I've been watching HSP over again - especially Season 4-5...

Why do the others consider Hellmuth such a terrible cash game player?

I don't operate on this level and was wondering how far his tournament style deviates from his cash game style?

He's been around the games long enough where I would assume he's surely not as bad as the players make out surely?

I take into account the fact that all TV poker is edited so we don't see all the plays...

But does anyone have any deeper analysis regarding Phil Hellmuths game?

He's a bad cash player because tournament play and cash play are two completely different styles of poker and he seems to play the same in both. Also he usually plays against far better players in those cash games so his little bull**** small ball style usually gets eaten alive.

I could go more in depth but it's late and don't really feel like it.

Please explain why his small ball style is "bull****." And then explain
how he's been able to use it to win multiple bracelets.

I can't wait for this.

Possibilities:

-- He's not good at playing deep stacked poker

-- He tilts, but manages to contain his tilt in tournaments because he can't rebuy

-- He's playing against people who specialize in cash game poker

-- No huge fish for him to exploit in the tough cash games he's played at (televised, anyway), unlike large field tournaments

I know a number of people who do decently in tournaments, but are major fish at cash games. For some reason, the fact that they know they have only one bullet for (most) tournaments makes them play closer to optimal.

This seems like good rationale

It's weird though...cos he's been around the games a LONG time now and yet seems far behind the skill level - you would think he can outplay some people some of the time

In his credit though - his tournament style works excellent against others who also only have one in the chamber - for example, the 72 bluff vs Matasow's KK

Maybe he's just stubborn and has rested on his laurels too long?

He's known to pass up on small edges in tournaments, which is correct to do especially in soft fields

If you're doing that in tough cashgames, you're gonna have a bad time

In cash games, he's less likely to play against idiots from Northern Europe.

He has tilt issues. If you tilt in a tournament, you're out. If you tilt in a cash games, you rebuy. So the losses you have while tilting stops in tournaments, but it just snowballs in cash games. That's also the one reason why I think cash games are more profitable than tournaments.

Plus, he's been running like Bolt in tournaments.

Really??

Sure he's emotional and a lot of the time I think this is just part of his brand tbh

No, Phil has massive tilt issues. I've seen Phil tilt in real life at Commerce.

There are a lot of other things wrong with Phil's game but his emotional issues are why his losses get as big as they do. I can get into deeper as to why Phil's game is so bad in cash. But probably the biggest reason is that people are very much aware of how he plays.

In tournaments you can play more of a trappers games, if cash games you have to lead more and bluff more.

I would be interested if you continue...but in a somewhat respectful manner I guess

Hellmuth doesn't live off of cash games. As far as I know, he very rarely plays NLHE cash games anymore. I think he's said this a few times on television.

He's a tournament player and it shows when he plays against the top cash game players.

He has no balls

He's just unlucky. When his day comes he'll get Dwan or Ivey for a few million.

The answer is because tournaments you are rarely 100bbs deep. So smaller bets means a whole more.

In cash games you play flop, turn and river each time making a new decision never fearing commitment to hand until the river. With most tournaments hands are always on the verge of the threshold of commitment, as stacks are small, and even smaller when you play flop, turn and river, the pot is huge already before facing a river bet. Bets are smaller in tournaments.

PH problem is that he thinks betting small shows strength in cash games, it doesn't it invites other people into the pot with deep stacks and the other players knowing exactly where they stand by PH small bets and random checks with made weak hands and has never fully understood implied odds in cash games, charging draws with bigger bets (for protection and for value) and that big hands like AK don't do well in deep cash games.

I often see PH check a made hand that he ought to be betting for value, to define other players hands and for protection. Instead he has the mentality of check-trap-I-got-them-now, this works in tournaments with fish with small stacks to get c/r flop or turn and get the money in but not in deep cash games where a c/r is getting called by a better hand or a draw that took a free card and improved on the turn. PH lets them get there for cheap and calls (thinking he is trapping) and then complains about suckouts. They sucked out because implied odds went through the roof.

So basically he can't play tougher players in deep stack games with lesser fold equity.

He also assumes the cash players are bluffing more often than they actually are to make it proiftable by laying traps with weak hands to bluff catch with after checking or betting small and letting them catch up with hands which had decent equity in the first place.

^^ hmmm that's a good way of looking at it actually

In some ways too perhaps...PH is a showboating glory monger...he loves the attention.

That's why we see him a lot on tv poker ...of course when the trend moved towards cash and away from SnGs he suffered somewhat I guess

Another point is his ego (or maybe its just for TV), what I mean is to be humble he probably thinks he knows everything there is to know about poker (he knows more than me that's for sure) so in his mind there is no room needed for improvement. Point is he should be humble, its a great human quality to say "I was big 10 or 20 years ago, now the game has moved on, more advanced and I need to rethink my old ways of playing so that I can change and adapt to the modern game" instead all I see from PH is the opposite, a person who thinks he knows it all because he has been successful in tournaments for so many years but has failed to transgress it to cash games.

Yes...he appears to revisit his glory days a lot

Even hands where he did play well, everyone else has moved on...

This short compilation may show the reason Hellmuth struggles at cash. Tilt anyone?

My opinion on Phil has changed somewhat...only because my view of the game has changed

I was watching an old PAD episode where Viffer was willing to pay PH a sum to just play gentleman like

PH was a tool...

Same season where Bellande was AI against AK w AQ and PH was spewing about morons getting it in bad

Old episodes I know...but PH is a muppet

Posters in this thread are completely off.

The reason Phil does well in tournaments (particularly WSOP) is that he is exceptionally good at reading fish tells. This makes up for somewhat outdated strategy.

In tough live games pros give off very little.

… and just when you thought there weren’t any lower depths to plumb ...

You should have stuck with the first comment you made.

NONE of you know whether he's winner (or not) as cash games.

Why does it matter? He clearly is doing just fine playing tourneys.

Beyond on that, are you people so stupid as to think the broadcast are not edited for drama? If so, wake up.

Trying to discern the “greatness” of someone by watching 10% (most likely far less) of the hands played on a given night is stupidly arrogant.