Well, we've heard Ray and Masons opinion of Stuey...

[Ryan_21]

...lets see what others had to say about his poker and gin playing ability.

Taken from the Las Vegas Review Journal, Reporter Joe Shoenmann reports that:

Bob Stupak states:

"He was the best," Stupak said Sunday. "You can't expand on that. The best says it all."

and

Sklansky agreed, saying that "when he was at his best, he seemed to play almost perfectly."
"I don't know if he had a photographic memory, but awful close," he said. "He could calculate very quickly and did (instinctively) all the things I write about."

These two opinions from Stupak and Sklansky are regarding poker.

These statments are out of an article written by Mike Sexton:

"When anyone talks about the greatest poker players of all time, Stu Ungar's name will surface immediately. If it doesn't, it should. His accomplishments in poker are second to none. He is considered by many (and put me on that list) to be the greatest No Limit Hold'em player of all time."

Regarding Gin, Sexton states:

"I first met Ungar in 1978. He was a 22 year-old (who looked 14) streetwise, fast-talking whiz kid out of New York. He ventured to Las Vegas to play high stakes gin rummy against all comers (and he played anyone for any amount). He defeated them like Secretariat handled the Kentucky Derby."

And

"As great as Ungar was in No Limit Hold'em, he was better at gin rummy. Several months after he captured his third world poker title, Ungar said to me, "Some day, I suppose it's possible for someone to be a better No Limit Hold'em player than me. I doubt it, but it could happen. But, I swear to you, I don't see how anyone could ever play gin better than me."

Sexton also states:

"Ungar turned to poker in Las Vegas when his gin action dried up."

Finally, lets here from Nolan Dalla.

Dalla is writing the Biography on Ungar and on the inside jacket of the book he states:

"In the final years up until his death, through months on interviews, Dalla was a close confidant to Ungar, and was chosen by Ungar to be his biographer."

And regarding Gin, states:

"He was a savant in a world of card sharks and con men. A high school dropout, by 17 he was widely acknowledged as the world’s best gin player. Mafia wiseguys instantly recognized Ungar’s awesome talent and staked him against all comers. Eventually, no one would play him for cash anymore."

You can flame me all you want, and say I accept news and journalism with blind faith or whatever, but Im pretty sure Stupak, Sexton, and Dalla knew Stuey a little better than Ray and Mason. If anyone thinks Im bs'in them the articles are viewable at http://www.wsop.dk/Ungar2.htm

Ryan_21

[MMMMMM]

Didn't Doyle Brunson weigh in more on the side of Ray and Mason regarding Stuey's skills, or am I mistaken?

[Howard Burroughs]

You are correct.

BTW, Doyle has posted on 2+2 (I don't believe in a while though).


I remember reading the post Bill Murphy talked about from Doyle (a long while back) that agrees with what Ray has said.

[Howard Burroughs]

But..........


Stupak was his backer.


Sexton is a tournament dude.


Dalla's a great writer.




None of them are in a class of poker player as a Ray Zee or a Doyle Brunson (who both think Ungar is WAY over rated as a cash game limit poker player).



Why not just accept that Ray is telling the truth?

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
You can flame me all you want, and say I accept news and journalism with blind faith or whatever, but Im pretty sure Stupak, Sexton, and Dalla knew Stuey a little better than Ray and Mason.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no question that's the case. But I just happen to be right.

MM

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can flame me all you want, and say I accept news and journalism with blind faith or whatever, but Im pretty sure Stupak, Sexton, and Dalla knew Stuey a little better than Ray and Mason.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no question that's the case. But I just happen to be right.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

That's money.

Book idea: Quotes from Authors and Posters on 2+2.com. Special chapters devoted to Mason, Tommy, Bryan, and that guy with the animal fetish, then clump the rest in the back of it. Only one I remember from DS is ending recommendations that are far from obvious to half the people who post here with: "Can you see why?"

It'd have to go in the humor section of the book stores, and maybe not have given away that it's related to poker -- to sell more copies (as it wouldn't be instructional or always topical), but I think it'd be worth a few hundred grand after word got out.

~D

[Ryan_21]

We've all came to agree upon the fact that he probably wasnt a very good ring game limit holdem player. So why do people keep bringing it up? Its irrelevant to my argument.

My argument is trying to stick up for his NL Tournament play and his Gin game.

Furthermore, why does one have to be in the class of Ray Zee and Doyle Brunson to judge someones play? Who says you have to be a world class player to make a judgment? Sportswriters judge althletes abilities and they are certainly not in the same class as the athletes? So that point makes no sense.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

So your saying that you and Ray didnt know Stu as well as Stupak, Sexton, and Dalla, but your opinions are still right even though you didnt know him as well? Thats a pretty brave stance to take, I mean people flamed me b/c Ray knew him better than me.

Ryan_21

[MaxPower]

Do you have any knowledge of Stu Ungar other than what you have seen in the media?

Did you ever play against him or see him play for an extended period of time?

