| |
Main
Date: 18 Jan 2009 12:58:22
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
Out of all the poker shows, I like this one best.
On the show last Friday (could have been Thursday), it's three-handed and
down to Phil H., Clonie, and Phil Laak. Phil Laak passes, Phil H. is holding
AJo and raises. Clonie is holding AKo, and re-raises. Helmuth goes all in.
Clonie calls. The board hits no one and Clonie doubles up, winning with
AK-high.
As soon as Helmuth sees her hand, he's whining about how he'd seen her doing
this with hands like A7o, A8o, etc. and that she's supposed to be playing
too loose in this spot. On the one hand, he makes it sound like her bad play
has led to his downfall, although he admits that she didn't do anything
wrong with her AKo.
He's supposed to be one of the best ever, right? Okay, fine, but his logic
was all screwed up.
His scouting report may well show that she's done this with weak aces, but
does it say anything about what she does when the opposition then goes all
in? It seems to me, that she'll fold those hands, and that if you do have
her dominated, you'd like to play it out a bit farther and take advantage of
the massive domination and get more money from her. Meanwhile, you have to
admit that sometimes she'll have something even stronger, in which case
she'll call all in and AJo is going to be in severe trouble. It seems to me
that he's just setting himself up for exactly what happened.
He seems to be suffering from denial that he played it badly even *given*
the scouting report. When she makes the first raise, yes, he can clearly
call with AJo because she's known to play weaker aces in just that manner.
But how can he raise all in? If she has a big hand, she's going to call and
rip him a new ass! Why didn't he give Clonie credit for playing differing
hands similarly and account for possibly being dominated himself?
tvp
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Jan 2009 23:07:47
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
On Jan 18 2009 1:58 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> Out of all the poker shows, I like this one best.
>
> On the show last Friday (could have been Thursday), it's three-handed and
> down to Phil H., Clonie, and Phil Laak. Phil Laak passes, Phil H. is holding
> AJo and raises. Clonie is holding AKo, and re-raises. Helmuth goes all in.
> Clonie calls. The board hits no one and Clonie doubles up, winning with
> AK-high.
>
> As soon as Helmuth sees her hand, he's whining about how he'd seen her doing
> this with hands like A7o, A8o, etc. and that she's supposed to be playing
> too loose in this spot. On the one hand, he makes it sound like her bad play
> has led to his downfall, although he admits that she didn't do anything
> wrong with her AKo.
>
> He's supposed to be one of the best ever, right? Okay, fine, but his logic
> was all screwed up.
>
> His scouting report may well show that she's done this with weak aces, but
> does it say anything about what she does when the opposition then goes all
> in? It seems to me, that she'll fold those hands, and that if you do have
> her dominated, you'd like to play it out a bit farther and take advantage of
> the massive domination and get more money from her. Meanwhile, you have to
> admit that sometimes she'll have something even stronger, in which case
> she'll call all in and AJo is going to be in severe trouble. It seems to me
> that he's just setting himself up for exactly what happened.
>
> He seems to be suffering from denial that he played it badly even *given*
> the scouting report. When she makes the first raise, yes, he can clearly
> call with AJo because she's known to play weaker aces in just that manner.
> But how can he raise all in? If she has a big hand, she's going to call and
> rip him a new ass! Why didn't he give Clonie credit for playing differing
> hands similarly and account for possibly being dominated himself?
>
> tvp
Why in the world would anyone give a damn what Phil Hellmuth does?
--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2009 18:12:35
From: joeturn
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After
|
>
> Why in the world would anyone give a damn what Phil Hellmuth does?
>
Exactly he is in the spotlight but is only the tip of the iceberg!
He is getting way more attention than he deserves<I;-)
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 20:26:35
From: joeturn
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After
|
Camp Helmuth is the stupidest player of all time!! He assumes he is
the only one that can possibly have the nuts and goes all-in on a
bluff (AJ)!!
