Posted Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:57 pm GMT by ORGrinder
I was giddy with job watching him get hammered hand after hand.
I hate that whiney little jerk-off. Possibly one of the most entertaining WPT's I've ever seen... simply because of the Helmuth factor.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:09 pm GMT by Dave B
I loved it too. Several big hands that Helmuth lost he had a chance to take the pot but wanted to make his opponent bleed more by slow playing. I love the way that the cowboy kept jabbed at him, just turning the knife. "hey Phil, you bet anything on the turn and I am outta here."
I would LOVE to play w/ Phil. I am sure that he would crush me, but it would be worth it just to repeatedly ask him how many chips he has. Even if it was the 1st hand of the tourney.
Chris Moneymaker would make Helmuth his b*tch.
Posted Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:46 pm GMT by Matt T
I was very entertained by all of that too but what about when it got to heads up? It seemed like Hoyt just went all-in preflop on almost every hand (and only didn't when Muhammed went all-in preflop once). Seemed like the skill factor dropped off the charts after it got to heads up. True? Is that the way heads-up play usually is?
Posted Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:09 pm GMT by ORGrinder
i've heard that in a NL game like that... by that time, you pretty much have to play every hand.
i think the all-ins was simply aggressive play.
Posted Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:30 pm GMT by iloveholdem
Heres my opinion on Hoyt's All-In's
It can be A. Very Very VERY powerful or B. it can be VERY VERY VERY Hurtful
It's simply gambling.
The stragey, It's obviouslly what Hoyt was doing but very very risky, this is what I think his strat was.
First all-in preflop he did he of course won the pot putting in Muh. mind that he has crushing pocket cards. Second time maybe he is lucky? Third time, hmm I'll call and Muh wins!
The Win or The Lost
Now that Muh knew that probably most of the time Hoyt had rags and now Muh is more easier on calling especially with any kind of face card thinking that Hoyt has no face just rags.
So, Hoyt goes all-in ( with rags ) And I'm sure Hoyt isnt wanting Muh to call but this is the whole strat. So Muh being suspicious maybe he got lucky folds.
The WIN
Next hand, The gamble paid off! ( and DO NOT TRY THIS REQUIRES L U C K ) Good hand ( cant rememember what he had ) Hoyt of course like last time goes all in. Muh strikes in his mind, okay he is doing the SAME as BEFORE, and he thinks, well what happened before I called and he had jack crap. Okay I have a Queen high he probably has some 8 5 or something, this is easy with high card, okay I'll call.
And WAM-BAM hes smacked out of the tournament because he let his guard down.
This stratgey Muh never expected ( i dont know why not ) and it worked by luck, which Hoyt was willing, to do. He knew that by muh winning an ALL-In against him and continue his pattern if he got lucky with good cards he would win no matter what, UNLESS... Muh grabbed good cards.
I personally wouldnt play as Hoyt did, it is TOO Risky IMO it can get you a win in a quick sec IF it goes well, but if it doesnt your pretty much out.
Muh, he played okay I personally think Phil deserved second more than muh because muh caught a lot of cards.
Anyhow, Muh failed because if he would of kept buy-in to Hoyt say doing a little acting, signing like he has to fold this J,9 or whatever letting Hoyt think I've got him he wont call with anything, than hoyt would kept simply going all in ( blinds werent high enough to take him out ) So, Muh should of stayed in the game folding even with Q high and waited for something more than decent to pop up. Than called him and take him down, simple as thought, but Muh got played by Hoyt.
that episode was one of the best, I enjoyed it a lot./quote
Posted Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:47 pm GMT by Dave B
One other take on the all in strategy. If you have a big chip lead (what was he 2.5mm to 600k?) he would need to lose 2 all ins to give up the chip lead. Unless you catch a real big hand (the blinds were 50/25k?) the odds heads up are only 60/40 if you call only w/ good hands each time. If you call and lose once in Muh's position, you are out.
So, if you buy into the 60/40 assumption, then and you need to win 2, then you have a 36% chance of winning 2 IF you happen to call when you are in the stronger position both times.
Obviously, if you have QQ against 8 3, then your odd are dramatically better. However- w/ blinds that large, time and patience wasnt on his side. If he folds 6 hands in a row, you are down 2.7mm to 375k. Now you need to win 3 in a row.
It would have been interesting to see if he kept this strategy up if he was even or down. I think that the closest it got heads up was 1.8mm to 1.2 after Muh doubled up??? One more double and Cowboy was on life support.
I actually did this yesterday afternoon in a sit and go. When we were into the money I had 4500 and the other 2 had 2200 and 2300. Blinds were 200/400, I raised all in a couple hands in a row w/ 88, 88, 44. I was never called and they didnt even think about it. So I kept raising. I wasnt called until I was up 7500 300 200 and blinds were 300/600. They were so worried about placing 2nd instead of 3rd that they basically gave me 1st.
Posted Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:49 pm GMT by PuckJunkieNY
I agree, very entertaining to watch overall.
Phil is Phil and Like him or hate him, he's a very good player.
Whiney or not, he straight out got boned with some quality cards...it happens. I suppose I'd be a bit bent if I were him as well. The whole "bridesmaid" sub-plot the network did just doomed him (LOL).
Is he now the Buffalo Bills of the WPT?
Posted Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:24 pm GMT by Sundance
Personally, as I was watching Hoyt's play late in the tournament I thought I was watching a 'fun money' Party Poker table. I know that WPT only shows certain hands so I guess it is safe to assume that he was not doing this every hand, but he must have done it a lot late in the game. I just think that if you go all in too much it takes away some of the strength of the all-in move by the bigger stack. When I am the bigger stack late in a tourney, I step on the gas also, but I don't think I would do it that much. For a while there I thought Muh was going to bust Hoyt out of the game with his ridiculous 'all-in' moves. Also, WPT only showed him going in with crap hands last night, I wonder what he did when he had a good hand, they never showed him playing anything average or better. food for thought. I think he is a strong player but that strategy would not last long, it could easily bite you in the arse..
Posted Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:15 pm GMT by JohnnyCache
Maybe he was just feeling it . . . if the other guy was feeling beat, and you could tell, it would be more correct to fire away. . .
Posted Sat Mar 13, 2004 11:47 pm GMT by saper88aa
Yes he did.But hes still very good.I didnt see the hand but heard about it.
Will watch the taped version,when i get around to it
|
|
