Stu Ungar hands
 

read "One of a Kind" and have heard about his ridiculous aggression for a while. Would love to see some of the hands from his WSOP wins. Anyone know where I can find this?

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

google?

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

His final hand versus Brunson in 1980 is featured as a lesson in implied odds in Theory of Poker.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

There was a good article written by Mike Sexton in a recent edition of CardPlayer Magazine. It didnt really have anything to do with the hands he played in particular, it just talked about how agressive he was

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

Now that I'm on my break, I'll try to elaborate on the example in ToP:

Ungar and Brunson are heads up at the 1980 WSOP main event. Ungar has a significant chip lead. Brunson is dealt A-7, Ungar 2-5 (I think). Pre-flop betting wasn't significant.

Flop comes down A-7-4. Brunson bets out $17,000 (a significant amount compared to stack sizes), making the immediate pot odds poor for a call. After the match, Ungar said to the effect that he wouldn't have called for much more, but he knew that if the 3 hit, he could bust Brunson for all his chips.

When the 3 hits on the turn or river (I forget), Ungar pushes Brunson all-in and wins with the straight.

I'll leave it for the upperclassmen in this forum to say whether this is still an overall good strategy, but the point made in ToP was that given the information that Doyle had a hand that he might commit all his chips with, you can look beyond the chips in the pot to determine whether the pot odds are good for a call. (Which, counting Doyle's remaining stack, were just about right for the 11-1 odds of hitting the 3.)

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

Written by Lou Krieger

Famous Bluffs: Stu Ungar versus Ron Stanley

I was fortunate enough to watch this bluff unfold in person, from the press row at the 1997 World Series of Poker.

In the 1997 World Series of Poker, Stu Ungar had been dominating the final table. He was chip leader from the start, and rather than nursing his lead while his opponents eliminated themselves, Ungar attacked early and often.

Once he raised on seven successive hands in a row. Bluffing? Of course he was. But none of his opponents wanted to risk early elimination to find out for sure. Each subsequent rung on the pay ladder was a significant increase in winnings, so each of Ungar's adversaries was apparently content to cautiously inch his way upward.

After Las Vegas professional poker player Ron Stanley stole the blinds a few times, he moved within $200,000 of Ungar. For a moment, it looked like he might overtake him.

But a few hands later the two chip leaders began a heads-up duel. With Ungar in the big blind, Stanley quietly called. The flop was As 9h 6s. Stanley, a seasoned professional, had noticed that each time Ungar flopped top pair with an ace, he checked the flop and bet on the turn. Once again he checked behind Stanley, suggesting that he might be holding an ace once again.

An eight fell on the turn. Stanley, who had a nine in his hand and second pair, bet $25,000. Ungar raised $60,000 and Stanley called. The last card was a king. Stanley checked and folded when Ungar bet $225,000. Ungar brashly turned up his cards, showing Q-10. It was a total bluff. He had no hand whatsoever, and Ron Stanley had released the best hand. Seemingly unnerved by Ungar's bold action, Stanley was eliminated shortly thereafter, while Ungar proceeded to run over the rest of his opponents - who by this time all seemed to realize that they were playing for second place, not the championship

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

Written by Phil Hellmuth, from the WSOP 1997 ME

I recall a couple of the hands in which Stuey beat me. In one hand, Stuey made a raise with the A 3, and I called with the K J. The flop came 7 4 3, and Stuey bet out. I figured that I had two overcards with my flush draw, so I decided to raise. I made a big raise to try to bluff Stuey out of the pot, but he called me. The next card off the deck was the 4, for a board of 7 4 3 4. Stuey checked and I made another big bet, and he called me fairly quickly with his bottom pair. The last card was a blank, the 8, and Stuey checked. I just gave up and “dogged it” (checked behind him). When he showed me his hand, I stared at it in disbelief for a moment and said, “Oh, I see, you were going to try to bluff me with the bare A in your hand if the flush card hit.” He just smiled and said, “The thought had crossed my mind.” Whatever the case may be, he did manage to take the heat with bottom pair in the world championship!

