets, had 79 cashes for over $6M over the past 20yrs, with his last win in 2007 in a field of over 2500, It doesn't come close 2 my £55 win in the £100GTD with 26 runners on Monday mind u
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : Now that is interesting! so the poker strategist arrives late and targets certain players? and I play this game purely for fun, but you and that nice Mr Kendal ( 1 L of a guy who is always saying it's a fun game ) can't!!! really have any fun because you're too busy making stratagems Kind regards Posted by ALIVEHAT60
You've thoroughly whooshed me there.
Why can't arriving late correlate with having fun?
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : Everyone can have their own strategy etc etc but but you need an equal or greater amount of bracelets to criticise someone ? Since Daniel Neagreanu only has 4 bracelets was he out of order when he tried to explain to his good friend Hellmuth that he sucked and really needed to work on his game? The whole point is your early game strategy should be based on a whole number of factors including the skill level of the field as a whole, your current table and table draw and on the utility costs of attending the tournament. Hence my question about how big an edge would have to be before you take it. The better a player you are and the bigger your edge on the field the more you can pass up at the start however in less well structured tournaments or in situations where you don't have an edge on the field you shouldn't be passing up any edge no matter how small it is. Posted by beaneh
Anyone can criticise anyone. But amateurs with no real track record over two decades (that'll be most of us) might do well to listen to someone who's won the lot. It's really quite a thing to see so many people who have won next to nothing mock his record. I am not keen on him as a person, but I can't diss his record.
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : IMO your spot on with the Ungar/Hellmuth comparison , where I totally disagree with u is the record at the WSOP meaning nothing, the guy has won 11 bracelets, had 79 cashes for over $6M over the past 20yrs, with his last win in 2007 in a field of over 2500, It doesn't come close 2 my £55 win in the £100GTD with 26 runners on Monday mind u Always a pleasure Posted by ACA
Ok, of his 79 cashes and 11 wins what was the average field size?
you realise that of those 20 years only the last 8 or so have the fields been greater than a few hundred. people who won bracelets back in the day just got voted for them they didn't even play!!!
it was not until 2004 that there were >1k runners for a ME!!!
Helmuth won the main even 10k in 1989, there were 178 runners
edit in the 1993 5k$ event he won a bracelet for there were 63 runners
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : Anyone can criticise anyone. But amateurs with no real track record over two decades (that'll be most of us) might do well to listen to someone who's won the lot. It's really quite a thing to see so many people who have won next to nothing mock his record. I am not keen on him as a person, but I can't diss his record. Posted by tikay1
So we should have listened when he told dwan he was rubbish and that HU a pair of tens is a terrible hand?
Hellmuth really doesn't have a clue, watch him play against Dwan on PAD or just watch him on ANY CASH GAME SHOW where he cant wait for the blinds to go up so instead just waits gets tilted and blows up. What a skill that is.
And when you say amateurs you mean people who make a living playing online poker and play more tournaments in a week than hellmuth has ever played in a year against a higher standard of opponent than hellmuth can even dream of.
The stupid thing with Hellmuth is that he acts like such a dousche at the table and yet honestly seems to come off quite well when he is away from the table/game. I've heard him speak with humility and brutal honesty about his game away from his table yet on his table he acts like a prize moron. Considering that it's a media/advertising image he is creating rather than a 'my playstyle at the tables image' it's very annoying.
edit also using the bracelet number as a defining factor in skill, should we not use the all time money list? PH Is 10th on it after tonnes of tournies, yet Mr Moneymaker is right up there with Jerry Yang after winning one singular tourny.
