JFarrell20 1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 You guys still don't get it. I said I could beat him. I never said he might not beat me 9 out of 10 tries. I just said I could beat him. So could any of you. You see, what happened here, is one moron on here read my comment and deduced that it meant "I can beat Hellmuth EVERY time". That's wrong to deduce that. Shame on you all. Then the poker newbies come in here and jump all over me because their precious "TV PHIL" is getting "reamed" in some forum. BTW, the WPT does re-run you guys...everytime you see Phil on TV playing Hoyt doesn't mean it happened 12 times.Get a life you guys. Phil's good, not great. And why doesn't Phil play the big cash game??? Oh, because he's a tournament player. OK.And to clarify:It was an $11 SNG.I didn't finish 1st.Hellmuth is 40 I believe, not 'mid-30's'Screw your head on right before you post, please. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ_Chaps 0 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 39 close enough. i'll go get a life now. Link to post Share on other sites
yeffy 0 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 First of all JFarrell you're a moron. Your statement is like me saying 'I can beat Lebron James at 1 on 1 basketball because one time in a million he will break his leg after I score the first point of the game so I'll win. There is no point to making a statement about beating someone in this game and then backing it up with a defense that is akin to the chances of a million monkeys with type writers accidentally pounding out the encyclopedia.As far as the hand goes, after Phil gets raised he has little reason to be fully confident with his marginal holding. If you watched Hoyt play he is a move in artist. So any time you make a bet at him he can move in your whole stack whether he has the goods or not. If Phil was able to see Hoyt's hand I think he still would check that turn. You don't want to take the pot on the turn from a guy who has a 22:1 shot going to the river and is probably going to bluff the pot 1 in 4 times. I think Phil's biggest mistake there was betting the river since we isn't going to get a call from a worse hand than his really. His best play is to keep checking to Hoyt in hopes of Hoyt bluffing off more of his chips. Phil is a 96.5% favorite on the flop, and still a 95% favorite on the turn. Everyone says if he bets the turn he wins the pot....why would he want to bet that turn against a guy who has pushed his whole stack in in more than half of the hands he played. Maybe Phil traps too much at times but this is a spot where the only profitable play is to trap since betting has 0 value other than taking down a small pot. If you're going to get scared that if you don't take down a pot at the right time because your opponent might make his 22:1 shot, you are playing scared and have no chance. Link to post Share on other sites
JFarrell20 1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 First of all Yeffy, no matter how hard you try, you won't spark up that whole Anti-Christian thread again. I may be Christian, but I'm not going to defend that over and over again. You win.And I didn't say 1 in a million. It would be more like 1 in 4. Link to post Share on other sites
yeffy 0 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 First of all Yeffy, no matter how hard you try, you won't spark up that whole Anti-Christian thread again. Â I may be Christian, but I'm not going to defend that over and over again. Â You win.And I didn't say 1 in a million. Â It would be more like 1 in 4.Since when did a thread where you received a healthy thrashing for making blatantly racist and anti-semitic remarks about Stu Ungar and the film portraying him become an "Anti-Christian" thread. Considering Christ or Christianity is never even discussed anywhere within the thread, only your own personal hatred and prejudice.For those interested in JFarrell's true colors:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...0e8352f5d7d6a061 in 4 or 1 in a million...either way you are saying you would lose, and therefore can't beat him. If we play 4 pots for $100 each, and I win 3 and you win 1....who comes out ahead? Link to post Share on other sites
jayistheman 0 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 wow... i missed that debate.and as an italian that people think is jewish, IM OFFENDED!in all honety though, i woudnt discuss that subject anymore jfarrell... really, really sounds bad when you say all that, but ill give you the benefit of the doubt. Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I'm glad I missed that debate. Honestly JFarrell yu should probably leave that topic alone, let sleeping dogs lie I say. Link to post Share on other sites
