I think the real question is whether Phil is a winning or losing player. IMHO Phil may be an overall loser. In ring games, I have personally heard him say he had lost all his tourney wins in cash games, and this was at a point when his total tourney wins were $3 mil. Who cares how much knowledge or how many bracelets he has if he can't get the money home.Look at it this way. If you took Phil's total tournament wins plus cash game wins and subtracted federal and state taxes, tournament travel and lodging, entree fees and all cash game losses, would you bet Phil is a lifetime winner or loser. I would pick loser. Furthermore in the 1990's, I would guess that Phil was 1 of the top 100 ring game losers for the decade.Phil certainly has poker knowledge and tournament knowledge --- the math, the logic, the psychology and the art. BUT so what if you're an overall loser. Some poker "greats" are there to get the money but some "greats" are there just to show others how great they are. Phil is in the latter category. I and many others (who are better than me) have seen Phil make a call knowing full well he had the worst hand just so he could prove to himself that he had guessed his opponent's hand correctly.Fame is one thing, being a cash winner is another.