Hellmuth out of WSOP after just 6 hrs...
zef204
Posts: 4,742 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
And he's real humble.
<< <i>"Some guys are so bad, it's not even Texas Hold 'Em," Hellmuth said. "I think I'm the best Hold 'Em player in history." >>
Hahaha. Sorry Phil.
0
Comments
Watching him go out is usually one of the most comical moments in every tournament, I'm sure this will be another barrade of profanity that makes me laugh out loud.
shawn
<< <i>Good player as his success obviously indicates, but a total tool most of the time. >>
Good tournament player, which is something else entirely. And I'm not even sure he's all that good at that, to be honest. If any of us entered every single WSOP event for the past 17 years we may be close to 11 bracelets as well.
I am routing for Matthew Hilger. he is always a class act win lose or draw.
<< <i>
<< <i>Good player as his success obviously indicates, but a total tool most of the time. >>
Good tournament player, which is something else entirely. And I'm not even sure he's all that good at that, to be honest. If any of us entered every single WSOP event for the past 17 years we may be close to 11 bracelets as well. >>
Well we were talking about a tournement, so my statement applies. And don't kid yourself about the bracelettes... Guys like Chan and Doyle have also had similar success in the way of bracelettes at the WSOP, and they are also considered 2 of the best in the world as well and have entered tons of events at the WSOP every year. I think lucky players can win 1 or 2 over a long period, but not 10 or more. Phil has won many tournaments and he goes up against many of the best in the world, so he's obviously a very good player. Again, a total ass but OBVIOUSLY a good player.
<< <i>
<< <i>Good player as his success obviously indicates, but a total tool most of the time. >>
Good tournament player, which is something else entirely. And I'm not even sure he's all that good at that, to be honest. If any of us entered every single WSOP event for the past 17 years we may be close to 11 bracelets as well. >>
Holy crap Boo we finally agree on something.
Hellmuth is still an excellent poker player though. The problem though with playing too many tournaments is that they rake between 3% to 10% of each one from the buy-in pool, plus there are the entry fees. This rake and the entry fees can really grind out a bankroll. Then there are travel expenses and other costs involved in being a pro.
I won't post it here but I calculated one time that in my estimation Hellmuth actually has most likely incurred a net loss of about $500,000 over the years playing in tournaments. Of course income wise though he is way up because of book sales, endorsements and especially affiliate commission programs.
I believe one time you stated that you make about $300 per month commissions off your poker affiliate programs. Hellmuth I would have to imagine not only gets a higher commission rate than you, but obviously has a larger player base, perhaps one of the largest other than say Doyle or a few others. I think that it's entirely possible that he has made more money on affiliate commissions over the years than he has grossed in tournament play.
Steve
Let's take 17 years because I believe Boo is right that Hellmuth won his first professional poker tournament about 17 years ago. Let's take an average of 50 tournaments a year he has played. There were most probably much less tournaments in the late 80's through parts of the early 90's, but there are many more today. But using 50 as an average let's say Hellmuth has been in 850 tournaments lifetime... divided by 11 wins means that he places first every 77 tournaments.
Tournament attendance was much lower years ago but of course it has steadily increased. There are some tournaments today with only a few hundred players, but there are also some which get up to around 500 players more or less, with of course the WSOP being a monster. So winning once in every 77 tries isn't that bad when random odds would suggest a win about once every say 300-400 tries. Certainly though given the fact that there are always random variances which could have simply favored Hellmuth in 850 tries, winning once every 77 tries certainly doesn't make him out to be the "genius" that he makes himself out to be. And remember that my other calculation says that he is still actually a $500,000 money loser overall in tournament play.
Steve
I have to admit though, his tirades after loosing makes great TV.
"That bleep bleep mother bleep bleep! What a bleep moron! You are the worst bleep piece of bleep I've ever seen. It doesn't matter because I'm still the best poker player in the world. BLEEP BLEEP!!"
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Good player as his success obviously indicates, but a total tool most of the time. >>
Good tournament player, which is something else entirely. And I'm not even sure he's all that good at that, to be honest. If any of us entered every single WSOP event for the past 17 years we may be close to 11 bracelets as well. >>
Well we were talking about a tournement, so my statement applies. And don't kid yourself about the bracelettes... Guys like Chan and Doyle have also had similar success in the way of bracelettes at the WSOP, and they are also considered 2 of the best in the world as well and have entered tons of events at the WSOP every year. I think lucky players can win 1 or 2 over a long period, but not 10 or more. Phil has won many tournaments and he goes up against many of the best in the world, so he's obviously a very good player. Again, a total ass but OBVIOUSLY a good player. >>
Chan and Doyle are considered two of the best in the world because they actually win at cash games; something which, by all accounts, Phil Hellmuth does not.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Good player as his success obviously indicates, but a total tool most of the time. >>
Good tournament player, which is something else entirely. And I'm not even sure he's all that good at that, to be honest. If any of us entered every single WSOP event for the past 17 years we may be close to 11 bracelets as well. >>
Holy crap Boo we finally agree on something.
