Phil Helmuth's Math

[blakheart 3]

So I saw Phil on poker after dark this week and he followed up on a poker though that I have heard him talk about before (and demonstrate before as well). The short version is that he refuses to call all in for his tournament life as an underdog regardless of the pot odds being offered. I have seen him make this fold previously in tournaments.I am certain that we all agree that in cash games the proper strategy is to call all in as underdog if the price is right. But since Phil is only interested in first place, then he contends that he should never knowingly put his chips in as a dog. What do you guys think?

[simo_8ball 0]

It's 4:30am.All I can offer for you at this point in time is "lol"

[Buckeye Hughes 0]

Well he can dodge bullets baby!On a serious note, I think he makes these great laydowns and marginal folds in tournament play out of sheer fear. He is afraid to take a bad beat and afraid to get his money in with the worst of it. Obv, no one can argue with his tournament success, but I think the underlying factor is strictly fear. We all know you have to make some of these borderline calls in order to go deep in tournament play. I think PH is a very insecure person despite his huge success, and he is afraid he will look bad making a marginal play.

[Novice26 0]

Well it seems to have worked for him.

[DCJ001 0]

Well he can dodge bullets baby!On a serious note, I think he makes these great laydowns and marginal folds in tournament play out of sheer fear. He is afraid to take a bad beat and afraid to get his money in with the worst of it. Obv, no one can argue with his tournament success, but I think the underlying factor is strictly fear. We all know you have to make some of these borderline calls in order to go deep in tournament play. I think PH is a very insecure person despite his huge success, and he is afraid he will look bad making a marginal play.

And the best players know that you have to make some big laydowns in order to go deep in tournament play.

[sholden 0]

Well he can dodge bullets baby!On a serious note, I think he makes these great laydowns and marginal folds in tournament play out of sheer fear. He is afraid to take a bad beat and afraid to get his money in with the worst of it. Obv, no one can argue with his tournament success, but I think the underlying factor is strictly fear. We all know you have to make some of these borderline calls in order to go deep in tournament play. I think PH is a very insecure person despite his huge success, and he is afraid he will look bad making a marginal play.

You can't blindly obey pot odds in tournaments though. Your last 1000 in chips are worth a lot more than 1000 in chips of your stack when you have 100,000 in chips. So calling off your last 1000 chips in into a pot of say 3000 is not really giving you 3:1, since the 3000 chips in the pot are worth less than 3 times your last thousand chips.Hence such a rule of thumb might be right often enough to be valid.

[quadaces 0]

Well he can dodge bullets baby!On a serious note, I think he makes these great laydowns and marginal folds in tournament play out of sheer fear. He is afraid to take a bad beat and afraid to get his money in with the worst of it. Obv, no one can argue with his tournament success, but I think the underlying factor is strictly fear. We all know you have to make some of these borderline calls in order to go deep in tournament play. I think PH is a very insecure person despite his huge success, and he is afraid he will look bad making a marginal play.

I actually dissagree with all of that! I don't think he is scared, I think he makes these folds even if they are close because he knows that he will have plenty of opportunities to get his money all his money in in much favorable situations for himself. Wouldnt you rather be a 4-1 fav. with all your chips in or an even money fav.? Phil knows that he will have plenty of chances to be a 4-1 fav. and thats why he makes those folds. Pot odds dont matter too much if your Tournament life is on the line.

[PearlJamJV 0]

I actually dissagree with all of that! I don't think he is scared, I think he makes these folds even if they are close because he knows that he will have plenty of opportunities to get his money all his money in in much favorable situations for himself. Wouldnt you rather be a 4-1 fav. with all your chips in or an even money fav.? Phil knows that he will have plenty of chances to be a 4-1 fav. and thats why he makes those folds. Pot odds dont matter too much if your Tournament life is on the line.

This is what he has even said in articles and blogs that he feels he do better and for him following the math does not work for him. He values his last chips more and thinks he rather get in a favorable position rather than having the math dictate his play. I'm not sure if I got the quote thing down but quad's post is the quote up there quadaces @ Monday November 19th, 12:30 AM

[copernicus 0]

I actually dissagree with all of that! I don't think he is scared, I think he makes these folds even if they are close because he knows that he will have plenty of opportunities to get his money all his money in in much favorable situations for himself. Wouldnt you rather be a 4-1 fav. with all your chips in or an even money fav.? Phil knows that he will have plenty of chances to be a 4-1 fav. and thats why he makes those folds. Pot odds dont matter too much if your Tournament life is on the line.

