folding aces preflop?phil hellmuth is a joke!!!

[Suited_Up 2]

WHAT????CASHING in some Tournaments.I think I was watching the pot limit tourney from last years world series and at that point hinm and Sinopli had 5 or 6 cashes each to lead the series at that point.Phil will be ready for the WSOP.

I guess we'll see.

[Markmadness 0]

I lay down aces like i lay down skinny models with big breast. I am in no matter what hahahah

[jooka 0]

Just read this title at the latest cardplayer online magazine. I didn't even bother to read his article. http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...4576&m_id=65557I used to think he's just a whiner. Now I think he's an absolute loser.

best make a new username cause youre the only joke I see in this thread.

[Suited_Up 2]

hellmuth>you

LOL... Isn't that the argument everyone goes back to? First of all... Barely! HAHAHA!Secondly, I'm not talking about him compared to me, so really you have no point in saying this. I am talking about him compared to the top pros in the game... Who actually, will tell you that he is not that great. Johnny Chan has said he can think of 50 people who are better. That's saying something.

[faketree 0]

Ok, first things first. Clearly the original poster is an idiot for not reading the article before posting. People like that are dangerous. I just hope he doesn't make such blarring assumptions about more important things in life. Making decisions with such a small amount of information is just illogical. He's probably a horrible poker player based on this.Second, Suited_Up, Hellmuth is for sure one of the best readers there is in no-limit hold'em tournaments. Even though he hasn't been able to get into the top three spots in the most recent tourneys, his reads are impeccible. Laying down the best hand is just part of the game sometimes. If you want some of the older tourneys when he is a commentator, his reads are just off the wall good. Almost down to the suits of the cards. I think Hellmuth's biggest problem has been his inability to properly adjust to the huge influx of internet players. Daniel himself says that this has been a big problem for a lot of the top pros and why they haven't finished high in tourneys lately. I think if he does what he says he would this year, play more tourneys, we'll see him take a big one down in 2005.

[PWetz00 0]

THIS IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL PLAY....... But... if you look at what he says in regard to the percentage of chips on the table.... There are at the very least... 61% of the chips shared between two people, one of which is you.... with at least 7 others sitting in on the game...I'd have to say that I would agree with this laydown in the situation he portrays.In that setting... you are not trying to take first place.... you are playing to make the top 8.... because #1 - #8 all get the same prize in this case.... a seat at the bigger game.This sounds stupid, I know.... but think of the situation. You are sitting with 30% of the chips......... it says that the one person with more than you..... goes all in. That's over 60% of the chips between 2 people..... and there are at least 7 more sitting at the table....... i emphasize "at least"..... but those are very very good odds. Again... you are not playing for first necessarily.....And I think this is a terrible situation to be in anyway.... you'd be upset for folding the rockets... if it turns out they hold up...... And you'd be even more upset for blowing all your chips if you get drawn out. You do not need to double up to maintain a stranglehold on the game... because again, you're not playing for first..... you are in it just to make the top 8, the only reason anyone plays satellites... (all of these games i've played have never played it out from 8th place down to first anyway.... ) This is enough... because if you were truly gunning for first place..... you'd be more likely to bust out in 9th than placing 8th by loosening up. Same goes that you are more likely to finish in first, than finishing in 8th.... just the style of play involved. I just think that the math doesn't add up.... you are really in better shape than what the article discusses.... and this may be the only time I'd agree with this type of move. Questionable at first... until you take the time to break down the math on the percentages of chips left on the table.

[PWetz00 0]

My Bad.... it is a super-satellite... and there are only 9 players left... which emphasizes this lay down even more..... only one more to get knocked out before the prizes.... and the prize is the same no matter where you finish in the top 8.

[Guest XXEddie]

...Why don't you actually read the damned article before you bash it? It was about an episode of Tilt, not something that happened in an actual game.

seriously, acually READ it, if you did you would know that The MAtador was told to just fold his hand and get up. If youre gonna bash something, read it

[cdddc75 0]

Just read this title at the latest cardplayer online magazine. I didn't even bother to read his article. http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...4576&m_id=65557I used to think he's just a whiner. Now I think he's an absolute loser.