Hellmuth is still an excellent poker player though. The problem though with playing too many tournaments is that they rake between 3% to 10% of each one from the buy-in pool, plus there are the entry fees. This rake and the entry fees can really grind out a bankroll. Then there are travel expenses and other costs involved in being a pro.
I won't post it here but I calculated one time that in my estimation Hellmuth actually has most likely incurred a net loss of about $500,000 over the years playing in tournaments. Of course income wise though he is way up because of book sales, endorsements and especially affiliate commission programs.
I believe one time you stated that you make about $300 per month commissions off your poker affiliate programs. Hellmuth I would have to imagine not only gets a higher commission rate than you, but obviously has a larger player base, perhaps one of the largest other than say Doyle or a few others. I think that it's entirely possible that he has made more money on affiliate commissions over the years than he has grossed in tournament play.
Steve >>
That could be. I heard his wife is a doctor, which, if true, may explain where some of the money comes from. Even if he is up for his lifetime at tournament play he could have other 'leaks'-- like playing in cash games against superior players-- which have eroded those wins.
Many tournament players are either staked or trade pieces of each other, so it's always hard to tell how much of a win someone gets to keep. I remember hearing once how Scotty Nguyen was pieced out after the '98 series, and he didn't keep nearly as much of that win as you might think. In any case, tournament players are grossly overrated when it comes to measuring poker skill IMO. I'll take Chip Reese or Ivey or Greenstein or Doyle over any of these guys at the WSOP any day of the week. Saying Phil Hellmuth is a great poker player is a little like saying Dave Kingman is a great hitter. They both do one thing well, but that doesn't necessarily translate to greatness.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Good player as his success obviously indicates, but a total tool most of the time. >>
Good tournament player, which is something else entirely. And I'm not even sure he's all that good at that, to be honest. If any of us entered every single WSOP event for the past 17 years we may be close to 11 bracelets as well. >>
Holy crap Boo we finally agree on something.
Hellmuth is still an excellent poker player though. The problem though with playing too many tournaments is that they rake between 3% to 10% of each one from the buy-in pool, plus there are the entry fees. This rake and the entry fees can really grind out a bankroll. Then there are travel expenses and other costs involved in being a pro.
I won't post it here but I calculated one time that in my estimation Hellmuth actually has most likely incurred a net loss of about $500,000 over the years playing in tournaments. Of course income wise though he is way up because of book sales, endorsements and especially affiliate commission programs.
I believe one time you stated that you make about $300 per month commissions off your poker affiliate programs. Hellmuth I would have to imagine not only gets a higher commission rate than you, but obviously has a larger player base, perhaps one of the largest other than say Doyle or a few others. I think that it's entirely possible that he has made more money on affiliate commissions over the years than he has grossed in tournament play.
Steve >>
That could be. I heard his wife is a doctor, which, if true, may explain where some of the money comes from. Even if he is up for his lifetime at tournament play he could have other 'leaks'-- like playing in cash games against superior players-- which have eroded those wins.
Many tournament players are either staked or trade pieces of each other, so it's always hard to tell how much of a win someone gets to keep. I remember hearing once how Scotty Nguyen was pieced out after the '98 series, and he didn't keep nearly as much of that win as you might think. In any case, tournament players are grossly overrated when it comes to measuring poker skill IMO. I'll take Chip Reese or Ivey or Greenstein or Doyle over any of these guys at the WSOP any day of the week. Saying Phil Hellmuth is a great poker player is a little like saying Dave Kingman is a great hitter. They both do one thing well, but that doesn't necessarily translate to greatness. >>
Good comments Boo. My personal opinion is that Greenstein is the best player in the world right now. Second is a tough pick and I agree with your list and if I had to choose I would probably pick Ivey. It is said that the difference between someone who is a genius and someone who is very smart is that after seeing a very smart person do something you say to yourself, "I could have thought of that." But when seeing a genius do something you say to yourself, "Wow, I would have never thought of that."
I watch poker on TV and Greenstein makes moves which simply amaze me...and the moves usually work if the luck is simply even. I don't see any other player today like that although I can see where Doyle earlier in life was a genius. He tries to make the moves and has the right ideas but he is just a little too slow and his reads are sometimes off - only probably because of his age and physical condition. But Doyle still has the best "poker face" I've ever seen.
