Jump to content

Please Explain Phil Hellmuth's Play


Recommended Posts

math and reads are the same thing!
online, yes. live, kinda.when you're playing live, you're basing betting patterns, etc. on the same sorts of info as online. however, what may have been a fold in an online situation can turn into a snap call live based on a swallow by the villain, shifty eyes, etc. i've made a bunch of these type plays before, and trust tells, when they appear, a hell of a lot more than i trust a mathematical analysis of a hand.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

People who claim that they don't use math when they play, or that it's not important, and one of two types of people.They are either complete morons who will lose in the long run, OR, they are winning players who subconsiously apply the math while making decisions.By that same token, people who play without that psycological element, metagame, etc, are leaving money on the table as well.
Obv. And the players who apply math and reads together, the ones who do it very well, are actually the ?winningest? players.Look at Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Jen Harman, Daniel Negreanu. They all know the math, and apply it to their games, But you will never hear any of them use the words "positive ev". They are all far more psychological players. There is more to poker than +ev. I also apply math and my reads together (although reads and the psychological element of the game more than the math) to make the correct decision, and I feel that I am far more comfortable playing online and live than most players who simply take one or the other.edit:I am not saying that there is not a place for the super insane math that some of these online wizards are using.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obv. And the players who apply math and reads together, the ones who do it very well, are actually the ?winningest? players.Look at Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Jen Harman, Daniel Negreanu. They all know the math, and apply it to their games, But you will never hear any of them use the words "positive ev". They are all far more psychological players. There is more to poker than +ev. I also apply math and my reads together (although reads and the psychological element of the game more than the math) to make the correct decision, and I feel that I am far more comfortable playing online and live than most players who simply take one or the other.edit:I am not saying that there is not a place for the super insane math that some of these online wizards are using.
No offense, but flatting with JJ with 10 bbs is awful.. unless its a blind battle.. and even then its borderline spew.. You cant play the " reads" card all the time because when you are shortstacked at a final table its alot of math... if hellmuth thinks he is dominated, then fold.. if he thinks he is ahead.. then he should more then welcome a race with only 10 bbs.. 6 handed with 10 bb isnt about reads.. the only reads you should go off of is betting patterns.. not if he blinks or twitches... You think that poker is all about staring someone down.. its not at all.. I was playing with a few live pros in a tourney recently.. and I had a guy stare me down for 2 minutes.. ( it was level one and the pot was like 300 chips.. we started with 15k).. I bet 200 on the river and he tanked forever... staring at me... I think you believe that poker is all about Mike Caros book of Tells. When in reality its such a small part of the game.Oh and for what its worth.. alot of top players said that one of Phils biggest leaks is short stack play... Not everyone plays perfect poker and Phil clearly demonstrates this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and for what its worth.. alot of top players said that one of Phils biggest leaks is short stack play... Not everyone plays perfect poker and Phil clearly demonstrates this.
He does some weird weird shit. Like raising 1/3 of his shortstack UTG and then folding to a raise PF. It's boggling.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No one should really criticize Hellmuth in no limit tournament play. He plays very differently then other players and that is what sets him apart. There are so many different approaches and styles that one can use to be successful and that is what makes it a great game.Hellmuth to me seems like the best short stacked player there is. In this very tournament at the end day 3, Hellmuth had exactly 100,000 in chips (less then 12 bb) and was 44 out 58. At the end of day 4 he had 1,399,000 and was 3 out of 18. How did he do this? By never being all in and called once. I follow his tournaments closely and he has done this a number of times. I am not sure what top pros say that he is a bad short stack player, but I would bet they don't have the record that Hellmuth has. When someone doesn't understand why someone plays the way they do, they assume they have a flawed strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one should really criticize Hellmuth in no limit tournament play. He plays very differently then other players and that is what sets him apart. There are so many different approaches and styles that one can use to be successful and that is what makes it a great game.Hellmuth to me seems like the best short stacked player there is. In this very tournament at the end day 3, Hellmuth had exactly 100,000 in chips (less then 12 bb) and was 44 out 58. At the end of day 4 he had 1,399,000 and was 3 out of 18. How did he do this? By never being all in and called once. I follow his tournaments closely and he has done this a number of times. I am not sure what top pros say that he is a bad short stack player, but I would bet they don't have the record that Hellmuth has. When someone doesn't understand why someone plays the way they do, they assume they have a flawed strategy.
Annette 15.. and Scott ScTrojans Freeman.. not sure if you have heard of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
People who claim that they don't use math when they play, or that it's not important, and one of two types of people.They are either complete morons who will lose in the long run, OR, they are winning players who subconsiously apply the math while making decisions.By that same token, people who play without that psycological element, metagame, etc, are leaving money on the table as well.
