Stu Ungar and Backgammon

[Al Mirpuri]

Phil Hellmuth Jr has it that Stu Ungar was also a world class Backgammon player as well as being a Hold'em virtuoso. Is this true? If not how good a backgammon player was Stu?

[Daliman]

not sure about backgammon, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. I do know for sure, however,(as do most), that he was the best there ever was and probably ever will be at Gin Rummy.

[MRBAA]

A strong backgammon player who runs a backgammon club in NY told me Stu Ungar played a little and was very good almost immediately. I don't think he played alot though.

[Ray Zee]

very good but not world class at back or holdem. gin he was one of the best but not the best by far.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
very good but not world class at back or holdem. gin he was one of the best but not the best by far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you name a couple of people who were better, Ray?

[baggins]

Ungar wasn't a world class Hold Em player?

Is being a 3time WSOP winner not good enough to be considered World Class? What am I missing?

I mean, I understand calling Robert Varkonyi less than World Class, but Stu Ungar seems to be a different story.

[dsm]

"very good but not world class at back or holdem."

You single out hold'em, was he better at other forms of poker?

[Gamblor]

What is the difference between backgammon and shesh-besh?

[Ryan_21]

Not world class at holdem? The only 3 time WSOP main event winner. (Moss only won 2 and was voted 1) If thats not world class nobody is.

Not the best by far at Gin? Come on the dude cleaned up 3 cities, everybody knows the only reason he started playing holdem was b/c nobody would play him at Gin anymore.

Ray, If you dont like the man, or have something against him just say so, but give credit where credit is due.

Ryan_21

[Zele]

Surely you must agree he was a world class tournament poker player.

[Ray Zee]

he does have the best record for winning verses entering ten thousand buyin events of anyone ever. and that will never be broken.

i have played many times with him in cash games and a few times in tournaments. stud was his best game by the way and he couldnt beat a table with more than five players at that game either. his style happened to work very well at high stakes shorthanded against players that were scared of their money.
thats all.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Ray has this exactly right. My understanding is that he was the most overrated player ever and just had too much gamble to beat a full ring game.

I only had two short plays against him so my first hand experience isn't enough to judge. But I rarely ever saw him playing in a regular game. If his results would have been better, I suspect we would have seen him more often seated in the big games.

Best wishes,
Mason

[clovenhoof]

The rooster clucks defiance, while the lawyer...


'hoof

[Ryan_21]

"If his results would have been better, I suspect we would have seen him more often seated in the big games."

10 out of 30 in tourneys w/ $10,000 buy-ins? 3 World Championships? Better than that? Over-rated???

Lets not blame his results for the reasons he wasnt always in the big games, we all know thats not why.

Ryan_21

[BruceZ]

My understanding is that he was the most overrated player ever

More than Johnny Moss?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ryan:

He also died broke. There are a few players who seem to do very well at tournaments, especially no limit hold 'em tournaments, who can't win in side games. I suspect, but can't say for sure, that Unger was one of these.

Now with that being said, there is no question that Unger was truly gifted. I just don't think he did very well in standard ring games. But Ray would certainly know better than me.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bruce:

I forgot about him, and I did play a fair amount with Moss, and he played just awful.

But everything is relative. Moss is given credit for being a fairly good player, and I do know some people who claim that he was truly a good no limit player when he wasn't so old. (But they all agree that he just didn't understand limit.) On the other hand, Unger is given credit by some to pocess almost supernatural powers when it came to poker, so in that sense Unger probably was more over rated than perhaps anyone.

However, Moss was better at firing dealers than anyone I ever saw, and he wasn't real kind to women players either.

There's an interesting story here. Ironically Moss was one of the first to hire women poker dealers. He felt women weren't smart enough to cheat, so that he was safer playing when they dealt instead of the men. However, he didn't like it when they put a bad beat on him which seemed to happen all the time.

Best wishes,
Mason

[MaxPower]

I heard an interview with Doyle Brunson recently. He said the Johnny Moss was the best poker player he ever saw when Moss was younger, but that he lost it later.

[Inthacup]

He also died broke.