Then get's called by a donkey, on a draw(AK)!!He has been televised
soo many times ,trying to buy a pot that everyone knows to call!! HEE
HAW
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2009 12:20:57
From: joeturn
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After
|
On Jan 19, 12:25=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "joeturn" <joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b3eab070-fe3b-47b6-8336-1bb4507fb1c9@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Camp Helmuth is the stupidest =A0player of all time!! He assumes he is
> > the only one that can possibly have the nuts and goes all-in on a
> > bluff (AJ)!!
> > Then get's called by a donkey, on a draw(AK)!!He has been televised
> > soo many times ,trying to buy a pot that everyone knows to call!! HEE
> > HAW
>
> Yet the guy has $20+ million.
>
This is because he won his glory in online poker scams not at live
games where cheatware is not allowed!! Old World renouned 94 WSOP
winner Russ Hamilton actually won a bracelet with out cheatware but
mega millions online with it and never wrote a book$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 21:32:37
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
On Jan 18 2009 11:26 PM, joeturn wrote:
> Camp Helmuth is the stupidest player of all time!! He assumes he is
> the only one that can possibly have the nuts and goes all-in on a
> bluff (AJ)!!
> Then get's called by a donkey, on a draw(AK)!!He has been televised
> soo many times ,trying to buy a pot that everyone knows to call!! HEE
> HAW
i take special joy in jerkoffs whining when they are called and beat
Atheism is drawing dead
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2009 00:25:01
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
"joeturn" <joeturn2000@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:b3eab070-fe3b-47b6-8336-1bb4507fb1c9@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> Camp Helmuth is the stupidest player of all time!! He assumes he is
> the only one that can possibly have the nuts and goes all-in on a
> bluff (AJ)!!
> Then get's called by a donkey, on a draw(AK)!!He has been televised
> soo many times ,trying to buy a pot that everyone knows to call!! HEE
> HAW
Yet the guy has $20+ million.
Irish Mike
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 16:40:59
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
"Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:gl057c$8kc$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Out of all the poker shows, I like this one best.
>
> On the show last Friday (could have been Thursday), it's three-handed and
> down to Phil H., Clonie, and Phil Laak. Phil Laak passes, Phil H. is
> holding
> AJo and raises. Clonie is holding AKo, and re-raises. Helmuth goes all in.
> Clonie calls. The board hits no one and Clonie doubles up, winning with
> AK-high.
>
> As soon as Helmuth sees her hand, he's whining about how he'd seen her
> doing
> this with hands like A7o, A8o, etc. and that she's supposed to be playing
> too loose in this spot. On the one hand, he makes it sound like her bad
> play
> has led to his downfall, although he admits that she didn't do anything
> wrong with her AKo.
>
> He's supposed to be one of the best ever, right? Okay, fine, but his logic
> was all screwed up.
>
> His scouting report may well show that she's done this with weak aces, but
> does it say anything about what she does when the opposition then goes all
> in? It seems to me, that she'll fold those hands, and that if you do have
> her dominated, you'd like to play it out a bit farther and take advantage
> of
> the massive domination and get more money from her. Meanwhile, you have to
> admit that sometimes she'll have something even stronger, in which case
> she'll call all in and AJo is going to be in severe trouble. It seems to
> me
> that he's just setting himself up for exactly what happened.
>
> He seems to be suffering from denial that he played it badly even *given*
> the scouting report. When she makes the first raise, yes, he can clearly
> call with AJo because she's known to play weaker aces in just that manner.
> But how can he raise all in? If she has a big hand, she's going to call
> and
> rip him a new ass! Why didn't he give Clonie credit for playing differing
> hands similarly and account for possibly being dominated himself?
>
> tvp
Dear bucko;
I can tell from your letter that you're a poker rookie but that your heart
is in the right place. Therefore, I shall answer your initial question -
without charge. Phil Helmuth is the greatest poker player who ever lived.
He has the power to see in to his opponent's soul and to dodge bullets.
When he wins it's the result of his unequaled skill, talent, keen insight
and brilliant play. When he loses, it's the result of his bad luck combined
with the poor play of his dim witted , undeserving opponents. For reasons
that even I don't understand, Phil is constantly pitted against an endless
collection of idiots, morons, dumbasses, donkeys , stupid northern europeans
and clueless bleep - bleeps. When Phil loses, he reminds his opponents of
his skill, points out their mistakes and confirms that they won due to a
momentary flash of blind bleeping luck.