Yep, I don't know when JC said this but it was a great quote (paraphrasing obv):"I don't know what the odds are, but I know that when I shove with a flush draw, he will fold most of the time. When he calls, I will hit some of the time. Together, it usually makes it worth it."Seems like the most basic of concept (shoving a draw) but knowing the success he has had, I realize this concept needs to be applied all over the board, not just to flush draws. The key is knowing when and how to apply the math, whether you know the actual numbers or not is irrelevant, espcially in NL hold em.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Annette 15.. and Scott ScTrojans Freeman.. not sure if you have heard of them.
How would they know? Annette played against him once in the Party Poker Premier League and those are just sit and gos. Annette seems to think all of the most successfull live pros are bad. We had a thread about her criticizing Ted Forrest just a couple months ago. IDK maybe Phil Hellmuth is clueless if a couple internet players say so.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though i dont agree with PH flat call w/JJ. The man has 11 bracelets to his name, so he definitely knows what he's doing. I have to respect that. But in a way, I kind of see what PH could of possibly been thinking. If Nam is raising UTG with a marginal hand lessay A10, and flop comes 10xx he's obv gonna fire a cont. bet on the flop and then we'll see PH shoving his chips in, in a matter of seconds.Basically PH is no idiot, hes obv trying to set the trap for Nam. I'm pretty sure PH has the best hand PF with JJ. But if the flop comes w/o any face or ace. Theres a good chance PH doubles up here.Since the flop brought an A, and being that he played his JJ safe. He gets to see another hand and most importantly still in the race for 1million dollars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
online, yes. live, kinda.when you're playing live, you're basing betting patterns, etc. on the same sorts of info as online. however, what may have been a fold in an online situation can turn into a snap call live based on a swallow by the villain, shifty eyes, etc. i've made a bunch of these type plays before, and trust tells, when they appear, a hell of a lot more than i trust a mathematical analysis of a hand.
That's the definition of a read.You take the info you've got, whether it be from betting tells, or physical appearance, or both, and determine a range. Against that range, you use math to make the best decision. It's no different from online, except a read doesn't have physical tells. It doesn't change anything with how a read is used in conjunction with math to determine the right play.
Obv. And the players who apply math and reads together, the ones who do it very well, are actually the ?winningest? players.Look at Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Jen Harman, Daniel Negreanu. They all know the math, and apply it to their games, But you will never hear any of them use the words "positive ev". They are all far more psychological players. There is more to poker than +ev. I also apply math and my reads together (although reads and the psychological element of the game more than the math) to make the correct decision, and I feel that I am far more comfortable playing online and live than most players who simply take one or the other.edit:I am not saying that there is not a place for the super insane math that some of these online wizards are using.
No.As a matter of fact, there is not.The concept of expected value is all-encompassing.You utilize your reads (betting patterns, physical tells), as well as the concept of card distribution, and weighted likelihood of someone hold specific hands (hint: ranges), and mix it all up and come up with an expected value. From there, you make the most +EV play available to you.You're completely ignoring what I've said.People who say that they aren't using math, are either too ignorant, or they simply do it subconsiously. This has nothing to do with "super insane math". In fact, the vast majority of poker math is insanely easy, and you probably learned most of it early in high school, or even before that.People who sit there saying they went with a read, despite the math telling them it's a call, either did the math wrong, or read them wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the definition of a read.You take the info you've got, whether it be from betting tells, or physical appearance, or both, and determine a range. Against that range, you use math to make the best decision. It's no different from online, except a read doesn't have physical tells. It doesn't change anything with how a read is used in conjunction with math to determine the right play.No.
you're welcome to call it math, i guess, but i think it's just semantics if you're doing that.my point is that what most people call "reads" are typically an "omg instacall" or "omg instafold" type thing, and aren't approached in the same way as one would reason through a range and various sorts of equity calculations. when i'm playing live, i don't even bother with thinking about equity unless i have no physical information to go on (at which point the hand would play out like online). if you want to put it in mathematical terms, it would change something like "ok the pot is laying me 3:1 and i'm good 1/3 here so i call" into "ok am i good here? oh wait he just forcefully swallowed i am good literally every time here i call so fast."you can put those sorts of things into mathematical terms, i guess, but i think that if you try to think of them as math while you are actually in a live setting, you're not going to be able to pick up on as many of them. that's what i'm getting at, and why i think it is indeed a useful distinction. edit: in some spots, if i'm not sure of a tell, i will work that in somewhat mathematically, saying instead "ok he just swallowed i'm not exactly sure what that means but i'm good more often than i was before," so i'd call if the pot was only laying me 1:1 in the above spot or something.