I don't think I've ever seen Greenstein make a wrong read on a player. Ivey has tremendous strategy but his reads sometimes are off, especially with players he doesn't know. He usually seems to get busted out by newer players. With the "regulars" though he rarely misreads them.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Good player as his success obviously indicates, but a total tool most of the time. >>
Good tournament player, which is something else entirely. And I'm not even sure he's all that good at that, to be honest. If any of us entered every single WSOP event for the past 17 years we may be close to 11 bracelets as well. >>
Well we were talking about a tournement, so my statement applies. And don't kid yourself about the bracelettes... Guys like Chan and Doyle have also had similar success in the way of bracelettes at the WSOP, and they are also considered 2 of the best in the world as well and have entered tons of events at the WSOP every year. I think lucky players can win 1 or 2 over a long period, but not 10 or more. Phil has won many tournaments and he goes up against many of the best in the world, so he's obviously a very good player. Again, a total ass but OBVIOUSLY a good player. >>
Chan and Doyle are considered two of the best in the world because they actually win at cash games; something which, by all accounts, Phil Hellmuth does not. >>
Phil is garbage, he is not a TOP poker player. He is a player that the pros want in the big game. Plain and simple he is more hype than skill.
<<< I only had 20% of myself >>>
Lifetime Plays
January 27, 2006
For the record, I have beaten the $1,000-$2,000 and higher "big limit mixed games" for a lot of money, despite what you may have heard. Here is every play I've made lifetime, so far. In about 1996 at the Hall of Fame Poker Classic, I won $170,000 in the $2,000-$4,000 game. In Dec., 2003 I played $1,000-$2,000 and won $90,000. Then in Nov. 2005 in the $2,000-$4,000 game at the Bellagio, I won $116,000 or so. The next week, I won about $230,000 in that game, and the very next day I won another $73,000 or so. Then a bit of losing came along in December, where I played Friday night and lost $80,000, Saturday night I lost $40,000 or so, and Sunday I lost $53,000 all in the $2,000-$4,000 game. I was super tired all three plays, and should have slept Friday night, rather than hop into the game. I did lose $150,000 in the "High limit Poker" games on GSN over two plays, luckily I only had 20% of myself in that game, vs. 100% in all of the other games mentioned above and below.
In 2004 and 2005, I had one losing trip in the sidegames--Aruba in 2004--until my High Limit Poker trip, and the above mentioned losses at the end of the year, in December. On those 20 or so trips, I usually played anywhere from $200-$400 (Partly) to $400-$800 (mostly). This year, I will be documented all of my side game wins and losses, and the number of hours played, here at the site or at a new site that I'm providing some content for that I will tell you about when we are launched there....Good luck, Phil Hellmuth jr.
<< <i>Phil is an arsehole!
I am routing for Matthew Hilger. he is always a class act win lose or draw. >>
I'd vote for Mike "the mouth" Mattesow (sp?) being the biggest arsehole! That guy definetly has some issues.
My ebay listings
<< <i>The below info was copied from Hellmuth's own website. The "great" Phil Hellmuth needed backers at one point! Perhaps Greenstein, Ivey and Doyle have taken Hellmuth to the cleaners a few times - LOL. Of course as previously stated, those tournament cuts eat away at a bankroll like a lingering cancer plus all the other expenses involved.
<<< I only had 20% of myself >>>
Lifetime Plays
January 27, 2006
For the record, I have beaten the $1,000-$2,000 and higher "big limit mixed games" for a lot of money, despite what you may have heard. Here is every play I've made lifetime, so far. In about 1996 at the Hall of Fame Poker Classic, I won $170,000 in the $2,000-$4,000 game. In Dec., 2003 I played $1,000-$2,000 and won $90,000. Then in Nov. 2005 in the $2,000-$4,000 game at the Bellagio, I won $116,000 or so. The next week, I won about $230,000 in that game, and the very next day I won another $73,000 or so. Then a bit of losing came along in December, where I played Friday night and lost $80,000, Saturday night I lost $40,000 or so, and Sunday I lost $53,000 all in the $2,000-$4,000 game. I was super tired all three plays, and should have slept Friday night, rather than hop into the game. I did lose $150,000 in the "High limit Poker" games on GSN over two plays, luckily I only had 20% of myself in that game, vs. 100% in all of the other games mentioned above and below.
In 2004 and 2005, I had one losing trip in the sidegames--Aruba in 2004--until my High Limit Poker trip, and the above mentioned losses at the end of the year, in December. On those 20 or so trips, I usually played anywhere from $200-$400 (Partly) to $400-$800 (mostly). This year, I will be documented all of my side game wins and losses, and the number of hours played, here at the site or at a new site that I'm providing some content for that I will tell you about when we are launched there....Good luck, Phil Hellmuth jr. >>
Riiiiiight. So in the pas 17 years Phil Hellmuth has only played in a dozen or so sidegames? What a fraud.
There was an interesting thing I read by Greenstein a while back where he said the only five players who consistently beat the big game at Bellagio are himself, Doyle, Chip Reese, Ivey and Chau Giang. Giang, I've heard, has since gone broke (presumably not from poker, although I don't really know), so that leaves four guys who can beat that game. The rest of them, according to Greenstein, are pretenders.
