this post is getting very sidetracked. The original question was, is this a bad call?

The answer is no. The guy was a favorite, was getting good pot odds, and won, now if some of you are a little more conservative thats fine but do not call this a bad call. A bad call would have been if he had JTs.

Some people AKA me, play very aggressively when they are favorites or recieving sufficient pot odds no matter how slight. Others AKA Hellmuth, play a more consevative chip preservation style. neither style is the ONLY way to play since both styles have had success, but to call one style wrong is,well, WRONG.

Do I always risk my chips in close situations? No. Would I do it here to double up and have a 2 to 1 chip lead over the other 2 remaining players? Absolutely!

Look at the advantages of winning this hand, and then look at the only disadvantage of losing. You either put yourself in a great situation to win by having a 2 to 1 chip lead on 2 other players and eliminating what seems to be the "tight" player, or you are out and it cost you no time, go play online or something. would it have been better for this player if he plays an hour and a half and busts out then, winning no money?

Calling this a bad call is flat out wrong!

In your bill gates example you forget 1 thing, in our AK vs JJ situation the 2 players chose the poker tournament that they played in, so the stakes are within their monetary limits.

If you are unwilling to push your edge here than you are playing above your means. for example,

I wouldn't flip bill gates for 25K a flip, but i'd probably do it for 10K if I could quit when i wanted to. I would be willing to risk 50K in this situation as a slight favorite because although it would hurt me it wouldn't cripple me so i would press my slight edge.

My last question is; Why do people insist on quoting a long term losing poker player? he may have nine bracelets but he has payed a lot of entry fees to get them, besides losing a bundle in cash games.

Is he serioulsly a losing player? I know he is a terrible cash game player but I doubt that.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

let's see this year "THE" Phil Hellmuth won $64,000 in tournaments.

My guess is he played at least 12 $10,000 + the $25,000 bellagio, and who knows how many from 1K-5K. my educated guess would be at least $100,000 more. So all told Phil's buy ins were around 250K.

Yeah he had a good year (thanks to book sales!!!! LMAO)

Look at his career tournament results and then compare those numbers to a conservative $100,000 a year in buy ins.

That doesn't even include travel costs or how much he has lost in cash games.

Why do you think the other big pro's like him? Because he is the "live" one! Tony G acts the same way as Phil and everyone hates him, because he is a really strong tournament AND cash game player.

Phil had his run when his style worked because most of his opponents played a certain way, different times call for different approaches, maybe he'll learn this.

Are you kidding me? Phil Helmuth may be one of the most sucsessful poker players in the game. He lives in a huge mansion, brings in tons of money from other sales (books, movies, etc.), and cashes for a lot of money online. Everyone has a few off years, in 2003 Phil Hellmuth won two bracelts, and took somewhere in the 30th place in the main event after a brutal outdraw with qq vs jj. Im willing to bet a lot that Phil Hellmuth is not losing money every year. You may have your opinions on poker strategy, but for you to call Phil Hellmuth an unsuccsesful poker player is downright retardation.

Bonch the touranment started 4 handed and it was winner take all. Stevo I agree with you, i would not make this call in this situation, but its not wrong to go either way, it all depends on what kind of player you are.

Phil's wife is rich, hence the mansion.

Bracelets and 30th places do not equate to money. For every $100,000 win there are many losses. Any money he has made in the last 5 years or so is poker related, not from poker(which makes him succesful in another field, much like David Sklansky).

if you equate success in poker to bracelets than he is succesful, I equate success in poker with $$$ earned.

He himself admits he loses in cash games, read some of his cardplayer articles where he mentions side games and they always have him losing but saying "oh well, I was just playing for fun" YEAH RIGHT. Watch the waitlist pop when he sits at a table.

Sorry to say but the game has passed him by.

Some people are tournament players, some are cash game players. 9 braclets = the best tournament player known to the game = phil hellmuth.

whether he's making money or not it's not a big deal, the point is that he is one of the best tournament hold em players of all time

I agree negranu222. All you have to do is watch him play, and you can tell that he is the best touranment player today. If that's not enough, look at his record. He has placed in 40 WOSP events alone, won 9 of these events, taken down 1st in the main event. He is the second on all-time WSOP money list with $3.6 million only beat by Greg Raymers $5,000,000. He also has five World Poker Tour top-ten finishes. Stevo I don't think you know much about professional poker players, Phil Hellmuth is considered by most people to be the best tournament player out there.

And thats why I dedicated my screenname to him!!!!! =\

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann