BigSlick05 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Did you ever play vs him? Was he really that good? If you know, pls describe what he was like? Was he on drugs at the table?Thx,A/K Link to post Share on other sites
petema33 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Did you ever play vs him? Was he really that good? If you know, pls describe what he was like? Was he on drugs at the table?Thx,A/KStu Ungar died before Daniel was even known on the poker circuit. And of course he was that good. He won 3 WSOP Main Events and is mentioned by everyone as the greatest NL tourney player ever. Link to post Share on other sites
kevin562 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Stu Unger was a card genius, period. He would of won more WSOP Main Event if it wasn't for his drug habits. I don't know him as a person but from his poker accomplishment, Stu Unger is the only person to win 3 Main Event title at the WSOP. Johnny Chan got really close but got beaten by Phil Hellmuth Jr. Check his biography movie HIGH ROLLER: The Stu Unger Story, should be really good. Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Ungar's overrated.Being dead and having a tragic storyline helps his legacy a lot. Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Ungar's overrated.Being dead and having a tragic storyline helps his legacy a lot.having a photographic memory sure helps a lot too Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 having a photographic memory sure helps a lot tooYeah, it's real usefull in Holdem.The guy was probably the greatest Gin Rummy player ever.As poker players go, he's maybe in the top 20.Maybe. Link to post Share on other sites
DKE_XP120 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 having a photographic memory sure helps a lot tooYeah, it's real usefull in Holdem.The guy was probably the greatest Gin Rummy player ever.As poker players go, he's maybe in the top 20.Maybe.Witty enough in my book, GO SMASH Link to post Share on other sites
poguemahone68 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 having a photographic memory sure helps a lot tooYeah, it's real usefull in Holdem.The guy was probably the greatest Gin Rummy player ever.As poker players go, he's maybe in the top 20.Maybe.Smash, I'm curious on what do you base your comments about Stu? Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Smash, I'm curious on what do you base your comments about Stu?Having too much spare time and spending probably 100 hours researching his life story.He read people well and a good record in tournaments when they had less than 100 players in them.He got killed regularly in cash games. He was a great player because he was fearless at a time when much of his opposition was playing a weaker less complete game than top pros play today.I think he'd be a sucessfull, but average pro today.No way to tell, but that's my oppinion based on what I know about him. Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 I think the only thing that really brought stuey down was his vices. HIs hyper aggressive style is what many top young players practice. His play in the 97 world series was nothing short of amazing especially when you consider his physical condition at that time Link to post Share on other sites
poguemahone68 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Thanks smash, I have read quite a bit about Stu, but I'm sure there's a lot I haven't read and heard. Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 HIs hyper aggressive style is what many top young players practice.That's the point.He's Juanda today. Not a bad thing or anything, but he's not this mythical "greatest player that ever lived". If the guy was alive he'd be a sad cautionary tale. Link to post Share on other sites
Eclypse 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Ungar's overrated.Being dead and having a tragic storyline helps his legacy a lot.Hey, man, you're harshin' my buzz! Link to post Share on other sites
RichBlaze 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 i read a couple days ago that he was a cheater, that he cheated in 2 of the WSOP, that he marked the cards, he wore those blue glass so he could see what the cards were. It was a long intersting read. Link to post Share on other sites
Eclypse 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 i read a couple days ago that he was a cheater, that he cheated in 2 of the WSOP, that he marked the cards, he wore those blue glass so he could see what the cards were. It was a long intersting read.Could we PLEASE stop passing on rumors about people being cheaters!Go watch Tilt or something! Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 i read a couple days ago that he was a cheater, that he cheated in 2 of the WSOP, that he marked the cards, he wore those blue glass so he could see what the cards were. It was a long intersting read.he wore the blue glasses to hide the fact that his nose caved in Link to post Share on other sites
BigSlick05 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 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!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Overated?? The guy knew what his oppents were holding half the time....dead on!!!!Sure he did, and his urine cured cancer, and he shat out fresh baked cinamon rolls every fifteen minutes for his freinds. Link to post Share on other sites
MilesZS 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 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. Link to post Share on other sites
PrtyPSux 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 I usually agree w/ u smash ,,and I havent seen much of stu, since he was way befor my time,, but what I did see of him was amazing, Juanda plays very solid in final tables I saw Ungar play like a wild man knowing everytime his opponents wouldnt call his bluffs and if they would..I dont know if I recall correctly but I believe the Final hand In the 97 WSOP he got the guy to go all in playing the board! I wish I could see more of him, but even what Ive read is incredible.(I do know that even he said that he was a better gin rummy player than a holdem player..but he also said he was the best at holdem too) Link to post Share on other sites
iveyfan30 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 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.i didnt look it up, lazy..but i thought he won in the early eighties then the last in the early 90s ..im not sure, but i was postisive it wasnt the 70s.....right?wrong? Link to post Share on other sites
Awful 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Nah, Stu was later than that. Doyle was 76/77 IIRC, and Stu came after doyle. You are thinking of Johnny Moss perhaps, I have no idea about the player's vote... Link to post Share on other sites
MilesZS 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 My bad, got confused with Johnny Moss I guess. 80, 81, 97That's better, but I stand by my point. Link to post Share on other sites
jomatty 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 to call juanda anything other than one of the top few tournament players alive is crazy smash. his record is better than anyones over the last few years, probably including daniel.ungar was ahead of his time, and while he may have not been very succesful in cash games, he was the first to play the loose agro style in tournaments and his record is great.ive never heard anyone list anyone even close to him in gin rummy. sad, sad, story no matter how you look at it.matty Link to post Share on other sites
BigSlick05 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 i read a couple days ago that he was a cheater, that he cheated in 2 of the WSOP, that he marked the cards, he wore those blue glass so he could see what the cards were. It was a long intersting read.post the story Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now