World class at all games?

[Duke]

I found the Ungar Backgammon thread interesting, and the topic came up as to what defines a world-class poker player.

I shy away from saying that they excel at every game and style thereof. An inability to adjust to a split game doesn't make them less of a hold'em player. I can't think that the greatest hold'em player in the world is not world class because he doesn't play or do well at stud.

Maybe it just so happens that it's impossible to build a world-class style bankroll without excelling at all games. I don't think so, but maybe. You can still make a ton of money in mix games if you're a break-even player in a couple of the games and killing the others.

Is that not why the mixed games are spread at the upper limits anyhow, so a great stud player can play with a great razz player for high stakes, but not be at a constant disadvantage?

Being great in all games as a requirement seems to leave us with zero world-class players.

If they just have to beat every mid-limit game, and are maybe great against any opposition in a game or 2, that might work. I can't really imagine someone being unable to beat mid-stakes games of any type. Even Ungar. Maybe he didn't have the patience to do so, but I can't fathom a serious player not knowing HOW to do it.

~D

[Ryan_21]

You're da mn right. Just b/c Ungar wasnt as good at the ring games as Mason or David does not disqualify him as being "World Class".

In fact saying that he was not a "World Class" poker player is the most ignorant and riduculous thing I've ever heard.

It is almost as ridiculous as saying "Micheal Jordan is not a world class athlete b/c he could not hit triple A pitching.

Nonsense, the guy was a genious at NL tournys and he won more money playing poker than anyone else in history. And if anyone can prove that false, please provide proof of someone winning more than $30+ million playing poker. Maybe Brunson, maybe Moss, maybe Slim, but I doubt it, bottom line is that Ungar is still in the top 5 (maybe #1) at "all time money winning at poker"

Ryan_21

[Homer]

In fact saying that he was not a "World Class" poker player is the most ignorant and riduculous thing I've ever heard.

Seriously? I would think that something would have to be of much greater significance to be considered the most ignorant/ridiculous thing ever heard.

-- Homer

[baggins]

here's my take:

first, i cannot judge his personal life. it may be sad that he threw away a brilliant mind on drugs and gambled foolishly on non-poker games. i cannot judge this.

however, as far as his poker skills are concerned, i think he HAD to be top notch. mediocre players do not win the WSOP 3 times. elite players do.

also, i've always been of the opinion that game selection was an important poker skill. i don't know how good Stuey was at playing only his best game (NL HoldEm) and not playing games he didn't accel at. however, if he won anywhere NEAR the $30mil that keeps getting reported on here, than he was most certainly a hugely profitable player. and that's all that matters, bottom line. the guy won more than he lost playing poker. a LOT more.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
An inability to adjust to a split game doesn't make them less of a hold'em player. I can't think that the greatest hold'em player in the world is not world class because he doesn't play or do well at stud.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inability to play more than one game at a very high level should prevent a player from being considered a world class poker player. Poker is more than no-limit hold 'em tournaments just like it's more than full ring games.

[Ray Zee]

alot of people dont get to see the high games in real life and their only account of players and results come from newspapers. thats the way it is. and i totally agree that playing one game great doesnt make a world class player. it makes him world class at that one game only. two entirely different things.
take a person that can make near 100% of foul shots at basketball. is he a world class basketball player.
ungar never ever won 30 mil. more than he lost at poker. ever. i dont think he ever had more than a few hundred thousand at any one time. and most times didnt have any money at all to play with. and it wasnt lost on drugs. that came later in his life. he may have always used them but during his normal career he didnt abuse them. he did lose most of what money he got. and i say got. in golf or horses or sports betting. he basically gave away his money. he was one of many people that hated to have money. he never won 3 mil. from flint either. stories are just stories and great for those that like to dream.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

As usual, Ray has this right. Bob Stupak use to say when describing a gambling system that he occasionally used that he had won millions with it. He would then also state that he had lost millions with it as well. So my guess is that if Unger won $30 million playing poker he probably lost $31 million at it as well.

Just for comparision take a quick look at Doyle Brunson or Chip Reese. These guys not only play the super high limits, but they have played them for a very long time, are there over and over again, and have the respect of all the players that they play against. As far as I could tell, Unger never achieved any of this.

Best wishes,
Mason

[M2d]

Ryan,
I play part time, and I've won over a hundred K this year. Of course, I've also lost over 85K this year, Not as impressive once all the facts are out, is it?
How do you put blind faith in something you saw reported by ESPN (that bastion of journalistic integrity), but discount first hand testimony about Stu Ungar's game and life?

[Ryan_21]

I dont know for sure how much the guy pissed away by betting sports and golf and doing drugs and other stupid things, but lets just say that hypothetically he lost or spent $10-$15 million in his lifetime on these stupid things.

"So my guess is that if Unger won $30 million playing poker he probably lost $31 million at it as well."

How could he lose $31 million at poker and still have money to loose at sports/golf/craps/drugs?

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

"the guy won more than he lost playing poker. a LOT more."

Considering he never had a real job in his life, he would've had to have won a LOT more playing poker in order to sustain the lifestyle that he did. You dont live that kind of lifestyle and only be a break-even poker player as Mason suggested.

Sure, I know he borrowed lots of money here and there, but still, you cant live like he did for 25+ years and not have a huge income coming in. I mean think about it, his living expensise(sp?) had to be bare minimum of $4 to $5 hundred thousand a year. And he live for 25+ years (not counting childhood) with no job, you just cant borrow that much money without people getting really grumpy. Heck, his drugs and prostitutes probably cost more than $400,000 a year. So mathmatically he would have had to make close to $30 million playing poker in order to survive and live the lifestyle he did.