Link to post
Share on other sites
you're welcome to call it math, i guess, but i think it's just semantics if you're doing that.my point is that what most people call "reads" are typically an "omg instacall" or "omg instafold" type thing, and aren't approached in the same way as one would reason through a range and various sorts of equity calculations. when i'm playing live, i don't even bother with thinking about equity unless i have no physical information to go on (at which point the hand would play out like online). if you want to put it in mathematical terms, it would change something like "ok the pot is laying me 3:1 and i'm good 1/3 here so i call" into "ok am i good here? oh wait he just forcefully swallowed i am good literally every time here i call so fast."you can put those sorts of things into mathematical terms, i guess, but i think that if you try to think of them as math while you are actually in a live setting, you're not going to be able to pick up on as many of them. that's what i'm getting at, and why i think it is indeed a useful distinction. edit: in some spots, if i'm not sure of a tell, i will work that in somewhat mathematically, saying instead "ok he just swallowed i'm not exactly sure what that means but i'm good more often than i was before," so i'd call if the pot was only laying me 1:1 in the above spot or something.
So, you understand my point when say that the good "non-math" players simply do the math subconsiously?Example:"if you want to put it in mathematical terms, it would change something like "ok the pot is laying me 3:1 and i'm good 1/3 here so i call" into "ok am i good here? oh wait he just forcefully swallowed, so I'm good 1/1 times, and the pot is laying me 3:1, instacall."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Even though i dont agree with PH flat call w/JJ. The man has 11 bracelets to his name, so he definitely knows what he's doing. I have to respect that. But in a way, I kind of see what PH could of possibly been thinking. If Nam is raising UTG with a marginal hand lessay A10, and flop comes 10xx he's obv gonna fire a cont. bet on the flop and then we'll see PH shoving his chips in, in a matter of seconds.Basically PH is no idiot, hes obv trying to set the trap for Nam. I'm pretty sure PH has the best hand PF with JJ. But if the flop comes w/o any face or ace. Theres a good chance PH doubles up here.Since the flop brought an A, and being that he played his JJ safe. He gets to see another hand and most importantly still in the race for 1million dollars.
People aren't disputing that Phil is a great player (with the possible exception of SCTrojans). They are saying that Phil has a major leak in his short stack play. Given the evidence I don't think this can be disputed. Trap calling with a 10bb stack is absurd. Good players are never raise folding when then shover only has 10bbs. Don't you want to be getting it all-in pre versus A10? Calling pre and then folding is too costly. You have almost lost the most important think you've got as a short stack and that's fold equity. Phil is a great tournament player. He would be much better if he played an optimal short stack.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you understand my point when say that the good "non-math" players simply do the math subconsiously?Example:"if you want to put it in mathematical terms, it would change something like "ok the pot is laying me 3:1 and i'm good 1/3 here so i call" into "ok am i good here? oh wait he just forcefully swallowed, so I'm good 1/1 times, and the pot is laying me 3:1, instacall."
yeah, it's like catching a baseball. no-one thinks about all the calculations they're doing in their head subconciously, but they're still figuring out where they need to be to catch the thing. it's math, even if they aren't adding stuff up in their concious brain.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you understand my point when say that the good "non-math" players simply do the math subconsiously?Example:"if you want to put it in mathematical terms, it would change something like "ok the pot is laying me 3:1 and i'm good 1/3 here so i call" into "ok am i good here? oh wait he just forcefully swallowed, so I'm good 1/1 times, and the pot is laying me 3:1, instacall."
