dn: stu unger question...

[Breadfan 0]

barry greenstein has a good review of stu on his site, and he is one that would actually be in a position to give an honest and knowledgable review.http://www.barrygreenstein.com/stu-ungar.htm

[MilesZS 0]

The best players in the world considered him one of the greatest poker players ever. The guy is in the Poker hall of fame. Brunson said Ungar was the greatest tournament player "of all time". I'm sure some people here could have schooled Ungar in mircolimit internet poker and tourneys. Why judge him on how he would do now in poker instead of what he has already accomplished.

Once again, I will rehash my point for everyone.Stu Ungar was awesome. He was an awesome player, ONE OF the greatest. Stu Ungar is not the hands down GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME. No. He is not. Maybe I am wrong, and I would readily admit it if he came back to life and schooled the 2005 WSoP Main Event. That said, I feel that he is not the hands-down greatest player of all time. I do not believe there is anyone who can claim that title in poker. If we start going "well, such-and-such, the pro, said such-and-such the other pro is the best ever," then Phil Hellmuth, Jr. will have to be on that list of greatest evers, because he seems to think that from time to time.And before you go at me for that, Hellmuth is a great guy and I'm just joking around.

[mark33f 0]

Imagine how much he could have won if he wasnt on any drugs at all...If he had a great focus for the game he could have been unbelievable. And I think if he wasnt on drugs he would be one of the top five or top 20 on the circuit today

[Smasharoo 0]

Why judge him on how he would do now in poker instead of what he has already accomplished.Because the first guy to long jump 8 feet isn't generally considered oneof the best long jumpers of all time.Undersstand?

[Guest Anonymous]

Why judge him on how he would do now in poker instead of what he has already accomplished.Because the first guy to long jump 8 feet isn't generally considered oneof the best long jumpers of all time.Undersstand?

LOOK he beat the tournaments when there were 100 to 2000 great players ---not some girl wearing a maxim shirt and some fools who are there just because it is an in thing.SO in your terms Babe Ruth is not one of the greatest baseball players ever--again because he didn't face any african americans or because he played in a different era. Once again SMash showing his unintelligence :shock:

[Smasharoo 0]

LOOK he beat the tournaments when there were 100 to 2000 great playersWhich ones did he beat with 200o players, never mind 2000 great players.While we're at it, name one tournement he entered that had 1000 players...or 500...Have some vague idea what you're talking about before you solidify your village idiot status with another post.

[Guest Anonymous]

LOOK he beat the tournaments when there were 100 to 2000 great playersWhich ones did he beat with 200o players, never mind 2000 great players.While we're at it, name one tournement he entered that had 1000 players...or 500...Have some vague idea what you're talking about before you solidify your village idiot status with another post.

first off i meant 200 and they were all quality players not sht players like today. are youkidding look around at the first day. These guys were awful in this years tournament. Give me a break!! It's like then NBA with 13 teams compared to the one with 28 teams. U layed against great players everynight not the stinken knicks or bobcats

[bourbenz 0]

Why judge him on how he would do now in poker instead of what he has already accomplished.Because the first guy to long jump 8 feet isn't generally considered oneof the best long jumpers of all time.Undersstand?

I understand what your saying here but I have to disagree. The nature of any competion has evolvement, if the standard at that time was 6ft and he jumped 8 then yes he would be one of the greatest of all time. Its not the standard of today thet you judge compettitors by, its the standard of the time they were in.people who who are unbelievably better than anyone in theyre generation, are one of the best of all time.Muhamad ali in his prime would have no chance against a super heavy weight of today, they are bigger stronger faster and better. But hes still the greatest.just my opinion, and I'm not an idiot, you can ask anyone in my villiage.

[Guest]

Why judge him on how he would do now in poker instead of what he has already accomplished.Because the first guy to long jump 8 feet isn't generally considered oneof the best long jumpers of all time.Undersstand?

I understand your point but I thoroughly disagree that Ungar is "overrated". No one here is even close to being qualified to make that assumption because no one here has played at his level, played against him and no one here has come close to a fraction of what he accomplished in poker. People that actually played poker with him considered him one of the greatest. I'll take their word for it and his record to speak for themselves. If Brunson, Reese and Chan came out and said "Wow look at all this hype about Ungar, he is so overrated" then I might take it into consideration but not coming from a forum dwelling internet poker player.

[strategy 4]

.

[TylerMayes 0]

Ungar's overrated.Being dead and having a tragic storyline helps his legacy a lot.

Overated?? The guy knew what his oppents were holding half the time....dead on!!!!

There are a number of pros who can do that today -- notice you said 'half the time'. And honestly, I know little about him, but to me his legacy is diminished today due to the fact that he won in what, '71 and '72... wasn't one by vote by other professionals or something like that, and the other was actual tournament play with less than 100 people? I don't remember the exact figures, and I'm too lazy to google them. My point is, later this year there will be a main event with possibly over 6,000 people. I don't think he would be considered the greatest player ever with the talent pool and straight up OCEAN of players today. Chan's back to back to (nearly) back run is more impressive to me. However, Stu's legacy is honestly probably good for poker, as far as marketability goes. Every game or sport needs its Jordan, Ruth, Gretzky, etc etc. That way you can curse every single promising young player by saying "Can he be the next Stu?" Once poker is on the major networks, there will be reports on every young player that could be the next Stu, forcing on them a manufactured pressure to add to the pressure of the game as it is. Awesome idea. Sometimes I wonder why I aspire to be part of the media.

The vote was for Johnny moss. The only other 3 timer.Also smash...Brunson is quite accredited as well but both of his wins were in even smaller games...

[mrnuts 0]

Smash you cant hold the size of the fields against unger and saying he never beat a LARGE field for the bracelet, you have to put moss, brunson, and alot of the greats in the same spot as unger because the fields were never above 100 in those days and when brunson won back to back there was only like 20-30 people in it so you shouldnt diminish what unger did winning it 3 times and back to back

[murphy77 0]

I don't think you can say anyone is the greatest of all time, but it seems like your specifically talking about NLHE tournaments, specifically the WSoP. In that case I personally don't think that his three main event wins are the greatest accomplishment of all time. Sure he had a back to back win, but that was with smaller fields than when Johnny Chan did it, and Chan got a 2nd the year after. The other accomplishment that I think is greater than Ungar's is Dan Harrington's, a win in '95 then a back to back 3rd and 4th with fields of 800ish and 2500ish is amazing.For greatest player of all time though you can't just base it solely on NLHE tournaments, thats stupid. Barry Greenstein has won the most in cash games but does that make him the greatest of all time?Since most people here think Stu Ungar is the greatest player ever I'd say he's overrated.

[Awful 0]

Stu was also mostly a failure in cash games. He was perpetually broke as a result of getting killed in those, as well as his other vices. His tournament strategy, while highly successful, was due to the serendipitous intersection of his leaks with the leaks of the fields he faced. He was too loose-aggressive in a field that was too tight-passive.Also, it's easy to be right 2/3 of the time in saying whether or not someone missed the flop in holdem, just tell them they missed every time. Toss in a couple elementary involuntary tells and some margin of hand-reading ability, and you can work with 75%+ accuracy.Great tournament player? Yes. But that's not all there is to it. Our combined romanticization of old WSOP winners, and our reverence for the dead, who are immune to our "what have you done for me lately" syndrome has caused him to become an overblown legend. Greatest Gin Rummy player ever? Probably. Greatest poker player? Doubtful.Phil H and Johnny Chan have been almost as good as Ungar in terms of WSOP fields overcome and all that; people bag on Phil, and Johnny is talked about more as a result of rounders than poker legend discussion.Furthermore, the larger fields of today make it that much harder, NOT easier. You have more great players interspersed throughout the field of amateurs, who are dangerous due to their incorrect and high-variance style that can see you sucked out on. So let's do some numbers:Let's say I was in a field of 200 where I had a 5% advantage on the field:1.05/200=.00525Now, let's put me in a field of 2000 with a 100% advantage over the field:2/2000=.001So with a 10x larger field, and a 20x larger advantage over the field, you're less than 1/5 as likely to win in the larger, worse field as opposed to the small and elite field.

