I just read it again and it gave me new hope! If someone that bad can make so much money at poker then I shouldnt have a problem making a few bucks myself. Its just hilarious to me how he managed to get 11 bracelets with the level of thinking he is at but I guess he used to play vs small fields and a bunch of live donks. Even now when you see him on TV he just cant adjust to anything and treats even players like durrr the same way as those tourney donks 10 years ago. His whole "letting them bluff me so I can set up a big hand" approach like people are absolutely ******ed and dont understand he has a big hand when he plays big pots.
So yeah the book is absolutely terrible but it inspires you to play more and learn since if an idiot like Phil can do it then why cant you. THANKS PHIL!

you're both idiots, and you're not going to win $1 million.

The idiot is the person who reads the books twice for new hope.

He is also far better at tournament poker than you give him credit for. He has one 2 bracelets in the past 3 years, and although he has some fairly obvious holes in his game, he plays as good as anyone against weak fields.

I was one of those unfortunate enough to have naively picked Hellmuth's book as the first book on poker they ever read. This was in 2003. 5 years later I'm still suffering from adverse effects.

Lol at me sitting in .50/$1 limit games on Paradise poker trying to label people Jackal Elephant and Eagle. Srsly lol.

That book is a classic. I always wondered if it was intentionally bad advive or is he that stupid for real. I still don't know the answer but I'm begining to lean towards the latter.

That is actually the good part of his book

is OP a level ?

I agree with the OP if i'm to be honest. Watching Hellmuth puts me to sleep. Yes he may have 11 bracelets, but he lacks the creativity of some of the other greats, such as Ivey, which is why Hellmuth has never been as successful as them in the cash game format.

He has won 11 bracelents playing like a nit, but the irritation factor is high, when he continually claims "i knew he was going to do that", when he simply had no flapping clue.

I have "Play Poker Like the Pros", and i made it my toilet roll after half way through the book.

I don't know I read that as my first poker book many years ago as well. I have since chalked it up as an investment as I won $1000 in a tourney 2 days later off $50 buy in at my local B & M

you have absolutely no idea how simple you are. how about, for starters, Phil Hellmuth isn't as successful in cash games because he hardly ever plays cash games and when he does never plays the big game?

are you implying that anyone can play like a nit and become the winningest tournament poker player ever? that if Phil Ivey adopted a more conservative style he'd win 11 bracelets?

it's so pointless to even attempt to criticize Phil when all he does is count endorsement cash and in his spare time murder huge-field events.

I hear Hellmuth getting slated alot on these forums,and although i don't much like his manner or play from an entertainment point of view,i can't critique his play because i'm no great shakes at NL myself.

I was hoping some midstakes or higher winning player could enlighten me to why Helmuth is so bad and gets abused so often.

Thanks.(gauntlet thrown down)

Any why do you think he hardly plays in cash games? Because he knows tournament poker is his best game, and that he lacks the creativity to mix it with the likes of Ivey in a cash game format. He will just sit there and wait for pocket Aces to try and bust someone, and he very may well do that, but its boring as bat***** to watch, and that is the point i was trying to get at.

Every time i hear about Hellmuth being on a PAD episode, i ensure i don't bother watching it.

Everyone has their own opinions about players, and in my opinion, whilst he may have 11 bracelets, Ivey and Antonius are far better players.

Even if he was the best player in the world it doesn't automatically qualify him as a great teacher. Honestly, were Ivey or Antonius to write poker books, they'd probably be horrible.

While Hellmuth is no doubt a much better poker player than Lee Jones for example, Lee Jones' book is infinitely better than Hellmuth's.

Ask Ansky (once saw a vid of him playing 25/50 with hellmuth on UB, pretty sure itw as Ansky, frigging hilarious - quote: "watching phill helmuth play [against some donk and getting beat up] is like looking at monkeys throwing **** at eachother" or something)

PH is a master in butchering hands extracting exactly the minimal amunt of EV. He's so bad it's absurd. Literally, as in I seriously dont believe the clear cut evidence being fed to me how bad PH is lol.

How is this possible? maybe the guy is just the one poker player on the globe who runs like god lol

truely the biggest mystery of poker

No Jamie Gold runs like God also.Remember that big hand against Antonius on HSP and his WSOP win.

You dont have a link to said video do you?

I also read his book, the truth is it is horrible.


Everyone hate's hellmuth because he has no class at all and has an ego the size of the moon, but in all honesty, you can't bash his tournament play.

he didn't win 11 bracelets off luck, truth be told he is one of, if not the best no limit tournament player around.

He didn't write the book to change the game, he wrote it because his name would be on it and it would sell. he's only interested in becoming more famous and counting monies. pretty brilliant idea, imo.

also, anyone who honestly thinks Phil sits around and waits for two aces is out of their mind.

I read that steaming pile of a book, it's easily the worst I've read.

But saying that Hellmuth is a bad NL tourney player is just ridiculous. Seriously. The guy will have 15-20 bracelets before he's through.

I've thought about this a lot. The first two books I read on poker were Hellmuth's book and Phil Gordon's Little Green Book. I think these are opposite books.

I think Hellmuth is excellent at tournament poker somehow but has little-to-no ability to explain how he does it. I don't think it is possible that he plays nearly as poorly in large field tournaments as people here say. He's still going deep in the biggest tourneys consistently. He's got something going right and I don't think there's any chance it is just luck.

On the other hand, I don't think Phil Gordon's game is anything to write home about. He's very good, but not great. He finishes in the middle of a lot of fields. His cash game might be great, but who knows? But, he's an amazing teacher. He can really explain, in a way that you can remember, difficult concepts.

Hellmuth -> Great player/Crappy teacher
Gordon -> Good player/Great teacher

I still think I'd rather be Hellmuth and have 11 bracelets (and the cash that goes with them).

"I was one of those unfortunate enough to have naively picked Hellmuth's book as the first book on poker they ever read. This was in 2003. 5 years later I'm still suffering from adverse effects.

Lol at me sitting in .50/$1 limit games on Paradise poker trying to label people Jackal Elephant and Eagle. Srsly lol." - Gazillion


Hellmuth's book was actually the first poker book I ever read as well.

lol I also lable some elephants and jackals out there. Not too many lions or mice at my stakes. Mostly elephants.

my first poker book - hellmuth, gary carson or ken warren......

is phil's book really that bad, or just way too simple?

and please, let's not bring that horrible "durrr owns hellmuth" crap over here from NVG. even the attitude is unwelcome

Yes.

Ooo.. Thank you sir for the advice. I won't read the book then.

Hahaha, its the first book I ever read too... Makes me wonder how much of my time I wasted. I ended up read "winning Small Stakes holdem" by M,S and M and it was SO much better.