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

Another Hellmuth one...from this article Phil vs Stu

In another hand, I limped in with A-10 while the blinds were $600-$1,200. The reason that I just limped in instead of raising was that I had been raising every single pot, and I was afraid that someone was going to come over the top of me soon. When you’re running over the table, sometimes you need to back off a little bit. Stuey was in the big blind with Q-J, and he checked after the flop came down J-9-4. I was mad at myself for limping in, so I decided that I was going to win this pot no matter what. Yeah, right! There was one other limper behind me to be concerned about, but I said to myself, “I’ll ‘power play’ this pot.” I bet out $10,000 into the $5,000 pot, and Stuey called me with his top pair. There was no flush draw, so it was one heck of a call that he made. I guess that the big bet convinced him that I was weak. The next card off was a jack, for a board of J-9-4-J, and Stuey checked to me again. I fired out $20,000 on the power move, and Stuey hesitated for a minute before calling me with his trip jacks. I decided that I was going to give up again and not bluff the river, but an ace hit, for J-9-4-J-A, and Stuey checked to me again. I pondered for a moment. I had Stuey firmly planted on a pair of nines. Meanwhile, the ace had given me a pair of aces. I remember telling myself that Stuey could call a $20,000 bet only if he had three jacks, and therefore I shouldn’t bet. Finally, I decided not to “dog” my best possible card on the river. I bet $20,000 and Stuey beat me into the pot! I said, “I have an ace.” He said, “No good.” Then, he said, “Phil, you gave me $40,000 drawing dead.” So I did, Stuey, so I did!

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

One more...not sure about the source

I was watching the 1997 final table and an interesting hand came up.
Stu Ungar mingled with John Strzemp in this hand:

Stuey in the cut off seat and John in the Big Blind

Flop: Ac 4s Kc
Both Players Check
Pot:$80,000 (approx.)

Turn: Ac 4s Kc 8s
John leads out with a $45,000 bet.
Stuey Calls.
Pot: $170,000 (approx.)

River: Ac 4s Kc 8s 6s
John leads out with a $70,000 bet.
Stuey Calls
Pot: $310,000 (approx.)

John shows Ks10s
Stuey shows an Ace (my guess is with a low kicker)

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stanley checked and folded when Ungar bet $225,000. Ungar brashly turned up his cards, showing Q-10. It was a total bluff. He had no hand whatsoever, and Ron Stanley had released the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did Ungar show this?

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stanley checked and folded when Ungar bet $225,000. Ungar brashly turned up his cards, showing Q-10. It was a total bluff. He had no hand whatsoever, and Ron Stanley had released the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did Ungar show this?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs3/3951/images/photo1.jpg

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]

Stu Ungar mingled with John Strzemp in this hand:

Stuey in the cut off seat and John in the Big Blind

Flop: Ac 4s Kc
Both Players Check
Pot:$80,000 (approx.)

Turn: Ac 4s Kc 8s
John leads out with a $45,000 bet.
Stuey Calls.
Pot: $170,000 (approx.)

River: Ac 4s Kc 8s 6s
John leads out with a $70,000 bet.
Stuey Calls
Pot: $310,000 (approx.)

John shows Ks10s
Stuey shows an Ace (my guess is with a low kicker)


[/ QUOTE ]
I remember seeing a hand similar to this on ESPN classic; not sure about any of the details but assume the same hands and stuey raises pf, flop check/check and John checkraises stuey on the turn instead of leading. John puts a potsized bet on the river and stuey calls. At the break Phil Hellmuth (who is doing live commentating) calls Stuey over and asks why he called John on the river, Stuey said I knew he didn't have top pair since John tends to shove it all in with TP and his checkraise on the turn confused him into calling, since he didn't think John was capable of making a move like that with a pair+draw.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

Just realized there were no suits cut and pasted in any of my posts...The first Hellmuth one, Phil had K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and Stu had A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]...flop was 2 spades

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

I remember flipping through that book at the store. There was one hand where he was playing Mansour Matloubi (the 1990 World Champion) heads up. Both started with $50,000 and it was a freezout.

At this point:

Ungar has : $60,000

Matloubi has : $40,000



I do not know what the blinds were but Ungar opens on the Button and Matloubi calls from the BB with 54o.


FLOP: 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]


Matloubi checks, Ungar bets about 1/2 to 3/4 pot and Matloubi calls. Another possibly massive implied odds call like in the Theory of Poker example figuring he can double up if he hits a 6 and Ungar has something.


TURN: 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]



Matloubi checks, Ungar checks.



RIVER: 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]



Matloubi overbets the pot all in, figuring correctly that Ungar has nothing and can't call. Ungar thinks for a few seconds and says something like "It seems to me like you don't much of anything. I think you have 54 or 65, I'm going to call you with this hand."


Ungar calls and shows T9o. He called him with ten high!