I know nothing about him other than what I've seen in the media. I am inclined to believe those who have first hand knowledge of him and generally know what they are talking about.

Sexton will never say a bad word about anyone - he is the ambassador of poker, so his views are not diagnostic. Stupak was apparently a friend and not considered a great player or theorist. Dalla is writing a book on Ungar that he wants to sell. They each have their own agenda, so their opinions do not mean much to me.

Sklansky has never held back his true opinions about players, so I am inclined to believe him. But even in the quote you cited, he doesn't say that he was the best ever or world class. On top of that, given the way the media works there is a good chance that his quote was taken out of context, was misquoted, or elicited.

Ray Zee has nothing to gain or lose by expressing an opinion on Stu Ungar and he is an acknowledged expert. I'm willing to believe a first hand account from him more than what I read in Cardplayer or see on ESPN.

My point is that very few people on this forum have any first hand knowledge about Stu Ungar and how good he was. That doesn't mean our opinions are worthless, but they are not as meaningfull as those of Ray Zee and others.

Its clear that Stu Ungar was a very talented card player. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

[Homer]

Furthermore, why does one have to be in the class of Ray Zee and Doyle Brunson to judge someones play? Who says you have to be a world class player to make a judgment?

You do, in the thread "Stu Ungar FACTS". You said:

So, if you are not up +$30 million or better shut your f'in mouth about the deceased and give the man his props.

-- Homer

[Ryan_21]

Haha. You knew what I meant. Stop talking "negatively" about him, especially someone thats dead.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

"Its clear that Stu Ungar was a very talented card player. I don't think anyone is disputing that."

Then why am I having to defend his legacy?

Ryan_21

[Mason Malmuth]

I'm sure Ray knew him better than all the people on your list.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ryan:

I once had a phone conversation with a man named Norman Lepore (no relation to Vince), who was considered Unger's equal or near equal in gin. I also know other people who played gin against Unger, and when it comes to that game there is no question that what you hear is accurate.

Poker however is a different matter. I know of one instance where Unger lost more money than his backers had agreed to support. Thus this additional amount was never paid to the winners, yet if he would have won from this spot he would have kept the money.

Despite his great abilities, I just don't think it is long term good for poker to be presenting people like this as if they are something to be admired. Yes I know he's no longer with us and I agree that there is little to be gained by bashing the dead, but I also believe it is important to be a little more truthful and accurate than what you have heard.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Schmed]

in your post entitled Stu Unger FACTS "Anybody who discredits his accomplishments are just playa hatin and jealous because they are not up +$30 million playing poker, and only those, and I do mean only those who are up overall more than $30 million have the right to say anything negative about Stuey, and I dont think there is anybody on here in that stature.

So, if you are not up +$30 million or better shut your f'in mouth about the deceased and give the man his props."

[Nottom]

I think the bigger problem is that Sexton and Stupak were close to Ungar so their oppinions are going to be quite biased. Dalla is doing a Biography on the man so trying to make him out as some sort of superman of poker isn't a bad idea when trying to sell books.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Ryan:

Despite his great abilities, I just don't think it is long term good for poker to be presenting people like this as if they are something to be admired. Yes I know he's no longer with us and I agree that there is little to be gained by bashing the dead, but I also believe it is important to be a little more truthful and accurate than what you have heard.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew Ungar, and played with him some. If he wasn't in my game, he was in the game next door. This guy had unbelieveable skills and he also had unbelieveable weaknesses. He was crude and boistrous. He would spit on the floor. He was broke a lot. No one would play him gin, although I saw him and Doyle playing one day. Doyle beat him. Ray is a better all around player, because Ray could stay in money, and didn't have the huge ego Stuey did. Nor did he have the drug problem.

But this cannot be disputed. Ungar in his own way was a genius, and he would wipe the floor with Mason Malmuth in any game you would care to mention. That is a fact.

Deal with the rest any way you care to.

[Michael Davis]

This is in complete opposition to your position in the last thread.

-Mike

[Robk]

Hey Ryan,

Sorry to put another expert against you, but Bob Ciaffone wrote a card player article that essentially agreed with everything Ray said about his skills. Here's the link: Ciaffone on Ungar (http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=afeature&art_id=13390)

[Mike Gallo]

Ryan,

With all due respect, why the infatuation with Stu Ungar?

Let it go.

Find another hero.

This reminds me of the Brady Bunch episode where Bobby Brady did a report on Jesses James and grew to idolize him.
Anyone who has seen the episode will understand the reference I made. To those who do not know the episode, sorry for referencing a 70's television show.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Timer:

I do agree that Unger was a genius and had some very special abilities. But you have to look at the complete package, not just certain attributes, and that's what this discussion (I think) is about.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Ted Geisel]

Hey, Ryan ... the guy is dead, let him rest in peace ... In response to an earlier post of yours, you do NOT have to defend his name, repirtation or whatever other self-anointed mission you have taken on.

