Stu Unger like reads

[arod15]

Stu Unger, perhaps the greatest holdem player of all time, certainly the most gifted Gin rummy player of all time. And a notorious card counter. He once counted the last three decks of an 8 deck shoe without one mistake! Do you think his great ability in holdem was due to a remarkable mathamtically system were he could pinpoint you to a hand. I know it sounds absurd, but again this guy counted the last three decks of an 8 deck shoe flawlessly. Was he so genious that he had his own system?

[ZBTHorton]

System of what?

[jojobinks]

maybe...

maybe he could tell, based on his hole cards, what your hole cards were. maybe, based on the flop and his hole cards, he could figure out which 2 of the 46 remaining cards you had.

that would be a pretty sweet use of his card-counting abilities.

[TheShootah]

Hahahaha...I was gonna post this myself but the poster seems too nice and naive for me to rip into. I tend to think that some of the things about Stu got twisted up from his death, turning him into some kind of legend. I am sure he was an awesome, awesome card player, and easily the best Gin player ever, but it seems to me at least, that some of this crap gets spun up into the things of legend. I am pretty sure he was just good at reading, and that he could narrow it down from there. I am sure it helped that he probably raised about 300% of the hands he played, and he had an awesome image. He could pretty much put people on great hands when they played back at him.

[-Skeme-]

LOL

[Howard Treesong]

There's little doubt that some of the Ungar material has become larger over the course of time. But read Philly's article about the hand Mansour and Stu played during a series of $50,000 freezeouts. If true, it's pretty impressive. Link here:
http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=12930&m_id=46

[dibbs]

Few people seem to deny his natural mathematical talent, but I don't think this has as great an effect on his holdem as it would in gin or blackjack.

Supposedly he was quite talented at putting players on hands, which may have to do with a powerful sense of recall. I feel that someone with a very mathematically inclined or near photographic memory will have a very good sense of recall, in the sense that they can process and store many situations quickly and easily and make a correct read based on all they have added up.

His best attribute in holdem however was probably his incredible aggression. If he smelled weakness (something gained from hand reading ability), he would absolutely pound on people. I've read in several places that if you ever got a hand that could beat top pair, you'd probably get doubled up against him. In tourneys this kind of aggression would no doubt make for some big finishes, especially in smaller fields or whatever.

Wonder how accurate the legends are. Anyone seen his DVD movie with Imperioli in it? Looks like it could suck but I am interested none the less.

[pyedog]

I thought the movie Stuey was pretty terrible. The story was very interesting (but depressing) since I didn't know anything about Ungar before the movie. But it was poorly written, acted and shot. The poker scenes were actually pretty sparse. I think that book about Ungar would probably be a better choice. The movie got 5.9/10 on IMDB.com

I don't understand how his call with ten high can be anything other than horrible. Isn't it ridiculously results-oriented to say that he made a good call? He could only beat like three possible hands. And his opponent could have played countless other hands in the exact same way, and been just as nervous bluffing at the end (for example with A-high). What a ridiculous anecdote. If anything it sounds like one of the worst calls of all time that just happened to be one of the luckiest.

[-Skeme-]

The DVD is not as bad as people make it out to be. It's just not very poker oriented. It's basically him explaining his life story.. it deals more with his drug abuse than poker talent. It's worth the rental.

[-Skeme-]

Lol. Yes, a man notorious for his expert hand reading abilities CALLS OUT the hand the guy has after playing with him several times before, shows an equally terrible hand that happens to have his opponent's hand crushed, and he was just lucky.

[Chex]

I don't understand how his call with ten high can be anything other than horrible. Isn't it ridiculously results-oriented to say that he made a good call? He could only beat like three possible hands. And his opponent could have played countless other hands in the exact same way, and been just as nervous bluffing at the end (for example with A-high). What a ridiculous anecdote. If anything it sounds like one of the worst calls of all time that just happened to be one of the luckiest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a F$cking moron...

You need to respect your elders son. The only player you've probably heard of is Johnny Chan!

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the movie Stuey was pretty terrible. The story was very interesting (but depressing) since I didn't know anything about Ungar before the movie. But it was poorly written, acted and shot. The poker scenes were actually pretty sparse. I think that book about Ungar would probably be a better choice. The movie got 5.9/10 on IMDB.com

I don't understand how his call with ten high can be anything other than horrible. Isn't it ridiculously results-oriented to say that he made a good call? He could only beat like three possible hands. And his opponent could have played countless other hands in the exact same way, and been just as nervous bluffing at the end (for example with A-high). What a ridiculous anecdote. If anything it sounds like one of the worst calls of all time that just happened to be one of the luckiest.

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows a pretty strong lack of poker inderstanding.

[youngin20]

Well, the outcome is either positive or negative. The deciding factor of how often his read is good will affect the EV. if his call is good 75% of the time, then he wins (i forgot what was in the pot, but somethink like 40k) 75% of the time, and loses whatever the bet was 25% of the time. There is no other factor than how good the read is.

[kenberman]

this whole thread is pretty useless

[SNOWBALL138]

He said "you have 4-5 or 5-6", but he didn't mention 8-9, which he could also beat. I think part of his read was based on the fact that the turn was checked, and that the only draw on the board was a low straight draw.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
He said "you have 4-5 or 5-6", but he didn't mention 8-9, which he could also beat. I think part of his read was based on the fact that the turn was checked, and that the only draw on the board was a low straight draw.