Please submit all future questions in writing accompanied by cash or bank
certified check. On second thought, given the current economy, make that
cash - period.
Slainte,
Irish Mike
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2009 12:22:34
From: joeturn
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After
|
On Jan 19, 10:34=A0am, Senator Millionaire <moon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 8:55=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >" It's a fantasy. In reality, they are ALL losers."
>
> > This I don't buy. =A0Doyle Brunson, Barry Greenstein and Ted Forrest to=
name
> > just a couple. =A0All winning players before televised poker.
>
> > Irish Mike
>
> I was actually referring to new crop of players Irish Mike. Sure,
> there's a handful of old timers who made some money because they were
> more educated than their competition. Today, the competition is much
> better.
Not so they have better cheatware
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2009 07:34:42
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After
|
On Jan 18, 8:55=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
>
> >" It's a fantasy. In reality, they are ALL losers."
>
> This I don't buy. =A0Doyle Brunson, Barry Greenstein and Ted Forrest to n=
ame
> just a couple. =A0All winning players before televised poker.
>
> Irish Mike
I was actually referring to new crop of players Irish Mike. Sure,
there's a handful of old timers who made some money because they were
more educated than their competition. Today, the competition is much
better.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 19:48:35
From: hanks
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
On Jan 18 2009 1:40 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:gl057c$8kc$1@news.motzarella.org...
> > Out of all the poker shows, I like this one best.
> >
> > On the show last Friday (could have been Thursday), it's three-handed and
> > down to Phil H., Clonie, and Phil Laak. Phil Laak passes, Phil H. is
> > holding
> > AJo and raises. Clonie is holding AKo, and re-raises. Helmuth goes all in.
> > Clonie calls. The board hits no one and Clonie doubles up, winning with
> > AK-high.
> >
> > As soon as Helmuth sees her hand, he's whining about how he'd seen her
> > doing
> > this with hands like A7o, A8o, etc. and that she's supposed to be playing
> > too loose in this spot. On the one hand, he makes it sound like her bad
> > play
> > has led to his downfall, although he admits that she didn't do anything
> > wrong with her AKo.
> >
> > He's supposed to be one of the best ever, right? Okay, fine, but his logic
> > was all screwed up.
> >
> > His scouting report may well show that she's done this with weak aces, but
> > does it say anything about what she does when the opposition then goes all
> > in? It seems to me, that she'll fold those hands, and that if you do have
> > her dominated, you'd like to play it out a bit farther and take advantage
> > of
> > the massive domination and get more money from her. Meanwhile, you have to
> > admit that sometimes she'll have something even stronger, in which case
> > she'll call all in and AJo is going to be in severe trouble. It seems to
> > me
> > that he's just setting himself up for exactly what happened.
> >
> > He seems to be suffering from denial that he played it badly even *given*
> > the scouting report. When she makes the first raise, yes, he can clearly
> > call with AJo because she's known to play weaker aces in just that manner.
> > But how can he raise all in? If she has a big hand, she's going to call
> > and
> > rip him a new ass! Why didn't he give Clonie credit for playing differing
> > hands similarly and account for possibly being dominated himself?
> >
> > tvp
>
> Dear bucko;
>
> I can tell from your letter that you're a poker rookie but that your heart
> is in the right place. Therefore, I shall answer your initial question -
> without charge. Phil Helmuth is the greatest poker player who ever lived.
> He has the power to see in to his opponent's soul and to dodge bullets.
> When he wins it's the result of his unequaled skill, talent, keen insight
> and brilliant play. When he loses, it's the result of his bad luck combined
> with the poor play of his dim witted , undeserving opponents. For reasons
> that even I don't understand, Phil is constantly pitted against an endless
> collection of idiots, morons, dumbasses, donkeys , stupid northern europeans
> and clueless bleep - bleeps. When Phil loses, he reminds his opponents of
> his skill, points out their mistakes and confirms that they won due to a
> momentary flash of blind bleeping luck.
>
> Please submit all future questions in writing accompanied by cash or bank
> certified check. On second thought, given the current economy, make that
> cash - period.
