Hellmuth, the guy is a legend

[I KNOW IT]

I wonder who has played the most events and never won one?

[dealerFROMhell]

Stu Ungar won it in 1980 (the first year he entered it), 1981, then ruined his life through cocaine and massive sport bet losses. He entered sporadically over the years, usually off his head on charlie, and came back to win it in 1997 because his daughter Stephanie told him jokingly, she'd never speak to him if he didn't get himself straight. Billy Baxter had to buy him in, because he was dead broke.

Incidentally, Hellmuth was commentating on that final table (featuring none other than Mel Judah), and he said one of the reasons Ungar had so many chips was because he kept reading hellmuth like a book and calling his bluffs. Phil Hellmuth was in awe of Stu Ungar that day, and rightly so. He said, and I quote, "This is a battle for second place".

As you all probably know, NLHE was becoming massive in Vegas in the early 80's, and although the field was obviously much, much smaller than the crapshoot of todays main event, it was stock full of hardened proffesionals who played day-in day-out at places like Binions Horseshoe. You wouldnt cough up $10,000 if you weren't a confident player. To say otherwise is a bit naive.

I see the word "legend" not just as denoting ability, which I think both Ungar and Hellmuth have in droves, maybe on an equal pegging, maybe not, but we'll never know. It speaks of something else. It's also about legacy, triumph over adversity and setting precedents.

In my job, I get to meet a lot of famous poker players, some that played with Stu Ungar back in the 80's, like the afrementioned Mel Judah. I asked Mel one day what it was like playing against him on that final table outside Binions Horseshoe on Fremont Street and he spoke in kind of hushed tones about the man.

He said "I cant figure out, to this day, how that man played poker like he did... It was spooky, it was un-natural"

[The Baron]

Good post but do you not think people are made immortal after their death? Or as tikay said the other day... are remembered far more kindly after their career is over?

If Hellmuth died tragically tomorrow would people talk about how spookily good he was? Some players already do, Scotty Nguyen for starters.

Every documentary or book about Ungar is filled with content by friends of his such as Baxter and Sexton. I'd love to hear what others think of him. I doubt anything negative will ever be said about his game though becuase we tend not to trample on people's graves.

An example of a World Champion who isn't actually that good at poker according to some is Amarillo Slim. Won it in '72, but I've read quite a few times how people like Johnny Chan are happy to sit down with him at a poker table all day. I'm not saying Ungar is no good at poker by any stretch but his era was vastly different.

I'd like to see how he gets on against massive fields who from top to bottom know what inflection points are and what an M is. Perhaps without his lifestyle he would have adapted as well as or better than Hellmtuh, Chan and Brunson.

However he did have the lifestyle and he did have the issues. Natural talent (and he had bags of it) alone probably wouldn't have worked today. Someone like Hellmuth who has had to adapt his game and worked hard in the face of the changing WSOP is a true legend. I don't care how many events he's bought into.

[hugob055]

a sign of a true champion is 1 that can change with the times and still be a champion,and i beleive hellmuth is 1 of the very few to have done this,so for me the guy is  a legend.

[CrestOfaWave]

Good post but do you not think people are made immortal after their death? Or as tikay said the other day... are remembered far more kindly after their career is over?

If Hellmuth died tragically tomorrow would people talk about how spookily good he was? Some players already do, Scotty Nguyen for starters.

Every documentary or book about Ungar is filled with content by friends of his such as Baxter and Sexton. I'd love to hear what others think of him. I doubt anything negative will ever be said about his game though becuase we tend not to trample on people's graves.

An example of a World Champion who isn't actually that good at poker according to some is Amarillo Slim. Won it in '72, but I've read quite a few times how people like Johnny Chan are happy to sit down with him at a poker table all day. I'm not saying Ungar is no good at poker by any stretch but his era was vastly different.

I'd like to see how he gets on against massive fields who from top to bottom know what inflection points are and what an M is. Perhaps without his lifestyle he would have adapted as well as or better than Hellmtuh, Chan and Brunson.

However he did have the lifestyle and he did have the issues. Natural talent (and he had bags of it) alone probably wouldn't have worked today. Someone like Hellmuth who has had to adapt his game and worked hard in the face of the changing WSOP is a true legend. I don't care how many events he's bought into.

good post now you will have to define what you mean by unflection point and M.

I can guess what an inflection point in a tournament is but have no idea re M!

I am Try to learning something new each week - last week was rough definition of a cooler and this week
ratholing.

[pswnio]

M = your stack size divided by size of BB + SB + ante. Popularised by Harrington, though he didn't come up with it.

[kinboshi]

M = your stack size divided by size of BB + SB + ante. Popularised by Harrington, though he didn't come up with it.

More about M here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-ratio


Mine is often approximately 0.6

Kev's before his diet was always = 3.14159

[Muahahahaha]

Love this thread.


Unger is the Jimmy Dean of poker.  Live fast die young.  There as also conspiracy theories about his death floating about out there still.  I think it is unarguable that he was a genius, and as such will never be overtaken in his greatness.