Tournament odds for a supersatellite like this would be roughly as follows:8 players for 9 spots = 88.89% odds of winning (8th wins as much as 1st does), 11.11% chance of busting out for an average stack.To calculate "tournament odds" in this scenario, multiply 11.11% by the size of the average stack and divide by your stack, then subract this number from 100%:100% - (11.11% * 11.11% / 30%) = 100% - 4.11% = 95.89% chance of winning with your current stack size.Call the all-in with AA and win, and your odds move to 97.94% chance of winning.Call the all-in with AA and miss, and your odds drop to zero. SUMMARY; You would have pot odds of 46.77 to 1 to make this call! Needless to say, AA isn't that big a favorite over 72o, much less any other hand in poker. Folding AA would be MANDATORY in this position. Duh.

[tyf70 0]

I deleted the original post.

[cdddc75 0]

Folding AA is NEVER a winning poker player's attitude. Just like a warrior will never say surrender to any circumstances.

Last time I checked, winning poker players do whatever it takes to win the maximum amount of money possible. There are times when folding AA is precisely the right move to make to meet this goal.

[tyf70 0]

I deleted the original post.

[cdddc75 0]

Folding AA is NEVER a winning poker player's attitude. Just like a warrior will never say surrender to any circumstances.

Last time I checked, winning poker players do whatever it takes to win the maximum amount of money possible. There are times when folding AA is precisely the right move to make to meet this goal.

Read that title "Folding AA PREFLOP"In real tournaments or cash games. AA is the big favor, the more all-ins preflops, the better pot-odd and return AA has. PERIOD. That will be my last post.

Phil's whole point of the article is to think outside of the conventional box. While AA is a dominant favorite in any single hand, it only takes losing with AA once to bust you out of a tournament. When you are a 96% favorite to win a tournament, why on earth would you risk those odds to call an all-in to make yourself a 98% favorite to win a tournament?Sometimes the best return is to avoid playing the hand altogether, even if it is pocket rockets. This is especially true in a satellite tournament. If you think playing a 4.5 to 1 favorite hand to risk 96% odds of winning is a good investment, so be it. You're just wrong.

[Awful 0]

That will be my last post.

So, you come here to troll, to mock good poker advice because it occurs in extremely specific and odd situations and weird payout structures, to mock a well-known player, and are a general dick to everyone here?GOOD RIDDANCE.

[faketree 0]

Ok, first things first. Clearly the original poster is an idiot for not reading the article before posting. People like that are dangerous. I just hope he doesn't make such blarring assumptions about more important things in life. Making decisions with such a small amount of information is just illogical. He's probably a horrible poker player based on this.

You sound like a nice guy so I reply. I hope you will get something out of this as I did get something out of you.1. You made the bad assumptions (just like you think I did) based on limited information.2. Did you really assume that I didn't read it before I posted it? Because I know there would be angry posts attacking. It's just amazing to see how people react.3. I am just laughing at people's responese. Making people frustrated and twisting their mind is my specialty at poker table.4. I suggest you read that article again (specially the last 2 parts). Read it carefully and think. a. 9 players left for 8 seats guranteed. b. You've 30% of chips. c. Another player with more chips than you do goes all-in???? Isn't that a bad stupid assumption in the article?! DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT WILL REALLY HAPPEN IN REALITY??? Also

Michael was at the table before the final card was dealt, he had the chip lead at the table, there were 55 players left, and 45 of them were going to get paid. So, what the heck was going on here?

Do you just want to be in the money or do you want to be the number one to cash big??? Folding AA is NEVER a winning poker player's attitude. Just like a warrior will never say surrender to any circumstances. That's just a bad movie/example to be made!

Ok, I am a nice guy so I won't flame anything in your reply to me but I will retort as I think your logic is off on a few points and I'll go in your order.Your #1 - I didn't make any assumption based on LIMITED information. You said in the post that you didn't read the article. If this was not true and some weird thing you wanted to say to 'put the whole forum on tilt', it didn't come thru that way. Poker is a game of information. And if you came to a conclusion about something with such little information, it is a correlation to how you may make decisions at the poker table.Your #2 - I didn't ASSUME you didn't read the whole article. You took the time to say that you didn't read it. If this was sarcasm or a lie, it doesn't translate in written words.Your #3 - Won't even go into it because it has nothing to do with the topic.Your #4 - Phil wasn't making an assumption that the top stack would go all in. He said WHAT IF the large stack went all in. This is a valid question and no where near being an assumption. And if you think that doesn't happen in real life, it does. Just because he's the big stack doesn't make his a smart player.Your #5 - Won't go into. You're right. You don't need to prove anything. No one on this board does. But you know who REALLY doesn't have to prove anything. Phil Hellmuth. His records and his 9 braclets prove it for him.Then you said something like 'wouldn't you rather come in first rather than 9th' or something like that. The whole point of Phils article is that 8th is no different than 1st. In fact, it wouldn't be the worst play to simply fold every hand without even looking at it. Granted, its not what most people would do but there is a good chance someone will bust out without you even having to play a hand. So if you aren't willing to throw away AA for a CALL of your entire stack, then the concept if just way over your head.

[tyf70 0]

Do you know why I respond to ya?I just hope he doesn't make such blarring assumptions about more important things in life. Thank you for that! Your #1 - I didn't make any assumption based on LIMITED information. You said in the post that you didn't read the article. If this was not true and some weird thing you wanted to say to 'put the whole forum on tilt', it didn't come thru that way. Poker is a game of information. And if you came to a conclusion about something with such little information, it is a correlation to how you may make decisions at the poker table. Poker is a game of incomplete information.Your #2 - I didn't ASSUME you didn't read the whole article. You took the time to say that you didn't read it. If this was sarcasm or a lie, it doesn't translate in written words. I guess all I was trying to do was I would love to see how people respond.Your #4 - Phil wasn't making an assumption that the top stack would go all in. He said WHAT IF the large stack went all in. This is a valid question and no where near being an assumption. And if you think that doesn't happen in real life, it does. Just because he's the big stack doesn't make his a smart player. I told you to read again that article, didn't you?

For example, in a supersatellite when you have, say, 30 percent of the chips, eight players win seats, there are nine players remaining, and a player with more chips than you moves all in, it would be correct to fold pocket aces.

Your #5 - Won't go into. You're right. You don't need to prove anything. No one on this board does. But you know who REALLY doesn't have to prove anything. Phil Hellmuth. His records and his 9 braclets prove it for him. Oh yeah, someone always does.Yep your right, that's my bad to insult him because of my ego. My appology to that. Been pleasure talking to you, have a nice day!

[faketree 0]

Ok I guess it went over your head again. I say poker is a game of information because the more information you have that your opponent doesn't, gives you the edge. So yes, poker is a game of information. But yes, its also a game of incomplete information since there are things you will not know. But this isn't at all in contrast to what I said. The opposide of information isn't incomplete information. Incomplete information is just another type of information.I didn't read the article again because I understood it the first time. I don't know how many times you've read it but you obviously still don't get it. If there are 9 people left and you have 30% of the chips and someone has more than you, chances are you two are the big stacks. And if you aren't, that means someone else is incredibly short and you'd be a fool to put all your chips in on any hand unless you knew all seven cards and you have the pure nuts.what I mean by no one on here has anything to prove is because they don't. Just because they TRY to prove something doesn't mean they have anything to prove. People play poker for all different reasons and different stakes and different styles. This in itself means no one has to prove anything.

[FileError404 0]

I folded AA before and I didn't even have to think about odds... :wink: PS $3 sat. for $200 Sundays. 27 places paid, 35 left. Average stack 28K. My stack about 20K. Raise before me is all in for 16K... I fold. 1 caller with a over 50K stack. AQ vs. JJ. Flop is JT9...4...K... )32 left after that hand...3 hands l8er I got my seat. But imho it only makes sense in Satellite play.

[faketree 0]

To all the Phil haters, what's up now?This is exactly what Phil needs to get back in the swing. I wouldn't be surprised to see Phil go on a run now and win a big tournament soon.Not to mention Jesus. He just came off that WSOP circuit win.But, 2005, year of Phil?

[razorhate 0]

why is it that some of the stupidest people are also the most opinionated?