Greatest call. Ever.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

oops i was wrong

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ungar calls and shows T9o. He called him with ten high!

Greatest call. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
was it? or was it the fact that he never believed anyone and called down everything and sometimes ran into hands like this where it seemed like the greatest call ever? someone said this on this site awhile back and it made me think.

no doubt ungar's skills were at a higher level than most anyone but when you play more pots and see more showdowns than anyone and snort more coke than anyone you will tend to run into insane plays like this. nice hand stuey.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stanley checked and folded when Ungar bet $225,000. Ungar brashly turned up his cards, showing Q-10. It was a total bluff. He had no hand whatsoever, and Ron Stanley had released the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Seemingly unnerved by Ungar's bold action, Stanley was eliminated shortly thereafter, while Ungar proceeded to run over the rest of his opponents - who by this time all seemed to realize that they were playing for second place, not the championship

[/ QUOTE ]
Why did Ungar show this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ungar calls and shows T9o. He called him with ten high!

Greatest call. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
was it? or was it the fact that he never believed anyone and called down everything and sometimes ran into hands like this where it seemed like the greatest call ever? someone said this on this site awhile back and it made me think.

no doubt ungar's skills were at a higher level than most anyone but when you play more pots and see more showdowns than anyone and snort more coke than anyone you will tend to run into insane plays like this. nice hand stuey.

[/ QUOTE ]


Oh no doubt. I don't think he's the greatest player ever because of this one play. I'm just saying it was the greatest call ever on this one hand. Keep in mind he put the guy on a specific range and told him what it was before calling. It wasn't like a calling station "I want to see that hand" call with any 2 type of call. He knew what the guy held.

But I agree with you, like Greenstein said 'You hear about Ungar making great calls, but you never hear about any great laydowns.'

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ungar calls and shows T9o. He called him with ten high!

Greatest call. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
was it? or was it the fact that he never believed anyone and called down everything and sometimes ran into hands like this where it seemed like the greatest call ever? someone said this on this site awhile back and it made me think.

no doubt ungar's skills were at a higher level than most anyone but when you play more pots and see more showdowns than anyone and snort more coke than anyone you will tend to run into insane plays like this. nice hand stuey.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was Greenstein who wrote something along the lines of "i hear people all the time telling me about this great call Stuey made, i never hear anybody telling me about a great laydown"


EDIT:

Dammit! Beaten like a red-headed step-child.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another Hellmuth one...from this article Phil vs Stu

I had been raising every single pot, and I was afraid that someone was going to come over the top of me soon.

When you’re running over the table, sometimes you need to back off a little bit.

Stuey was in the big blind with Q-J, and he checked after the flop came down J-9-4.

I bet out $10,000 into the $5,000 pot, and Stuey called me with his top pair. There was no flush draw, so it was one heck of a call that he made.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, one hell of a call phil. Because someone with a hand that beats TPGK hand bets 2x the pot on that board...

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ungar calls and shows T9o. He called him with ten high!

Greatest call. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
was it? or was it the fact that he never believed anyone and called down everything and sometimes ran into hands like this where it seemed like the greatest call ever? someone said this on this site awhile back and it made me think.

[/ QUOTE ]

As mentioned already, I think Doyle Brunson or Barry Greenstein said something similar to this. I know Doyle said that if Stu had ever gotten top pair beat in the WSOP, he would have gone bust.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
The flop was As 9h 6s. Stanley, a seasoned professional, had noticed that each time Ungar flopped top pair with an ace, he checked the flop and bet on the turn. Once again he checked behind Stanley, suggesting that he might be holding an ace once again. An eight fell on the turn. Stanley, who had a nine in his hand and second pair, bet $25,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Stanley, the "seasoned professional" notes Stu's betting pattern makes it very possible that Stu has an ace, and comes out firing on the turn with second pair. Well played!

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know Doyle said that if Stu had ever gotten top pair beat in the WSOP, he would have gone bust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry Greenstein said that. " 'The thing you never hear about Stuey is that he made a great laydown,' says Barry Greenstein, currently considered the winningest player in poker. 'Any time he had top pair, he just moved in. But if he ran into a real hand, he would lose.' " <u>Aces and Kings</u>, p.88

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

These Stuey hand stories don't age well.

In all the hands you cited in this thread, Stuey was helped along enormously by his opponents' bad play and his decisions usually seem more inspired with regard to the results than the integrity of the plays. If anything, the praise he receives from Phil and others is a reflection on how much more sophisticated our collective understanding of NL tournament play is today than it was when Stuey was in his "prime."

