ricker 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 you don't think being a degenerate detracted from his skills?not necessarily. People can be good at what they do despite their demons. OK, let's look at a few things objectively here. Stuey was extremely overaggressive, and somewhat of a calling station. This style worked for him back in the day when many players were conservative and tight, so he was able to pick up a lot of small pots. Doyle said that Stu would've lost his first ME title if he ever had top pair beaten. Also, that 10 of 30 stat can be called into question seeing as how the fields in those tournaments were likely all under 100 players. I'm not saying he wasn't a great player, but I don't think he was this mammoth legendary force that was unstoppable.I don't disagree with this at all. However, to completely dismiss him as a talented player I believe is incorrect. Link to post Share on other sites
HangukMiguk 8 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I don't disagree with this at all. However, to completely dismiss him as a talented player I believe is incorrect.The question here of course, is "would he have been able to crack the big fields now?"We'll never get to answer that one, but it would've been interesting to see. Link to post Share on other sites
wickedbadman 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Recently did a paper on Stu; seems like a lot of ppl are pulling this best NL tournament player out of there ***. He had some good wins, but a lot of players now have accomplishments just as good/better than his. What he was really amazing/god-like at was Gin Rummy, he never lost a tournament he entered unless he didn't show up, he played the worlds best at around 18 years old and crushed them, he couldn't find a game willing to play him. But yeah, seems like people are jumping on a train of thought when they are in fact not aware of his NL holdem accomplishments. Link to post Share on other sites
bengy3 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Recently did a paper on Stu; seems like a lot of ppl are pulling this best NL tournament player out of there ***. He had some good wins, but a lot of players now have accomplishments just as good/better than his. What he was really amazing/god-like at was Gin Rummy, he never lost a tournament he entered unless he didn't show up, he played the worlds best at around 18 years old and crushed them, he couldn't find a game willing to play him. But yeah, seems like people are jumping on a train of thought when they are in fact not aware of his NL holdem accomplishments.Enlighten us. Link to post Share on other sites
wickedbadman 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Enlighten us.Well normally I don't waste my time posting on this site with all of the lemmings and homophobic idiots, but when asked a question in a way that clearly is supposed to question my knowledge of the subject at hand how could I refuse...3 Main Event 1st places (80, 81, 97)2 Prelim Wins (2 to 7 / 7 Card Stud)Followed by a short list of finishes not even worth noting.We have a NL god here, best ever, noone will ever surpass the amazing 5 bracelets over 27 years!...Oh wait, I can think of 10 players off the top of my head who accomplished more in NL Holdem. Link to post Share on other sites
FourFlusher 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Considering his other "interests", I doubt very much if he could withstand the rigors of todays tournies.And, there is the "Babe Ruth" thing...if the Babe played in todays game, he'd be lucky to hit .135 w/3 homers. Link to post Share on other sites
bengy3 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Well normally I don't waste my time posting on this site with all of the lemmings and homophobic idiots, but when asked a question in a way that clearly is supposed to question my knowledge of the subject at hand how could I refuse...3 Main Event 1st places (80, 81, 97)2 Prelim Wins (2 to 7 / 7 Card Stud)Followed by a short list of finishes not even worth noting.We have a NL god here, best ever, noone will ever surpass the amazing 5 bracelets over 27 years!...Oh wait, I can think of 10 players off the top of my head who accomplished more in NL Holdem.So, you just left out the part about him winning the Super Bowl of Poker three times as well in your paper? A+ Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 His personal demons destroyed his skills. At the end of his life, he was a live game fish, a person games were built around. Listen, I'm not saying unger wasn't good, or what ever. He was an incredibly dangerous player. His style still would be good in tourniments, I imagine. But everyone has this big impression of him that he was the greatest no limit hold player ever to breathe or something, and I just think that's rediculous. No man can be the NL god, AND be the catalyst of high limit side games. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 that's the point, he's personal failings were why he was a bad player.I think you're missing a very large point, here.He was a good player--period. His personal failings contributed to gambling/drug degeneracy. He lost a lot of money on gambling and drugs. That doesn't make him a bad player. OK, let's look at a few things objectively here. Stuey was extremely overaggressive, and somewhat of a calling station. This style worked for him back in the day when many players were conservative and tight, so he was able to pick up a lot of small pots.I edited the name of the person who posted this, because it's not an attack at them by any means, but, I have a couple points/questions.Next to no one who posts on this board has ever played with Stu Ungar. We know of his legend. Kinda funny, that, in a way, when 'legends' are passed on from one person to another they become extremely exaggerated. Guy A tells Guy B. "Stu was pretty aggressive.Guy B tells Guy C, "Stu was crazy aggressive."Guy C tells Guy D, "Stu was maniacal, seemed like he was pushing almost every hand, from what I've hear.."Guy D tells Guy E, "Stu was pretty much the most aggressive man on the face of the planet next to Ike Turner.."..see, these things get out of control pretty quickly.. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 But does Ike Turner have any bracelets?I think not Link to post Share on other sites
Athos 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 "if the Babe played in todays game, he'd be lucky to hit .135 w/3 homers."Being dead nearly 60 years will cut into one's production. Link to post Share on other sites
aucu 3 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 None of you knew him, un informed opinions not needed. Link to post Share on other sites
tripdeuces 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Ike won the 2 to 7 smack a Ho bracelet in '77 Link to post Share on other sites
FourFlusher 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 "Being dead nearly 60 years will cut into one's production."I heard Stuey is pretty dead, too. Link to post Share on other sites
ROGUE06 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 After reading this entire thread, we really need DN's insight on this matter, since noone on this forum ever played with or knew Ungar. Link to post Share on other sites
tripdeuces 0 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 why even get insight from another poker player. These kinds of discussions are pointless because the only outcome is arguing about who knows more( which no one does besides what other pros have said). What is really to gain from arguing over a dead poker player??? Link to post Share on other sites
Athos 0 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 "I heard Stuey is pretty dead, too."Also prolly wouldn't hit well. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 No man can be the NL god, AND be the catalyst of high limit side games.Hellmuth...?sw, or something Link to post Share on other sites
tripdeuces 0 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Of course Hellmuth cause he knew that Gus Hansen had AJ. He called it what a genius Link to post Share on other sites
tallytownFSU 0 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Ike won the 2 to 7 smack a Ho bracelet in '77Didn't Tina win the 1986 H.O.E. Open event that FWP FT'ed in? Link to post Share on other sites
tripdeuces 0 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Oooo the H.O.E. final table. Man the suckouts at that final table were so memorable Link to post Share on other sites
wildman wsop 0 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 y must daniel post on this, read stuey's book, or ask sexton or chip reese they knew him the best; and watch the '97 world series ME final table, 3 main event titles, 3 super bowl of poker titles, best gin player ever and he was not too shabby in the side games b4 drugs took over; ask brunson or chip reese about the cash games; daniel played with him maybe once or twice, what the heck would that really tell him especially about a man who was clearly not in a good state (ie. drugs etc.); Stuey is the best it is just too bad we couldnt see some of his play with the hole card cams today cuz that would be amazing and so wild, ie. his call with 10 high! also i think he would destory the heads up challenge, im not sure who beat him heads up maybe in the late 90s but from the early 80s to mid 90s nobody could i dont think...Peace 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