|
|
#32
10-27-2003, 12:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Well, we\'ve heard Ray and Masons opinion of Stuey...
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. 
|
|
#36
10-27-2003, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well, we\'ve heard Ray and Masons opinion of Stuey...
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.
|
|
#37
10-27-2003, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good point
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
|
|
#38
10-27-2003, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Good point
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
|
|
#39
10-27-2003, 11:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Good point
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
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