sure, i get it. i'm largely a math guy, myself. my point is that i've personally improved when i've stopped trying to think through things unless absolutely necessary (that last example is a very rare thing, but i do it occasionally), and instead acting more upon instinct. that's a very distinct change in approach, and one that renders the distinction between "math" and "read" a helpful one in practical terms.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reads are what makes live>online. It's just so much easier to three bet p/f live when you know for a fact that someone is going to fold. Online, all you can do is go by what's happened in the past and hope the villain doesn't have a hand. It's different when you can look at the person and assess the likelihood of taking it away. Except when your wrong. That sucks. Good players make bad plays all the time. Phil understands math and has a pretty good idea of short stack strat. He also understands the value of claiming JJ in that hand. Think about it. How often does someone claim to have folded a hand that's so unlikely, it's nearly impossible. If it was JJ, then he was trying to get max value out of his hand. Ivey tripped him up by calling and now he can't very well go with it since it's too likely that one of them has an ace. How often does Nam bet into both of them without position on this flop as a strict continuation bet? eh, like I responded early in the thread; reads>math except when you're wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the definition of a read.You take the info you've got, whether it be from betting tells, or physical appearance, or both, and determine a range. Against that range, you use math to make the best decision. It's no different from online, except a read doesn't have physical tells. It doesn't change anything with how a read is used in conjunction with math to determine the right play.No.As a matter of fact, there is not.The concept of expected value is all-encompassing.You utilize your reads (betting patterns, physical tells), as well as the concept of card distribution, and weighted likelihood of someone hold specific hands (hint: ranges), and mix it all up and come up with an expected value. From there, you make the most +EV play available to you.You're completely ignoring what I've said.People who say that they aren't using math, are either too ignorant, or they simply do it subconsiously. This has nothing to do with "super insane math". In fact, the vast majority of poker math is insanely easy, and you probably learned most of it early in high school, or even before that.People who sit there saying they went with a read, despite the math telling them it's a call, either did the math wrong, or read them wrong.
I believe you know what I mean. When I say +ev, I mean the math. There is more to poker than just math.If you honestly believe there is no more to poker than just the math, then you are really missing out on an amazing part of the game.And to whatarunaa- What I am going to say to you is not meant to slam you in any way. You are obv a very talented player.But honestly, who are you to criticize Hellmuth? This man has won 11 WSOP titles, more than anyone in history. Show a little respect.He may be a mad genius, but he is a genius none the less.Honestly, if you know your opponent is very aggressive, and will fire most flops (this is a basic example of poker being more than just a math game), why nottake a flop, and if no scare cards come off, check to him to let him put you in, and as I stated above, let him make the mistake.Blackjack is a math game. There is always the premium play which you should always make.Poker is a people game, and a situational game. What may be the correct math play may not always be the premium play for that situation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
People aren't disputing that Phil is a great player (with the possible exception of SCTrojans). They are saying that Phil has a major leak in his short stack play. Given the evidence I don't think this can be disputed. Trap calling with a 10bb stack is absurd. Good players are never raise folding when then shover only has 10bbs. Don't you want to be getting it all-in pre versus A10? Calling pre and then folding is too costly. You have almost lost the most important think you've got as a short stack and that's fold equity. Phil is a great tournament player. He would be much better if he played an optimal short stack.
At first I stated that i DONT like PH flat calling w/JJ. My thinking is that he was trying to avoid an AKQ on the flop and he chose to play his JJ safely. Just stating that this was the OBV route he took.So he should of just jammed PF and let the cards roll out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe you know what I mean. When I say +ev, I mean the math. There is more to poker than just math.If you honestly believe there is no more to poker than just the math, then you are really missing out on an amazing part of the game.
lol dude... you really need to reread what I wrote.Let me tell you something. I'm hardly a math guy. I'm just operating on a deeper level of theory than you are. I'm not missing the psycological part of the game, by any means. I'm merely tryin gto explain to you that when you boil it all down, everything comes down to math. Most of what we do is subconsious, and we certainly don't do ridiculous EV calculations at the time. Most of it is intuitive.To say that someone making a reads-based play has nothing to do with math is simply ignorant, whether the person making that play knows it or not. Everything we do in poker is rooted in mathematics at the deepest level. The beauty of it though, and what makes people think that they are not "math players" is simply that a lot of the math can be learned through practice, without even knowing you're learning it, and can be handled through intuition, and performed subconsiously very quickly while at the table.I don't think you're understanding my main point, you're not reading deep enough into this, imho.
Link to post
Share on other sites
At first I stated that i DONT like PH flat calling w/JJ. My thinking is that he was trying to avoid an AKQ on the flop and he chose to play his JJ safely. Just stating that this was the OBV route he took.So he should of just jammed PF and let the cards roll out.
I knew what you said, but you also know you can't play poker like that. (ie. flatting JJ in fear of a AKQ flop). It was an awful play regardless of whether he had JJ or not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
lol dude... you really need to reread what I wrote.Let me tell you something. I'm hardly a math guy. -1 I'm just operating on a deeper level of theory than you are. I'm not missing the psycological part of the game, by any means. I'm merely tryin gto explain to you that 2- when you boil it all down, everything comes down to math. Most of what we do is subconsious, and we certainly don't do ridiculous EV calculations at the time. Most of it is intuitive.To say that someone making a reads-based play has nothing to do with math is simply ignorant, whether the person making that play knows it or not. Everything we do in poker is rooted in mathematics at the deepest level. The beauty of it though, and what makes people think that they are not "math players" is simply that a lot of the math can be learned through practice, without even knowing you're learning it, and can be handled through intuition, and performed subconsiously very quickly while at the table.I don't think you're understanding my main point, you're not reading deep enough into this, imho.
