What if Stuey were still with us

[toots]

What if Stu Ungar was still alive, and still at the top of his game (and we presume therefore, still winning tourneys right and left)?

How do you suppose he'd be received here?

I'm not suggesting that anyone living is his equal for NLHE, but I am suggesting that he'd probably get the same lack of respect that any other winning player - be it "by the Sklansky book" style or otherwise - that so many current pros get on this board.

My doctorate is telling me why this might be, but if I said what I was thinking, I'd be flamed right out of the forum.

[Nottom]

I'd guess he would be thought of much like Gus Hansen where half the board thinks hes great and the other half thinks he's the luckiest fish ever.

[Autocratic]

It's obvious that he's given tons of respect in death. No one can deny his play, as some deny the talent of plenty of top-tier pros (read: Gus). I've seen plenty of people here and on other poker boards make rather harsh comments towards drug users. I find it hard to believe that he would be as accepted as a Daniel N. or the like.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe that he would be as accepted as a Daniel N. or the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

With three world championships to this credit, I'd expect he'd be (and is) given more respect.

[TStoneMBD]

hellmuth doesnt receive much respect (rightfully so) and he has won 2 WSOP already. ungar winning 3 doesnt necessarily mean he will be given respect by the intelligent side of the poker community, but he probably would have. i have heard numerous times that stu was a struggling cash game player at the high levels, which doesnt give much credit to his capabilities however.

[Tevyee]

[ QUOTE ]
hellmuth doesnt receive much respect (rightfully so) and he has won 2 WSOP already. ungar winning 3 doesnt necessarily mean he will be given respect by the intelligent side of the poker community, but he probably would have. i have heard numerous times that stu was a struggling cash game player at the high levels, which doesnt give much credit to his capabilities however.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hellmuth only won one WSOP main event. Stu Ungar is arguably the best No-Limit tournament player ever. Many people called his performance in the '97 WSOP the best exhibition of No-Limit play ever! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Autocratic:

I actually briefly played with Stu Unger a couple of times in full ring games. The unfortunate thing about him is that even though he was clearly a great no limit tournament player, he was also a favorite to lose whenever he sat down in a side game. And because of this, he can't rate great in my book.

There are a few players who have excelled in both areas. Dan Harrington is one, and perhaps Daniel N is another, but he's still a little new on the scene for me to be absolutely sure.

Best wishes,
Mason

[binions]

And he won 10 of them.

He was the best NL Tournament player ever. On top of being the best gin player in the world at his prime.

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Query: Can a side game player be considered great if he does not perform consistently well in tournaments?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi binions:

How do you know he played in exactly 30 tournaments?

In addition, I do know of one that he won where there were a total of 10 entries.

Now with that being said, there is no question that he was very good at no limit hold 'em tournaments.

Best wishes,
Mason

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi binions:

How do you know he played in exactly 30 tournaments?

In addition, I do know of one that he won where there were a total of 10 entries.

Now with that being said, there is no question that he was very good at no limit hold 'em tournaments.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I witnessed none of them.

My info comes from Barry Greenstein's website where he says Ungar "won 10 of the 30 NL tournaments he entered that had a buy in of $5K or more."

http://www.barrygreenstein.com/stu-ungar.htm

You are correct to point out that the fields were much smaller then.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Autocratic:

I actually briefly played with Stu Unger a couple of times in full ring games. The unfortunate thing about him is that even though he was clearly a great no limit tournament player, he was also a favorite to lose whenever he sat down in a side game. And because of this, he can't rate great in my book.

There are a few players who have excelled in both areas. Dan Harrington is one, and perhaps Daniel N is another, but he's still a little new on the scene for me to be absolutely sure.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Phil Ivey? He's excelled in both I thought. He won 3 bracelets in 2003, if I remember correctly.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Autocratic:

I actually briefly played with Stu Unger a couple of times in full ring games. The unfortunate thing about him is that even though he was clearly a great no limit tournament player, he was also a favorite to lose whenever he sat down in a side game. And because of this, he can't rate great in my book.

There are a few players who have excelled in both areas. Dan Harrington is one, and perhaps Daniel N is another, but he's still a little new on the scene for me to be absolutely sure.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Phil Ivey? He's excelled in both I thought. He won 3 bracelets in 2003, if I remember correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not 2003. It was in 2002. Stud, Stud Hi/Lo and S.H.O.E.

[Dead]

My bad. That's still excelling in tournaments + cash games though, right? Btw, I've been meaning to ask: What is S.H.O.E.? Thanks.

Dead

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
What is S.H.O.E.?

[/ QUOTE ]
i believe its stud, holdem, omaha 8/b. someone correct me if i am wrong on this.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is S.H.O.E.?

[/ QUOTE ]
i believe its stud, holdem, omaha 8/b. someone correct me if i am wrong on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot Stud 8/b

[tdarko]

damn i knew i forgot something in there /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Dead]

So if you win a S.H.O.E. bracelet then it means the tournament contained all 4 games? How does that work?

