Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

I was reading a old cardplayer where Mike Sexton was discusisng how great Stu Ungar was. That he was the best ever. And we have heard this from many people. My question is how much is truth, and how much is urban legend?

I mean i don't know his whole life as a card player but this is what i do know. He won the main event in 80 and 81 i think. then there's a huge gap where he didn't make the final table unitl he won in 97. One year in the early to mid 90's he just missed the final tv table coming in 8th i think. I think it was the year Matloubi won.

Ok so what does this mean? Well i don't know exactly but it makes me wonder if he was as great as he was built up to be. I mean what happend through all those years in between? And what about otehr wsop event thorugh all those years? Did he play them? Did he play the main event every year through the 80's and 90's? How come he doesn't have aton more bracelets for other events? How many does he actually have?

Now lets discuss his live game? This i don't know too much about other than hearing through the years that he was a fish in big live games. Now i don't know how true this was or if it was only if he played when he was intoxicated in some fashion. But If he is the greates poker player of all time like he is percieved to be. He should have crushed the big games. And why was he broke all the time? I know he had a drug and gambling problem. But if he was the greatest poker play of all time you think he would still have a few bucks in his pocket from beating every poker game he played.

I wonder how Barry Greenstein would rate him? Would he be considered one of the tournament players that gets famous but was drawing dead in his game? Or would he say Stuey was the best or one of the best? Maybe he has commented and someone will give me that answer. What about Doyle and chip? I wonder if they laughed through the years hearing about stuey getting all the fame but they collected all his money in the big games. While they hear talk about how he was the greatest and everybody else was in a different league. Was Stu Ungar the greatest of all time? Or was he the Gus Hansen of the 80's and 90's?

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

Dude, you have easily been a member here for more than a year and a half. Search the archives, this topic has been covered infinitum.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

Well i did not see it. So i'm making a post that i would like to discuss. Is that ok dude?

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

The man is on record to have won ten of the thirty major tournaments he entered over his lifetime.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

he made the final table of the ME in 1990.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

My understanding is that he was a phenomenal NL tournament player, and not nearly as good at cash games. Since cash games are where most of the best players' profit comes from, I don't think you can consider him the best poker player ever. But I doubt there can be too much argument against him being the best ever at tournaments.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The man is on record to have won ten of the thirty major tournaments he entered over his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be "on record" as in "totally unverifiable claim that is wildly more likely to be false than true, but has been repeated so many times that it has become gospel in the minds of many."

Or, conversely, you have someone in mind who knows for certain exactly which tournaments he entered and didn't cash.

People are such suckers.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

They have a movie out about him, It's called Highroller (the stu ungar story). It will probably answer some of your questions. There are some insane stories about him. ie. playing a guy heads up freeze out for like....many thousand dollars, i'm drawing a blank. Long story short he puts his opponent on 45 or 46 an calls his all in on the river with ten high. Don't know of any other player that can make that call.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Long story short he puts his opponent on 45 or 46 an calls his all in on the river with ten high. Don't know of any other player that can make that call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a great story, I love that story too.

But have you ever stopped to wonder how many times he called with ten high and lost?

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Long story short he puts his opponent on 45 or 46 an calls his all in on the river with ten high. Don't know of any other player that can make that call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a great story, I love that story too.

But have you ever stopped to wonder how many times he called with ten high and lost?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many times do you need to call and be right for it to be profitable?

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

Good point. We only hear about the one time it worked. Not about all the times he may have looked like a dope.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Long story short he puts his opponent on 45 or 46 an calls his all in on the river with ten high. Don't know of any other player that can make that call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a great story, I love that story too.

But have you ever stopped to wonder how many times he called with ten high and lost?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're playing with a marked deck--then none.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
They have a movie out about him, It's called Highroller (the stu ungar story). It will probably answer some of your questions. There are some insane stories about him. ie. playing a guy heads up freeze out for like....many thousand dollars, i'm drawing a blank. Long story short he puts his opponent on 45 or 46 an calls his all in on the river with ten high. Don't know of any other player that can make that call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Highroller will answer zero of these questions. It's purely entertainment and doesn't go into much detail at all regarding Stuey's poker career.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
he made the final table of the ME in 1990.

[/ QUOTE ]

how many wsop's did he participate in? anyone know?

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

wow for a poker forum you guys are very well informed

Know your history or you are damned to repeat it

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

Barry G has talked about Stuey's amazing reads and how there are no 'amazing fold' stories. That's pretty interesting if you think about it. Also, Doyle has said he was incapable of winning if he ever got top pair cracked. (paraphrasing)

I've been something of a skeptic regarding him as well. Great players, though, can beat ring games and have excellent discipline .. I've never heard of him having those skills.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

It was against Mansour Matloubi.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

first of all, stu ungar took doyle heads up for the 81 wsop title im pretty sure. i believe that he was a genius; the way that he played gin rummy (took amarillo slim, AMARILLO SLIM, for alot of money) was unmatched, and hasnt been matched since. this guy had no respect for money, especially his own. when people backed him (baxter or whatever) he was unbeatable, but like in cash games when he played with his own money, he played dumb because he loved the gamble too much. he was where we all strive to be in terms of poker and card game skills.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

Kirill Gerasimov called his heads up opponent's all in bet with ten high, and the board was something like AKJJx, and it was heads up in the first round of a no limit hold'em shootout, AND it was AFTER HIS CARDS WERE ACCIDENTALLY EXPOSED. That's a much, much tougher call than Ungar's, who based on the flop and turn betting was able to put the guy on a specific hand, busted gutshot draw. Kirill exposed his cards prematurely and CALLED when his opponent went all in. This is quite possibly the best call EVER, especially because it meant advancing to the next round of the shootout versus going bust out of the money.

