why is hellmuth such a fish?

[greyshark81 0]

lol, just checking.

[BradSmitty 0]

What does FYP mean?

[greyshark81 0]

Fixed Your Post

[BradSmitty 0]

OK, thanks, and.....

good point i agree.

Thats what i like to hear. :wink:

[bigcoled 1]

he has no concept of gambling and refuses to play any way but straight forward, which doesn't win at the upper levels, you have to be able to change styles more and he has no steam control...

[HurricaneKyle 0]

After he sees teh qq he makes a sarcastic comment about value betting qq twice and how it was "strong poker". He got outplayed and paid a guy off with the worst hand, but somehow the other guy was playing bad poker.

This is Phil's problem. He can't be honest with himself. No matter the situation, Phil is correct. And we all know that no one plays perfect.If I were the guy with QQ, I would have responded with "Calling my raises out of position with trouble hands also won't work often." The Swedish guy played the hand fine, and Phil should be able to acknowledge that the other player played the hand well.Check out his CP article on the hand with DN in the Full Tilt tourney. Phil's logic was that hitting a 5 or Ace would be good. Isn't this the kind of logic that Phil berates?Then more highlights from the WSOP, Phil gets upset because his 33 loses to AK, but can't believe that someone would call 77 to his AQ. You can't have it both ways and that is why Phil's game is not effective as it could be.

[rbakken2504 0]

he has no concept of gambling and refuses to play any way but straight forward, which doesn't win at the upper levels, you have to be able to change styles more and he has no steam control...

Cuz you know how he plays every hand right, ive seen him very rarely in the cash games in Vegas, and watched him a bit, from what i saw he plays mostly str8 forward, but he does make some tricky plays sometimes. I think i read in his book that he doesnt like to play the big game or biggest games, when he could play a smaller limit and make a higher hourly rate against worse players.He had to do something right is his cash game career to become a pro, although i do agree with most, that he is not a great cash game players

[Petoria 0]

This whole arguent is silly.....dissing Phil for being a cash game "fish" is like dissing Chip Reese for being a tournament "fish".Both great players who stick to their specialties and shouldnt be judged on the others.I mean in this same game where Phil "donked"...Daniel also got stuck for a cool quarter of a mil (3 quarters at one point) so its all relative.This thread is just as lame as starting one titled "Why is Daniel such dead money in tournaments lately?"

I dont understand your first statement here, bc Chip Reese is not a tournament fish. Also, there's a difference between Daniel losing 750k, and Phil constantly getting outplayed in any higher limit cash game. Your last statement makes no sense either, bc Phil and Daniel have had similar tournament success recently.Now that I've completely decimated every claim you made in that post, I'm gonna go toss back a cool one and stroke myself while watching women's volleyball on Fox Sports. :-)

[Mikeh77 0]

This whole arguent is silly.....dissing Phil for being a cash game "fish" is like dissing Chip Reese for being a tournament "fish".Both great players who stick to their specialties and shouldnt be judged on the others.I mean in this same game where Phil "donked"...Daniel also got stuck for a cool quarter of a mil (3 quarters at one point) so its all relative.This thread is just as lame as starting one titled "Why is Daniel such dead money in tournaments lately?"

I dont understand your first statement here, bc Chip Reese is not a tournament fish. Also, there's a difference between Daniel losing 750k, and Phil constantly getting outplayed in any higher limit cash game. Your last statement makes no sense either, bc Phil and Daniel have had similar tournament success recently.Now that I've completely decimated every claim you made in that post, I'm gonna go toss back a cool one and stroke myself while watching women's volleyball on Fox Sports. :-)

Copletely decimated every claim?1. I didnt say Chip Reese is a tournament fish...I said it would be JUST AS SILLY as saying..(reading comprehension is a GOOD thing) but on the subject Chip is a great Hall of Fame player..but he hasnt have any significant tourney wins of late either. theres 1 you got wrong.2.On the Daniel and Phil money losing...I just referenced that one Taping..not anything else..just to show the type of rationalization that goes on here and the sheep mentality..nothing about "constantly getting outplayed" ...which are your words......theres 2 you got wrong.3. You say Phil and Daniel have had the same Tourney success recently...not so...Phil had multiple World Series cashes an..a PL Omaha final Table (thought he was just a Hold Em guy?) and another technical final table where he got knocked out along with someone else before they went to the final table..(him and someone else finished 10-9 on the same hand).....Not to mention a huge win in the Heads Up Championship in which is was mainly all top pros playing. theres 3 you got wrong.decimated what exactly?

[BigDawgBuuck 0]

The reason Hellmuth may look like a fish is he probably went on tilt because of his enormous ego.

[shynepo3 0]

hey BIG MCDEE, who's the asian girl in your avatar???? She's hot!!!