[/ QUOTE ]


You think he's calling a 7 3 3 flop with 89?

We're taking realistic reads here.

[pyedog]

I just reread my post and I agree that I came off as pretty moronic. First off let me say that I play small stakes poker (1-2 limit and $25 NL) and although I can beat bad players pretty easily I am not a great player. Making good reads and strong laydowns are not my strongsuit, but I can beat these low caliber games mainly with discipline, focused aggression and math. So any time I do hear about amazing reads in NL games then I am definitely impressed by them.

This particular hand sounded pretty extreme to me though. I understand that Stuey was capable of putting him on a draw here. On a 7-3-3 rainbow board the only real draw available is a gutshot straight draw. I guess that he read him for having a weaker hand even than a pocket pair of twos. He likely postulated that Mansour would have reraised preflop if he had two high cards such as A-T, that could be leading on the flop here on high card strength. So I guess he ruled out that possibility. When the Q came and Mansour checked it through he again detected weakness instead of a slowplay. When the K hit and Mansour pushed all in he was capable of reading him for a bluff with near certainty. Upon attempting to reason through this hand myself I guess I can see how he was capable of doing this. I know that I could never do this myself even against a horribly transparent player though. And we do need to keep in mind that Mansour was no slouch; he was a previous winner of the WSOP himself.

Now just to point out how certain Stuey would have to be of his read, I did a bit of math. This board of 7-3-3-Q-K would only be split if Mansour had a 10 in his hand as well (with an unpaired kicker) so let’s disregard that pretty unlikely possibility. The pot was $15K when Mansour pushed all in for $32K more. So there are pretty much three discrete possibilities here. Stuey folds and gains nothing. Stuey calls and Mansour had the gutshot draw that Stuey put him on, so Stuey wins $47K. Stuey calls and Mansour had any hand better than Jack-high, so Stuey loses $32K. He would also be crippling himself in the heads up freezeout (down 80K to 20K), instead of allowing Mansour to just about even it up if he folded. Ignoring that important fact, on EV alone he needs to be confident in his read at least 40% of the time here. The way this hand was played out and with his skill for reading people I can see how that was possible for him. So I take back what I said about it being a terrible call and one of the luckiest ever. It was definitely risky though.

Furthermore, keep in mind that Stuey had a severe gambling problem. If I wanted to justify calling someone with only 10-high then I would put them on one of the few hands that I could beat. I would not state, I think you have A-high, but I will still call you. Keep in mind that he likely blew his $50K winnings from this match at the horse track or on the golf course later that week. And he likely ‘knew’ that the horses he was betting on were going to win as well.

From the little that I have read about him, Ungar was an amazing tournament poker player (and even better at Gin and backgammon, neither of which I’ve played). However, he was horrible at the profession of poker player. Just about the worst that I’ve ever heard of. In my opinion, I am a better professional poker player than he was, since I can make a lowly $500-1000 per month playing recreationally (to supplement my real job’s salary) and never feel the urge to gamble away my entire livelihood. His money management skills were the worst that I’ve ever heard of. I don’t mean any disrespect to his memory because he was amazing at actually playing poker, and maybe even the best ever, but he was not a good professional gambler. So people should not idolize him for that, but rather should use him as a cautionary tale about pursuing a difficult lifestyle.

[arod15]

http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=12930&m_id=46
Thats unbelievable

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=12930&m_id=46
Thats unbelievable

[/ QUOTE ]

you do know that Stu lost more than he won, right?

all of this Stu Ungar worship is puzzling.

[arod15]

That is true but most of his losses were from bettng outside the casinoes. He would win thousand even millions than lose it all on a game. Sounds like me at a casino win hundreds at poker lose it all at blackjack....

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
That is true but most of his losses were from bettng outside the casinoes. He would win thousand even millions than lose it all on a game. Sounds like me at a casino win hundreds at poker lose it all at blackjack....

[/ QUOTE ]

Zee on Ungar (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1161961&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[primetime32]

Just becuase ungar went broke doesnt mean he wasnt a great poker player. He had a gambling problem and would lose money in games outside of poker. Many poker players of today (even brunson and TJ) have either reportedly or admittedly gone broke in the past and we still think they are great.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=12930&m_id=46
Thats unbelievable

[/ QUOTE ]

you do know that Stu lost more than he won, right?

all of this Stu Ungar worship is puzzling.

[/ QUOTE ]

He only lost more than he won because he was an action junkie. Only idiots believe he is not one of the most talented players ever.

[Voltron87]

Talented tournament players. In terms of tournament play he is pretty much untouchable.

[arod15]

Hey daliman two things, first i hear you have a good rakeback thing, let me know where. Also, read my thing on Doing business. Does it realy have no EV effect. My freind who reads ur post says u know your ish.

[Scooterdoo]

It reminds me of the when I call my dad and he says I just told Dina (his wife) that it was going to be you. I always say to him, "how many times before this call did you say the same thing but it wasn't me?" The point is that I assume he made plenty of similar calls and he was wrong. This time it worked.