Phil Helmuth - Great player or overrated ?

[OzExorcist]

As much as I dislike Phil's on-camera personality he is without a doubt one of the greatest hold 'em tournament players.

FYP.

As has been pointed out above there'll be two Hellmuths - the one when the cameras are rolling and the one when they're not. What he does when the cameras are rolling is promotion at its bargain basement, lobotomised worst, but it's still promotion.

As for being one of the greatest tournament players ever... compare the number of wsop tournaments he's entered and the number of bracelets he's won compared to, say, the number of WSOP tournaments Phil Ivey has entered and the number of bracelets he's won. 11 sounds impressive but I think it'll be eclipsed in the near future.

His inability to win a bracelet in anything other than hold 'em events is also a matter of public record.

Anywho, FWIW I think he played awful in the hands that got televised this year. I'm just glad ESPN finally seem to be getting sick of giving him camera time for his entrances. Just like previous years there was a whole stage show and ringmarole outside the Rio before he entered but they didn't bother showing it (possibly because they had audio issues). Phew.

 

[SlySwagga]

u dont win all those bracelets by sheer luck, he's a beast

he somehow doesnt understand that poker involves luck though

 

[salim271]

u dont win all those bracelets by sheer luck, he's a beast

he somehow doesnt understand that poker involves luck though

Very true, he was bit more humble in his defeat at 2010 WSOP ME... but not by much.

 

[OzExorcist]

u dont win all those bracelets by sheer luck, he's a beast

he somehow doesnt understand that poker involves luck though

Remember though, he enters a lot of tournaments. None of the other players near him on the leaderboard play anywhere near as many WSOP events as Hellmuth does - imagine how many Doyle or Ivey or even Chan would have if they'd played in the same number.

Granted, in Doyle's case quite a few of his bracelets came in the good old days when fields were small so that probably offsets it. But it's not the case for someone like Ivey.

Obviously he's a pretty good NLHE donkament player. But IMO it's only because of sheer volume, not any particular skill advantage over his peers, that he's at the top of the bracelet leaderboard. Would everyone rave about Hellmuth the same way if Ivey or Doyle had 13-14 bracelets apiece to their names? Or would they talk about him in respectful but unexaggerated tones like they do someone like Eric Seidel (who's a much better player than Hellmuth, IMO).

 

[onemorechance]

Remember though, he enters a lot of tournaments. None of the other players near him on the leaderboard play anywhere near as many WSOP events as Hellmuth does - imagine how many Doyle or Ivey or even Chan would have if they'd played in the same number.

Granted, in Doyle's case quite a few of his bracelets came in the good old days when fields were small so that probably offsets it. But it's not the case for someone like Ivey.

Obviously he's a pretty good NLHE donkament player. But IMO it's only because of sheer volume, not any particular skill advantage over his peers, that he's at the top of the bracelet leaderboard. Would everyone rave about Hellmuth the same way if Ivey or Doyle had 13-14 bracelets apiece to their names? Or would they talk about him in respectful but unexaggerated tones like they do someone like Eric Seidel (who's a much better player than Hellmuth, IMO).

Yeah seriously all of this. Hellmuth's had like 20 years of WSOP events? Once Ivey has had the same number of opportunities, he'll have at least an equivalent number of bracelets, which is pretty incredible considering field size increases and stuff

 

[salim271]

Yeah seriously all of this. Hellmuth's had like 20 years of WSOP events? Once Ivey has had the same number of opportunities, he'll have at least an equivalent number of bracelets, which is pretty incredible considering field size increases and stuff

^This, I believe Ivey is the youngest with that many bracelets (8 now?), but I'm not sure.

 

[dan]

if he was quiet do you think he could sell so much garbage bad books bad poker site bad manners

 

[Ranny]

Its interesting that whilst the fields are much larger, there are proportionately more bracelets to be won.

 

[Hordling]

I believe his poker achievements speak for themselves to his ability to play poker...

That being said, it's his antics/mouthing off that makes everyone overlook those achievements and in general get tired of him quickly.

IIRC Ivey is the youngest to reach 8 bracelets.

 

[dwolfg]

The persona is *mostly* an act. He's an attention whore, yes, and his persona fulfills that need, but he admits some of it comes from being a sore loser and letting his emotions take over. He's usually very apologetic after he goes off on someone, and has said many times that he wants to curb that negative energy. But I think it's too much a part of him now and he's not been able to control it lately. Witness his near fetal position breakdown when he was sucked out on and eliminated in that WPT event.

Virtually everyone who knows Helmuth personally says that away from the table he's the best friend you could ever want, extremely loyal and will give the shirt off his back to anyone who needs help. You see Mikey giving him grief all the time on TV but the truth is they're best friends. In Mikey's book he speaks very highly of Helmuth as a person and a friend even while insulting his poker abilities.

