|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/2/2008 6:22:56 PM PACIFIC |
 Phil Hellmuth remarks, fourstar2000, 30. Apr 2003 11:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I was reading the Cardplayer recap of the Limit Hold'em event that Phil Hellmuth won a couple days ago and he mentions having a dream that he would win. He claims that he's never had a vision the night before a tournament that he would win, but before this event he did, claiming that in this vision he saw that none of the others would end up winning. Is it just me, or wasn't he on the World Poker Tour show last week using this same gimmick? If my memory does serve me correct, I'm wondering if he's just using this whole "pseudo-clairvoyant" bit as a psychological ploy in these big tournaments. I can't imagine it working, but why would you make statements like he did when anyone could get a tape and prove that you're full of it? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, shorn, 30. Apr 2003 11:07 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You are right. He said on WPT that he "didn't see any of the other five players winning it." Do the math Phil...there were only 6. The more I see and read of him, I like him less and less. He is clearly a talented player, but I think his time has past, he knows it, and he is trying anything to stay in the spotlight. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, Nathaniel Brous, 30. Apr 2003 11:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| His comments are a little out there, but I am sure he believes it. However... his time is far from being past. Right after Doyle won his ninth bracelet, Hellmuth got his eighth a couple of days ago. He is also relatively young for a player and will likely be a force for the next twenty years. Still...it does not excuse poor behavior. - Nathaniel Brous | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 30. Apr 2003 11:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If Phil really did believe that he could see the future, he would be a broke bum living on the streets, like so many cardroom 'psychics' ... good old Phil is spinning some grade A BS and that is it. Whether or not he dreamt of a win is irrelevant - he knows that he isn't a clairvoyant and that is enough. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, Risky Business, 30. Apr 2003 11:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You're right, grade A stuff here. Hey, anything to keep him out there where everyone can see him. You heard him on WPT a while ago saying he has an autobiography coming out, so he has to stay in the spotlight, right? What he really needs is a final table appearance in the end of May!! on 30. Apr 2003 11:08 stdioh wrote: > If Phil really did believe that he could see the future, he would be a broke bum > living on the streets, like so many cardroom 'psychics' ... good old Phil is spinning > some grade A BS and that is it. > > Whether or not he dreamt of a win is irrelevant - he knows that he isn't a > clairvoyant and that is enough. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, noiseboy, 30. Apr 2003 15:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| While I have my doubts as to whether or not this is just a psychological ploy by Phil, I can vouch that some weird stuff does happen in dreams. When I was about 5 years old, I started having these nightmares about tornadoes every single night. It was strange because I had never had them before. Then one night a huge storm came and a tornado skipped right over my house and destroyed two other houses on my street, luckily nobody was seriously hurt or killed in my neighborhood. However, it was one of the worst storms in a long time and I know there was a lot of damage and even some fatalities. Then the nightmares stopped. If there really was a way to control this sort've thing, then I would be totally rich, but I know that sometimes I get the feeling that I'm going to be dealt a certain hand or that a certain card is going to come, and then it does. Unfortunately, it only happens rarely, and I can't force it to come, so it's nothing I could rely on for poker. It might just be coincidence, but I'm not sure. Anyway, don't think I'm some superstitious freak or something, because when it comes to poker, I always play the odds. :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 1. May 2003 08:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| How about this one: When my father was a young man, he would drive between Vancouver and Winnipeg nonstop in about 20 hous (damn hell fast). One night he was driving through the rockies and fell asleep at the wheel. He deamt that he was still driving and saw a hand readch out of the dashboard and grab his wrist - which woke him up as he was about to go off the road and down the mountainside. He managed to get back onto the road and when he got in to Vancouver he got a phone call -> at the time of his almost accident, his grandfather had died. Spooky enough, but I still call it coincidence. We dream a lot of things, but we don't keep track of the nonspooky ones. Just like players who say things like, 46o *always* hits. Nope, you just remember when it does bucko. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, noiseboy, 1. May 2003 09:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hmm, it does make one wonder. I have no doubts in my mind that there is randomness in the universe, but sometimes randomness comes in patterns, which is why even a good player might have a losing streak for months at a time, or a crappy poker player will leave a 3-6 hold'em table with over a grand. I'm sure every poker player has had the thought "I'm going to get pocket AA's this hand" and then did. I'm not sure I believe that people can be psychic; however, the human brain is a universe unto itself and I think sometimes it can recognize these patterns of chaos. BTW, I liked your spooky story! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, Schuster, 1. May 2003 10:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Randomness doesn't really come in "patterns" because by definition, there is no pattern to randomness. If you notice one player is getting run over by the deck, and he raises preflop the next hand, you shouldn't fold a hand you should usually call with just because he is getting run over by it. However, if you feel there are some psychological factors (maybe his rush is causing him to play better) then let those guide you. On the whole psychic issue, I've thought tons of times something along the lines of, "It would be absolutely perfect if the turn card was the 10 of hearts" and then it falls. It is somewhat spooky at first, but then I remember it works about 1 in 46 tries. :) ESP is a whole other issue. Brunson wrote in super system about the electric impulses creating magnetic fields and another player being able to read those fields a few feet away. If we knew exactly how the brain functioned, it would be theoretically possible to create a machine to read the mind of anyone just by measuring fluctuations in minute magnetic fields created by the electric impulses in their brain (and I say theoretically simply because the computing power might be far out of reach even if we did understand the brain). Things like stdioh's experience are certainly possible physically, although far from being proven one way or the other. I would not be surprised if such things exist, but I am definately not attuned to them if they are. Is it so hard to believe that a person's "soul" survives that persons physical existence? I don't think so. All that said, I will never believe that anyone has an uncanny ability to predict cards. Cards don't have auras, feelings, presences, or any other crazy mumbo jumbo these people claim that they have. Someone may have gotten lucky a few times. Maybe they even have the ability to read all of their opponents hands extremely well and can thus narrow the deck down a lot. But I will take a bet where I have the mathematical best of it against anyone any day of the week that they cannot predict the top card of the deck after it's been shuffled up. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, noiseboy, 1. May 2003 10:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, in fact, there is actually a whole branch of mathematics devoted to the "patterns" of randomness called Chaos Theory. As to whether this math has any practical applications to poker, I really couldn't say, as I'm not enough of a mathematician to understand chaos on anything but a layman's level. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, Schuster, 1. May 2003 11:07 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Haha, touche. I'm inclined to agree with you in some respects, but in other ways, not so much. Nearly all of my experience with chaos theory has been beginners level at best, so I'm not the best to judge. I don't think anyone would have the mental capacity to do any sort of calculations based on chaos theory while sitting at a card table. Then again, I'm sure someone has looked into the card distribution and how they are altered after a typical B&M dealer shuffles the deck. Speaking of which, what is the procedure for a B&M dealer's shuffling? Do they use the same procedure every time? Anyone know more about this topic? My interest has been caught now. :) Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, noiseboy, 1. May 2003 11:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The math would certainly be intractable, considering the pace of a card game. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, Andrew Wells, 1. May 2003 20:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It is not that hard to teach a competent dealer how to bring two of the three bottom cards before the standard shuffle onto the flop in a ten handed hold'em game with about 30% accuracy. The key being a dealer that shuffles well enough to avoid clumping. It can be learned in about half an hour. Just take three cards and place them on the bottom of the deck face up. Now you can practice shuffling and see where these cards end up. Shuffle, shuffle, cut, shuffle, cut. All you need to learn is where to cut the deck. Proper casino procedure is to wash the cards after each hand, but some dealers just put the winning and losing hand in a two player showdown at the bottom of the deck. A dealer with good consistency that makes the first cut in the right spot can produce flop lags with some regularity. If a dealer is not washing the cards sufficiently, you can choose to ask for a through scramble. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 1. May 2003 11:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, chaos theory is not about "patterns in randomness," although that is how it is often explained to laymen (such as in the movie Jurrassic Park). Chaos is about unpredictability of varying degrees in complex systems with an extremely high number of variables. A typical figure from chaos theory is the "butterfly function" Essentially, you have a particle zipping around a point in a circle and certain rare conditions cause it to move to a different circle around another point and zip around it. From starting conditions, it is almost impossible to know where the particle will be after X amount of time, because only tiny subtle things dictate which point it will be orbiting. Thus you have unpredictability. But this whole system, while complex, is not random. You have the appearance of chaos, but everything within the system has a cause and effect. The past still dictates the present. In a shuffled deck of cards, you have true pseudorandomness. The order the cards started in and the order they end up in are related in that a number of operations happen to change the order predictably, but they are unobservable. A regular player cannot track the 52 cards as they are being shuffled and know what order they ended up in. Even if he could, one player getting a flush on one hand and getting a flush on the next hand have no effect on whether he'll get a flush on the third hand unless there is some cheating going on. You have pseudorandom events which lead to pseudorandom results and while apparent patterns emerge in them after you have seen everything, no only is the system unpredictable (chaotic), but you are missing key information that will unravel this chaos (the exact position of all of the cards and the ability to track them). So is the ordering of the cards in the deck a chaotic system? Yes. Is the set of hands a player receives over time a chaotic system? Not at all. Thus to say that you are "on a rush" and that it affects the cards you are going to receive because you can "see a pattern" is very very ignorant. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, noiseboy, 1. May 2003 11:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yes, "patterns" is probably not the right word. However, one point you made is that pseudorandomness is not true randomness. A shuffle is a complex system, and not predictable unless you had all of the variables accounted for, and this is perhaps not possible. However, there are certain phenomena that can be noticed and predicted. For instance, I have often noticed that flush draws seem slightly more prevalent the first few hands after a new deck is introduced. I think blackjack players have analyzed in detail how many shuffles it takes for the closest approximation of true randomness, and when there are not enough shuffles, there is a "clumping" effect. The concept of a "rush" is not scientific at all, and cannot be predicted, therefore you shouldn't think like "oh I don't have the odds to draw to this two outer, but I'm on a rush, so I'll try it anyway." I definitely agree with you there. This kind've thinking will get you in a lot of trouble. However, there are even famous players who think like this from time to time. Doyle Brunson says in Super System that when he wins a hand, he will be in the next hand, regardless of his cards. That statement seems to be a bit extreme to me, but I think he believes in rushes, and tries to incorporate that into his play. Who knows, it might just be a leak, I'm sure even famous players have them, they just aren't as "leaky" as me! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 1. May 2003 12:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, I used to be a winning blackjack player (and I mean good, not lucky) and I can address the issue of shuffle-tracking here. When you are shuffling 6 decks together it is far too timeconsuming to do it enough to make relative randomness happen and thus shuffletracking and acetracking are possible. In shuffletracking you find a clump of poor low cards and watch where they land in the discard. Then when the discard is broken you watch where this lump moves in the shuffle and when you stick the cut card in, you try to put these bad cards into the boot. Thus you have a favourably salted shoe. Ace tracking is more complicated, but works on the same principle. When you see 8 aces out on the table all at once, they are going into the discard together as a clump and they will tend to stay clumped, loosely. So you memorize the "index cards" on the table and wait until you see a bunch of them at once on the next shoe. Now you know that the pack of aces is around there and since having an ace ads about +35% to your expected value you can begin making large bets even if the deck isn't hot. Where this idea falls apart for poker is that there is only one deck and honest casinos shuffle that deck enough for it to be 'random' in a very very close to true sense. Cards don't clump unless the dealer is dropping a slug or some such trick. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, noiseboy, 1. May 2003 14:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hmm, just one thing I might not agree with, I think that there still is some clumping going on in poker rooms. Maybe not enough to be useful in a practical sense. At the main casino where I play, the dealer mixes them up on the table and shuffles them three or four times then cut. Now, these people work on tips, and they tend to emphasize a fast shuffle as opposed to a technically perfect one. I've watched them and noticed that there are sometimes groups of ten or fifteen cards that will stay together through one shuffle, and they only do it a few times. Normally, this wouldn't matter, but when there is a new deck the cards don't start out mixed up, so I'm not sure that the standard poker room shuffle is enough to completely mix them from a state where suits tend to be together. Anyway, from playing "Go Fish" when I was a kid, I know that if the cards are not random to start with, in this case organized into pairs, if you don't shuffle at least five or six times, the next hand will go very fast because people tend to have duplicated cards within there own hands and between the two hands. You are more likely to have a pair in your own hand, and you are more likely to have your cards duplicated in the opponents hand. Wow, I can't believe I just used an example from Go Fish, I should be banned from poker forever. Anyway, the point is just that when a new deck is introduced all the cards are organized by suit, and I'm not entirely sure that they get mixed up enough to completely undo this organization. Of couse, once a few hands are played, then any organization would disappear. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 1. May 2003 15:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Noiseboy - you say that when they start a new deck the suits stay clumped because the shuffle is inefficient at randomizing them thoroughly. Let us assume that the dealers are not proficient and that this is really the case. Don't they wash the cards first when starting a new deck? That should take out any suit clumping right there. Especially because a proper wash of a new deck involves fanning the cards into two rows and then merging the rows before washing. I would be suspicious if I were playing in a casino that didn't wash the cards. That smacks of impropriety and I would be wondering about other matters of game integrity that might go under the radar of incompetent management. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 1. May 2003 11:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, the electrical signals released in the brain are too tiny to project EM fields outside of the person's head. There are 4 forces, one of them being electromagnetic (powered by photons believe it or not), and the other three being string atomic (guage bozons), weak atomic (gluons), and gravitational (only theoretical 'graviton' particle). People talk about ESP as a fifth force for the simple reason that all of these forces can be recorded and measured and there is no change in any one of them at any time when a person is thinking...at least not outside of his head. Yeah, if you put a lot of hardware into somebody's brain you could, in theory, figure out what they were thinking about. Likewise if you filled them with a radioactive isotope and watched which areas of the brain were drawing more blood (medically, an EEG). But there is no way that an untampered with person's thoughts can be read from outside of them by either technology or another person - unless you want to involve magic and God into this discussion. And neither magic nor God have a place at a poker table. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, noiseboy, 1. May 2003 11:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hmm, I was actually meaning more by analogy, that the chaos is involved in how the brain itself works, so that sometimes the brain could have a flash of recognition of those patterns (assuming they exist) outside the brain. Not that the brain itself is capable of sensory perception beyond the five senses. Any parapsychologists on the list? ;) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, Schuster, 1. May 2003 12:07 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > Actually, the electrical signals released in the brain are too tiny to project EM fields outside of the > person's head. There are 4 forces, one of them being electromagnetic (powered by photons believe it or > not) Are you sure about this? I would think that with all the evidence of a charge in motion -- magnetic fields, radiation with acceleration and deceleration, and the tunneling effect of EM waves through barriers -- at least one of these would be detectable outside a persons head. I'm not sure technically how powerful each impulse is. Perhaps our instruments are not precise enough yet... Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 1. May 2003 15:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The problem with EM radiation is that how deep it goes through something depends highly on its wavelength. A highly enough gamma ray could make it through a foot of concrete with ease, but obviously visible light cannot. The EM radiation coming out of a person is black body radiation deep in the infra-red which is essentially a heat signature. The EM radiation released from the tiny electrical impulses isn't strong enough to go through a layer of skin and even if it were, it would be completely overpowered by the black body radiation coming off a warm head. Assuming that you could make some kind of a tempest for mind reading that would pick up faint fluctuations like this, the variance would be extremely affected by the amount of tissue the signal had to pass through, so that neurons firing closer to the surface on one side would be much more powerful than those a little deeper in, and even the slightest turn of the head would throw everything very much out of whack - it would be extremely sensitive to direction and completely unable to see bast just a few layers of neural tissue as the signals from the outermost cells would be orders of magnitude larger than those just inside, etc. It would be like trying to get information from the movement of water molecules inside a ripple on a whitecap of a 5 foot wave in an ocean current by looking from space through a lens covered in an inch of vaseline. And that assumes that a signal were strong enough to get outside of the head which it is not. Conversely, it is relatively easy to reconstruct the image on your computer monitor by viewing the slight changes in the colour of the glow coming off your walls and out your window. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, Andrew Wells, 1. May 2003 20:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I wouldn't invite a magician to a home game. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 2. May 2003 08:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| When I was a kid, I fancied myself a magician and took lessons in it for a couple of Summers. The instructor I had was banned from any card game in all of the Vegas casinos. They were extremely good at having words with him whenever he entered a casino at any point (and he was often doing shows down there and such). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, Chad, 1. May 2003 10:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Phil has been on this "I had a dream" kick lately. I don't know exactly why, I guess he feels he needs to fill Martin Luther King's shoes. Not only did he use this on the WPT show, and the tourney he won last week, but according to his website www.philhellmuth.com, he is claiming a similar story concerning the PartyPoker Million tourney with another guy. Sure Phil loves the limelight, and he can be rattled quite easily, but as far as his time running out? Give me a break. He did just win over 120 grand last week right? This guy still reads people better than any other player on the planet in my opinion. Look at that Ultimate Bet Challenge, the deck was running all over Gordon and the Girl, and even though Phil didn't have the cards to challenge them, he was reading their mail every hand. The guy is good and that is the bottom line. I wouldn't want my money on anyone else when it comes to NL tourney play. As