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Phil is a good no limit hold'em tournament player that might rank in the top 60 in the world today. As for cash games, because of his lack of emotional stability and fundamental knowledge I don't know that he could be a winning player above the $30-$60 limit. I think the guy is hilarious and just great for poker, but I don't think he is among the best players in the world today. A kid like Jdags, Erik123, Spirit Rock, Joe Cassidy, Michael "The Grinder" Mizrachi, Erick Lindgren, Martin deKnijff, Allen Cunningham, just to name a few that may have surprised you, would all rank ahead of Phil not only as overall players, but specifically no limit hold'em tournaments. I'd be happy to put my money where my mouth is. Phil did well in the 80's and 90's playing in a totally different world. Back then, there were far fewer great young players in the game with an aggressive style. Today, with so many great young players getting experience online and focused solely on poker, poker, poker, many of them would be great bets against Phil who hasn't played well in several years now for various reasons.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

You smell that?That smells like a challenge.CHALLLOUNGGGE

[KowboyKoop 0]

Phil is a good no limit hold'em tournament player that might rank in the top 60 in the world today.  As for cash games, because of his lack of emotional stability and fundamental knowledge I don't know that he could be a winning player above the $30-$60 limit.    I think the guy is hilarious and just great for poker, but I don't think he is among the best players in the world today. A kid like Jdags, Erik123, Spirit Rock, Joe Cassidy, Michael "The Grinder" Mizrachi, Erick Lindgren, Martin deKnijff, Allen Cunningham, just to name a few that may have surprised you, would all rank ahead of Phil not only as overall players, but specifically no limit hold'em tournaments.  I'd be happy to put my money where my mouth is.  Phil did well in the 80's and 90's playing in a totally different world.  Back then, there were far fewer great young players in the game with an aggressive style.  Today, with so many great young players getting experience online and focused solely on poker, poker, poker, many of them would be great bets against Phil who hasn't played well in several years now for various reasons.

I would have to respectfully disagree with much of this. Although I CERTAINLY do not have DN's experience or knowledge within the poker world, I would rank him a little higher than top 60, to be honest, in terms of tournaments. In cash games, I certainly see why he would be a "fish" in the Big game and really high limits. However, I don't think he has been doing THAT bad these past few years. I mean, he did win the Heads Up Challenge against many other pros. And, didn't he win TWO bracelets just two years ago in '03? Also, he final tabled AN OMAHA event and came pretty close in the other Omaha event I believe, both this year, so that was a decent showing. Also, I think he had 4 total cashes at this years WSOP, which, while it isn't a great showing, certainly isn't TOO bad. Also, he did place 2nd in last year's Tournament of Champions, outlasting the other pros..so, can't criticize that performance too much.Also, I find it a bit funny that everyone says that poker is a game in which success is measured over a long period of time, usually over the course of AT LEAST 5 years, I would imagine. Going off of this, I think it is a bit unfair to criticize Hellmuth's play for just the past two or three years because he hasn't had OUTSTANDING success. Sure, he hasn't had great success the past couple years, but it isn't like he has done nothing. Who is to say that he isn't just "running bad" over the past couple years, as I do seem to recall that he has taken his share of monstrous beats at some big events and final tables. So, while I would certainly agree that there are many younger players who are perhaps playing a bit better RIGHT NOW and are having better success RIGHT NOW, I do think it is a bit hasty to simply say he isn't as good as he used to be or that he isn't really even a top player anymore. I mean, if he doesn't run into that "cooler" at the PL Omaha Final table at the WSOP, maybe he goes on to win his 10th bracelet and we aren't having this conversation at all!?!?Also, yes, I realize that Phil is a crybaby and an ******* at times and thus, people are more inclined to dislike him...however, I am trying to ignore that aspect about Phil.Alright, flame away at me just because I am KK, I am ready for it.....

[insano 0]

Phil can dodge bullets baby. That has to put him in at LEAST the top 15.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

Daniel, why do you think Phil dodges your heads up challenge? He certainly has the cash, he certainly believes he has the skill to beat anyone consistently yet he doesn't want to take a risk. He did win a Heads up Tournament, which certainly is going to have more luck involved than a simple heads up challenge or two would.To be the best you have to beat the best, and its hypocritical that he claims to be the best yet won't take up a challenge against another top pro when he certainly has the financial resources to do so.IF I ever have enough of a roll to play the Daniel Negreanu challenge in the distant future, I will certainly at least play for 100 grand for the challenge alone and the thrill of trying to beat one of the best in the world.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Daniel, why do you think Phil dodges your heads up challenge? He certainly has the cash, he certainly believes he has the skill to beat anyone consistently yet he doesn't want to take a risk. To be the best you have to beat the best, and its hypocritical that he claims to be the best yet won't take up a challenge against another top pro when he certainly has the financial resources to do so.IF I ever have enough of a roll to play the Daniel Negreanu challenge in ten years, I will certainly at least play for 100 grand for the challenge alone.