[Ryan_21]

I think what pissed me off to begin with was Ray saying Stuey wasnt world class at Gin and saying he was great but "not the best by far"

Thanks for giving your honest opinion on his Gin game. All Im trying to say really in this whole huge 3 day rampage is that Stuey was the best at Gin, and he was world class at no limit holdem tournament, and I think his accomplishments and record at NLHE tournaments still qualify him as being considered a world class poker player even if he couldnt beat a ring game for nothing.

But, now that I've heard your opinion on his Gin game is accurate with what I've heard, I'll probably shut the heck up, b/c thats half of all I really care about.

Ryan_21

[M2d]

in the quote Ryan gave us, DS says "when he was at his best..." This year, I saw Adrian Beltre make a play at third base for the Dodgers that was out of this world. Brooks Robinson couldn't have even dreamed of making this play in his prime. That doesn't make Beltre any better than Robinson. It just underscores the amount of talent that he wastes. The same thing applies to Unger, it seems.

[JTrout]

[ QUOTE ]
But, now that I've heard your opinion on his Gin game is accurate with what I've heard, I'll probably shut the heck up, b/c thats half of all I really care about.



[/ QUOTE ]

why Do you care?

[daryn]

why do you care that he cares?

[Homer]

why do you care about why he cares that he cares?

-- Homer

[daryn]

oh man.. shame on me for not seeing this coming /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Ryan_21]

Why do I care?

Why do people care to try and discredit his ability?

Same reasons I guess.

Ryan_21

[Warren Whitmore]

"A horse that can count to 10 is a brilliant horse, not a brilliant mathmatician."

Francis Galton

[Rocco17]

"Mom always said don't play ball in the house!" /images/graemlins/smile.gif I don't mind the 70s reference at all.

[JohnG]

Ryan, are you a relative or something?

You seem determined for people to say Unger was great. Why does that matter so much to you? What does it matter what people think about his game? The guy is dead. He doesn't care what people think. Why do you?


[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, why does one have to be in the class of Ray Zee and Doyle Brunson to judge someones play? Who says you have to be a world class player to make a judgment? Sportswriters judge althletes abilities and they are certainly not in the same class as the athletes? So that point makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you see a great athlete, it is easy for anybody watching to recognise it. In order to know a great poker play, you have to first understand what a great play would be in that situation. If you could recognise it, you would be world class yourself. The typical person would not know what the great play was, or indeed whether they just witnesssed one.

[JTrout]

Ryan has spent a great deal of time and effort defending, and praising, Stu. I thought it might be interesting to find out the reason.

[Ryan_21]

A lot of people have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to discredit, and bash, Stu. I thought it might be interesting to find out the reason?

Ryan_21

[JTrout]

Fine. I'll jump off the merry-go-round now.

[Benman]

I find these long posts on Stu Unger kinda interesting, especially with all the disagreement among seemingly pretty knowledgable people. I've never seen Stu Unger so I have no firsthand knowledge. But I do have a question for Mason and others who says he wasn't that good. Why was he always getting staked? Is it possible that stakehorses had it wrong all those years, thinking he was a good, or great, player, when in fact he wasn't? Seems unlikely to me. Maybe the best way to look at it was that he had incredible talent playing the cards, but terrible judgment and habits in every other respect, including bankroll management. That would be the type of player that might get staked often, but couldn't look after themselves.
Another way of asking is, how much money did he net at poker only in his lifetime, regardless of where else he lost it or how. So, how much were his total winnings (including the 3 world series wins) at the poker table minus his total losses. Were they positive, negative, or what? I like this simple definition of who's the greatest poker player ever, cause it's kinda simple. Granted, Chris Moneymaker would be up there after just one big game. But, if he had the discipline to walk away from poker, and could therefore say on his deathbed that he'd won $2.5 million at poker in his lifetime, then I'd give him credit for being a great poker player. As for Stu Unger, who knows, and all I know comes from what I've read, but I'd bet that at poker only he's way in the positive.

[Ryan_21]

Yeah, Mason and all the other haters, if he wasnt that good, why was he always getting staked? Stakehorses arent stupid, nobody is going to constantly stake someone who isnt all that good.

Ryan_21

[Howard Burroughs]

At the risk of being called a "hater".........


"Stakehorses arent stupid"


Lots of them are IMHO.


"nobody is going to constantly stake someone who isnt all that good."


Sure they do.



I'm not talking "Stu" here btw. I'm talkng about your above comments.



There are some people who just know how to get backed (heck, I've had people offer to back me & I suck).


Again, I'm not blasting Stu Ungar (one of the all time great tournament no-limit players). I'm just talking about your comments about, who would ever back a poker player that was not all that great? It happens all the time.




Don't be hatin'

Howard

[Ryan_21]

Your probably right, hell I've been offered to be staked on occasions and I suck too, but Mason made it sound like Stuey never ever played w/ his own money, it just seems odd that if he was always losing, how'd he keep getting staked?

Ryan_21