2006-06-06 20:27:15 · 10 answers · asked by Velveeta 1 in Games & Recreation ➔ Gambling
As a young gun of the 80's and 90's, the stock answer would have been Hellmuth. However, Phil Hellmuth has not yet adjusted to the rigors of large fields filled with amateurs. Thus, his results in recent years at the World Series of Poker have been poor.
Interestingly, Hellmuth continues to be a major threat against the top players. One instance was his win in last year's Heads Up tournament. His third in the Tournament of Champions was no slouch performance either. He was also 2nd in the previous Tournament of Champions, to Annie Duke.
Matusow, however, has shown an ability in recent years to make a dent with the pros and in the large mixed fields as well. He made it to day four (87th place out of 2200 players) and the money in the 2004 Main Event. In 2005, he made the final table of the Main Event in excellent position and ran into a hideous beat. He did win the the Tournament of Champions as well.
Both players do a good job of getting under one's skin. Both make excellent reads. But I feel Matusow deserves particular credit. I think very few pros in the world are as keenly perceptive as Matusow.
It's a good question and a good debate. Though many reasons exist to tap Hellmuth, I think Matusow is the one that shows the most ability to win, irregardless of the environment.
2006-06-11 13:14:10 · answer #1 · answered by aross07 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well if you look at the Tournament of Champions in which in came down between Hellmuth, Matusow and Hoight, matusow outplayed them both, he is very good after the flop and he really gets under the skin of players, something hellmuth won't do(which is good i think) but once hellmuth losed something big he tends to sulk about it for a long time, which is one reason he lost the tournament of champions in vegas last summer, so i will same matusow cuz he can put hellmuth off his game, although i don't really like the guy
2006-06-07 06:50:45 · answer #2 · answered by g_force42 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Recently it looks like Matusow, as he did very well in the main event last year. Historically, Phil is the better player if you look at the number of bracelets won.
2006-06-07 04:38:51 · answer #3 · answered by buckeye987654 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Phil
2006-06-10 21:04:23 · answer #4 · answered by thingudo 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
9 WSOP Braclets to 2 makes Hellmuth the better player. I think Matasow is better at getting more pots with crap hands but once he loses it he tends to self destruct. Hellmuth has better disipline and a keener sense of reading people.
2006-06-07 03:28:27 · answer #5 · answered by messycook 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they the two think of that they are the only person on earth who gets unlucky, and that they the two have on social amassing berated their fighters' play on the table...yet i think of matusow desires it greater because of the fact phil is married to a psychiatrist, so he gets unfastened psychological help
2016-12-08 07:20:00 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
good question, phil sometimes plays too tight, but matusow is the most unlucky person i have ever seen. going by accompilshments, definetely hellmuth, but matusow is just as good even when he is running his mouth
2006-06-06 21:45:54 · answer #7 · answered by mitchell_8_5 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By results Hellmuth...
Even though i dislike the 'Poker Brat'.
2006-06-07 01:08:47 · answer #8 · answered by Banderes 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no statistical way to answer this question to date.
2006-06-13 11:00:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD MOST RECONGNISE? PHIL , BY FAR! HE LIVES FOR THE GAME AND PROMOTES IT WHEREVER HE GOES. TV, VIDEOS, COMMERCIALS, ETC.
2006-06-07 04:26:32 · answer #10 · answered by jefferydaume 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