Mason,

I have heard this as well. I am too young to ever have seen Stu Unger play much less play against him. I assumed that his lack of bankroll came from his indulgent lifestyle (drugs etc.) rather than his inability to play well in side games.

Would you say that his playing ability outside of big buy in tournaments was the reason he went broke more so than his drug addiction?

I do remember hearing in "The Stu Unger Story" on ESPN that he was bankrolled in the '97 WSOP(which he won) because he didn't have enough to buy in, which was also the case in '98, although he backed out at the last minute.



Cup

[daryn]

another huge reason he went broke was because he had a gambling problem. he would blow money on the horses, craps, even golf, a sport which he played poorly at best. i doubt he died broke due to poker losses.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
even golf, a sport which he played poorly at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

How poorly you play golf has nothing to do with the outcome of your golf wagers.

Tuco.

[adios]

I saw him playing gin against Puggy Pearson at the Horseshoe sometime in the mid to late 80's. I was a little surprised because of his reputation as an unbeatable gin player. BTW from what I could tell he was losing against Puggy that day.

[daryn]

correct.. but he lost a lot of money playing golf.

[Ryan_21]

In the mid to late 80's was when his drug addiction started to really take over. Probably the reason for his decline in skills at both poker and gin. However he dominated at gin in the 70's.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

"I just don't think he did very well in standard ring games"

I think everyone can agree that he wasnt very good at ring games, like a lot of other famous tourny players. My point that im trying to defend is that Ray said he wasnt a world class player and you said he was over rated, but when you look at his tournament record that just isnt the case.

Furthermore, earlier you stated that Ungar was "over-rated" and now you are stating that he "was truly gifted."

These two statements seem to contradict each other, so which one is it?

I suppose he could be "truly gifted" at tournys and "over-rated" at side games, but the original statement made by Ray was that he was NOT a world class poker player period, and I just think that is absolutely false.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

Absolutely correct. The reason he died broke had nothing to do with his card playing ability. He was just a very bad decision maker. He was a gambling maniac w/ a cocaine addiction, put the two together and nobody can overcome that. However, when it came to playing cards the guy was world class, ESPN estimated that he won over $30 million playing poker, I dont know how accurate that number is, but you can believe that he did not lose that money by playing cards, he went through it by making poor decisions outside of the card table.

Ryan_21

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

How poorly you play golf has nothing to do with the outcome of your golf wagers.

Maybe not from tee to green, but even considering handicaps, you still have to make putts.

[Big Al]

Mason:

You are totally right about Unger. He was totally over rated. I think most big name tourney players are terrible when it comes to large ring games. I dont understand why everyone puts Unger up on this pedestol. The guy was a mess who died broke...end of story.

[daryn]

why are "large ring games" the deciding factor for if you are world class or not? give me a break here..

[baggins]

agreed. and why is dying broke any better than dying rich? you're still dead.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
why is dying broke any better than dying rich? you're still dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody dies broke.

[J_V]

Of course he's overrated. All "greats" are. People want to turn these ordinary people into heroes and you just can't do it. I personally have no respect for the way he lived life or his card game. IMO, he stumbled (and I mean stumbled) into a style that suceeding in winning big tourneys if the cards fell his way. And his lack of knowledge prevented him from beating anything else. Any person that gets almost mystical forces attached to his play is going to be overrated.

I've gotten my hands on many of the "greats" of today and found that they are also overrated.

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
why are "large ring games" the deciding factor for if you are world class or not? give me a break here..

[/ QUOTE ]
In the Essay books Mason spends more time discrediting and insulting Ungar than he does discussing strategy. Ever heard the saying "Don't trample on a man's grave"??

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why are "large ring games" the deciding factor for if you are world class or not? give me a break here..

[/ QUOTE ]
In the Essay books Mason spends more time discrediting and insulting Ungar than he does discussing strategy. Ever heard the saying "Don't trample on a man's grave"??

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, I may be confusing Mason's book with "Pyschology of Poker".

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
why are "large ring games" the deciding factor for if you are world class or not? give me a break here..

[/ QUOTE ]

A world class player should be able to play all forms of poker- ring games and tournaments, hold 'em, stud, and draw (and mroe), full games and shorthanded, etc.