>
> Slainte,
>
> Irish Mike
FLASH!!!!! I finally agree with Mike on something.
hanks
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 18:26:07
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After
|
On Jan 18, 8:55=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
>
> Playing online and playing live are two totally different things. =A0So a=
re
> the types and limits of the games.
> The most important poker lesson I've learned is this: It doesn't matter h=
ow
> well you can play, it only matters how well you do play.
>
> Irish Mike
You can play EXCELLENT and still lose. So it doesn't matter as much
HOW you play. What matters in the long run is WHO you play.
If your average session doesn't have at least one drunk or two donkeys
on the table -- you're not going to win.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 16:52:31
From: Senator Millionaire
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After
|
Ninety-nine percent of the so called 'poker pros' would be completely
broke if it wasn't for the money they make away from the table. The
industry NEEDS players and if your lucky enough to win a big
tournament and have the look they want and the charisma.. then.. they
want you. If you don't have it -- down the road you go.
It's a fantasy. In reality, they are ALL losers.
The advantage these players once had is all gone. Computers and
Internet poker is the fast track to learning the games. A complete
novice and a total fuckin' idiot can become quite proficient at
learning the games in just a few months. Less idiots at the poker
table means less winners and more losers. It's really that simple.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 20:55:39
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
"Senator Millionaire" <moone99@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:50a87f37-c10b-4c3e-a8c2-63326074a251@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>" Ninety-nine percent of the so called 'poker pros' would be completely
> broke if it wasn't for the money they make away from the table. The
> industry NEEDS players and if your lucky enough to win a big
> tournament and have the look they want and the charisma.. then.. they
> want you. If you don't have it -- down the road you go."
Jamie Gold & Jerry Yang.
>
>" It's a fantasy. In reality, they are ALL losers."
This I don't buy. Doyle Brunson, Barry Greenstein and Ted Forrest to name
just a couple. All winning players before televised poker.
>
>" The advantage these players once had is all gone. Computers and
> Internet poker is the fast track to learning the games. A complete
> novice and a total fuckin' idiot can become quite proficient at
> learning the games in just a few months. Less idiots at the poker
> table means less winners and more losers. It's really that simple."
Playing online and playing live are two totally different things. So are
the types and limits of the games.
The most important poker lesson I've learned is this: It doesn't matter how
well you can play, it only matters how well you do play.
Irish Mike
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2009 05:19:51
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:D4Rcl.14005$YU2.7031@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> The most important poker lesson I've learned is this: It doesn't matter
how
> well you can play, it only matters how well you do play.
Knowing what to do and doing it; they're two different things.
tvp
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 15:09:47
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After
|
On Jan 18, 4:40=A0pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:gl057c$8kc$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Out of all the poker shows, I like this one best.
>
> > On the show last Friday (could have been Thursday), it's three-handed a=
nd
> > down to Phil H., Clonie, and Phil Laak. Phil Laak passes, Phil H. is
> > holding
> > AJo and raises. Clonie is holding AKo, and re-raises. Helmuth goes all =
in.
> > Clonie calls. The board hits no one and Clonie doubles up, winning with
> > AK-high.
>
> > As soon as Helmuth sees her hand, he's whining about how he'd seen her
> > doing
> > this with hands like A7o, A8o, etc. and that she's supposed to be playi=
ng
> > too loose in this spot. On the one hand, he makes it sound like her bad
> > play
> > has led to his downfall, although he admits that she didn't do anything
> > wrong with her AKo.
>
> > He's supposed to be one of the best ever, right? Okay, fine, but his lo=
gic
> > was all screwed up.
>
> > His scouting report may well show that she's done this with weak aces, =
but
> > does it say anything about what she does when the opposition then goes =
all
> > in? It seems to me, that she'll fold those hands, and that if you do ha=
ve
> > her dominated, you'd like to play it out a bit farther and take advanta=
ge
> > of
> > the massive domination and get more money from her. Meanwhile, you have=
to
> > admit that sometimes she'll have something even stronger, in which case
> > she'll call all in and AJo is going to be in severe trouble. It seems t=
o
> > me
> > that he's just setting himself up for exactly what happened.