JFarrell20 1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 First of all Yeffy, no matter how hard you try, you won't spark up that whole Anti-Christian thread again. Â I may be Christian, but I'm not going to defend that over and over again. Â You win.And I didn't say 1 in a million. Â It would be more like 1 in 4.Since when did a thread where you received a healthy thrashing for making blatantly racist and anti-semitic remarks about Stu Ungar and the film portraying him become an "Anti-Christian" thread. Considering Christ or Christianity is never even discussed anywhere within the thread, only your own personal hatred and prejudice.For those interested in JFarrell's true colors:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...0e8352f5d7d6a061 in 4 or 1 in a million...either way you are saying you would lose, and therefore can't beat him. If we play 4 pots for $100 each, and I win 3 and you win 1....who comes out ahead?I didn't say I'd "come out ahead". I said I could beat him.Go to Wal-Mart and buy that thing called Logic. You need it. I think it's on sale, but it's out of your price range. Admit it, you aren't mad that I can beat Hellmuth, you are mad that I won't accept your classification of me as an "Anti-semite".By the way, when you are at a table and playing heads up, and the opponent moves all in pre-flop every time, are you going to incorporate those experiences into your beliefs (about how he plays/what he's holding, etc.)? If not, then you are a losing poker player. Likewise, if you don't know how to incorporate human experiences into your life, then you are just a loser. I'm not against Jews. I'm against certain actions by certain Jews. There's nothing wrong with that. Link to post Share on other sites
yeffy 0 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I didn't say I'd "come out ahead". Â I said I could beat him.Nevermind then...I thought you understood that poker is a game to be played for profit. If I enter 100 tourneys against the same 50 people and win 1, I wouldn't consider that "beating" anybody. If you like to make stupid nonsensical statements and then back-track and argue semantics, then I was wrong for attempting to engage you in an insightful discussion. However I'm happy to say that by your ridiculous "logic" I can safely make the claims: "I CAN BEAT ANY POKER PLAYER IN THE WORLD IN A HEADS UP MATCH" "I CAN ALSO BEAT ANY CHESS MASTER IN THE WORLD" "I CAN BEAT ANY CHAMPION AT BACKGAMMON" Oh by the way to do any of these things I would need multiple independant trials that will not be weighed against each other in any way that would measure true skill or bring any validity to the results. Sure Phil Ivey beat me 37 times in $5000 heads-up freezeouts, but then I won one! I totally kicked his arse......You sir are a fool. Link to post Share on other sites
JFarrell20 1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I couldn't beat Kasparov at Chess. Chess isn't 98% luck like Poker. Chess is 100% skill. Not sure about backgammon. I couldn't beat anyone at that, as I've only played it once. I could beat any poker pro at heads up. Could I turn a profit? Probably not. Not my point. I never said "Gee I wish Hellmuth lived with me so I could leach off of him and steal his money everyday".I never once said that. You put words into my mouth, just like you like to call people "anti-semites".You need to study communication/language before you speak. Link to post Share on other sites
yeffy 0 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 EDIT: Â After reading his article, and tapping into his "reasoning", I think I could kill Phil in a heads-up NL match. Â His reasoning is just plain awful. Â I do agree with his moving in with A6, but jeez, this guy is delusional! Â He's not that good!!!There is what you said. That statement does not say "I could beat him once out of 5 or 10 times we played if I got lucky".You need to think before you make statements that are ridiculous.And considering that no one in that other thread ever came to your defense and I was the 4th or 5th person to comment on what you said I dont think I decided to "call" you anything, or put words in your mouth. Link to post Share on other sites
jack24bauer24 0 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 For the, what, 9th time within this thread...you sound like a fool. Link to post Share on other sites
jayboogie 0 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 look at how much backtracking this guy does. Now, he's saying poker is 98% luck? Why don't you just go play another game if you think poker is 98% luck. Please just stop already, your just making yourself look worst trying to argue your point which has no merit. What's the point of making such a pointless statement like you can beat Hellmuth once in a while in a headsup match, then you back it up saying everyone could. If we all could, what's so special in saying you can do it? Do you see the point in how useless making a statement like that was? Probably not. Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Lets plese get back to the topic. Phil DID NOT play the hand well. He has gotten to a point where he is very obssed with making the perfect play and every hand becomes a trap. Did hoyt get lucky, yes, but Hoyt wasn't gonna put another cent in after the original bluff attempt and he made sure that when he hit trips on the river that he would price phil into calling. Sometimes people you just need to play a hand straight up instead of getting fancy. Phil's play of that hand was a perfect case of FPS and you get burned more often than not when you are guilty of it. As for Philly Dilly Willy at the WSOP PLHE final table, he played fine and was genuinely unlucky in that one with maybe the exception of focusing too much on busting Gabe Thaler Link to post Share on other sites