I did read One of a Kind and was convinced that Stuey had a somehwat uncanny natural ability to master card games, but I'm not usually blown away by these hands that people breathlessly retell.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ungar calls and shows T9o. He called him with ten high!

Greatest call. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
was it? or was it the fact that he never believed anyone and called down everything and sometimes ran into hands like this where it seemed like the greatest call ever? someone said this on this site awhile back and it made me think.

[/ QUOTE ]

As mentioned already, I think Doyle Brunson or Barry Greenstein said something similar to this. I know Doyle said that if Stu had ever gotten top pair beat in the WSOP, he would have gone bust.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was said however it was referring to his play the first time when he won the ME. He was not as skilled of a NL player then as he would later become. The quote is taken a little bit out of context there.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
These Stuey hand stories don't age well.

In all the hands you cited in this thread, Stuey was helped along enormously by his opponents' bad play and his decisions usually seem more inspired with regard to the results than the integrity of the plays. If anything, the praise he receives from Phil and others is a reflection on how much more sophisticated our collective understanding of NL tournament play is today than it was when Stuey was in his "prime."

[/ QUOTE ]

right....let's look at this year's final table for this superior NL play:

Example 1: On the flop, holding top pair, terrible kicker, Kanter reraises a bet from Hachem and a rereaise from Barch and then moves all-in after Barch reraises again.

Example 2: Dannenmann goes bust with A3 on a connected board with top pair and the idiot end of a straight draw.

Example 3: Lazar calls Black's preflop all-in with QTo.

Example 4: Lazar calls Dannenmann's preflop all-in with K9s.

Donktastic plays such as these are likely to happen in next year's WSOP just as they have happened in the past. True, Stuey ran goot with both his cards and having such bad donks, but similair things happen. If Raymer's kings had held up this year, would you have said he was a great player or got lucky b/c some donk had tried to catch a runner runner flush?

Hey NUMBNUTS, not you, that other guy I forget his handle
 

You dont hear about Stu's great laydowns because they didnt have hole cam's back then, and people were to busy talking about hands that he showed down and won.

No one will ever hold a candle to Ungar in gin or NLHE.

Stuey had a disease, and he self medicated with drugs and gambling.

I dont give a [censored] what greenstein says about Ungar, or anyone else for that matter, he won three world championships and is the best card player that ever lived. Period.







Tex

Re: Hey NUMBNUTS, not you, that other guy I forget his handle
 

[ QUOTE ]
You dont hear about Stu's great laydowns because they didnt have hole cam's back then, and people were to busy talking about hands that he showed down and won.

No one will ever hold a candle to Ungar in gin or NLHE.

Stuey had a disease, and he self medicated with drugs and gambling.

I dont give a [censored] what greenstein says about Ungar, or anyone else for that matter, he won three world championships and is the best card player that ever lived. Period.







Tex

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Like you, I'm not basing this on just the fact that I hear it all the time and that I read his autobiography so I know he had a photographic memory and that he won the WSOP in his first try and that he was considered the best. Just like you, I'm basing this on tens of thousands of hands played with him and everybody else in contention for best ever, which is why I feel qualified to make statements comparing him to everybody ever.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These Stuey hand stories don't age well.

In all the hands you cited in this thread, Stuey was helped along enormously by his opponents' bad play and his decisions usually seem more inspired with regard to the results than the integrity of the plays. If anything, the praise he receives from Phil and others is a reflection on how much more sophisticated our collective understanding of NL tournament play is today than it was when Stuey was in his "prime."

[/ QUOTE ]

right....let's look at this year's final table for this superior NL play:

Example 1: On the flop, holding top pair, terrible kicker, Kanter reraises a bet from Hachem and a rereaise from Barch and then moves all-in after Barch reraises again.

Example 2: Dannenmann goes bust with A3 on a connected board with top pair and the idiot end of a straight draw.

Example 3: Lazar calls Black's preflop all-in with QTo.

Example 4: Lazar calls Dannenmann's preflop all-in with K9s.

Donktastic plays such as these are likely to happen in next year's WSOP just as they have happened in the past. True, Stuey ran goot with both his cards and having such bad donks, but similair things happen. If Raymer's kings had held up this year, would you have said he was a great player or got lucky b/c some donk had tried to catch a runner runner flush?