His cash poker skills are as bad as his tournament skills have been good, but the game has changed a lot since his heyday and although he can still be a force I don't forsee any more bracelets in his future. I have no doubt that players like Ivey and Sidell will break his bracelet record in the next few years. But unlike most other pros (with the exception of the FT founding pros Lederer/Ivey/Ferguson/et al), Helmuth is a marketing juggernaut who clears way more money away from the poker table than any other pro. His endorsements, appearance fees, and investments/business ventures earn him far more than even the biggest poker winnings, so you have to give the guy some credit for being smart. The vast majority of pros can only dream of the success Helmuth has had.

Pretty spot on. I do disagree that his bracelet record will be broken in the next few years. Think about some of the best today. Do you think Ivey or Seidel will want to play as many tournaments as it would take to overcome both variance and the players who just want to take a top pro out of a big tournament, when they could be hunting fish in high stakes cash games?

 

[OzExorcist]

Pretty spot on. I do disagree that his bracelet record will be broken in the next few years. Think about some of the best today. Do you think Ivey or Seidel will want to play as many tournaments as it would take to overcome both variance and the players who just want to take a top pro out of a big tournament, when they could be hunting fish in high stakes cash games?

Seidel maybe not.

But Ivey, definitely - on the assumption that he continues to get action on his bracelet bets. Remember that Ivey can crush all the games, which means he can win bracelets in stud or deuce-seven events where he doesn't have to fade anywhere near the field sizes of the NLHE tournaments. And as long as people keep betting millions against him winning bracelets he'll keep playing as many tournaments as possible.

I'm pretty sure a number of his bets (including the big publicised one with Howard Lederer) extend at least to the 2011 WSOP so he's got at least one more year of high volume play and no doubt a lot more after that if the bets keep coming in. And even if they don't and he skips the small buy in events he's still likely to continue playing at least the $50K and $10K championship events where he's always a threat for a bracelet.

 

[THeGaME41]

I think Phil is good but hes too full of himself when hes playing. He tries to do stuff thats really high level on camera but the other guy is a fish and then Phil looks like an idiot because the guy called/ folded.

 

[bruce0316]

I like Phil for the simple reason he is entertaining you know when he loses he is going to whine. I think he has several more bracelets in his future.

 

[dmorris68]

It seems I'm in good company in thinking Phil will likely not win another bracelet. This from Daniel Negreanu in a recent interview (the now infamous interview in which he called Annie Duke a f***ing c***, lol).

http://www.pokerplayer.co.uk/poker-...s/10714/the_evolution_of_daniel_negreanu.html

Howard Lederer’s bet with Phil Ivey is reported to be $5m – do you think players need to make these bets to give them an incentive to play?

I don’t need to make these bets to give me an incentive to play, but I know guys like Phil Ivey and durrrr play at a lot higher stakes on a regular basis. It’s really stupid for them to play these tournaments for three days to win $200,000 or $250,000, because they can win that in a hand in the big games. It’s good for poker and poker history that the best players are playing, because without these side bets Ivey wouldn’t even play. But with the side bets he will, and he’ll pass the all-time leader for bracelets at the WSOP – it’s just a matter of time.

How do you think the current all-time WSOP bracelet leader, Phil Hellmuth, feels about that?

Oblivious. Actually there are a lot of bets talking about how long Ivey will take to tie him, and they are setting the over/under on seven and a half years.

Do you think Phil Hellmuth will win any more bracelets?

Probably not. The problem with Hellmuth is that the game he’s best at is the game most players are best at. The young guys are just flat out better now and the fields are so huge. Hellmuth is never going to win a Stud event because he doesn’t understand the games yet. In the limit portions he’s just so far behind in terms of knowledge.

Speaking of the over/under on 7.5 years for Ivey to tie Hellmuth, I think I'd take the under. He's only 3 bracelets short of the tie, and he won 3 in 2002, 2 in 2009, and 1 this year. As long as the bracelet bets keep him coming back, I think 3 years may see him surpassing Hellmuth, let alone tying him.

 

[Mr Whatever]

come on morris, i told ya, philly h has made a final table at the wsop every yr since 1988, except for 1 yr where he made it to the last 2 tables of 2 tourns in that yr.

i dont think any1 else has done that. could be wrong there.

i dont know, i dont see the crowd ur telling us about have have gotten way better than ph. and the massive crowds havnt done anyhing to his game because hes still won bracelets in back to back yrs 06 and 07 after the moneymaker effect.

i still like his chances of not getting 1 more bracelet, but a few more.

and dont think for 1 minute that ivey getting bracelets isnt motivating him to improve his game and get more bracelets.

 

[Exit141RTe1]

Great player. If nothing else the bling speaks for it's self.