Ryan_21

[Easy E]

You certainly have an interesting logic system... as well as a weakness for accepting "news" sources on blind faith.

[Ryan_21]

Intresting logic system? Why? You can do the math if you want to.

Weakness for accepting news sources on blind faith?

Com'on ESPN is not the National Enquire. I have a hard time believing that ESPN would put out false statistics on a deceased professional poker player that nobody in their mainstream audience even knows. What would ESPN gain by making up that figure? They interviews lots of people who knew Stuey.

So tell me, when have you ever known or heard of ESPN putting out false statistics or reports? I mean seriously, when ESPN reports that Steve McNair has 13 touchdown passes or Allen Iverson scored 35 points in a game or that the Oklahoma Sooners football team is 7-0, (or....i could keep going....but i wont) I tend to beleive them, call it blind faith if you want, but like I said, you could always do the math yourself if you want.

Ryan_21

[Mason Malmuth]

That answer is real easy. He was probably staked in many games.

MM

[Ryan_21]

I know he was staked in many games and also borrow lots of money in his lifetime, but still, logically it still seems impossible that he was only break-even. Maybe he won $30 mill and lost 0, maybe he won $30 mill and lost $10 mill, maybe he won $30 mill and lost $20 mill, but theres no way he could've survived for 25+ years with no job and spending the amounts of money that he did on other things and be a break even player.

Ryan_21

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ryan:

I won't mention any names, but there are a few well known tournament players who have lost far more than they have won, but are still ahead because of staking arrangements.

Best wishes,
Mason

[barrett]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Ryan:

I won't mention any names, but there are a few well known tournament players who have lost far more than they have won, but are still ahead because of staking arrangements.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's what I call some gossip! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Ryan_21]

You want gossip? I never told anyone this, but I can tell it cuz Im not as famous as Mason, so nobody will care if I say it, but this last year at the WSOP, it was about a week and a half before the main event and I went upstairs at Binions to check out some action. It was late, like 12-12:30 in the morning and they were trying to get down to the final nine for the next day, I cant remember the event. It was something like Omaha hi/lo, or SHOE, cant remember. But Huck Seed got busted out in like 13th place I think and after he filled out the paper work, the rest of the players went on a break and Huck was talking to one of the floormen, you can see him on the televised WSOP but I cant remember what hand, but he's a young guy with blond spiky hair.

Anyway, they were talking and the floorman says to Huck something like "well you better get outta here," "because he's on his way up here" and "he said he was gonna be coming up here around this time" "so you better get going" and Huck sad something, and the floorman reaches into his pocket and gives Huck a wad of cash, probably around 2 or 3k, and says, "now get outta here and get some rest"

Take it how you want, but it sounded to me like Huck owed someone some money and they were coming to look for him.

Ryan_21

[jaybee_70]

These threads are becoming over long because there has been no clearly defined criteria for classifying somebody as a world class poker player. Everybody is using there own set of criteria and there can be no consensus that way. Until clear criteria is established there will be endless debate.
Joe

[Duke]

No, not Huck. He's never owed enough money to anyone to get them mad about it.

<removing tongue from cheek>

~D

[RollaJ]

Anyone else find it odd that Ryan has a huge HardOn for
Stu..... whats the real motive behind all the whining?

Just calling a /images/graemlins/spade.gif a /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Wad]

[ QUOTE ]
So tell me, when have you ever known or heard of ESPN putting out false statistics or reports?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you watch the 2003 WSOP on ESPN?

[Daliman]

OK Ryan, i'm on board with most of what you've said, but now, you've gone too far... I GUARANTEE Moss won more, I'm sure doyle and Chip have won more, plus probably many others we've never even heard of. Stuey died broke not just because of the drugs, but mainly because of the action. Even though he could play MANY games at a high EV, they weren't enough for him. Why else would a man who excels at so many things play golf for big bucks when, from what i hear, he could barely break 90(may be WAY off here, way back in memory banks). It wasn't good enough for him to beat BJ, he had to show off how great his memory for cards was so NO ONE would ever let him play again. I think he had an all-consuming need to master anything he did, and fell far short, even though he was brilliant, gifted, and had the knowledge at his disposal to make proper decisions. For god's sake, the man knew every number in the book, yet played big-money CRAPS! (Must be a NL tourney specialist thing, just ask TJ...) Winning millions is great, but he seemed like the quintessential "win more, play higher and longer" player, who could EASILY get nickel and dimed after a big score, then have nothing in savings when cards ran bad. I have a friend who averages 225 in bowling, and a couple times a year, he'll win a couple thousand at the lanes. Whenever this happens, he's more than happy to bowl me for $100 a game, giving me 50 pins, which I, averaging about 200, will win about 5 of 6. He looks at it as "who cares, I lost $400 but won 3000", and I look at it as "look, an ATM where I don't need my PIN #". A similar corallary to Caro's threshold of pain, except when you're up big, leaking off 10-20% is no big deal, cuz it's still a big score. I'm sure this was a large factor in Stuey dowfall, among the myriad others.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
You're da mn right. Just b/c Ungar wasnt as good at the ring games as Mason or David does not disqualify him as being "World Class".

In fact saying that he was not a "World Class" poker player is the most ignorant and riduculous thing I've ever heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot be a world class player if you are not a world class cash game player. The money is in the cash games.

[ QUOTE ]
Com'on ESPN is not the National Enquire. I have a hard time believing that ESPN would put out false statistics on a deceased professional poker player that nobody in their mainstream audience even knows. What would ESPN gain by making up that figure?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no accurate information on what poker players have won/lost in a lifetime. It just does not compare to quoting stats of other sports people.

You've answered your own question. As nobody in their mainstream audience knows him or really cares, and the fact accurate figures are not available, they just made a figure up out of thin air.