>
> > He seems to be suffering from denial that he played it badly even *give=
n*
> > the scouting report. When she makes the first raise, yes, he can clearl=
y
> > call with AJo because she's known to play weaker aces in just that mann=
er.
> > But how can he raise all in? If she has a big hand, she's going to call
> > and
> > rip him a new ass! Why didn't he give Clonie credit for playing differi=
ng
> > hands similarly and account for possibly being dominated himself?
>
> > tvp
>
> Dear bucko;
>
> I can tell from your letter that you're a poker rookie but that your hear=
t
> is in the right place. =A0Therefore, I shall answer your initial question=
-
> without charge. =A0Phil Helmuth is the greatest poker player who ever liv=
ed.
> He has the power to see in to his opponent's soul and to dodge bullets.
> When he wins it's the result of his unequaled skill, talent, keen insight
> and brilliant play. =A0When he loses, it's the result of his bad luck com=
bined
> with the poor play of his dim witted , undeserving opponents. =A0For reas=
ons
> that even I don't understand, Phil is constantly pitted against an endles=
s
> collection of idiots, morons, dumbasses, donkeys , stupid northern europe=
ans
> and clueless bleep - bleeps. =A0When Phil loses, he reminds his opponents=
of
> his skill, points out their mistakes and confirms that they won due to a
> momentary flash of blind bleeping luck.
>
> Please submit all future questions in writing accompanied by cash or bank
> certified check. =A0On second thought, given the current economy, make th=
at
> cash - period.
>
> Slainte,
>
> Irish Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perfectly true, BUT.....
Of course it's an act. He knows what sells, and why people watch
poker on TV, and it sure as hell isn't to see A-K go against QQ and
see who wins. People watch for the personalities and the, for lack of
a better word, drama (perhaps hystrionics would be a better word).
Frankly, it's the only ting that makes TV poker at all watchable
unless it's HSP. I remember some PAD shows where it was old timers or
something like that and it was like watching paint dry, even though
the quality of the play was good. Seriously, if I had to watch a
bunch of 70 year old players from the Mayfair club every week, I'd
either kill myself or start watching Full House re-runs (that uncle
Jessee is so funny).
Hellmuth knows that people tune in to see him rant and rave, so he
rants and raves, and grows his "brand" along the way. That leads to
endorsements, books, other opportunities, etc. Ivey is 10 times the
player that Hellmuth is and it's getting to the point where the next
time you'll see HIM is on the side of a carton of mik. (Now, Ivey may
just not want or need the money that endorsements bring, which is
fine, but PH either wants it or needs it and he's doing what it takes
to get it.) And this is not limited to poker. McEnroe? Bode Miller?
T. Owens?
Hell, this is America, that's capitalism. More power to him. He
knows that a lot of people watch him to see him lose, but the point is
they WATCH HIM.
.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 19:50:34
From: hanks
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
On Jan 18 2009 3:09 PM, johnnycoconutsftp wrote:
> On Jan 18, 4:40 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:gl057c$8kc$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Out of all the poker shows, I like this one best.
> >
> > > On the show last Friday (could have been Thursday), it's three-handed and
> > > down to Phil H., Clonie, and Phil Laak. Phil Laak passes, Phil H. is
> > > holding
> > > AJo and raises. Clonie is holding AKo, and re-raises. Helmuth goes all
in.
> > > Clonie calls. The board hits no one and Clonie doubles up, winning with
> > > AK-high.
> >
> > > As soon as Helmuth sees her hand, he's whining about how he'd seen her
> > > doing
> > > this with hands like A7o, A8o, etc. and that she's supposed to be playing
> > > too loose in this spot. On the one hand, he makes it sound like her bad
> > > play
> > > has led to his downfall, although he admits that she didn't do anything
> > > wrong with her AKo.
> >
> > > He's supposed to be one of the best ever, right? Okay, fine, but his
logic
> > > was all screwed up.
