why is hellmuth such a fish?

[hudday48 0]

People are saying that he has acheived little because he enters more tournaments then anyone and gets mediocre results.Think about how many tournaments he has entered before you say... but but he has 9 WSOP bracelets.

[brian67 0]

The funny thing about Hellmuth is that his huge ego actually detracts from his acceptance as one of the very best. If a player much more humble had his same record they would likely be much higher up on the best ever list. Also i think it's funny that he has this widely accepted image as being incredibly tight, when much of what i read about him from other top player assessments is that he actually very loose much of the time. I also don't think people should be so quick to call the guy washed up. I never really see him lose without being sucked out on a pretty rough beat. Even still, top 60 in the world (for tourneys) is pretty good, and it very well may be higher than that.

[custom36 5]

The funny thing about Hellmuth is that his huge ego actually detracts from his acceptance as one of the very best. If a player much more humble had his same record they would likely be much higher up on the best ever list.

How good of a wide receiver is Terrell Owens? Exactly.

[mark33f 0]

Brian ( Michigan): will you ever play Daniel over at the Wynn heads up? Phil Hellmuth: (3:24 PM ET ) The Wynn started slowly so far. But would I play him heads up? Yes. At the stakes he wants to play? No. But you have to give respect where respect is due. Give him credit. If I'm not going to play some internet players heads up at UltimateBet, doesn't seem like it would be very smart for me to play Daniel heads up. Great players play great players because of ego.

[blueodum 0]

Great players play great players because of ego.Perhaps the most deliciously ironic thing Hellmuth has ever written or uttered. Who would think that the self-described best player in the world, Mr. "If there was no luck involved I guess I'd win every one" would refuse a challenge match with Daniel because he lacks ego.

[brian67 0]

How good of a wide receiver is Terrell Owens? Exactly.

Is he extremely cocky or something? And if yes is he A) compared to nearly as many people as Hellmuth, or B) universally considered to be the best wide receiver? I don't think that example quite did it, although i think i know what you are getting at.

[brian67 0]

it censored cocky, kinda weird since that's not a bad word.

[custom36 5]

How good of a wide receiver is Terrell Owens? Exactly.

Is he extremely censored or something? And if yes is he A) compared to nearly as many people as Hellmuth, or B) universally considered to be the best wide receiver? I don't think that example quite did it, although i think i know what you are getting at.

He's very censored.A) Not quite, but he's compared to a lot.B) He's arguably the best WR in football.

[PFunk 0]

Great players play great players because of ego.Perhaps the most deliciously ironic thing Hellmuth has ever written or uttered. Who would think that the self-described best player in the world, Mr. "If there was no luck involved I guess I'd win every one" would refuse a challenge match with Daniel because he lacks ego.

I think he's saying that the only reason he would play him if he did would be ego, there's no reason otherwise for him to play him for those stakes...just my guess.Phil's style is not suited well for high stakes cash games imo...I also dont think he has updated his play to the over agressive style of today...he bets very small amounts trying to trap his opponents and keep them in the hand, which can often leave him open for devastation-P.

[blueodum 0]

Well, yah - that's what so ironic about it. In the quoted passage, Phil's saying he doesn't have an ego big enough to challenge a great player. But Phil does have a big ego; therefore there is no reason not to play Daniel.The real reason, the one he won't admit maybe even to himself, is that his cash game skills are very limited. They are limited because A) he doesn't play high stakes cash games (therefore he gets no practice) and B) his lack of emotional control is a HUGE liability in a cash game, where your losses are not limited, as they are in tournaments.

[bcook823 0]

He doen't improve. He hasn't gotten better. He stays the same and that is the problem.

[chrozzo 19]

Hellmuth is an a great player...sometimes...but ic ant stand him because of the way he treats his opponent. By all means get in their face and try to intimidate them when you lose to them while youre still IN, but he insults them when they bust him. He deserves whatever bad beats he has coming to him. No class."The greatest player that ever lived" -what a joke

[poguemahone68 0]

The funny thing about Hellmuth is that his huge ego actually detracts from his acceptance as one of the very best. If a player much more humble had his same record they would likely be much higher up on the best ever list.

How good of a wide receiver is Terrell Owens? Exactly.

about as good as the waterboy this week

[Mikeh77 0]

I know this is Daniels board...but for him to say Phil "might" be in the top 60 in NL TOURNEYS makes Daniel look...well...like an idiot.The amount of disrespect contained in his post, from a talented guy whos basically living off one great year..to a guy who has Hall of Fame credentials and keeps on proving it (multiple World Series cashes this year, two final tables....Heads Up win against the best players) is rather sickening.

[blueodum 0]

Daniel had a terrible WSOP this year but he also had multiple cashes. A lot of cashes simply means you play a lot of events.

[KowboyKoop 0]

I know this is Daniels board...but for him to say Phil "might" be in the top 60 in NL TOURNEYS makes Daniel look...well...like an idiot.The amount of disrespect contained in his post, from a talented guy whos basically living off one great year..to a guy who has Hall of Fame credentials and keeps on proving it (multiple World Series cashes this year, two final tables....Heads Up win against the best players) is rather sickening.