Thanks.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is S.H.O.E.?

[/ QUOTE ]
i believe its stud, holdem, omaha 8/b. someone correct me if i am wrong on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot Stud 8/b

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong, but isn't the O for Omaha, not Hi/Lo? I really don't play Omaha, that was just my impression.

And I never knew that Unger was relatively untalented in side games. Rather interesting.

[tdarko]

its for omaha 8/b, "E" for eight

[whiskeytown]

I think I read somewhere that even he admitted this - that he could win the WSOP but could get killed in a 6/12 ring game. Maybe it was in TJ/McEvoy's book - can't really recall -

everyone has the things they're best at - no shame in being really good at one thing and not so good at another.

RB

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
its for omaha 8/b, "E" for eight

[/ QUOTE ]

I assumed the E was for Stud 8/b, and the O was either for Omaha or Omaha Hi/Lo.

[West]

I believe that same tournament statistic is mentioned in Positively 5th Street...don't know what the source is..

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
And I never knew that Unger was relatively untalented in side games. Rather interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Famous temper, famously impatient.

For some reason, I can't see the man with quite possibly the biggest action addiction ever grind out any ring game.

[tdarko]

you could be right, i have been wrong before /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Dead]

So like how can an event like SHOE actually have three or four different games being played? Do they switch it up?

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
What if Stu Ungar was still alive, and still at the top of his game (and we presume therefore, still winning tourneys right and left)?

How do you suppose he'd be received here?

I'm not suggesting that anyone living is his equal for NLHE, but I am suggesting that he'd probably get the same lack of respect that any other winning player - be it "by the Sklansky book" style or otherwise - that so many current pros get on this board.

My doctorate is telling me why this might be, but if I said what I was thinking, I'd be flamed right out of the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that his personal faults would eventually become the focus of discussion, completely overshadowing reasoned analysis of his play. That seems to be the norm with discussion of the more 'controversial' of the pros (e.g., Hellmuth).

[TomCollins]

Switch games with levels.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
you could be right, i have been wrong before /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

S = stud
H = holdem
O = omaha 8 or better
E = stud 8 or better

also there is HORSE where R = razz

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
And he won 10 of them.

He was the best NL Tournament player ever. On top of being the best gin player in the world at his prime.

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Query: Can a side game player be considered great if he does not perform consistently well in tournaments?



[/ QUOTE ]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi West:

I've heard that statistic many times myself, but don't see how anyone could know if it was accurate or not. As far as I can tell records like this were never kept.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Oluwafemi:

If a side game player does great in side games, then he can be considered a great side game player. There are many people who do well in side games but not so well in the tourneys, and, I believe, there are even more who do well in the tourneys and poor in the side games. In fact, many of the best known tournament players have learned not to sit down in the side games.

However, there are a select few people who have proven themselves to be quite good at both side games and tournaments. One of our authors, Dan Harrington, fits in here.

Best wishes,
Mason

[tdarko]

what about seidel?

[InfernoLL]

It's funny, I've never really heard about Harrington playing side games. What limits and game(s) does he play outside tournaments?

[zaxx19]

I've never really heard about Harrington playing side games.

Wasnt he one of the original group of easterners to experiment with NLH at the Mayfair club in NYC??

The group included Seidel, Stevie Z, and a young Lederer who ferried food for the playes for stake money....

This is what I have read ....

[TransientR]

I can understand Dan Harrington being both good at tourneys and side games. With his solid style I can see him easily doing well at cash games.

Seems like the aggression often needed to keep ahead of the escalating blinds in tourneys doesn't work as well in cash games unless you change up your play. And many players can make the adjustment, but some are "live by the sword, die by the sword." Just can't stop firing away.

Frank

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Oluwafemi:

If a side game player does great in side games, then he can be considered a great side game player. There are many people who do well in side games but not so well in the tourneys, and, I believe, there are even more who do well in the tourneys and poor in the side games. In fact, many of the best known tournament players have learned not to sit down in the side games.

However, there are a select few people who have proven themselves to be quite good at both side games and tournaments. One of our authors, Dan Harrington, fits in here.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've read and heard of Stuey, he was too action for full ring. He liked to make plays based on reads, feel, profiling, and pure unadulterated aggression. Much like Johnny Moss, who was considered a limit fish in his later years, it's easy to say he didn't impress you, as you likely didn't play him in his game. Of course Stuey could have been a great limit player, just as you could be a great 3-6 player. But the game just didn't really hold his interest; it was a stopgap until he got to something else which he may or may not have been great at,(sports betting, golf, etc.). Also funny that he had so much money so often that wasn;t directly attributable to tourney wins.
Of course, you know all this.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi tdarko:

Eric is obviously a terrific tournament player but he hardly ever plays in a side game. However, I do understand that he is pretty good at no limit and pot limit (side games).