Ungar only excelled at one form of poker. He was great at no-limit tournaments. That makes him a specialist.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Redhot...:

I believe that Unger is mentioned in Poker Essays, Volume III but it's not negative.

Best wishes,
Mason

[daryn]

yeah.. i hear what you're saying. the guy definitely stumbled his way into 3 world series of poker championships in 3 attempts.

[Ryan_21]

Yeah, I know, like everbody stumbles into 3 world championship, and goes 10 of 30 in NL tournys w/ a $10,000 buy-in, and takes an estimated $3 million off of Larry Flint in heads up, and was up and estimated $30 million off of poker.

I wish I could "stumble" like that.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

No kidding, I think "large ring games" are a cop out so Mason and David can say " we are the best and if you cant make such and such amount at ring games you aint sh*t" Ban me if you want but ring games are the offensive linemen of poker. Nobody gives a crap about your ring game record. And saying Stu "the kid" Ungar isnt a world class poker player b/c he couldnt beat the ring games is just as ignorant as someone saying that Micheal Jordan isnt a world class athlete b/c he couldnt hit AAA pitching. Com'on get real, stop playa hatin.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

Does the fact that Micheal Jordan couldnt hit AAA pitching make him a "specialist"? Does it make him "not" a world class athlete?????

Ryan_21

[cero_z]

Hi Ryan,
How could ESPN possibly know how much Ungar won or lost in his life? I'm assuming that like most of us, you never knew Ungar or saw him play in person, and that your "facts" are coming mostly from an ESPN documentary. If this is correct, you're putting quite a lot of faith in ESPN's journalistic standards, while eschewing the firsthand accounts from people on this forum who knew him. The "30 million +" number could've come from anywhere.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Does the fact that Micheal Jordan couldnt hit AAA pitching make him a "specialist"? Does it make him "not" a world class athlete?????

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your comparison is good.

Ungar could be called a world class no-limit tournament player. But, a world class poker player needs to do more than play just one type of game.

[Al Mirpuri]

It was winning 10 out of 30 Hold'em tournaments with a $5,000 or more buy-in.

[Al Mirpuri]

'A shroud has no pockets.'

[Al Mirpuri]

I have not read Poker Essays II but in Poker Essays and Poker Essays III, MM does not badmouth Ungar, certainly not by name anynow. There may be cryptic references to Ungar in the texts but I've not found them.

However, in The Psychology Of Poker, I thought Al Schoonmaker, who I have found to be very polite in his posts, was a little too forthright in his opinion about Ungar.

[MRBAA]

You hear that Phil Hellmuth is a fish in limit ring games, or Huck Seed, or lots of others tourney players. And I believe it may well be true. A player like Doyle Brunson or an Erik Seidel or others who can do well at the highest levels of both ring and tourney poker are probably more the exception than the rule. Ungar was obviously a weird and unpleasant personality but there seems to be near unanimous opinion that he was the best at gin and at no-limit tournament hold em, the record speaks for itself. The stories about his preternatural reads and aggression in limit stud do seem overblown, and I can well believe he was the fish in a game with tough high limit players.

[Big Al]

yeah, he was world class all right. Any guy that makes 30 million, dies broke and leaves a young daughter behind is the type of guy and father figure I would like to emulate. God, how I admire Stu Unger...

[daryn]

world class dad? no. but was that what we were talking about? your post is stupid, sorry al.

[Big Al]

your whole admiration of Stu Unger is whats stupid.

[adios]

I don't know but very well could be about the dope. The first time I ever saw the WSOP (one of the only times) I was working at a place and I had extra vacation days that I'd lose if I didn't take them by the end of May. At the time I was playing tables games and really wasn't into poker that much. So I booked a flight to Vegas on the spur of the moment (flights were much cheaper then for this type of thing) and I showed up at the Horseshoe to shoot some craps. Well the WSOP was going on and I didn't even know what is was let alone that it was going on. Saw Unger (I had seen his picture in a gambling mag Gambling Times) playing in a side game that night as he was playing 7 Stud along with Mickey Appleman (some long hair that I didn't know who he was then), Larry Flynt (I did recognize him), and a few others. Ungar had a mountain of chips and seemed to be having a good time joking around with Flynt and talking the Appleman. He even made some technical comments about situations that I can't remember. Anyway I believe Ungar won the WSOP 7 stud $5,000 buy in that year (the year McEvoy won). Pointless story but accept it FWIW.

[Ryan_21]

OK, my bad, I thought it was 5K, but spur of the moment and didnt want to look it up. Still pretty friggin impressive

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

Cool story though.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

I believe this thread was 100% about his playing ability and not his lifestyle and I dont think anybody was wanting to emulate and/or admire his mistakes. Mike Tyson made over $300 million from boxing and now he is bankrupt and he will probably die broke also, but does that mean he was NOT a world class boxer at one time?

Just b/c you made a lot of money of off something and then you died broke shouldnt take away from the things you accomplished, and like another poster stated somewhere in this lengthy thread "we all die broke"

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

Why is it no good?

I think we all can agree that MJ was a world class athlete, right?

"But, a world class poker player needs to do more than play just one type of game."

Whats the difference from that statement and this one

A world class athlete needs to do more than play one type of game?

And if there is a difference in the two statements then why does a one have to play all poker games great to be considered "World Class" but an athlete doesnt have to play all athletic events great to be considered "World Class"

Ryan_21

[Big Al]

"we all die broke"...gosh, how profound....

[baggins]

its profound as hell. just makes you realize that when you die it doesn't matter how much money you had when you lived.

[Big Al]

tell that to your relatives...

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ryan:

I think the answer is that tournament players, while perhaps very good at what they do, in many cases only have a limited number of skills. They tend to be very aggressive and have all their money in quickly. Side game players have to play hands well all the way through and their is much skill on every street. In the games I play, we're not dealing the cards out the last two or three rounds to see who wins the hand. Additional money is won or lost here, and that's a big difference.

Best wishes,
Mason

[baggins]

still missing the point...

[Big Al]

yes, you are...try thinking a little harder about it...

[Ryan_21]

You make it sound like ring games are so much harder to beat for a profit than tournaments and that ring games are so much tougher and tourny players just put their money in and deal out the cards and see who gets lucky.

I play both ring games and tournys and both seem to be equally difficult to play correctly and make a profit and both require a great amount of knowledge and skill.

Its not like tournaments are just rolling the dice and see who gets lucky, as Im sure you know that there are many other factors involved than just playing agressive and getting your money in there and then dealing out the cards.

Sure you have to have luck on your side to win a tournament, but in order to make a living off of them is just as difficult and just as much of a grind as ring games.

Besides, if ring games really were so much more difficult to beat and required so much more skill at in order to make a profit than tournaments, Im sure you'd be playing only tournaments then, if they were that much easier?

Ryan_21

[Big Al]

stop wasting your time replying, this guy just doesnt get it. you, of course, are right in what you are saying. He is so enamored with Stu that he cant understand the points you are making. Go on to something more important...I have a questions, do you ever play my Shoe In of the Week? Since it has been a consistent winner thru the years, this must make me one of the all time great NFL handicappers....Big Al.

[jaybee_70]

Ryan,
We can all agree that Michael Jordan is a world class basketball player, because he excells in many skills that make up a great basketball player: shooting, passing, running the floor, creating his own shot, defense, etc. To say that he is a world class athlete is debateable precisely because he was less than successful on the baseball field. An argument can be made that a Deion Sanders, Bo Jackson, or even Charlie Ward is more of a world class athlete, because of their ability to to compete at the highest levels in multiple sports. There are many examples of sprinters with world class speed being unable to play in the NFL. World class sprinters? Yes. World class athletes? Debatable. Was Stu a world class NLHE Tournament player? Without question. Does that make him a world class poker player? Debatable.

[DougBrennan]

I just wrote a fabulously entertaining post that appears to have been lost or mis-sent (I'm sure I hit a wrong button somewhere.)

I wanted to point out that being a not-good AA baseball player still puts Jordon in the top 1% in the country. That's a pretty good athlete right there.

He is also reputed to be a poker player, maybe not very good, but I would still take him heads up against anyone in a basketball/poker tourney.