> >
> > > His scouting report may well show that she's done this with weak aces,
but
> > > does it say anything about what she does when the opposition then goes
all
> > > in? It seems to me, that she'll fold those hands, and that if you do have
> > > her dominated, you'd like to play it out a bit farther and take advantage
> > > of
> > > the massive domination and get more money from her. Meanwhile, you have
to
> > > admit that sometimes she'll have something even stronger, in which case
> > > she'll call all in and AJo is going to be in severe trouble. It seems to
> > > me
> > > that he's just setting himself up for exactly what happened.
> >
> > > He seems to be suffering from denial that he played it badly even *given*
> > > the scouting report. When she makes the first raise, yes, he can clearly
> > > call with AJo because she's known to play weaker aces in just that
manner.
> > > But how can he raise all in? If she has a big hand, she's going to call
> > > and
> > > rip him a new ass! Why didn't he give Clonie credit for playing differing
> > > hands similarly and account for possibly being dominated himself?
> >
> > > tvp
> >
> > Dear bucko;
> >
> > I can tell from your letter that you're a poker rookie but that your heart
> > is in the right place. Therefore, I shall answer your initial question -
> > without charge. Phil Helmuth is the greatest poker player who ever lived.
> > He has the power to see in to his opponent's soul and to dodge bullets.
> > When he wins it's the result of his unequaled skill, talent, keen insight
> > and brilliant play. When he loses, it's the result of his bad luck
combined
> > with the poor play of his dim witted , undeserving opponents. For reasons
> > that even I don't understand, Phil is constantly pitted against an endless
> > collection of idiots, morons, dumbasses, donkeys , stupid northern
europeans
> > and clueless bleep - bleeps. When Phil loses, he reminds his opponents of
> > his skill, points out their mistakes and confirms that they won due to a
> > momentary flash of blind bleeping luck.
> >
> > Please submit all future questions in writing accompanied by cash or bank
> > certified check. On second thought, given the current economy, make that
> > cash - period.
> >
> > Slainte,
> >
> > Irish Mike- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Perfectly true, BUT.....
>
> Of course it's an act. He knows what sells, and why people watch
> poker on TV, and it sure as hell isn't to see A-K go against QQ and
> see who wins. People watch for the personalities and the, for lack of
> a better word, drama (perhaps hystrionics would be a better word).
> Frankly, it's the only ting that makes TV poker at all watchable
> unless it's HSP. I remember some PAD shows where it was old timers or
> something like that and it was like watching paint dry, even though
> the quality of the play was good. Seriously, if I had to watch a
> bunch of 70 year old players from the Mayfair club every week, I'd
> either kill myself or start watching Full House re-runs (that uncle
> Jessee is so funny).
>
> Hellmuth knows that people tune in to see him rant and rave, so he
> rants and raves, and grows his "brand" along the way. That leads to
> endorsements, books, other opportunities, etc. Ivey is 10 times the
> player that Hellmuth is and it's getting to the point where the next
> time you'll see HIM is on the side of a carton of mik. (Now, Ivey may
> just not want or need the money that endorsements bring, which is
> fine, but PH either wants it or needs it and he's doing what it takes
> to get it.) And this is not limited to poker. McEnroe? Bode Miller?
> T. Owens?
>
> Hell, this is America, that's capitalism. More power to him. He
> knows that a lot of people watch him to see him lose, but the point is
> they WATCH HIM.
>
>
> .
TRUE DAT!!!!
hanks
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 18:47:39
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After
|
johnnycoconutsftp@yahoo.com wrote:
> Of course it's an act. He knows what sells, and why people watch
> poker on TV, and it sure as hell isn't to see A-K go against QQ and
> see who wins. People watch for the personalities and the, for lack of
> a better word, drama (perhaps hystrionics would be a better word).
> Frankly, it's the only ting that makes TV poker at all watchable
> unless it's HSP. I remember some PAD shows where it was old timers or
> something like that and it was like watching paint dry, even though
> the quality of the play was good. Seriously, if I had to watch a
> bunch of 70 year old players from the Mayfair club every week, I'd
> either kill myself or start watching Full House re-runs (that uncle
> Jessee is so funny).
