Jump to content

what happened to paul phillips?


Recommended Posts

The milliondollar internet dude, who came 2nd in one WPT event and then finally finished 1st in another.Did he stop playing after he wont the WPT event?I mean he wasn't an exceptional player, but i like watching him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The milliondollar internet dude, who came 2nd in one WPT event and then finally finished 1st in another.Did he stop playing after he wont the WPT event?I mean he wasn't an exceptional player, but i like watching him.
Dudeeeee He's the man around here right behind Negreanu Arieh and Lindgren.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He totally wigged out, blew all his savings on JOPKE accessories and Hellmuth paraphernalia and ended up on the street. Here he is trying to get Hellmuth to spot him $10k "just one more time" (note the ingratiating jersey):20050304-144-010.jpgThis is the dark underbelly of professional poker that no one likes to talk about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He totally wigged out, blew all his savings on JOPKE accessories and Hellmuth paraphernalia and ended up on the street. Here he is trying to get Hellmuth to spot him $10k "just one more time" (note the ingratiating jersey):
Awesome! Are you available to write my biography?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I caught up with Paul's blog this morning.A few things stuck out for me...1. Firstly, I should note that I believe in the Principle of Causality and find deeming certain holdings "lucky hands" pretty arbitrary. But it is fun to notice the results of certain hands and call them "lucky", as long as you do not attach value to the hand that does not exist by the laws of mathematics.That being said, 77 seems to be a lucky fucking hand for Paul Phillips.2. I read in his blog that he was currently housing Haralabos Voulgaris (I hope I spelled this correctly) This is interesting to me personally because Haralabos studies Philosophy (as do I). Paul, for whatever reason, probably arbitrary, has never struck me as being someone with much interest in Philosophy. Perhaps that has to do with my own misconceptions of associating idealism with philosophy, and Paul's views seem very rooted in reason and mathematics.That's all beside the point now, as I would be interested to know if Paul has similar interests (educationally) with Haralabos, and what philosophers or fields of philosophy are interesting to him.3. If you happen to read this Paul, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the hand in which you had AA and folded it to a small bet on a scary flop. If I had a livejournal I would have asked on the blog, sorry to bring it here.My questiong being: Do you look back on this as a bad fold? You are getting 6:1 here, and I am very aware that you cannot base decisions you make on the results of any one particular hand, but do you believe that you are being bluffed less often that one time in six in this spot?Also keep in mind I play primarily LHE and am certainly less able to understand NL bets and their relation to pot size than you are.That's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I caught up with Paul's blog this morning.2. I read in his blog that he was currently housing Haralabos Voulgaris (I hope I spelled this correctly) This is interesting to me personally because Haralabos studies Philosophy (as do I). Paul, for whatever reason, probably arbitrary, has never struck me as being someone with much interest in Philosophy. Perhaps that has to do with my own misconceptions of associating idealism with philosophy, and Paul's views seem very rooted in reason and mathematics.
:shock:
Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said, 77 seems to be a lucky fucking hand for Paul Phillips.
Not when the other guy has it..1:05 AMPhillips makes it $50,000 to go, Kabbaj raises to $150,000, Phillips reraises all in, and Kabbaj calls. Phillips has Qs Qh, Kabbaj has 7s 7d. The board comes 9d 10c 8d Kc 6s. The six spikes on the river, giving Kabbaj a straight (a jack would have given Phillips the higher straight). Phillips is down to about $40,000. Kabbaj becomes chip leader with over $700,000.
Perhaps that has to do with my own misconceptions of associating idealism with philosophy, and Paul's views seem very rooted in reason and mathematics.
You don't think philosophy should be rooted in reason?
My questiong being: Do you look back on this as a bad fold? You are getting 6:1 here, and I am very aware that you cannot base decisions you make on the results of any one particular hand, but do you believe that you are being bluffed less often that one time in six in this spot?
You're asking the wrong question. That would be the right question if while he was betting he was holding a signed and notarized document promising he would check it the rest of the way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't think philosophy should be rooted in reason?
Of course I think it should be. I have a very strong curiosity for anything of a metaphysical nature. Thats redundant' date=' but you get my point. I didn't mean to be so presumptuous.It is often the case that those with mathematical backgrounds have a distaste for philosophy, seeing it is idealized and inconclusive. I do realize this is just a stereotype.My point was, however, that I did not realize you were interested.What have you read that has had any significant impact?
My questiong being: Do you look back on this as a bad fold? You are getting 6:1 here, and I am very aware that you cannot base decisions you make on the results of any one particular hand, but do you believe that you are being bluffed less often that one time in six in this spot?
You're asking the wrong question. That would be the right question if while he was betting he was holding a signed and notarized document promising he would check it the rest of the way.So let's get to a different question.What, if at all, do your pot odds factor in here?Also, how did you view his small bet in this spot?
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is often the case that those with mathematical backgrounds have a distaste for philosophy, seeing it is idealized and inconclusive. I do realize this is just a stereotype.What have you read that has had any significant impact?
Right on cue with the stereotype, Rand. And less stereotypically, Camus.For any more you have to come to the blog.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My questiong being: Do you look back on this as a bad fold? You are getting 6:1 here, and I am very aware that you cannot base decisions you make on the results of any one particular hand, but do you believe that you are being bluffed less often that one time in six in this spot?Also keep in mind I play primarily LHE and am certainly less able to understand NL bets and their relation to pot size than you are.That's all.
Of course in Limit hold em there is no way Paul would have folded here. But in deep stack NL tournies, many different rules apply. In NL nobody likes to fold aces, but the board Paul got is one of the very very few that make laying down aces easy:"The flop is JsQsKs."First of all, the villain called a huge reraise preflop. Now, our read on villain (and it is a read any reasonable player would have formed, having watched this guys play as described by Paul) is that he is very tight in this kind of situation. A tight player who calls my large preflop reraise, I put him on JJ-AA, or AK. Some people would maybe add TT and AQ to the hand range, though my experience with tight players, I wouldn't includeTT or AQ until later when the blinds are larger. So what can I beat here? Well I can beat AK. And if he has one spade (Paul has no spade) and is holding the AK he had 11 outs to beat me and 3 outs to split. Paul knows if he just calls this flop bet, there is almost certainly going to be a large bet on the turn, and it is a bet he probably won't be able to call. So he makes a painful fold, which happened to be wrong in this case, but most of the time up against a tight player, this is an easy laydown.
Link to post
Share on other sites