JFarrell20 1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Poker is probably 98% luck. If you guys don't see that then you are not being honest. The goal is trying to play that 2% perfectly. If you only play the skill part to 50% efficiency, then you're only getting 99% out of your game. Doesn't sound like much, but over the long run, that is a big leak from 100%.If you guys don't think it's 98% luck, then you are not allowed to post any "bad beats" in here anymore.Yes, 1 out of 4 times I could kill hellmuth in a heads up match. I'm fairly certain you guys can too. I'm not saying it with pride, I'm just making a point that the dude isn't perfect. He thinks he is."If luck wasn't involved I guess I'd win 'em all".I wasn't bragging. You guys just failed to see the honesty of my statement. No biggie, I won't hold it against you.Chess and poker are not the same. You automatically have more of an advantage in any poker game, against any player, than you do trying to capture DEEP BLUE's king. lol.Unless DEEP BLUE just hands you its King and Queen because they're not sooooooted. Link to post Share on other sites
jayboogie 0 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Poker is probably 98% luck. If you guys don't see that then you are not being honest. The goal is trying to play that 2% perfectly. If you only play the skill part to 50% efficiency, then you're only getting 99% out of your game. Doesn't sound like much, but over the long run, that is a big leak from 100%.If you guys don't think it's 98% luck, then you are not allowed to post any "bad beats" in here anymore.Yes, 1 out of 4 times I could kill hellmuth in a heads up match. I'm fairly certain you guys can too. I'm not saying it with pride, I'm just making a point that the dude isn't perfect. He thinks he is."If luck wasn't involved I guess I'd win 'em all".I wasn't bragging. You guys just failed to see the honesty of my statement. No biggie, I won't hold it against you.Chess and poker are not the same. You automatically have more of an advantage in any poker game, against any player, than you do trying to capture DEEP BLUE's king. lol.Unless DEEP BLUE just hands you its King and Queen because they're not sooooooted.Nobody said he was perfect, but what's the point of making such a useless statement that comes off as arrogant? If you believe poker is 98% luck, then I guess you can safely say the best players in the world are just plain lucky right? No offense, but I don't think your qualified to start making statements like poker is 98% luck, what research have you done to come to this conclusion? Buddy, you play micro-limit hold'em. Your not some know it all, so stop acting like one. Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Hand 0 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Lots of statistics are being thrown around here without a lot to back them up. In any heads-up NL freezeout, if you play someone who goes all-in preflop every hand, and the blinds are not insignificant - costing say 6% of your stack every round), you will only win about 60% of the time, even if you play perfectly. So bragging that you could beat any top NL player 1/4 of the time isn't really much of a boast.Farrell: While you never said you could beat Hellmuth every time you played him, saying "I could kill (so and so) in a match" is usually taken to mean that the person stating this thinks themself as a clear favorite in such an encounter. It's one thing to back down from your original statement, but hiding behind semantics doesn't look very good. JMO Link to post Share on other sites
mark33f 0 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Why does everyone think that if you dont win a bracelet every year you are washed up?? Phil is busy with other things right now and I will guarentee you he will be ready for the series. by the way he oonly wins bracelts in odd number years Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Vermouth 0 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Aren't you the guy that hates jews? Link to post Share on other sites
jack24bauer24 0 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 If you think 98% of poker is luck, well, then I guess Daniel is a mediocre player and just got really lucky this year. Link to post Share on other sites
JFarrell20 1 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Oh, man I give up!Looks like political office is out of my future! Link to post Share on other sites
solo319 0 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Ya phil did misplay that hand and he does act like a brat but he really is one of the best ever. I think one of his problems is he expects everone to play by the book like him and sometimes that gets him in trouble. Most people dont like him but i think he is a great player. Watch his dvds they are great but the best part is when he talks about himself halarious. Link to post Share on other sites
AceOfSpaiDs 0 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Phil Helmuth whines like a woman. He waits and always thinks he's gonna win and gets busted and right away he starts to freak Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now