[daryn]

do i have some admiration for stu ungar? i'm just sticking up for a guy everyone seems to love to bash, just like i stick up for phil hellmuth, not like they need me!


you have two stupid posts in a row now, try to go for the trifecta.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
To say that [Michael Jordan] is a world class athlete is debateable ...

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

[Ryan_21]

Double WOW.

[tiltboy]

Charlie Ward vs. Michael Jordan

I'll take Jordan and the points for my life savings.

[baggins]

ha. you're hilarious.

but seriously, i think you are still missing my point. money is NOT all it's cracked up to be. earning loads of cash so your descendents can live in luxury is no way to spend your life.

of course, you can feel free to work your a$$ off so that your children can live happily. that's your choice. but there are other choices out there and other legacies to leave your children besides a financial cushion they can hide behind. some people choose that.

that choice, and the opportunities it presents are the point of the aphorism you decided to scoff at. that's all i'm saying.

it's not like i'm defending Ungar for being a horrible father. in fact, i think he should have used his money for better things while he was alive. but the fact that you are dying and leaving your memory to people who live on at some point should make you (You in general, not YOU specifically) think about what else you are leaving behind you besides money.

[CrackerZack]

I what sport? I'll take ward in football and its a pick 'em in baseball as ward was drafted by the Milwaukee Brewers.

[Schmed]

I think what you miss in all of this, and most of their writings, is that there is a different skill set for all of the poker games and styles.

I thought you brought up a valid point when you said that one of the biggest skills you need to beat poker games is chosing your game.

I also agree with you that some of this is splitting hairs. It's done with Phil H as well. When a guy is one of the top tournament poker players in the world in my opinion he's a world class poker player. I'm not saying that there aren't other world class players that we don't know about and I do tend to think that beating a ring game night in and night out is probably harder than winning the WSOP once. Is it harder than being a person that consistently wins and get's to the final tables of tournaments? Hard for me to say. But much like Mason and a few others have said, it certainly is different.

Of course there is jealousy. Take a guy like Ray for example. By all accounts he is in the top 10 of all of the poker players on the planet. He beats all of the big games. Most of the average poker players on the planet wouldn't recognize him if he sat next to him. Guys like Phil H are being asked by Ben Afflack for their autograph. It has to run right up the spine of guys like Ray when a guy like Phil H is given all of that credibility.

[Ryan_21]

If guys like Ray and Mason are jealous b/c they dont have all the bracelets and the fame of being on t.v. then why dont they enter the dang tournaments and try to win them? I mean, should we say that Ray and Mason are NOT world class players b/c they cant and/or wont beat the big time tournaments. I mean everyone bashes the tournament players and says they are not world class b/c they cant play all games and cant beat the ring games. Lets turn it around a minute and say that the ring game stars like Mason and Ray arent world class b/c they can't beat the big tournys. Flame away, but its the same concept.

Ryan_21

[tiltboy]

I'll take basketball and/or baseball since Ward never actually played pro baseball did he? IIRC, he didn't even play college ball either for that matter. So I think Jordan, who at least made it to AAA, would rule here. And do we even need to debate basketball?

[Big Al]

if you ever have a child, your perspective will change to one where you an do both-leaving them some money and instilling some values, ethics, morals, etc., that will last them for their lifetime. Lets not kid ourselves, we live in a society where money directly impacts the quality of your life. Money cant buy happines but it can make life a hell of a lot easier. When you have a child that you have brought into this world and are responsible for, you will have a natural instinct to try to provide them a high quality of life, both from a monetary standpoint and from an emotional standpoint. I get the impression you think it has to be one or the other-it doesnt. I like to gamble, I am successfull, and have a girlfriend that is a nasty piece of tail. I am lucky at 44 to have the world by the nuts right now. I appreciate and enjoy it. Wanna know what brings me the most happiness in my life? Not money, not sex, not success. The time I spend with my 9 year old son. This includes being able to provide both emotional support and a high quality lifestyle that moneys affords us in our society. Trust me, if you ever have a kid, and are not some piece of crap father that is not a true man who can't live up to his responsibilities, you will understand this.

