Bryn Kenney recently challenged Phil Hellmuth’s status as a top poker player, while Matt Berkey compared himself to Linus Loeliger. The discussion highlighted that making money in poker isn’t solely based on skill.
Many consider Hellmuth the strongest tournament player in poker history, yet he seldom competes in the highest-stakes tournaments. What’s your opinion on this?
“While Hellmuth is the most successful player in World Series of Poker (WSOP) history, boasting numerous victories in large fields, his performance in high rollers is average. If a player doesn’t compete at the highest level, it’s difficult to regard them as the best overall. He may excel in his category, but that’s a different standard.”
So, is he the best in weaker tournaments?
“Yes, you could argue that. Winning at the WSOP is impressive, but many participants are less experienced players. True skill is tested in smaller tournaments against top competition. At the World Series, you often defeat amateurs, similar to claiming you’re the king of AAA baseball without ever playing in the majors.”
Critics often claim that luck dominates small tournaments. While luck plays a significant role in any single event, its impact diminishes when competing against elite players year after year.
“But Phil claims he’s the best in any format.”
“Anyone can make claims online, but he won’t even consider a heads-up match against me. If he agrees to a big bet, I’m ready to play the entire WSOP to prove he’s not the best there, either.”
“So, without betting, is the WSOP not appealing to you?”
“There are too many tournaments. Competing every day for 1.5 months is exhausting. I still love poker; passion is essential to succeed. However, I have other priorities now. My daughter is 1.5 years old, and I want to spend time with her. Poker has taught me valuable lessons, and now I’m eager to apply those skills to something more impactful.”
