Weird things from wsop! & Questions....

penguin7

An interesting thread!

I tend to think that Phil Hellmuths late arrival has more to do with his wish to make a grand entrance rather than any tactical considerations.

Although I appreciate Tikays comment that a tourny can be lost but not won in the early stages, I hate to miss any of the early action.

I think it is invaluable to at least be at the table to assess the opposition and select a target for later on. Just by being there folding hands, you are also creating your own table image.

And personally I do prefer to try and pick up a few chips, to keep my stack above the average for the table. But there is little value in playing marginal hands and button raising any unraised pot, because the blinds are so low, the risk is usually greater than the reward.

The question is at what stage do you change gear and start playing more aggressive poker?

To me, in a well structured tourny, with a starting stack of say 5000 chips, that moment may come when the big blind is 150/200. But it may be much later, depending on how the table is playing.

I think Neil Channing is a master of this gearchange, almost instinctively going from folding to contesting every pot, then slowing down again, having lost the element of surprise, but gained a competitive stack.

BTW... Some of the massage girls in Vegas were a bit scary !!!

beaneh

A question for you guys related to the Hellmuth not turning up situation.

Imagine you hold a good hand, your opponent moves in for the starting stack and then turns his cards face up.

He also tells you you're percentage chance of winning the pot.

What percentages do you take in the early stages ie 1st or 2nd level. How long into the tourny does your decision start to change?

a) 81: 19

b) 75:25

c) 64:36

4) 55:45

edit and why?

edit 2 how do your answers change if it's not the WSOP but a 1) £300 live freezeout 2) £25 live freezeout etc

ACA

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions.... : In NLHE, I don't think he'll win another, though that's not to say I hope he will or won't. Why? 1) Field sizes have increased dramatically, so greater variance ensues. NLHE WSOP Events used to have a few hundred runners, they have many thousands now. 2) The game has changed, as the value of money, & respect for it, has diminished. Calling for your life with (say) 7-7when staked or backed by someone else, as is now common practice, is easy, so the game is tougher. There are still plenty of "soft" Bracelets in non NLHE games. "Soft" because the field sizes are much smaller, but crucially, the skill Level in many Variants is clearly far far higher than shove & hope NLHE. So he may grab a few of them, but thus far, he's shown no aptitude for anything except NLHE. DOHHHH's point may be that his game is now outdated, & his time has passed. He may well be right, too. But we can't disrespect the game of a guy who has won more Bangles than anyone else. And if he offered you or me a free lesson, we'd bite his hand off.
Posted by Tikay10

Hi Takay

If you dont mind me saying I think your off the mark with the above post re his chances of future bracelets, his stats for WSOP over the last 3 years aren't 2 shabby with 17 cashes in 6 diff game types, including a 3rd,4th,7th,12th,14th etc, etc, etc  granted it wasn't the ME but some of the fields were chunky and crammed full of the top boys.

I 'm not a huge fan of his but I reckon he's got a couple of bangles left in him yet.

Always a pleasure

beaneh

I would bet against hellmuth winning any NLH  bracelets again.

He's got too much of a target on his head imo.

Action_Dan

It's important to remember Hellmuth is proven winner and he's got 11 bracelets for reason so this strategy must've worked and be acknowledged even if you don't agree with it! As Penguin eluded to, there's also an element of making grand entrance for the masses/attention seeking and these days, although I'm sure he'd like to disagree, he's there more as character/legend/face of the game rather than in genuine hope of winning, especially where the Main Event is concerned! 