But Hellmuth is something different again.  The way I understand it, Phil's driving force has always been that he wants to be seen as the best.  He wasn't a great achiever as a youngster, and isn't naturally self confidant.  When he found he had a poker skill, he wanted to use it so he would be remembered in history.  That's why he wants the bracelets.  The bracelets sell the brand that is Hellmuth.  He makes most of his money from the media and the media pushes Hellmuth.

If you look at him from this viewpoint, he is undeniably the most successful player out there.

When I first started reading about poker I despised his tantrums.  But he is similar to McEnroe.  He gets angry with fate when it lets him down, and he despises himself when he makes an unforced error.  These are just signs of the depth of his need.  He NEEDS to be the greatest poker player in history, even if it's only in his own mind.

His achievement will not be easily matched, because most people aren't that driven.

What I think entitles Hellmuth to the acolades is his thinking about the game.  Whilst the modern trend is to become more & more aggressive, win a few 50 /50s , then play with a big stack, Hellmuth seems to me to be almost obsessive with his desire to protect his tournament life, and build his stack slowly, taking as few risks as possible.

Look at Negreanu, he can manipulate a big stack as well as anyone, and he can read players as well as anyone.  But he doesn't have Hellmuth's drive to be number one.  If he loses a tourney, he'll go & win a few thou at a cash game.

Hellmuth WILL go down as one of the greats.  His brand will insist on it.

[kinboshi]

Someone said Amerillo Slim might not go down as one of the great players.  I don't think that's his legacy. 

From what I've read, he might leave behind another legacy.

[AndrewT]

Someone said Amerillo Slim might not go down as one of the great players.  I don't think that's his legacy. 

From what I've read, he might leave behind another legacy.

Very true.

He may not be the greatest poker player ever, but he's certainly in the running for world's worst babysitter.

[Muahahahaha]

Someone said Amerillo Slim might not go down as one of the great players.  I don't think that's his legacy. 

From what I've read, he might leave behind another legacy.

Very true.

He may not be the greatest poker player ever, but he's certainly in the running for world's worst babysitter.

I'm sorry I mentioned him.  I don't want to ruin a great thread, so I've edited my original post. 

It would be a shame if this thread went too far down that path.

I only mentioned him as the original media hound, and as such, a forerunner to Hellmuth.

[kinboshi]

Someone said Amerillo Slim might not go down as one of the great players.  I don't think that's his legacy. 

From what I've read, he might leave behind another legacy.

Very true.

He may not be the greatest poker player ever, but he's certainly in the running for world's worst babysitter.

I'm sorry I mentioned him.  I don't want to ruin a great thread, so I've edited my original post. 

It would be a shame if this thread went too far down that path.

I only mentioned him as the original media hound, and as such, a forerunner to Hellmuth.

I don't think you've ruined the thread.  Don't worry about it.


A question about Hellmuth's antics at the table (and probably more so from other players like Tony G).  When they go off on one at a particular player, is it a ploy to make an impression to the rest of the players at the table.

For example, if someone busts out after an error, and then they get the rubdown - is it to say to the rest of the table "you should be wary of crossing me, as I'll put you in your place, and it won't be pretty if you make a mistake against me", rather than them necessarily trying to say anything to the player who's just gone out?  Effectively just trying to influence the play of the rest of the players still at the table and make them deviate from their 'A-game'?

[tikay]

Someone said Amerillo Slim might not go down as one of the great players.  I don't think that's his legacy. 

From what I've read, he might leave behind another legacy.

Very true.

He may not be the greatest poker player ever, but he's certainly in the running for world's worst babysitter.

I'm sorry I mentioned him.  I don't want to ruin a great thread, so I've edited my original post. 

It would be a shame if this thread went too far down that path.

I only mentioned him as the original media hound, and as such, a forerunner to Hellmuth.

I don't think you've ruined the thread.  Don't worry about it.


A question about Hellmuth's antics at the table (and probably more so from other players like Tony G).  When they go off on one at a particular player, is it a ploy to make an impression to the rest of the players at the table.

For example, if someone busts out after an error, and then they get the rubdown - is it to say to the rest of the table "you should be wary of crossing me, as I'll put you in your place, and it won't be pretty if you make a mistake against me", rather than them necessarily trying to say anything to the player who's just gone out?  Effectively just trying to influence the play of the rest of the players still at the table and make them deviate from their 'A-game'?

In the case of Tony G, that kite don't fly. He was Heads-Up with Sunar in Paris & was still giving him the full works.

[Acidmouse]

Hellmouth in the prem league vs Devilfish,

got totally pwned but sucked out a number of times. Very funny.

[CrestOfaWave]

M = your stack size divided by size of BB + SB + ante. Popularised by Harrington, though he didn't come up with it.

More about M here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-ratio


Mine is often approximately 0.6

Kev's before his diet was always = 3.14159

Thanks - wow I can now baffle our Chief Scientist and CTO with some terminology they have no idea about.
I Used Mr Harrington's theory playing Mansion today and got in the money using the guidelines - got rivered so would have been
up to 13th if the double up worked. Watch out the Main Event.