far as all his "bringing attention to himself" attributes, I attribute it to him being the "man" in poker for so long while poker wasn't shit. Now that poker is on the rise, he has the personality to want to have people "look at me", especially newbies to the world on NL holdem tourneys. Anyway if you can ignore all the BS, you are still looking at the best player in the world. JMHO Chad | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 1. May 2003 11:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree. Phil had a lot of attention as the Poker Brat, when poker was nothing. Now he sees it becoming something big and he's not in the spotlight like some other men who are easier to make public heros out of. You've got Phil Ivey, the excellent poker player who 'also happens to be black' - not that I'm saying anything about that, but I'm sure the TV networks will love it. You've got Robert Varkyoni, the unlikely amatuer who pulled a "Rudy" and got to play in the big game and win - people love an underdog. You've got Amarillo Slim and Doyle Brunson, the grizzled Texas road gamblers with romantic manly histories and rugged Maverick appeal. You've got a couple of women who are very excellent players and whom all the TV folks desperately want to hit a final table so that women watching won't have to say, "Why aren't there any women playing poker? It is a sexist environment or something?" And then you've got Phil, a great player, but with a termper and no 'stage presence.' I think Phil is being set up to be a has-been in the eyes of the public or an also-ran. Yeah, he's still got a great game and he's one of the best in the world, but he won't do anything for TV ratings. I think this is why he is trying to find a gimmick. He wants to be the, "I deamt I would win and now I did," guy in hopes that somebody out there will want to see an interview with him and that people will talk about him around the watercooler at work. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, Randall Edmunds, 1. May 2003 12:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Lol--counting the number of posts on the "not quite poker" subject, I would say it is working. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, fourstar2000, 1. May 2003 12:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It could be that Hellmuth does all of this crazy stuff so that he gets the amount of PR that he deserves but probably doesn't get since he doesn't fit into a "character" (for lack of a better word) that the general public is going to rally behind. But I was curious as to whether people think his arrogant persona lends to more success in tournaments. For example, I'm still pretty new at poker, but if I ended up sitting at a table with Phil Hellmuth (I have no delusions this would ever truly happen), I would want to be the guy to knock him out. I've got to imagine amateurs in some of these tournaments would think the same thing. Professionals probably can handle his act. But I have to think after 7-8 hours of poker on some tournament days it would wear on them as well. As an example, I played the other night at a table where a drunk older gentleman was incredibly rude to most of the other players. He was playing some fairly lousy cards, sucking out on people, and then taunting them. I was getting ready to leave and decided to play a few more hands when I got junk (J3o) in the big blind. I got a free play and flopped a full house. I slowplayed it best I could (it was threes full, not jacks full) and got lucky when angry drunk guy caught the nut flush on the river. When he showed his cards he said, "Ace-high flush, I win," and was furious when I showed him he lost. Everyone at the table kinda cheered though while angry drunk guy mumbled about losing with the nut flush. The reason I bring this up is that I think its human nature to want to knock off the loudmouth at the table, but I know there really isn't a place for that in poker. I was lucky enough to do it the other night, but I hadn't intended to do it. If I had sat there and focused on shutting the guy up, I probably would have lost a ton of money. One player who was playing solid cards eventually did let his emotions get the best of him, started playing looser, and ended up leaving the table without most of the chips he had accumulated earlier in the night. So...(sorry for the amazingly long segue)...do you think Hellmuth makes these ridiculous public statements just for the PR or do you think it helps him by getting his opponents to make emotional rather than rational decisions? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, stdioh, 1. May 2003 15:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Indeed, people say that the worst emotions at a poker table are hope and fear, but I think that revenge belongs in that group too. When you make it personal, you will lose. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Phil Hellmuth remarks, 4 POKER, 2. May 2003 03:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 30. Apr 2003 11:04 fourstar2000 wrote: > I was reading the Cardplayer recap of the Limit Hold'em event that Phil Hellmuth > won a couple days ago and he mentions having a dream that he would win. He > claims that he's never had a vision the night before a tournament that he would > win, but before this event he did, claiming that in this vision he saw that none > of the others would end up winning. > > Is it just me, or wasn't he on the World Poker Tour show last week using this > same gimmick? If my memory does serve me correct, I'm wondering if he's just > using this whole "pseudo-clairvoyant" bit as a psychological ploy in these big > tournaments. I can't imagine it working, but why would you make statements like > he did when anyone could get a tape and prove that you're full of it? I think he needs to accept the fact that he can't always be in the spotlight, even though he always tries to be. 4 POKER (I'm tired so I'm gonna quit while i still can)! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|