1. How, and no.2. How can you honestly say that, and believe it?How is me picking up a very subtle tell on a player math? How do you explain, in math, how I could cometo the conclusion that Xplayer has AA because he looked at his cards, then played with his chips in a certain way, looked back at his cards in a certain way and THEN raised?How do you, with a mathematical equation, explain that?
Link to post
Share on other sites
1. How, and no.2. How can you honestly say that, and believe it?How is me picking up a very subtle tell on a player math? How do you explain, in math, how I could cometo the conclusion that Xplayer has AA because he looked at his cards, then played with his chips in a certain way, looked back at his cards in a certain way and THEN raised?How do you, with a mathematical equation, explain that?
1. Because I understand that, at it's core, poker is a gambling game. All gambling games are based on the principles of mathematics, specifically the field of probability. Of course there are further aspects to poker, such as the psycological aspect, metagame, etc, but in the end, all of these factors dictate the way our brain should consiously or otherwise arrive at what is the best decision. And yes.2. Ok, not exactly what I meant, as clearly an isolated physical tell isn't math, in it's purest sense, but, the reason it comes back down to math, is because we use our reads/tells/betting patterns/etc to put our opponent on a range of hands. If you have some miraculous way of putting him on one hand exactly, AA in this case, then you use MATH to make the best decision you can. In practice, you probably don't think about the math, unless it's a close decision, like we're getting close to 4-1, but we still make the +EV play, whether that fact crosses our mind.The point I've been making this entire time is that math is existent in poker whether one chooses to celebrate that fact or not. The guy who plays by instinct is gathering information, and using math, subconsiously, to make the decision with the highest expected return. It's simple.I don't think we're as far apart as you seem to think we are, but you keep on arguing the same point, so it's fairly clear that I'm not getting through to you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Because I understand that, at it's core, poker is a gambling game. All gambling games are based on the principles of mathematics, specifically the field of probability. Of course there are further aspects to poker, such as the psycological aspect, metagame, etc, but in the end, all of these factors dictate the way our brain should consiously or otherwise arrive at what is the best decision. And yes.2. Ok, not exactly what I meant, as clearly an isolated physical tell isn't math, in it's purest sense, but, the reason it comes back down to math, is because we use our reads/tells/betting patterns/etc to put our opponent on a range of hands. If you have some miraculous way of putting him on one hand exactly, AA in this case, then you use MATH to make the best decision you can. In practice, you probably don't think about the math, unless it's a close decision, like we're getting close to 4-1, but we still make the +EV play, whether that fact crosses our mind.The point I've been making this entire time is that math is existent in poker whether one chooses to celebrate that fact or not. The guy who plays by instinct is gathering information, and using math, subconsiously, to make the decision with the highest expected return. It's simple.I don't think we're as far apart as you seem to think we are, but you keep on arguing the same point, so it's fairly clear that I'm not getting through to you.
1. Hmmm yes I guess that at its very core, poker is a gambling game. But poker is unlike other gamble games.In blackjack, wagers placed, whatever cards come, come. In poker however, the players can use all the knowledge they haveof the players to make the correct decision, thus giving better players an edge.My most favorite expression of all time is "Poker is not a card game played with people, it is a people game played with cards".2. Well I don't know what is so miraculous about putting a player on a single hand. I don't want to turn it into a brag post, butwith the right information about my oponents, some more than others, by the end of the hand I feel that I will 80% have putthat player fairly close to their exact holdings. Of course this differs from player to player and situation to situation, and is only possible live.I have stated before that the math has a place in poker. I am not a total retard. Obviously for example if you knowthat making a play at a pot would be giving your opponent 3-1 odds, you simply wouldn't make that play as you are giving no fold equity.But to say that it all boils down to math is just crazy.edit:one example of a non math, and all feel play is one made by Doyle in a recent PAD episode.He noticed something on his opponent (Bloch) and moved all in with 12,000 into 5000 with just ace high.Certainly not your standard math play, simply pure feel.double edit:I do realize how that last edit could be another case for "it all boils down to math" as doyle was giving Bloch amazing fold equity, butto say that this, or any other situation is 100% a mathematical decision is again crazy.triple edit:And I still don't understand your point of view that it all boils down to math.All you have shown is just proof that math is a big part of poker, something that I agree with.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...