[jaybee_70]

The point of my post was that there is no debate within a superstars area of specialty. Of course we would take Jordan over anybody in basketball. We should give credit to Stu for his achievements in NLHE Tourneys. BUT there will always be debate about a persons greatness when you try to place them in context with other athletes/poker players outside of their area of expertise. Jordan is a great athlete. No question, but if you try to say he is the best you will ALWAYS have a debate on your hands, and there is RARELY a clear winner in any debate.
Joe

[jaybee_70]

My point is that there is a difference between world class athlete and world class basketball player. If you consider bowling a sport, then being the best bowler in the world may not necessarily put you on world class athlete level.
Joe

[tiltboy]

Fine. My point was that there is no way in hell Charlie Ward would be considered a better World Class Athlete than Michael Jordan under any criteria for such a designation.

[jaybee_70]

The debate boils down to this: Does a world class Poker player/Athlete have to distinguish him/herself in more than one type of poker/sport, or is being the very best in one area enough?
If being the best in one area is enough then feel free to include Stu Ungar in pokers All time greats, but you better make room next to Michael Jordan for Jeff Gordon (or whoever the hell drives around in circles fastest now), Kim Dong Soo (or whoever the hell is badmitton champ now), and last years PBA Champion, because they also fit the criteria for world class athletes.
Joe

[phish]

I think many people here are missing a couple of important points:
1. People who win a few tournaments achieve a lot of fame, but that fame hides some important truths: that they won few tournaments because they're played in a hell of a lot of them. Overall, their hourly rate may be very small or even negative. But their wins (and no one talks about the number of tournaments they're entered but didn't place) entices other people to stake them. Without those stakes, they probably would've been broke long ago.

2. There is a lot more luck in tournament play than in ring game, so that a mediocre player can, over a few years, rack up what looks like an impressive tournament record (especially if you are not aware of the 400 tournaments where he did nothing). And given the luck in tournaments, you can take 500 equally skilled players, and after playing 500 tournaments, a few of them will have records that make them look like experts. Whereas in a tough high stakes ring game, it's much much harder to be up after a year of play without being significantly better than your opponents.

Now Stu may have been just an above average no-limit player who ran a little good when it counted, or he may have been the world's greatest, but actually ran worse than typical. But tournament poker being what it is, it's harder to acertain which is the case. Whereas in a ring game, it is much more obvious much quicker.

The media like the Card Player and WPT appears to want to build personality-cults around certain self-promoting tournament successes. Understable, since they have no way of getting at anyone's true overall results. But there are a lot of inside dope in the poker community about how people really do (who has a strong record in tourney wins but has actually lost a lot of $$ and owes a couple of million, etc.) And Ray Zee is one of the greatest players of all time, and his judgment is impeccable. And I would trust his judgment a lot more than ESPN's, who would have a motive to give a large number so as spike up their report.

[jaybee_70]

The criteria is precisely what is debateable, and why we have such a long thread now. If everybody is using different criteria then there is no end to the debate possible. Once the criteria for world class designation is defined the process for putting people on the list should be more straight forward.
Joe

[tiltboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was that there is no way in hell Charlie Ward would be considered a better World Class Athlete than Michael Jordan <font color="red"> under any criteria </font> for such a designation.


[/ QUOTE ] The criteria is precisely what is debateable, and why we have such a long thread now. If everybody is using different criteria then there is no end to the debate possible. Once the criteria for world class designation is defined the process for putting people on the list should be more straight forward.
Joe


[/ QUOTE ]

[jaybee_70]

I hope you agree that if the criteria were skill on the football field Ward would be judged best.
Joe

[Schmed]

No doubt about Ray. Personally my post, (and I know you weren't specifically directing your response to my post), used him as an example. I have tons and tons of respect for what Ray, Dave, and Mason do. I know I could never do it. Their books have done me a service and were worth whatever I paid for them in spades....(that's why I own every 2+2 book out there.)

One thing about your post here that I want to comment on. Yes it is certainly true that a player can get lucky and win a couple of big tournaments every year but when they are consistantly placing in the money in these tournaments along with those few wins a year then you have to give them their due. A guy that people like to kill, Phil H, may not be able to win at a table with half the people here over the long haul but there is without a doubt that he is one of the best tournament players. He wins consistently not just over a couple of years. He won 2 bracelets this past year. He's consistently making the money in these tournaments. It's not luck, it's a high level of skill.