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : Ok, of his 79 cashes and 11 wins what was the average field size? you realise that of those 20 years only the last 8 or so have the fields been greater than a few hundred. people who won bracelets back in the day just got voted for them they didn't even play!!! it was not until 2004 that there were />1k runners for a ME!!! Helmuth won the main even 10k in 1989, there were 178 runners LOL Posted by beaneh
which part of 2007 bracelet with over 2500 runners did u miss
Come on Beaneh, you can't say his record means nothing! You'd have to say Doyle's meant nothing too. Different times etc..etc. Credit where credit's due - they did the biz in their day and they have my respect for it. Snooker was similar in the 80's but Steve Davis' record still stands & commands respect. Posted by NoseyBonk
That's the point I was making too don't get me wrong beaneh etc, I'm not massive Hellmuth fan (and I happen to agree with most of your points) but was playing devils advocate with my post! He's been there and won the bracelets, whatever we think of his ability or lack of...yeah the fields were small and games moved on but he was still the one winning bracelets when others weren't! As mentioned in my post, I don't think he's likely to win many more bracelets for reasons already mentioned...he's stuck in his ways and hasn't really caught up with the times!
My analogies probably weren't the greatest but they were intended to show (like Nosey's Steve Davis comment) that the likes of Hellmuth/Doyle were their days superstars and at the moment, still considered the faces/icons/legneds in the game especially to the general TV audience - there's reason they're always playing the TV tournaments (their record/personality etc) rather than what the majority would call "faceless" online kids who despite having better understanding of the game in it's current era, they don't actually know - people tune in to see the faces/characters they recognize, in the same way we like to see Davis/Watson competing now even though they're unlikely to win again!
Your point about Hellmuth's antics at the table is spot on but we need to remember he's now the poker celebrity rather than poker player (to most people) so he's like cartoon version of himself - playing up to the cameras is just part of the "legend" and persona!
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : which part of 2007 bracelet with over 2500 runners did u miss lolol Posted by ACA
so 1 bracelet with a decent field size.
10 others with out?
yet we only hear the number 11........
who has done better Hellmuth to win 10 bracelets against tiny fields or demidov who beat ~6k if I remember rightly and then finalled WSOPE through a decent sized field?!
In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : That's the point I was making too don't get me wrong beaneh etc, I'm not massive Hellmuth fan (and I happen to agree with most of your points) but was playing devils advocate with my post! He's been there and won the bracelets, whatever we think of his ability or lack of...yeah the fields were small and games moved on but he was still the one winning bracelets when others weren't! As mentioned in my post, I don't think he's likely to win many more bracelets for reasons already mentioned...he's stuck in his ways and hasn't really caught up with the times! My analogies probably weren't the greatest but they were intended to show (like Nosey's Steve Davis comment) that the likes of Hellmuth/Doyle were their days superstars and at the moment, still considered the faces/icons/legneds in the game especially to the general TV audience - there's reason they're always playing the TV tournaments (their record/personality etc) so people still love to tune in and see the faces they recognize from the past, in the same way we like to see Davis/Watson competing even though they're unlikely to win again! Posted by Action_Dan
Yeah I do know what you mean mate, I just think it's wrong he gets so much credit. Any single person on this forum who had enough money to play the events from 1990-2005 could have won a bracelet just by playing tight !
Half the reason why he wont do too well in big field comps is his strategy of not turning up early doors and not pushing early edges, which doesn't allow him to get a big stack very often meaning he cant open up his game as much and punish the weaker players.
Comments
Snooker was similar in the 80's but Steve Davis' record still stands & commands respect.
I assume u think the same of Stu Unger " ????? is a proven winner in games which had minuscule fields and where people found check raising to be rude. His record doesn't mean anything"
Poker is a game of imperfect solutions, & we all have the absolute right to play it our "own way", without being ridiculed. And if a geezer with ELEVEN WSOP Bracelets - more than anyone - does certain things, we don't have to copy him, but it's probably a good thing to at least take note of his comments & think them through.
Most peeps mock him these days, when, to be fair, they do not have the right, as he has the Bangles, & they don't.
So, I'm sorry if it's "confusing", but it is factual, whether we like it or not.
Some people LIKE to play the early Levels, they can splash around in a lot of pots, others prefer to sit-out for a while. Neither method can be proven to be optimal.
Now that is interesting! so the poker strategist arrives late and targets certain players? and I play this game purely for fun, but you and that nice Mr Kendal ( 1 L of a guy who is always saying it's a fun game ) can't!!! really have any fun because you're too busy making stratagems
Kind regards
Always a pleasure
Why can't arriving late correlate with having fun?
lolol
http://www.wsop.com/players/playerprofile.asp?playerID=271