Sklansky demonstrates this in TPFAP. If losing a bet that carries favorable odds precludes you from making a later bet at even more favorable odds, then the right strategy in some circumstances is to pass on the first bet. Of course the big unknown in tournament play is whether those more favorable situations are ever going come along, and thats a balance of stack sizes, blinds etc.Steve Dannemann applied it in a different way in the 2006 (2005?) WSOP (though he may not have realized the math behind his statement). He said something to the effect of "....folding to a big bluff isn't as big a mistake as risking losing to a better hand".

[PMJackson21 0]

Phil has an overly inflated perception of his 'edge' over the field, which when factored into his equation, makes those hands a fold for him. I wouldn't argue with him in regards to having an edge, but no one is that much better then the field in a NLHE donkament to make some of the folds he does.

[blakheart 3]

Sklansky demonstrates this in TPFAP. If losing a bet that carries favorable odds precludes you from making a later bet at even more favorable odds, then the right strategy in some circumstances is to pass on the first bet. Of course the big unknown in tournament play is whether those more favorable situations are ever going come along, and thats a balance of stack sizes, blinds etc.Steve Dannemann applied it in a different way in the 2006 (2005?) WSOP (though he may not have realized the math behind his statement). He said something to the effect of "....folding to a big bluff isn't as big a mistake as risking losing to a better hand".

Do you think he actually calculates factors like his M, players left, etc. when he makes these laydowns? Is there a mathamatical formula beyond what Harrington talks about?

[copernicus 0]

Do you think he actually calculates factors like his M, players left, etc. when he makes these laydowns? Is there a mathamatical formula beyond what Harrington talks about?

I think he certainly considers all of the relevant aspects of his position in the field, and combines them based on his experience and his assessment of his edge on the field...which may be realistic or may not be as noted above. I think Harrington captures the critical components of the math, primarily in the inflection point analysis, which "does the math for you" as far as implied odds and realistic expectations for survival.The more mathematical extension of that to pushbot charts is a significant contribution to shorter stack considerations, although I havent analyzed the math. Once you get to deeper stacks and far from the bubble you're primarily back into the world of chip odds overlaid with the "if you lose you're done" aspect of tournament play that Hellmuth seems to embrace as requiring a more significant odds advantage for a given hand than many other pros.

[NEtwowilldo 0]

I'll share something with you all that I learned in a heated thread I had several months ago, and that is that there is no added value of your tournament life. Blindly obeying pot odds, as long as you are doign your calculations correctly and accurately assigning ranges, is the only way to go in tournaments. There was one WSOP final table this year where phil had like 5 BBs on the button and minraised with K 6 off, and folded to a shove. I don't care who you are, that is a horrible play every single time. The real mistake is raising with a hand you're not going to commit with. There was a great article on this on cardplayer, and I can't find the link right now, but I'll put it up later if i can find it. But it basically made a point that you cant argue on why you should always take coinflips every time you get the chance.

[simo_8ball 0]

a heated thread I had several months ago, and that is that there is no added value of your tournament life.

Sounds like a thread I might have been involved in tbh. I have always been (quite strongly) of the opinion that passing up edges to survive is -$EV.

[Ouch-8s 4]

I'll share something with you all that I learned in a heated thread I had several months ago, and that is that there is no added value of your tournament life. Blindly obeying pot odds, as long as you are doign your calculations correctly and accurately assigning ranges, is the only way to go in tournaments.

The grinder thread? I remember that trainwreck, hahaha.

[copernicus 0]

I'll share something with you all that I learned in a heated thread I had several months ago, and that is that there is no added value of your tournament life.

This may just be semantics, but if not, there is clearly SOME value to survival SOMETIMES. To change the Sklansky example to a real tournament situation, you have a 55:45 edge for your 10 BB stack, so your tEV is 1 BB but lose and youre done. Your table is playing very tight, and due to your position you believe a push on your next reasonable hand has an 80% chance of being folded to, and a 20% chance to double up if called. Your tEV is now 1.6 BB. During the time from the first hand to the second you gain equity from anyone else who's busted and you've increased your expectation. That is what I mean by "the value of your tournament life".

Blindly obeying pot odds, as long as you are doign your calculations correctly and accurately assigning ranges, is the only way to go in tournaments.

Nonsense. SnG bubble play is the easiest place to see that this is wrong.