Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player? - Page 6

prana · #51 07-04-2005, 03:19 PM

[ 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 ]

really??? theory of poker page page 57-58. Doyle admits he played the hand incorrectly.

TM1212 · #52 07-04-2005, 03:22 PM

Thast the other place I read it! Yup, people are so unknowledgeable, they only see cards, not pot odds, implied pot odds, reads and everything else to a hand.

TM1212 · #53 07-04-2005, 03:28 PM

[ 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 ]

So are you claiming that stuey always played 10 high the whole way heads up all the time? Are you claiming he did it often enough to be unprofitable?

If you would look at the entire hand, it wasn't hard to put his oppenent on a busted striaght draw. Now it takes someone with a lot of balls and confidence in his ability to make this call. Just cause you would never have it, doesn't make it a bad play, or unprofitable for that matter.

Paul Phillips · #54 07-04-2005, 03:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So are you claiming that stuey always played 10 high the whole way heads up all the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is precisely what I am claiming. Why would you need to clarify this point when I've said it in those exact words so many times? He always played ten-high the whole way when heads-up. It was like a religion with him. Sometimes if he improved he'd fold, but if he could make it to the river with ten-high, watch out! It was GO TIME.

CaptainNoBeard · #55 07-04-2005, 03:41 PM

his play against doyle was technically sound. "genious" is pushing it.

ismisus · #56 07-04-2005, 03:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Exactly 90% of the posters in this thread are clueless. Especially the [censored] retard who said Stuey sucked out on doyle to win his first serious. Maybe you should actually hear what doyle himself had to say about the play first. Probably one of the best hu wsop hands ever. Doyle made a huge mistake Stu capitalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the hand, and what mistake did Doyle make?

Joey Legend · #57 07-04-2005, 03:54 PM

Stu Ungar is the holder of an impressive 5 WSOP braclets, but he also has another impressive WSOP stat:

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/rank.php?a=r&n=125

This is the WSOP all time money winners list, as reported on the Hendon Mob's site. Notice Stu's place? 12. Not a bad place to be at all, but its even more impressive when you consider that most of the people who place higher have benifited from a high finish in the last several years where the poker boom has created massive prize pools. People like Greg Raymer, Josh Arieh, David Willaims, Chris Moneymaker, Dan Harrington, and Robert Varkonyi. Even Chris Fergusan made something like 1.5 million when he won in 2000. Now, I don't mean anything against these players, tho I do belive luck comes in to play more in the WSOP now than it did say 10 years ago, but my point is this; Stuy didn't even have the chance to play in any of these massive 5 million doller pay off main events. He is by far the highest player on the list who is no longer active, and his totals are still competative with currectly active players. As a side note, many of the people who havn't "scored big" in the last couple years that have Stu's money total beat have certainly played in many more events than him (people like T.J.)

Stu Ungar was clearly one of the great poker players of all time, tournament poker in particular. I don't think you can call any one person the greatest poker player of all time, poker is simply not that kind of game, but Stu was clearly near the top.

prana · #58 07-04-2005, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly 90% of the posters in this thread are clueless. Especially the [censored] retard who said Stuey sucked out on doyle to win his first serious. Maybe you should actually hear what doyle himself had to say about the play first. Probably one of the best hu wsop hands ever. Doyle made a huge mistake Stu capitalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the hand, and what mistake did Doyle make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu Ungar $497,500 -A7
Doyle Brunson $232,500 -45 spades

30000 in pot before flop, flop a27 giving doyle top two, stu a gutshot. Doyle admits his 17,000 bet trapping Stu was not a big enough bet to deny Stu the implied odds he had if indeed he had a gutshot. Turn was a 3, Ungar bet 40,000, Doyle thought and moved in. Voila.

Joey Legend · #59 07-04-2005, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You don't know the history of Stu Ungar, I Do!

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Adjective · #60 07-04-2005, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly 90% of the posters in this thread are clueless. Especially the [censored] retard who said Stuey sucked out on doyle to win his first serious. Maybe you should actually hear what doyle himself had to say about the play first. Probably one of the best hu wsop hands ever. Doyle made a huge mistake Stu capitalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the hand, and what mistake did Doyle make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu Ungar $497,500 -A7
Doyle Brunson $232,500 -45 spades

30000 in pot before flop, flop a27 giving doyle top two, stu a gutshot. Doyle admits his 17,000 bet trapping Stu was not a big enough bet to deny Stu the implied odds he had if indeed he had a gutshot. Turn was a 3, Ungar bet 40,000, Doyle thought and moved in. Voila.

[/ QUOTE ]

You switched the hands