After his 2 WPT final tables he also had at least one WSOP final table last year. A NL one where he busted "The Mouth". Wait there was at least one more last year where he had a big stack and got some bad beats. I think Ram Vaswani and Miami John were also at that table.I don't have a list of the tourneys nor do I have Paul's results but he sure seems to make it to many final tables. Especially since he doesn't play all of the big tourneys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

paul phillips is certainly a rare bird, if you've seen 'a beautiful mind' you'll have an idea of what i'm talking about. his HU match vs hellmuth was something i'll never forget. his site, this one, and the pokerchronicles are the three blogs i make sure i read everyday.you want a rating of paul phillips' game, i'll give it to you short and sweet: the force is strong in this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Yes but he rated 30 or so top players into 3 categories, including himself in very highest. His pedigree as a player doesnt withstand much scrutiny compared to some players he relegated to the 2nd or 3rd category, or left out completely. He seems to have lost objectivity over how good he really is.On a similar note I encountered "QuietLion" in a $10 rebuy on Stars recently when he made the most ridiculous uber-donkey move imaginable and busted out. He's a Microsoft zillionaire who now travels the world poker tour on his own coin. I just wonder how he maintains the self-delusion that he can play poker to any degree of competence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but he rated 30 or so top players into 3 categories, including himself in very highest. His pedigree as a player doesnt withstand much scrutiny compared to some players he relegated to the 2nd or 3rd category, or left out completely. He seems to have lost objectivity over how good he really is.
I know reading is hard but I was quite specific that I was ranking the players based on my opinion formed from ACTUALLY PLAYING WITH THEM. From the rail the only means you have for ranking players are published tournament payouts and the occasional televised hand. The entire reason my rankings might be a little bit interesting is that I have tons of information that you don't.Incidentally given the number of events I've played and the time in which I've played them my results stack up against anyone's. Granted, you have no way of knowing whether that's true or not because you have no idea how many events people play, but don't let huge gaps in your knowledge stop you from forming strong opinions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
but don't let huge gaps in your knowledge stop you from forming strong opinions.
quite possibly the funniest line i've ever read...........in my life...........ever!ps ever!!pps grow the beard back brother.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Anonymous
This is interesting to me personally because Haralabos studies Philosophy (as do I). Paul, for whatever reason, probably arbitrary, has never struck me as being someone with much interest in Philosophy. Perhaps that has to do with my own misconceptions of associating idealism with philosophy, and Paul's views seem very rooted in reason and mathematics.That's all beside the point now, as I would be interested to know if Paul has similar interests (educationally) with Haralabos, and what philosophers or fields of philosophy are interesting to him.
Until the advent of modern science, mathematics was taught as a branch of philosophy. In fact, if you pursue studies in philosophy, one of the first required courses will be one in logic and reasoning (if x then y, if and only if, etc.). One analogy I have heard about the relation between mathematics and philosophy can be best described by a story a college philosophy professor told the class:A bunch of kids meet every Sunday morning to play baseball in a field in the neighborhood. There is a tree in the middle of the field that is ignored until inevitably one day a pop fly hits the tree stopping the outfielder from being able to catch it. A huge argument erupts, trying to determine whether the play should be considered an out, or an automatic double. Finally they decide its an out, and will always be an out in future situations.The argument is an exercise in philosophy (a discussion of what the rules are or should be) and the result is math (the resultant universally excepted logic).So by definition, all mathematicians are philosophers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

wow. I get it now, Absolute and Jackal are both stupid college kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous
wow. I get it now, Absolute and Jackal are both stupid college kids.
College is thankfully long done. Luckily I was able to pay off all my loans with playchips accumulated while playing at PokerStars. I'll save you some time buddy, new signature just for you.
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
×
×
  • Create New...