LAS VEGAS -- Barry Greenstein is cranky.
As he stands inside the Bellagio, where he regularly plays in the biggest cash game in the world, Greenstein and I are discussing who exactly should be called a great poker player and who shouldn't.
No. Wait. Greenstein is not exactly discussing. More like lecturing. In that contemptuous way of his. Lovably contemptuous. But contemptuous just the same.
Now, I could explain here that Greenstein's crankiness stems from the media making stars of players who win tournaments on television, declaring them "great" players, when actually many of those tournament players are not winning players who show a profit playing poker, which is why they hawk books and DVDs, and besides, tournaments aren't nearly the challenge or barometer that cash games are, and so, the bigger the cash game, the better the player who can beat it until a player gets to the biggest cash game around, which just happens to be - ta-da! - the one Greenstein plays in.
But my writing the previous paragraph risks the wrath of Greenstein's precision, so I'll let him explain.
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says. "Those are the five people who beat the biggest game. There isn't any tournament player you're going to put in our game who's going to beat it. They'd be drawing dead. They'd be the live ones. We'd play 'til they're broke. But they already are broke, for the most part. The public says, 'Oh he's a great player.' He's a live one in our game.
"You could make millions of dollars if you could beat our game. Do you really think these people would worry about making a few hundred-thousand (dollars) selling DVDs and videos if you could make millions playing poker? It's pretty obvious, isn't it?
"What tournaments are all about is beating bad players. Building up big chips in tournaments is a skill. I don't want to say they don't have certain skills. But playing good players, they'd have their heads handed to them at the highest levels.
"That isn't to say that they aren't smart enough individuals to become top players. The way you get good is by playing against the best players. You've now got to make adjustments to the adjustments they've made against you.
"The reason these other guys play in tournaments for the most part is because they are broke, because other people put them in a tournament and they've made a name for themselves. But they're not as good as many professionals out there."
When told of some of Greenstein's contention the best poker players are playing poker and not selling pokerphernalia -- Greenstein, by the way, is coming out with a book called "Ace on the River - An Advanced Poker Guide" -- renowned pro Howard Lederer raised his eyebrows and showed part of his famous weapons-grade stare, then somewhat backed up Greenstein's point.
"I had success in those biggest side games for 10 years," Lederer says. "I think I've gotten a lot of satisfaction and expanded my horizons a little bit and made a conscious decision.
"One thing I did decide, though, is I have too much respect for Barry Greenstein as a poker player and those other guys who play in the biggest games. I don't feel like I can put in a full day of business and come to Bellagio and play in a side game right now. I'm not the poker player they are right now. That's just the mental preparation thing. It's not that I don't have it in me. I just choose not to have it in me where it's all poker."
So, indeed, there is truth in Greenstein's argument. Still sounds cranky.
"The crankiness is that for years I'd just bite my tongue when the media would talk about losing players being top players in the game," Greenstein said, preferring not to name names. "I'd say, 'OK, they don't know the difference.' And everything I'd read or see on the news is, from where I sit, false.
" 'Great' is given to people who aren't even winning poker players. So, if someone's not a winning player, and I'm being told that's a 'great' player, they're being put up as top professionals and 'This is how they act.' Then they act like goofballs, and I say, 'That's because they're not (top professionals). You've got the wrong people.'
"I'm almost defending the working poker players around the country and even around the world who make a living playing poker. There are many people who do that, but it's very expensive to go around and play in these tournaments and often not the right way to make their living. They live with their families, they play in the local clubs.
"On some levels, I'm arrogant. That level is, there are cash game players - and not only that but I play in the biggest cash game; what we call the first tier - and a lot of people don't appreciate what the level of differences are between us and people playing in tournaments."
Greenstein began playing tournaments the past 18 months and has one of the better records, winning a World Series of Poker bracelet, finishing second in another WSOP tournament, capturing a World Poker Tour event and earning a bracelet in a Bellagio tournament.
What's more, to underscore the value of tournament winnings compared to his cash game accomplishments, Greenstein gives all his tournament winnings to charity, most notably Children's Inc., which is why Greenstein is often referred to as the "Robin Hood of poker."
"My crankiness is not for myself, because I have been given - whether I've deserved it or not - almost the best persona of any player in poker history," Greenstein says. "I'm defending other poker professionals."
You can doubt Greenstein's contentions about how cash game players compare to tournament players. And he will be happy to welcome you to his game. Bring money.
Steve Rosenbloom is a contributor to ESPN.com and writes a syndicated poker column for the Chicago Tribune.
Hellmuth is an ass, but I have to confess that I use one of his quotes all the time. It goes something to the effect, "if luck wasn’t involved, I'd never lose".