You can’t name a single high stakes pro who respects hellmuths game. I am totally fine with my take and that company. Thanks though.
His game is just being a super nit and progressing in large field tournaments. It isn’t anything exceptional, and every other HS pro would trade their results for his.
You also don’t like how Phil acts, yet Bunny has been banned from casinos for similar things!
Like, no one else in the Hustler games deleted their pornhub videos when they got someone to give them 6 figures to play poker. Nothing against how she earns her money, but she’s in the game for one reason. You can find dozens of threads online where people say she’s the worst to play with from her days in Australia, at the WSOP etc.
Ok I am done. Who gives a flying fuck if she was a sex worker if that’s even true. It has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to play poker. If you can’t see even raising that point is just pure misogyny I don’t have anything else to add to change your mind. 🤷
- clovis8
- Pokerbunny
0 voters
That’s quite the take
You are so edgy
The entire point is that she’s only staked because she’s attractive.
If she was crushing the games, or winning at all or had more than like $10k in tournament earnings you’d maybe have a point that there was another reason?
Not saying it’s easy, but to be a long term winner over 20 years over their sample size obviously isn’t luck, so we are agreeing!
I have so many “friends” who played HS who are broke, there are very few HS players who have survived the last decade. It’s a huge achievement in and of itself.
Maybe he was just really unlucky playing online!
Hellmuth is not that great at poker theory but great at exploitative play against weak players. He might be higher EV than a GTO high roller crusher against a large field at a small buy-in tournament.
A 20 year sample size is not miniscule.
Theyre not the same though. For cash games a bit, but I would not compare 30 years of tournaments that are around a $10k buyin with online play. The ecosystems are just very different and in the last decade there just aren’t big buyin tournaments online with any frequency. The Super Tuesday on Stars has 1 table at the beginning now!
Hellmuth probably has the biggest sample size of tournaments played over a $5k buyin in history. He will play mixed games. When I was young I thought it was cooler to be able to recite perfect strategy and be robotic, turns out now I believe it’s best to just win the most!
Everyone wanted to be Dwan 10 years ago. Hellmuth outlasted him and everyone of that generation and puts in way more live volume than any of them. That is super impressive. Would I take Galfond before Hellmuth in a random draft? Sure. Is Galfond going to play 30+ bracelet events and be profitable next year? He will not.
There isn’t even a big buyin tournament worth playing every week online yet we are complaining about the sample size of the person to play the most large buyin live tournaments in history. Wild.
So your position is that MTTs and performance in them is entirely luck? Regardless of sample size?
Dude has been a winner in tournaments on the 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s and 20s. He’s a jackass. He could be a better player than he is. He’s not perfect. But to call it luck is ridiculous.
We have enough of a sample to know Hellmuth is a winner. Is he “running hot” or should he have fewer bracelets or whatever is definitely up for debate. The math on this is known, despite you trying to say the opposite.
If there was a way to know I would bet a lot of money he is a pretty big lifetime loser in cash games.
I would bet he is a lifetime winner because he gets invited to private games with businessmen and such where he might be the only pro.
And we have TONS of actual data watching him play very poorly over and over and over again.
You really overrestimate the amount of people who have played more tournaments than Hellmuth. I know and am in group chats with plenty of online pros, none have played as many as Hellmuth. He’s at almost 40 years of easily ~100+ tournament a year!
Snap take the under by a lot