[/ QUOTE ]

My only point was that our COLLECTIVE understanding of NL tournament play is far advanced from where it was 5 years, 10 years ago, etc. Not sure how you expect to contradict that argument by mentioning high-profile recent examples of inferior play. I never compared Ungar to 2005's Final Table, I merely said that our ability to interpret the data has come a long way.

Since you decided to highlight 4 inferior plays from this year's WSOP anyway, I'll humor you and explain them:

example 1: I don't remember the hand, but it's easily explainable: Kanter kinda sucks at poker.

example 2: Dannenmann clearly didn't give a crap at this point in the tournament whether he went bust or not.

examples 3 and 4: Pretty clear, and instantly identifiable, psychological meltdown. Happens in tournaments.

As for the Raymer question--it was clear to me a long time before he won the 2004 WSOP that Raymer has a highly adept poker mind.

Re: Hey NUMBNUTS, not you, that other guy I forget his handle
 

Didn't Ray Zee say "I'd swim a river of glass [to play Stuey in a cash game]"?

Re: Hey NUMBNUTS, not you, that other guy I forget his handle
 

I am pretty sure that Stu was a very mathematical player and that maybe Gus Hansen comes closest to his style. Just like Stu, Gus is a calling station, as is another math genius Andy Bloch and don't forget Ulliot called Raymer a calling station also. All mathematical players have a very high calling frequency.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Written by Lou Krieger

Famous Bluffs: Stu Ungar versus Ron Stanley

I was fortunate enough to watch this bluff unfold in person, from the press row at the 1997 World Series of Poker.

In the 1997 World Series of Poker, Stu Ungar had been dominating the final table. He was chip leader from the start, and rather than nursing his lead while his opponents eliminated themselves, Ungar attacked early and often.

Once he raised on seven successive hands in a row. Bluffing? Of course he was. But none of his opponents wanted to risk early elimination to find out for sure. Each subsequent rung on the pay ladder was a significant increase in winnings, so each of Ungar's adversaries was apparently content to cautiously inch his way upward.

After Las Vegas professional poker player Ron Stanley stole the blinds a few times, he moved within $200,000 of Ungar. For a moment, it looked like he might overtake him.

But a few hands later the two chip leaders began a heads-up duel. With Ungar in the big blind, Stanley quietly called. The flop was As 9h 6s. Stanley, a seasoned professional, had noticed that each time Ungar flopped top pair with an ace, he checked the flop and bet on the turn. Once again he checked behind Stanley, suggesting that he might be holding an ace once again.

An eight fell on the turn. Stanley, who had a nine in his hand and second pair, bet $25,000. Ungar raised $60,000 and Stanley called. The last card was a king. Stanley checked and folded when Ungar bet $225,000. Ungar brashly turned up his cards, showing Q-10. It was a total bluff. He had no hand whatsoever, and Ron Stanley had released the best hand. Seemingly unnerved by Ungar's bold action, Stanley was eliminated shortly thereafter, while Ungar proceeded to run over the rest of his opponents - who by this time all seemed to realize that they were playing for second place, not the championship

[/ QUOTE ]

Your memory is a little off. Stanley came apart later, after John Stremp hit a one outer on him in a monster pot. He then proceded to bluff off the rest of his chips. After Stuey bluffed him he took it in stride and was still playing well.

You also miss quite a bit in the Stuey hand. It is true that Stuey wound up with nothing and made a great bluff on the river. You miss what happened on the turn however. When Stanley bet $25,000, Stuey correctly put him on second pair and felt he could win the pot right there. If Stanley did call his raise, Stuey had picked up an inside straght draw (which would have given him the absolute nuts), he also felt that he could probably win the pot with a ten or queen. If a ten or queen came, it's anybodies guess what Stuey would have done. I believe he would have checked it down. We know what he would do if a blank came.

Re: Stu Ungar hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did read One of a Kind and was convinced that Stuey had a somehwat uncanny natural ability to master card games, but I'm not usually blown away by these hands that people breathlessly retell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than the hand against Sztremp, I tend to agree with you; I think there's some dead-hero worship going on. That's not to say the guy wasn't a great player; he was, obviously.

Some of the gin rummy anecdotes are pretty impressive.

Re: Hey NUMBNUTS, not you, that other guy I forget his handle
 

[ QUOTE ]
All mathematical players have a very high calling frequency.

[/ QUOTE ]

So assume these guys are pretty smart and could be playing the right percentages anyway. Now add the reputation of a calling station who can't easily be bluffed off a pot. Definitely seems like +eV.