>
> Hellmuth knows that people tune in to see him rant and rave, so he
> rants and raves, and grows his "brand" along the way. That leads to
> endorsements, books, other opportunities, etc. Ivey is 10 times the
> player that Hellmuth is and it's getting to the point where the next
> time you'll see HIM is on the side of a carton of mik. (Now, Ivey may
> just not want or need the money that endorsements bring, which is
> fine, but PH either wants it or needs it and he's doing what it takes
> to get it.) And this is not limited to poker. McEnroe? Bode Miller?
> T. Owens?
>
> Hell, this is America, that's capitalism. More power to him. He
> knows that a lot of people watch him to see him lose, but the point is
> they WATCH HIM.
You're right in what you say, but it isn't only show. He hates to think
that the TV audience might think he made a bad play. He has to explain
why it was really a good play, and just his bad luck that it lost. It's
the huge ego.
Is anyone else annoyed by Phil's delaying the tournament with his
"insurance" side bets? That the dealer just sits there and waits until
they're done dickering over the terms before dealing the cards,
meanwhile the player who's all-in and covered has to wait to see if he's
doubled up or out?
At least I have DVR so I fast-forward through that crap. But the dealer
actually waiting for Phil to finish his antics? That ain't right. The
fact that they allow it shows that it's more a television show than a
poker tournament.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
jlong@chiprider.com
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 19:10:55
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
<johnnycoconutsftp@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:8e326fa8-499d-4334-8d8a-a6311836c07c@n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 18, 4:40 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:gl057c$8kc$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Out of all the poker shows, I like this one best.
>
> > On the show last Friday (could have been Thursday), it's three-handed
> > and
> > down to Phil H., Clonie, and Phil Laak. Phil Laak passes, Phil H. is
> > holding
> > AJo and raises. Clonie is holding AKo, and re-raises. Helmuth goes all
> > in.
> > Clonie calls. The board hits no one and Clonie doubles up, winning with
> > AK-high.
>
> > As soon as Helmuth sees her hand, he's whining about how he'd seen her
> > doing
> > this with hands like A7o, A8o, etc. and that she's supposed to be
> > playing
> > too loose in this spot. On the one hand, he makes it sound like her bad
> > play
> > has led to his downfall, although he admits that she didn't do anything
> > wrong with her AKo.
>
> > He's supposed to be one of the best ever, right? Okay, fine, but his
> > logic
> > was all screwed up.
>
> > His scouting report may well show that she's done this with weak aces,
> > but
> > does it say anything about what she does when the opposition then goes
> > all
> > in? It seems to me, that she'll fold those hands, and that if you do
> > have
> > her dominated, you'd like to play it out a bit farther and take
> > advantage
> > of
> > the massive domination and get more money from her. Meanwhile, you have
> > to
> > admit that sometimes she'll have something even stronger, in which case
> > she'll call all in and AJo is going to be in severe trouble. It seems to
> > me
> > that he's just setting himself up for exactly what happened.
>
> > He seems to be suffering from denial that he played it badly even
> > *given*
> > the scouting report. When she makes the first raise, yes, he can clearly
> > call with AJo because she's known to play weaker aces in just that
> > manner.
> > But how can he raise all in? If she has a big hand, she's going to call
> > and
> > rip him a new ass! Why didn't he give Clonie credit for playing
> > differing
> > hands similarly and account for possibly being dominated himself?
>
> > tvp
>
> Dear bucko;
>
> I can tell from your letter that you're a poker rookie but that your heart
> is in the right place. Therefore, I shall answer your initial question -
> without charge. Phil Helmuth is the greatest poker player who ever lived.
> He has the power to see in to his opponent's soul and to dodge bullets.
> When he wins it's the result of his unequaled skill, talent, keen insight
> and brilliant play. When he loses, it's the result of his bad luck
> combined
> with the poor play of his dim witted , undeserving opponents. For reasons
> that even I don't understand, Phil is constantly pitted against an endless
> collection of idiots, morons, dumbasses, donkeys , stupid northern
> europeans
> and clueless bleep - bleeps. When Phil loses, he reminds his opponents of
> his skill, points out their mistakes and confirms that they won due to a
> momentary flash of blind bleeping luck.