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi InfernoLL:

IOn the late 1980s and early 1990s Dan use to play almost all side games. But starting a few years back he decided to only play tournaments since he has other interests that take up much of his time.

best wishes,
Mason

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
he was also a favorite to lose whenever he sat down in a side game. And because of this, he can't rate great in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, so using this same philosophy you of course wouldnt consider yourself great either, right? Considering that you dont play big tournaments, you've never won a big tournament, and you'd be a favorite to lose in a big tournament.

On another thought, Daniel N. is new on the scene? You sure your feeling good Mason?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Sincere:

I have never made any claims about being a great player. I do consider myself to be very competent at what I do. I also have stated that unless you are one of the few very talented people, our books will help you to achieve success, and there are virtually no other books that can compare to ours.

As for Daniel Negreanu, I think it is very obvious that he is an extremely talented player whether it is a tournament or a side game. He has done quite well and I expect that to continue.

By the way, and this was my choice, but I decided many years ago that writing and publishing would be my main focus. (This had something to do with my academic background and my career as a professional statistician.) Perhaps if I had decided not to do the things I did which included (and still does) many long hours sitting in front of a computer working on manuscripts, things might have been different.

But one thing I can say for sure. My work has probably greatly influenced how you play poker and gamble in general. This will be the case even if you have never read anything that I have written or been associated with.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Tevyee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he was also a favorite to lose whenever he sat down in a side game. And because of this, he can't rate great in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, so using this same philosophy you of course wouldnt consider yourself great either, right? Considering that you dont play big tournaments, you've never won a big tournament, and you'd be a favorite to lose in a big tournament.

On another thought, Daniel N. is new on the scene? You sure your feeling good Mason?

[/ QUOTE ]
Mason was making an obvious point. Stu will always be considered a great "tournament" player but if he didn't excel at the side games, you can't label him the one of the greatest players ever.

[Dead]

Mason,

This is why I have great respect for you and 2+2, and this is also the reason why I own 7 two+two books: SSHE, HEP, TOP, HEPFAP, HOH, GTAOT and POP.

The books are thick and a good value for my money; they have without a doubt improved my play at the microlimits(SSH and HEP especially).

Other publishing companies books' rely on flashy covers and cliches, and I am glad to see that 2+2 has continued to differentiate itself from the competition.

It is very nice of you to spend so much time on these forums discussing poker and publishing topics with us. I am sure that this also helps sell 2+2 books.

I would also like to say that I think Ed Miller's SSHE is probably the best 2+2 book out of the 8 that I have read. It is without a doubt the easiest to read(although the concepts are not easy). I know that I will be buying Ed Miller's beginner's book when it comes out, just because it has his name on it.

Thanks,
Dead

[Overdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I read somewhere that even he admitted this - that he could win the WSOP but could get killed in a 6/12 ring game. Maybe it was in TJ/McEvoy's book - can't really recall -

everyone has the things they're best at - no shame in being really good at one thing and not so good at another.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

This is in the book on Omaha by McEvoy &amp; T.J. Cloutier. They are talking about playing in lower limit games and high limit players who sometimes will play lower limits. The exact quote from Stu Ungar is: "I've got no chance playing $5-$10 hold em. No chance whatsoever."

[GuruCane]

You make a good point but there is really no need to defend yourself. I think what is lost on people in today's poker world (and the (western) world in general) is that just because you're not rolling around on the table at the WSOP with a bunch of money and TV cameras all around you, does not mean that you're a failure. I think that this line of thinking is where the so-called "quarter-life crisis" was spawned (just thinking out loud here). The poster simply assumed that you claimed to be a great player because of your work and, because he didn't see you on TV, he figured that he could tear you down.

Res Ipsa Loquitor as they say.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Dead:

Thanks. Your comments are much appreciated.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Guru:

Thanks for your comments as well.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jdl22]

Reading throught the archives I just came across this post from Ray Zee. The discussion taking place is whether the 2+2 authors S&amp;M are merely good in theory and teaching and not in practice or whether they can play as well as other famous pros.

[ QUOTE ]

Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 9 May 2000, at 12:52 a.m.

i can assure you david would eat just about anyones lunch in full table games no matter what they are playing and be the best teacher as well. i suspect he underrates himself in shorthanded games, but no matter. mason would do just as well in many games like holdem lowball draw and stud. people that win year after year are the best players. David and mason are two of the best players ive played with. and ive played them all in all limits for 35 years. i would swim a river of glass to play with stu anytime he was at the table. the only time he ever won in cash games was when he played nolimit and caught lots of cards or had a short game with bad players. i challenged him many times to head up limit poker. no limit he put so much heat to you it was a shootout unless you clamed up. tj plays nolimit holdem very well but does his best in all tournaments not in cash games. he is the top player in the world for tournaments. not the top teacher.

[/ QUOTE ]