Because he has continued to win them even up until this year.

If you have a hard time understanding, it’s because you’re dismissing his recent accomplishments for some reason and are looking for a reason to argue.

So if you’re bankrolling one player it’s…

Me: one of the plethora of crushers that play at a way higher level than Phil…

You: Phil…because he had a ton of success in the 1990s and still binks here and there.


Sounds about right?

So what you are saying is all the high stakes players like chidwick, greenwood and what not are irrelevant as well since they mostly play 50 players sit n gos (rarely >150 people) ?
I'm confused/

I’m confused you think Hellmuth is anywhere near these guys level? This game is fun. He’s the goat because only tournaments in Vegas matter (especially all the 10-20 table sng’s back when everyone folded non nutted hands)

Which one of the “plethora?” Who do you think is best and why?

I don't think he would fare well in the high roller scene but regarding WSOP he is the GOAT.
He didn't win all his bracelets from micro fields and you know it.
He is a beast at navigating the buy-ins he plays and get the job done.
Now you can argue it's variance but you could argue the same for any of the high stakes pros (live).

That said I absolutely hate PH persona and attitude , and yet I think he's great for poker because I see the big picture, unlike you apparentely.

He has the most bracelets pre-Moneymaker (or at least tied for it) -and- the most bracelets post-Moneymaker.

Trying to say Helmuth "still binks here and there" as a negative is funny when the majority of the other old school crushers don't win anything anymore. Where is Seidel Cunningham etc?

Phil is the best in the very specific niche of "NL tournies that are 10k and under". Whether this means hes the best tourny player of all time IDK but its still very impressive he keeps winning.

Again why are we acting like some of the toughest fields haven’t existed online and ROW the past 2 decades?

Wtf does navigating the fields mean? Lol. It seems like a nice way of saying he gets put into every WSOP event and gets lucky.

This is really fun to watch haters stretching arguments as far as they can everytime Phil wins one.
It's getting comical.

I guess chris brewer 2 bracelets don't mean much as well, after beating 69 players and 200 is really on Phil's old antique level, right?

Why are there so many casual takes ITT?

The fields in the 90s were hella weak.

Todays fields are way tougher.

You have to put your net worth on the line…you’re telling me Brewer isn’t a snap call over PH?

Funny that's what you took out of my post.

Well yeah. If you froze Babe Ruth 100 years ago and unfroze him today, he might be Dan Vogelbach. But if you sent infant Mike Trout back in time to Ruth's day, he wouldn't have access to the coaching, fitness, strat etc. that he had in our time.

We could all travel back in time and crush poker in the 90s or 2000s, but that doesn't mean it was easy to do so in that time. And while the competition wasn't as fierce, there was still plenty of money to be made and many people trying to do it. Like, I doubt there were many people who thought, "I have the ability to become wealthy playing a fun card game, but it's just not worth the bother."

Actually, you could kind of argue that becoming a top level player was harder back then. Wasn't the player pool bigger during the boom? And you could become a real celebrity, which is another incentive to give it a shot. And it was easier for a new player to find their sea legs, build a little BR and move up. I don't really know. Maybe it's just different. Like, being a solverbot today is a skill someone from that era might not have, but succeeding in a wide open, unsolved game is a skill a solverbot might not have. Like Jimi Hendrix vs a classical virtuoso.

Not to say Phil is or isn't the GOAT, but comparing eras is why most GOAT discussions are pointless. Anyway, if you unfroze Ruth today and he was actually still a really good MLBer, if not the best, that would probably bolster his GOAT claim.

It was harder since there was no monthly fee training site telling you how to play or software way back when. You had to figure it all out on your own instead of memorize other peoples work. Todays solver bro has no concept of reality when it comes to them being a complete fish if they didn't have major assistance telling them exactly how to play.

No they were not. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. He’s won EIGHT since the moneymaker boom. Almost 50% if his bracelets are in the biggest fields of pokers history. You sound like a clown.

People used to take credit away from Hellmuth by reminding that his only bracelet wins were in hold 'em events. It wasn't enough how many he'd won or that they were in limit, pot limit, and no limit all. But he's now also won two bracelets in razz and one in 2-7 no limit, as well as beating a European heavy field in the European Main Event, a field with plenty of crushers in a $5K NLHE, and a one day Super Turbo NLHE.

The guys' overall WSOP tournament record is crazy good.

Can somebody ITT get through their heads that the toughest fields have existed outside of Vegas and online the past 20 years?

So you’re just going to ignore relevant questions?

Convinced you’re either trolling or just bitter your results suck in comparison. Either way, good luck at the tables.

Newton was a slouch compared to a run of the mill physics professor today.

Someone more knowledge can come up with better MTT resumes when SoS, online, ROW tournaments (non Vegas tournaments),net profit, cumulative winnings are all considered.

Thank you!

Yeah and?
PH doesn't play online(often) and we are mostly saying he's the wsop's goat.
I guess 2nd in the 50k Player championship and 2nd in the 50k PLO means nothing too, nor 4th in one drop, 300k SHRbowl etc...
Of course there are players with more winnings than him.
I really don't get what you are trying to achieve here.

No matter what PH will achieve, it will never be good enough for some people.

There might be people out there who have played more online tournaments in a single month than PH has played WSOP tournaments in his lifetime.

Comparing live and online makes very little sense. If people talk about Phil Hellmuth as the greatest poker tournament player ever, we should assume they are strictly talking live no limit hold'em tournaments.

He’S nOT tHe beSt BeCausE hE hASn’T wOn HIgh ROlLer mixEd GAme MaSSiVe fIEld evEntS in ParAguaY duRiNg tHE lASt TwO yeARs!

I DoN’T knOW wHO iS bETteR buT it’S NoT hiM!

i really can't stand the guy. And he's terrible at cash.
But lol@ people who think he isn't phenomenal at big field tournaments.
It's amazing how in tournaments people will give him **** for not following solver outputs- gee maybe the guy who is super successful is right way more often than he's wrong than people who regurgitate outputs against non elite competition. Maybe live poker isn't just all about theory when you're using a bunch of false parameters against people playing way differently than what a machine assumes who do in fact give off tells ESPECIALLY when life changing money may be at stake.

Would I take him in high rollers? No. But so what. His skill set is great for normal wsop events.