>
> Please submit all future questions in writing accompanied by cash or bank
> certified check. On second thought, given the current economy, make that
> cash - period.
>
> Slainte,
>
> Irish Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perfectly true, BUT.....
Of course it's an act. He knows what sells, and why people watch
poker on TV, and it sure as hell isn't to see A-K go against QQ and
see who wins. People watch for the personalities and the, for lack of
a better word, drama (perhaps hystrionics would be a better word).
Frankly, it's the only ting that makes TV poker at all watchable
unless it's HSP. I remember some PAD shows where it was old timers or
something like that and it was like watching paint dry, even though
the quality of the play was good. Seriously, if I had to watch a
bunch of 70 year old players from the Mayfair club every week, I'd
either kill myself or start watching Full House re-runs (that uncle
Jessee is so funny).
Hellmuth knows that people tune in to see him rant and rave, so he
rants and raves, and grows his "brand" along the way. That leads to
endorsements, books, other opportunities, etc. Ivey is 10 times the
player that Hellmuth is and it's getting to the point where the next
time you'll see HIM is on the side of a carton of mik. (Now, Ivey may
just not want or need the money that endorsements bring, which is
fine, but PH either wants it or needs it and he's doing what it takes
to get it.) And this is not limited to poker. McEnroe? Bode Miller?
T. Owens?
Hell, this is America, that's capitalism. More power to him. He
knows that a lot of people watch him to see him lose, but the point is
they WATCH HIM."
All good points. Helmuth is without a doubt the greatest self-promoter in
the history of professional poker. However, I don't think all of his
outbursts, tantrums and melt-downs are an act. I really don't think he can
control himself. This guy has such a huge ego that he truly believes he is
superior to all other players and deserves to win. And it irritates the
hell out of him when he loses to people he considers inferior, which is
every one he plays. In fact, his behavior is so bad that I think it
actually embarasses him at times. Heaven knows it must humiliate his wife
and kids.
For sheer TV poker entertainment I'd take Mike Matasow over Helmuth any day
of the week. You almost can't help liking this guy. It's not an act with
Mike. He wears his emotions on his sleeve and he's had plenty of serious
real-life problems as a result. This is a guy who spends his whole life on
a rollercoaster. Not just the emotional swings he shows between winning and
losing a big pot. But also the range of his play which can go from totally
brilliant to stunningly stupid in a nano second. My second choice for TV
entertainment would be Daniel Negraneau. Funny, friendly and talented. Then
Phil Laak (in very limited doses) and Doyle Brunson just for who he is. If
it's TV poker with the intention of actually learning something and
improving your game, it's Ted Forrest, Barry Greenstein and Johnny Chan.
As for Phil Ivy, no one can deny he has skill and I admire his stoic
behavior at the table. However, I'm probably the only guy in the poker
world who also thinks he's over rated. In addition, I think Phil has some
tendency toward destructive gambling. So, in spite of every thing he has
going for him today, I would not be at all surprised if he ends up flat
broke at some point in the future.
Irish Mike
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 20:21:50
From: Neverchop
Subject: Re: Phil Helmuth Going Mental Over Clonie Gowen's Play on Poker After Dark
|
"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:qyPcl.13483$yr3.10855@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> superior to all other players and deserves to win. And it irritates the
> hell out of him when he loses to people he considers inferior,
You're right and that's what may make him half-kookoo for cocopuffs. If he
had a stable personality he would understand (not just 'know',) that in
poker the best player is going to get beat by inferior players much of the
time and not fly off the handle over it. Therefore you know he is either
intentionally trying to take TV poker down to the Jerry Springer level or he
really can't help it. As for the TV audience, eh, Jerry Springer where's its
at. TV poker certainly has nothing to do with B&M play.
> every one he plays. In fact, his behavior is so bad that I think it
> actually embarasses him at times. Heaven knows it must humiliate his wife
> and kids.
His wife is a shrink and probably coaches him. The question is does she tell
him what's going on or does she manipulate him to produce what she perceives
will result in the most bang for the buck without his knowledge. I'd vote
for the latter.
> For sheer TV poker entertainment I'd take Mike Matasow over Helmuth any
day
Yep.
|
|