I wouldn't say DN looks like an idiot, and I SURE wouldn't say DN is "living off one great year." However, I agree that Hellmuth is a bit better than Top 60. Maybe he'll win this Tournament of Champions and put it to rest.

[Mikeh77 0]

I know this is Daniels board...but for him to say Phil "might" be in the top 60 in NL TOURNEYS makes Daniel look...well...like an idiot.The amount of disrespect contained in his post, from a talented guy whos basically living off one great year..to a guy who has Hall of Fame credentials and keeps on proving it (multiple World Series cashes this year, two final tables....Heads Up win against the best players) is rather sickening.

I wouldn't say DN looks like an idiot, and I SURE wouldn't say DN is "living off one great year." However, I agree that Hellmuth is a bit better than Top 60. Maybe he'll win this Tournament of Champions and put it to rest.

No I said Daniel is a talented player BUT his career is based on his domination last year compared to the career acheivement of someone like a Hellmuth, Chan, or the like....basically he hasnt proved himself in the long run to pass judgement. And saying Hellmuth might be in the top 60 might not make him an idiot...but it damn sure doesnt make him the smartest guy in the world.

[Brownbeard 0]

Phil Hellmuth mentioned he made almost 2 million in endorsements last year so he can afford to go on tilt...

[Fullhouse7 0]

I'm not saying I understand anyone's mind---I'M psychotic, not psychic---- but DN's comments are in regards to Phil's limited amount of poker skills. Yes, Phil is outstanding in NLHE, otherwise he is limited. Also, in cash games with no limit to buy ins, it does appear that Hellmuth plays way too conservatively. I totally agree he is one of the very top 3 in NLHE tournaments ever. Again, i believe DN is looking at overall poker talent---HORSE, for instance----where Hellmuth is lacking IMHO.Fullhouse7

[blueodum 0]

Clearly, Daniel is also saying that PH isn't in the top tier of his specialty - NLHE tournaments - ANYMORE. No doubt he was at one time, but times have changed. Daniel is comparing Phil's game with the up and coming young players (many of whom he listed).Frankly, unless you are someone who has played the major tournament circuit the last few years, you have no basis on which to comment on the truth or falsehood of Daniel's statements.

[Mikeh77 0]

I'm not saying I understand anyone's mind---I'M psychotic, not psychic---- but DN's comments are in regards to Phil's limited amount of poker skills. Yes, Phil is outstanding in NLHE, otherwise he is limited. Also, in cash games with no limit to buy ins, it does appear that Hellmuth plays way too conservatively. I totally agree he is one of the very top 3 in NLHE tournaments ever. Again, i believe DN is looking at overall poker talent---HORSE, for instance----where Hellmuth is lacking IMHO.Fullhouse7

From his post though Daniel seems to have it in his head that Phil MIGHT be in the top 60 in NL Holdem tourneys right now.. which is just...shocking.

[blueodum 0]

From his post though Daniel seems to have it in his head that Phil MIGHT be in the top 60 in NL Holdem tourneys right now.. which is just...shocking.Yes, it may be shocking ... to us railbirds.But that does not necessarily mean it would be a shocking statement to the other top players on the tournament circuit.They are the only ones who have a legitimate basis for judging these things.

[Mikeh77 0]

Clearly, Daniel is also saying that PH isn't in the top tier of his specialty - NLHE tournaments - ANYMORE. No doubt he was at one time, but times have changed. Daniel is comparing Phil's game with the up and coming young players (many of whom he listed).Frankly, unless you are someone who has played the major tournament circuit the last few years, you have no basis on which to comment on the truth or falsehood of Daniel's statements.

But the truth and history doesnt back up his statement...2 bracelets in 2003...heads up win this year in what could be called one of the most prestiguous tourneys...heads up against the best pros out there. I love the hypocricy here...when Daniel goes in the tank for a year he is just "running bad" or having "bad luck" but if Phil has a bad year or a bad stretch of a few months he has "lost it".Guess that goes with this being Daniels board.

[Birdsoft 0]

So why did Phil play in the High Stakes Poker event: 1. Publicity 2. Publicity3. PublicityHe gets his mug in with all the "real" high stakes players. And its definitely +EV business-wise whether he wins or loses. An added benefit of his "brat-ness" is that if he wins, well he wins, if he loses we all talk about him, he gets a ton of air time, he gets a bunch of 'real fish' shooting at him in lower cash games, and he just gets more popular....Though a lot of it is real unstability, some of it is staged.Definite Top 60, probably much much higher, if you limit it to just NL Tournament play. Come on, DN is living off way more than One year's success......way more.....Oh, and the point of ICEMAN's original statement was fairly accurate. Ask Dan Harrington instead of Sklansky. Guess which one has had more success in the bigger fields... I want some of you guys in the next Multi-table I play....

[blueodum 0]

I guarantee you if Daniel doesn't win a major tournament by the end of 2006 or do well in the WSOP or Cardplayer points standings next year, there will be plenty of people saying he's lost it. Heck, there are people saying that now.What is important here is to recognize who has a legitimate basis for opinion on this matter. Daniel is one of those people who have that. So if you really want to, go ask the other top pros. If almost all of them put PH in the top 10, then it suggests that DN's opinion is probably wrong.