Sure, it looks suspicious that the guy went all in, if you had quad jacks what else could you do, is he any more likely to call even a small bet with that hand?

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The man is on record to have won ten of the thirty major tournaments he entered over his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]


how can u even try to [censored] with this??????


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The man is on record to have won ten of the thirty major tournaments he entered over his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be "on record" as in "totally unverifiable claim that is wildly more likely to be false than true, but has been repeated so many times that it has become gospel in the minds of many."

Or, conversely, you have someone in mind who knows for certain exactly which tournaments he entered and didn't cash.

People are such suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

wait i think that is why they are called major tournaments.
Pretty sure they can be easily tracked.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Long story short he puts his opponent on 45 or 46 an calls his all in on the river with ten high. Don't know of any other player that can make that call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a great story, I love that story too.

But have you ever stopped to wonder how many times he called with ten high and lost?

[/ QUOTE ]





How many times do you need to call and be right for it to be profitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO AND THEN!!!!!

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The man is on record to have won ten of the thirty major tournaments he entered over his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be "on record" as in "totally unverifiable claim that is wildly more likely to be false than true, but has been repeated so many times that it has become gospel in the minds of many."

Or, conversely, you have someone in mind who knows for certain exactly which tournaments he entered and didn't cash.

People are such suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]


think ur just jealous honestly. I know you got money but this just irks of hatred.

His WSOP feats - not that great he beat 73 and 75 players in 80,81
 

He is way overrated. He beat just 73 and 75 players in the his first WSOPs. How does Johnny Chan not rate way above him? Two in a row then 2nd? Against bigger fields? Even when he won in 97 it was only 311 opponents. His cash game was a joke by all reports and as for the 10 of 30 MAJOR tournaments, how major were they? You can guarantee by todays standards they were a joke. If you organise a 10k buy-in and have 73 players these days everyone would think it a joke, didnt Ben Affleck win a tournament that size ? He must be a great.......

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

stu only beat doyle in that world series when he cracked doyle's top two with a gutshot. outdrawing doyle isn't exactly evidence of brilliant playing. on RGP doyle said stu wasn't even in the top 10 players he's played against. no one's saying stu was a bad player, his 'legacy' is just being challenged by skeptical people who don't believe everything they're told. it seems he was a great no limit tournament player.. but that doesn't make him the greatest poker player ever.

Re: His WSOP feats - not that great he beat 73 and 75 players in 80,81
 

[ QUOTE ]
He is way overrated. He beat just 73 and 75 players in the his first WSOPs. How does Johnny Chan not rate way above him? Two in a row then 2nd? Against bigger fields? Even when he won in 97 it was only 311 opponents. His cash game was a joke by all reports and as for the 10 of 30 MAJOR tournaments, how major were they? You can guarantee by todays standards they were a joke. If you organise a 10k buy-in and have 73 players these days everyone would think it a joke, didnt Ben Affleck win a tournament that size ? He must be a great.......

[/ QUOTE ]

wow if beating 73 of the most prominent players in the world makes me overrated so be it. I'm down.

Re: His WSOP feats - not that great he beat 73 and 75 players in 80,81
 

[ QUOTE ]
He is way overrated. He beat just 73 and 75 players in the his first WSOPs. How does Johnny Chan not rate way above him? Two in a row then 2nd? Against bigger fields? Even when he won in 97 it was only 311 opponents. His cash game was a joke by all reports and as for the 10 of 30 MAJOR tournaments, how major were they? You can guarantee by todays standards they were a joke. If you organise a 10k buy-in and have 73 players these days everyone would think it a joke, didnt Ben Affleck win a tournament that size ? He must be a great.......

[/ QUOTE ]

You will not find a single knowledgeable poker player on the face of the earth that says Stuey's cash game was a joke.

You really should learn not to post when you have less than no clue what you are talking about.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how Barry Greenstein would rate him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonder no more! When www.barrygreenstein.com comes back up after maintenance, look under player profiles.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

Or you can look at Google's cache right now.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

Was he a great poker player? Yes. He did win some major tournaments and he was highly respected by many players who are still around.

How great? Who really knows. There's no way to pin it down. You have to weigh his record along with the opinions of the people he played against.

Is he the greatest ever? I don't see how anyone could ever dominate a game like poker to the point where they can be clearly listed as "The Greatest of All Time." Is he in the top 10? Could be, who knows. He could make a final table / win a bracelet every once in awhile these days, I'm sure. There's no doubt he had talent.