For some reason Stu Unger brings a lot of anomosity when people are talking about him. I don't think it's as much jealousy as it is pity.

[Nottom]

I'm not sure you understand what an athlete is if you think being the best race car driver or bowler qualifies you even be considered as world class. Babe Ruth is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would seriously consider him a World Class Athlete.

Even using Jordan as an example, I would have a hard time really calling him a World-Class Athlete ... I could even argue that he wasn't the best "athlete" in the NBA during his peak. Being great at a particular sport requires a subset of athletic talent as well as a mental focus that has nothing to do with physical talent. Jordan and the other greats in sport are in general the ones that are mentally more focused on their game than their peers (and also have a good chunk of that physical talent).

I don't know anything about Stu Ungar's game aside from what I have read, but I'm of the opinion that a truely world class Poker player should be able to win at any level and in any format. Players like Howard Lederer and Doyle Brunson that have been successful in ring games and tourney play are the types of players I would consider at the top of the game. Players like Phil Helmuth or Mason are great, but have holes in their game (Phil is supposedly not the best ring game player, and I certainly don't see Mason on any tourney leaderboards) and are therefore not world-class in my mind.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
1. People who win a few tournaments achieve a lot of fame, but that fame hides some important truths: that they won few tournaments because they're played in a hell of a lot of them. Overall, their hourly rate may be very small or even negative. But their wins (and no one talks about the number of tournaments they're entered but didn't place) entices other people to stake them. Without those stakes, they probably would've been broke long ago.


[/ QUOTE ]

Also how long is long term when it comes to tourneys? Chris Moneymaker won $2 million in his first at bat. He can play in a lot more tourneys and still be ahead, does that make him a long term winner? Maybe ... maybe not, either way I'm guessing his overall poker winnings are going to be positive for the rest of his life.

[daryn]

i admire stu ungar.


i admire him for his sheer ability to do certain things. it's not that he earned it, he was born with a remarkable photographic memory and i admire it. i admire the ability to count down the remaining 3 decks of a 6 deck blackjack shoe.

that is all.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Schmed:

I agree that the best tournament players have great skill at tournament play. However, many things can be deceiving because of the tremendous short term luck factor in tournaments. For instance, I was told that Phil Helmuth, who we all agree plays tournaments very well, had done terribly the previous two years. My source is reliable and I was told this right before the 2003 WSOP.

Best wishes,
Mason

[M2d]

I'm guessing that you've never met Ray. If ever there was a person comforable in his own skin, it's this guy. I think he realizes that it's not who recognizes you that puts food on the table, but how often you beat the game.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does the fact that Micheal Jordan couldnt hit AAA pitching make him a "specialist"? Does it make him "not" a world class athlete?????

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your comparison is good.

Ungar could be called a world class no-limit tournament player. But, a world class poker player needs to do more than play just one type of game.



[/ QUOTE ]
TOTALLY false. Bill boyd was a world class poker player who specialized in stud, and I'm sure that he got by just fine on only that income, whether or not he happened to be good at any other games. Now, if you are to say to be CONSIDERED world class, you must do more than specialize, of course that's true. It only depends on who was doing the considering. By almost all accounts, Stuey had neither the patience or the inclination to beat a ring game, but I'm sure he'd have been very good at it if he REALLY tried. There's a story about him in Alvarez' newest book about Stuey looking at a board full of paint, a six-figure bet to him from Doyle, and 22 in his hand. He contemplates, then calls, taking down a huge pot, and all I can think is "How many times did he make that play and get crushed?" Methinks many a time.
Any way you slice it, he was a GREAT player. Was he the best ever to play poker? Highly doubtful. Was he the best ever in big buyin tourney's? Opinions vary, but i'd say his record can be used as the deciding factor here, and the only one close is Chan,(whose 3 year WSOP run, I feel, is the most impressive poker ever). As far as his life, I hear he started out a nice kid, if a bit edgy, then became a reprehensible human being as the drugs kicked in. I don't admire him, but I do find him fascinating, just as I find Charles Manson. Zee's comments of his Gin ability are puzzling to me, however. I've never heard anyone diisent in the opinion that he was the best ever, and had heard that the World championships of gin were discontinued due to his dominance, and that he had a standing 10% rebate offer to ANY gin player which was rarely taken up. Hyperbole? Maybe. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Daliman]

If you think Jordan "made" it to AAA, I have a bridge to sell you....