 

[Theblueduce]

I like him.

 

[OzExorcist]

come on morris, i told ya, philly h has made a final table at the wsop every yr since 1988, except for 1 yr where he made it to the last 2 tables of 2 tourns in that yr.

i dont think any1 else has done that. could be wrong there.

i dont know, i dont see the crowd ur telling us about have have gotten way better than ph. and the massive crowds havnt done anyhing to his game because hes still won bracelets in back to back yrs 06 and 07 after the moneymaker effect.

i still like his chances of not getting 1 more bracelet, but a few more.

and dont think for 1 minute that ivey getting bracelets isnt motivating him to improve his game and get more bracelets.

I dunno if I'd go as far as Negreanu does in saying that Hellmuth will probably never win another bracelet, but the majority of what he's saying is undeniable fact:

- Hellmuth really does only have one strong game
- That game attracts the biggest fields so the odds are stacked against him from the outset
- There are plenty of very good players in them, quite a few of which really are better than Hellmuth

 

[Mr Whatever]

well just have to wait and see i guess, guy is an all time great. alot of ppl have been doubting him over the yrs because of his antics but he continues to prove them wrong.

u ppl might have not have been paying attention to phily h but hes just isnt a holdem player but has been developing into a good omaha8 tourn player as well.

 

[OzExorcist]

u ppl might have not have been paying attention to phily h but hes just isnt a holdem player but has been developing into a good omaha8 tourn player as well.

Sure he's an OK PLO / PLO8 player but so are lots of other people and his record in those games isn't anywhere near as good as it is in NLHE.

Like I said above, I definitely wouldn't go as far as Negreanu does in saying that he'll likely never win another bracelet. In fact, I'd say quite the opposite: given that Hellmuth is, let's face it, likely to keep playing WSOP events until he drops dead, he's almost a lock to win at least a few more bracelets. Some of them might even be in events other than hold 'em.

But does that mean that he's still one of the best players in the game, or just that he played the most tournaments for the most number of years?

 

[shawkid]

I think Phil is a great player at times. He lets his ego mess with his game. When he is playing with Pro's he playes awesome but put him at the table with some no names and he goes to their level.

 

[belerophon]

I have to say in all fairness that while I don't like Phil's condescending attitude, he is the only pro I've watched that actually taught me anything about tournaments.

Mainly that tournaments are about survival and that means laying down good draws "at times" and giving in to heavy bets even when you might be ahead etc.... I frequently think about how Phil might handle a situation when I'm staring at a messy flop.

I can't say that about too many pros.

 

[blackmax]

good player but LOUD

 

[dan abnormal]

I dont know. What I seen on TV is just horrible, he always loses, and just talks and talks. I remember one hand where the board had an obvious straight on it and he was playing Oberstan (???) and kept going on and on about the sick calls he makes and cant figure out what she could have that could beat him. She finally called for a clock and Phil went all in and lost to the straight.

But then again maybe in the 90's this guy was untouchable, but I didnt watch poker than, AND dont I wish I did as I have jumped on this poker train very late in the game.

I mean he has to be very good but then I dont know when I hear make comments like, the WSOP buy in should be so large that only pro's can get in it cause the game is being ruined (or something to that extent)

 

[PlayerPlayerAA]

Hey, Helmuth may never win another bracelet, but he can still get to a final table. Just look at his results in event #41 of WSOP 2010. Also earlier in the year he made a Bay 101 final table too. He may not be like, but he is still skilled enough to be consider as one of the greats.

I believe he made 2 WPT final tables this year.
He's a nit, the younger players and the aggression have made him dizzy. His tight style would still work if he got back to his trapping ways.
He's a terrible ring game player, as evidenced by his appearences on PAD and the BG.
He actually impressed me with his generosity the night he had the loose cannon all in(100k pot) with pocket kings to his A9 with two 9's on board. He let the dude run it 4 times, which the odds said the loose cannon would probably get a quarter out of it. Loose cannon ended up winning 3 of the 4 and Phil was rather gracious as the rest of the pros got a big laugh. But overall his acting like every player that wins a hand against him didn't even belong in the hand is sickening.

While I'm at it, let me relay another observation I made watching the BG and the WSOP, its about Daniel Negrau(don't really care how you actually spell his name) But, I think his troubles at the WSOP go to the fact that he plays the event like he is playing a 6 player ring game, aggression with weak hands and bluffs at a 9 player tournament table can get you trapped and killed, especially when you basically have no history of reads on the other players, like you would at a recurring cash game. I mean you could spend 6-8 hours at the same table, settle in and build reads with tight play, then find your spots. But he's raising 45 suited from middle postion on the 3rd hand of the tournament, missing and continuing with 4 players in the pot !!!!
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not much of a NLHE player, but this is just what I see.