The implications of "the surprises" revealed in this thread got me thinking of a poker dilemma I've often discussed but never really got anywhere with.
Is Phil Helmuth a great player, a good player on a heater or a fish on a heater?
We see a lot of PH hands and we often see, what appear to be and are widely criticised as, very flawed decisions. Yet! His results to date and especially recently are second to none. Why is that? Is it possible to play a truly flawed game over many many top end tournaments and succeed as PH's results suggest.
Early in this thread I suggested....
If you consider that you have an edge over the field, which is hard to gauge and usually overstated, then you probably should take the lower variance option since your tourney life and stack equity have more value.
Apologies for arrogantly quoting myself
Does PH get the balance just right, does he shun high variance and exploit his edge optimally?
Or
Is he a fish who runs good and gets paid handsomely with his big hands?