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Stuey had neither the patience or the inclination to beat a ring game, but I'm sure he'd have been very good at it if he REALLY tried.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the biggest reason why I wouldn't consider him to be world class. Talent isn't the only thing you need to be truely great.

[Bill Murphy]

Hi Mason,

Hellmuth had a great 2001 WSOP. One bracelet, a 2nd(which he should've won), at least two other final tables &amp; a 9th at stud hi/lo /images/graemlins/wink.gif, not to mention his 5th in the main event(where his complete meltdown cost him at least 3rd).

Of course, mebbe he was staked a/o in debt up the wazoo, so he might not've netted much.

Bill

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bill:

My source would be consistent with what you posted. This person told me that Helmuth had done poorly the previous two years and again this was told to me right around the beginning of the 2003 WSOP. So he certainly could have had a terrific 2001 WSOP and then had done poorly for the next two years.

Again, even if you are a terrific tournament player, because of the large short term luck factor in tournament play, having poor streaks for a fairly long length of time just comes with the territiry. So even if my information was 100 percent accurate it shouldn't detract from his ability to play tournaments well.

Best wishes,
Mason

[CrackerZack]

I've been leaving every alone on that too as I didn't want to start another tangent but alas since you brought it up, hitting .215 at AA isn't passable at baseball. He was an attraction to come see play or else he would've been release real quickly

[Al Mirpuri]

I started this thread with an innocent enough post. I never dreamed it would spawn such a monster thread. And yet, there are posts I make that spawn nothing.

Observations:
1. Stu Ungar myths already exist. Over on rgp someone posted that Ungar only ever entered WSOP three times and won it on each occasion. Now, this would be a superhuman feat. However, it is not one that Stu managed to pull off. Here, someone stated Stu's 10 wins out of 30 tournaments were in tourneys with buyins of at least $10,000. The 10/30 was with tourney buyins of at least $5,000. Not a big myth you might suggest but it is with the distorting of small facts that big myths come about.

2. S &amp; M value full ring game play much more than they value tourney play. Please note that I am not commenting on the correctness of this.

3. Stu Ungar probably was a world class No Limit Hold'em tourney specialist. The nearest thing we have to him now is Phil Hellmuth Jr.

4. Stu Ungar is not someone I would have wanted as a friend. The nearest thing we have to him now is Phil Hellmuth Jr.

5. People are ultimately judged on what they do well: there is a famous school report belonging to one ALBERT EINSTEIN in which his music teacher states: 'ALBERT WILL NEVER AMOUNT TOO MUCH.' Years later, Einstein's sister joked: 'It is true. To this day, Albert does not possess a degree in music.' Do we remember Albert Einstein failed musician, no. We glorify Albert Einstein genius scientist.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
If guys like Ray and Mason are jealous b/c they dont have all the bracelets and the fame of being on t.v. then why dont they enter the dang tournaments and try to win them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the money is in the cash games.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean everyone bashes the tournament players and says they are not world class b/c they cant play all games and cant beat the ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

No professional making a living from the game would choose tournaments over cash games, unless the choice was forced on them by a lack of ability to beat cash games.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets turn it around a minute and say that the ring game stars like Mason and Ray arent world class b/c they can't beat the big tournys. Flame away, but its the same concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not.

It's not that they can't beat them, it's that they don't want to. Even the best tournament players struggle to make a good living from it over a long period of time.

If a player had a choice of earning a living from ring games or tournaments, then they would choose ring games as that is where the money is. For those people, tournaments would just be some variety and a chance at a big score.

A living from tournaments is very poor compared to cash games. Those trying to make a living from tournaments are doing so because they are not a good enough player to make a living from ring games.

The bottom line is that a world class poker player would not play tournaments to make a living.