Keep in mind that much of the legend has to do with the fact that he's dead.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]

That would be "on record" as in "totally unverifiable claim that is wildly more likely to be false than true, but has been repeated so many times that it has become gospel in the minds of many."

Or, conversely, you have someone in mind who knows for certain exactly which tournaments he entered and didn't cash.

People are such suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what to believe about Stuey. I've spent some time talking to some of the old guard about Stu, who I never met, and some of them tell some pretty amazing stories -- both of his talent and his degneracy. You're no doubt right that the stories are exaggerated, but even if only half of them are true, it's still pretty impressive. How would you rank him against the new Chan-Brunson standard, there, Paul? He does have THREE world championships, does he not?

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

This post is ridiculous.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

Howard Lederer, Jack Treetops Strauss, and Kevin Song, all rolled into one person. Hmmm...

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
stu only beat doyle in that world series when he cracked doyle's top two with a gutshot. outdrawing doyle isn't exactly evidence of brilliant playing. on RGP doyle said stu wasn't even in the top 10 players he's played against. no one's saying stu was a bad player, his 'legacy' is just being challenged by skeptical people who don't believe everything they're told. it seems he was a great no limit tournament player.. but that doesn't make him the greatest poker player ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Doyle recounts this story in Super System to show an example of considering implied odds when making a decision, as either the bettor or the caller. NOT to show how "dumb" Ungar was.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so what does this mean? Well i don't know exactly but....

.
Now lets discuss his live game? This i don't know too much about ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

Paul, you are so pathetically jealous of everybody else who's ever played poker, it's disgusting.

Green Dollars isn't the only thing you have.. You're filled with Green Envy to anybody other than yourself.

What a loser.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

i was in no way, shape, or form implying it was a dumb play. like i said, the odds were there, and he outdrew doyle to win. he gambled and got lucky. how do you argue against that? what if that 4-outer didn't hit the turn? he showed a pattern of having too much gamble and not enough sense, and that applies not just to poker but also his life. how hard and fast can you live before your body gives out?

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

A book on Unger just came out and is quite good. There is a lot of specifics on his card playing abilities and life.

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

I see this over and over again and it really gets annoying after awhile: It's UNGAR, not UNGER. Thank you.

Re: His WSOP feats - not that great he beat 73 and 75 players in 80,81
 

[ QUOTE ]
He is way overrated. He beat just 73 and 75 players in the his first WSOPs. How does Johnny Chan not rate way above him? Two in a row then 2nd? Against bigger fields? Even when he won in 97 it was only 311 opponents. His cash game was a joke by all reports and as for the 10 of 30 MAJOR tournaments, how major were they? You can guarantee by todays standards they were a joke. If you organise a 10k buy-in and have 73 players these days everyone would think it a joke, didnt Ben Affleck win a tournament that size ? He must be a great.......

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sorry did the greatest poker players of all time enter Ben Affleck tourt win? Was Brunson playing the best poker of his entire life? Was Johnny Moss there? So you should just STFU!

I hate to break it to you, but there was almost no dead money in the first 2 tourts stuey won making it much harder to win, then both of Chan’s victories, and any wsop up until the mid 90's. The number of players has nothing to do with how hard a tourt is to win, the quality of players does. (ie I sit you with 100 fish, vs I sit you with the top 9 pros in the world)

His cash game wasn't the best, because of a lack of patience. He still won millions playing. However in the rest of his life away from the poker room... He HAD ZERO CONTROL. He lost 10's of millions that he won in poker, betting sports, and on drugs. However this doesn't change how great he was at poker.

I can't prove the 10 out of 30 tourts entered (at least I haven't tried yet, I believe he won 10 tourts, but it was probably closer to 50 tourts that he entered), I can tell you he won 3 out of the first 7 wsop tourts he enter. I can tell u he won 3 super bowls of poker. I can't say the same for anyone else.

Stuey was the greatest gin player ever, Stuey was the best tournament poker player of his time (maybe all time). We may never know how great because of all of his problems, but no one can take away his accomplishment on the green felt, not even you Paul Phillips! Your post bleed of jealousy. Maybe you should worry a little bit more about your tourt record then Stuey's!

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
stu only beat doyle in that world series when he cracked doyle's top two with a gutshot. outdrawing doyle isn't exactly evidence of brilliant playing. on RGP doyle said stu wasn't even in the top 10 players he's played against. no one's saying stu was a bad player, his 'legacy' is just being challenged by skeptical people who don't believe everything they're told. it seems he was a great no limit tournament player.. but that doesn't make him the greatest poker player ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess out drawing him wont but how about out playing would right. Doyle min bet the flop (maybe 2x). Stu put him on a huge hand. Stuey decided if he hit his hand he would take all of brunsons chips. Ridicoulous implied pot odds. GUESS WHAT HE WAS RIGHT!

Re: Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player?
 

[ QUOTE ]
wow for a poker forum you guys are very well informed

Know your history or you are damned to repeat it

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly how does this quote apply here?