His theory towards the game is probably outdated/past its best but that doesn't stop us enjoying seeing Tom Watson tee up on the 1st at St Andrews or McEnroe serve volleying at Wimbledon - put it another way, we might look back at Geoff Boycott now and think his batting style is slow/outdated and would struggle to get into "modern" test teams but the games evolved (as poker continues to do) and at that time, he was up there competing with the best and for that, his record/skill/attitude to the game should be applauded whether or not they would/do achieve the same results now!

igimc

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

Some point during the first hour, there could be a limped pot with PH in the big blind with 4-5 off. The flop cud come 4 4 4 And he wudnt be there to win any chips. You can give me all the stats in the world, but being absent here, and missing out on lots of chips, definitely makes him less likely to win the event, than if he was there. Course it's possible to win if u turn up late, but it's less likely than if you turn up on time. 
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

and exactly how many chips do you think hes going

to win in this hand.Are you expecting an all-in fest.

unless its one of sky's velocity bounty hunter rebuys

DOHHHHHHH

He wud win more if he was sat there than if he wasnt.

Which wud mean he has more chips.

Which wud mean he has a better chance of winning the tournament.

(think of hands u wud limp in with 9 handed too deepstacked - 55-88 have to be in that range)

Also he is 100% sure he will have the nuts on the turn, so any picture card, gets him action.

Think ur missing the point neway - he has a better chance of winning the tourny if he's at the table all the time. lol

Cant believe there's even a debate about that. 

beaneh

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

It's important to remember Hellmuth is proven winner and he's got 11 bracelets for reason so this strategy must've worked and be acknowledged even if you don't agree with it! As Penguin eluded to, there's also an element of making grand entrance for the masses/attention seeking and these days, although I'm sure he'd like to disagree, he's there more as character/legend/face of the game rather than in genuine hope of winning, especially where the Main Event is concerned!  His theory towards the game is probably outdated/past its best but that doesn't stop us enjoying seeing Tom Watson tee up on the 1st at St Andrews or McEnroe serve volleying at Wimbledon - put it another way, we might look back at Geoff Boycott now and think his batting style is slow/outdated and would struggle to get into "modern" test teams but the games evolved (as poker continues to do) and at that time, he was up there competing with the best and for that, his record/skill/attitude to the game should be applauded whether or not they would/do achieve the same results now!
Posted by Action_Dan

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.

tikay1

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

It's important to remember Hellmuth is proven winner and he's got 11 bracelets for reason so this strategy must've worked and be acknowledged even if you don't agree with it! As Penguin eluded to, there's also an element of making grand entrance for the masses/attention seeking and these days, although I'm sure he'd like to disagree, he's there more as character/legend/face of the game rather than in genuine hope of winning, especially where the Main Event is concerned!  His theory towards the game is probably outdated/past its best but that doesn't stop us enjoying seeing Tom Watson tee up on the 1st at St Andrews or McEnroe serve volleying at Wimbledon - put it another way, we might look back at Geoff Boycott now and think his batting style is slow/outdated and would struggle to get into "modern" test teams but the games evolved (as poker continues to do) and at that time, he was up there competing with the best and for that, his record/skill/attitude to the game should be applauded whether or not they would/do achieve the same results now!
Posted by Action_Dan

Epic Post!

igimc

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

He wud win more if he was sat there than if he wasnt. Which wud mean he has more chips. Which wud mean he has a better chance of winning the tournament. (think of hands u wud limp in with 9 handed too deepstacked - 55-88 have to be in that range) Also he is 100% sure he will have the nuts on the turn, so any picture card, gets him action. Think ur missing the point neway - he has a better chance of winning the tourny if he's at the table all the time. lol Cant believe there's even a debate about that. 
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

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

NoseyBonk

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.

ACA

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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"

beaneh

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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. 

beaneh

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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.

beaneh

edit i'm sure hellmuth is still great against new players, but who couldn't be after 20 minutes tuition?!

tikay1

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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.  

tikay1

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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.

ALIVEHAT60

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

beaneh

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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.

ACA

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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

Always a pleasure

tikay1

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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? 

tikay1

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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.    

LOL_RAISE

tourney players dont know what to do when they have over 3 big blinds so they sit out.

beaneh

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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

LOL

beaneh

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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.

ACA

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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

lolol

ACA

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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

http://www.wsop.com/players/playerprofile.asp?playerID=271

Action_Dan

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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!

beaneh

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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?!

beaneh

In Response to Re: Weird things from wsop! & Questions....:

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.