How many top pros have actually played against DN so far??? How about you call out EVERY top pro that hasn't played him yet....everyone already knows why Phil won't do it, b/c he doesn't see enough potential reward to warrant him risking the money. Phil wants to win WSOP bracelets, that is his main objective. He doesn't care about accepting a challenge against one pro, where he is basically putting up 500K or whatever on what is basically an even-money gamble. What about Doyle, he hasn't played DN yet, boy, I GUESS HE IS SCARED, MAN, WHAT A DONKEY, HUH??? Also, not to criticize DN, but who annoited him as "the best," as in the person that Hellmuth must "beat" in order for Phil to call himself "the best." Who did DN beat to gain the title of "the best?"Seriously, your logic is just wrong.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

Phil is the only top pro that openly proclaims himself to be the best. True, lots of weird things can happen in a heads up challenge. But Phil thinks he is so good that winning 3 out of 5 matches shouldn't be much of a problem. He should put his money where his mouth is, thats why. You took 'the best' too literally, my point wasn't that DN is the best player, just that he is among them. If he is too risk averse to play for high stakes against tough competition, then how can he be so sure he is the best player in the world?Instead of thinking about the positives of winning in a match like this, Phil is too worried about what happens should he lose, which is one of the reasons he is not playing to his fullest potential.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Phil is the only top pro that openly proclaims himself to be the best. True, lots of weird things can happen in a heads up challenge. But Phil thinks he is so good that winning 3 out of 5 matches shouldn't be much of a problem. He should put his money where his mouth is, thats why. You took 'the best' too literally, my point wasn't that DN is the best player, just that he is among them. If he is too risk averse to play for high stakes against tough competition, then how can he be so sure he is the best player in the world?

There was a tournament where a bunch of pros played in a Heads-Up format. Phil Hellmuth played in that. Daniel played in that. Phil Hellmuth won. He doesn't need to prove himself by accepting some challenge from another pro where he risks 500K. There are a lot of pros who don't want to take this challenge. This doesn't mean they are not allowed to think they are the best player in the world.

[blueodum 0]

The fact remains that over the last 10 years, PH has achieved relatively little (in relation to the size of his ego) in the poker world. And that includes tournament no-limit HE, supposedly something he's very very good at.Plus he doesn't play in high-stakes cash games, something that is considered by most top players to be a pre-requisite for including yourself among the very best in the world.Put simply, PH's "peers" (I use the term loosely) don't really consider him a top player, yet he is somehow able to fantasize to himself that he really is the best.That isn't being confident - it's called being delusional.

[KowboyKoop 0]

The fact remains that over the last 10 years, PH has achieved relatively little (in relation to the size of his ego) in the poker world. And that includes tournament no-limit HE, supposedly something he's very very good at.Plus he doesn't play in high-stakes cash games, something that is considered by most top players to be a pre-requisite for including yourself among the very best in the world.Put simply, PH's "peers" (I use the term loosely) don't really consider him a top player, yet he is somehow able to fantasize to himself that he really is the best.That isn't being confident - it's called being delusional.

OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS, PHIL HAS ACHIEVED RELATIVELY LITTLE!??!?!No, he is not the greatest poker player of all-time, like he likes to say sometime, but come on, don't be a dum-dum. He is pretty good, pretty high up there, and has done quite a bit over the past ten years. Give me a break. You don't have to like him, but you can't deny results. 3rd all time in bracelets and pretty high up there in terms of WSOP cashes (is he first??? he might be, not 100 percent sure where he stands in this...). He won two bracelets in the '03 world series. He won the Heads-Up Championship. And many many other final tables, wins, etc. over the past ten years. Give me a break. Yeah, he has an ego and is obnoxious. However, he is a damn good NL tournament player, and in the end, will go down as probably one of the top 5 of all time. FACT

[booyaga 0]

kowboykoop=phil hellmuth? :think:

[BradSmitty 0]

Kowboy, he may or may not go down as one of the top five tournament players of all time, but that is not what is being discussed here by daniel and some others. Daniel is saying that NOW phil's game is only good enough to put him as one as of the top 60 tourny players. Most of Phil's accomplishments, while impressive, occurred before this huge boom of poker, and before the huge boom of online poker. They are still impressive, but what I and others are saying is that if he started his career today and played the same kind of poker he's playing now and has been his whole career, he would NOT have the same accomplishments that he has had. Would still be a top 60 tourney player (according to DN), which is very impressive, but would not do things to make him top 5. This is because of the massive amount of skillful players that have emerged.

[KowboyKoop 0]

kowboykoop=phil hellmuth? :think:

I simply choose to look past the way Hellmuth acts and instead just look at the results. Most people on here are just criticizing him because they don't like him, so they just say "he hasn't done anything good in ten years" just becuase they don't like his attitude, which is wrong.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Also, as of right now, Phil Hellmuth is the chip leader in the Tournament of Champions. Boy, I guess he must literally be getting aces every single hand, as we ALLLL know he doesn't take the necessary "risks" in these tournaments to win....