[KDawgCometh 2]

Smash you cant hold the size of the fields against unger and saying he never beat a LARGE field for the bracelet, you have to put moss, brunson, and alot of the greats in the same spot as unger because the fields were never above 100 in those days and when brunson won back to back there was only like 20-30 people in it so you shouldnt diminish what unger did winning it 3 times and back to back

I think in 97 the field was over 300. I feel that had stu lived he wouldn't do well for the physical fact, his body was done in 97. He struggled through that tournament and it was very physically taxing on him. He wouldn't be able to beat the LA Poker classic(i'm just using the current big tourny as an example) with the size of the field dictating 4 12-14 hour days and then the final six on tv, physically he just wouldn't be able to do it

[Petoria 0]

I think it is safe to say that Stu is the best tournament player in history. I know he was easily the best Gin Rummy player ever. So good that no one would even play against him. Just think of how good you have to be so that you can't get a game against the other best players around. I don't know of his cash game, but his reads were so good that it didn't matter if it was tourney or cash. In 1981 at the WSOP, Stu folded AA heads up preflop, because he said he didn't need them to beat the guy then and there, he felt his odds were better if he just tried to win by outplaying the other guy in the long run.

[iveyfan30 0]

Why judge him on how he would do now in poker instead of what he has already accomplished.Because the first guy to long jump 8 feet isn't generally considered oneof the best long jumpers of all time.Undersstand?

thats like saying babe ruth wasnt as good as barry bonds ,just becasue he accomplished things first.....that argument doesnt work

[MilesZS 0]

Well, honestly, Babe Ruth wouldn't get past the minors in todays era. The evolution of pitching would do it if nothing else, but this conversation could get a lot deeper, which is why it's honestly probably a bit ridiculous that we're comparing Stu to today, but still.Some of you are getting it now, he is ONE OF the greatest players ever. I just don't think he can hold that title exclusively. O yeah, and don't wave away the idea that the drugs may actually have HELPED him focus on poker. I don't have any experience, but I've met a lot of people (and been good friends with a lot of people) who use, and drugs have any number of random effects on people. Hell, Stu coulda been completely worthless without coke.

[allinbluff35 0]

Well, honestly, Babe Ruth wouldn't get past the minors in todays era.  The evolution of pitching would do it if nothing else, but this conversation could get a lot deeper, which is why it's honestly probably a bit ridiculous that we're comparing Stu to today, but still.Some of you are getting it now, he is ONE OF the greatest players ever.  I just don't think he can hold that title exclusively.  O yeah, and don't wave away the idea that the drugs may actually have HELPED him focus on poker.  I don't have any experience, but I've met a lot of people (and been good friends with a lot of people) who use, and drugs have any number of random effects on people.  Hell, Stu coulda been completely worthless without coke.

agreed with the last paragraph. The smartest people I have ever known have been drug addicts, but they sure didn't help me thats for sure.

[iveyfan30 0]

Well, honestly, Babe Ruth wouldn't get past the minors in todays era.  The evolution of pitching would do it if nothing else, but this conversation could get a lot deeper, which is why it's honestly probably a bit ridiculous that we're comparing Stu to today, but still.Some of you are getting it now, he is ONE OF the greatest players ever.  I just don't think he can hold that title exclusively.  O yeah, and don't wave away the idea that the drugs may actually have HELPED him focus on poker.  I don't have any experience, but I've met a lot of people (and been good friends with a lot of people) who use, and drugs have any number of random effects on people.  Hell, Stu coulda been completely worthless without coke.

what i was saying was not that babe would b just as good now..i was saying what he did is not lessened BECAUSE it came first..

[mrnuts 0]

Why judge him on how he would do now in poker instead of what he has already accomplished.  Because the first guy to long jump 8 feet isn't generally considered oneof the best long jumpers of all time.  Undersstand?     that just doesnt make sense smash, like saying the lst 4 min mile was garbage and maris' home run record is garbage, walter payton rushing record garbage...................you need a better analogy if your gonna try and prove your point when you are wrong.