Stu Unger like reads

[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...30&m_id=46
Thats unbelievable

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine...30&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....