|
|
|
|
#1
11-13-2005, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
[ QUOTE ]
You're overstating the difference quite a bit here. [/ QUOTE ] I was countering Beavis's assertion that Hellmuth can't be a bad cash game player and also a good tourney player. Brunson's edge over Ungar in a cash game might've not've been all that large, but it was there. Tourney's are a whole different story. Of course, it's possible that Doyle still has the edge when he's sitting at the same table with Ungar in a tournament, but Ungar probably had a better overall edge against the field. 
|
|
#2
11-13-2005, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
I may be a little biased because I just finished "One of a Kind." The way that book talks about Stu, it was like he could look into your soul. It mentions once about a hand that he called a very large bet on the river (side game) with pocket 2's and no help from the board. Also, there is another mention about him calling an all-in (tournament) on the river with 10 high and taking it down. That is just sick.
|
|
#3
11-14-2005, 12:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
[ QUOTE ]
I may be a little biased because I just finished "One of a Kind." The way that book talks about Stu, it was like he could look into your soul. It mentions once about a hand that he called a very large bet on the river (side game) with pocket 2's and no help from the board. Also, there is another mention about him calling an all-in (tournament) on the river with 10 high and taking it down. That is just sick. [/ QUOTE ] You are being significantly biased. The default response seems to be "You never hear of a big laydown Stu Ungar ever made." I think it was Paul Phillips who mentioned that he was sick of everyone going on about Ungar, since we really have no clue about his true tournament record. I am not trying to sell Ungar's accomplshments short, and "One of a Kind" is a good read, but if you believe that it does not delve into hopeless hyperbole, you are mistaken.
|
|
#4
11-14-2005, 12:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I may be a little biased because I just finished "One of a Kind." The way that book talks about Stu, it was like he could look into your soul. It mentions once about a hand that he called a very large bet on the river (side game) with pocket 2's and no help from the board. Also, there is another mention about him calling an all-in (tournament) on the river with 10 high and taking it down. That is just sick. [/ QUOTE ] You are being significantly biased. The default response seems to be "You never hear of a big laydown Stu Ungar ever made." I think it was Paul Phillips who mentioned that he was sick of everyone going on about Ungar, since we really have no clue about his true tournament record. I am not trying to sell Ungar's accomplshments short, and "One of a Kind" is a good read, but if you believe that it does not delve into hopeless hyperbole, you are mistaken. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly. I can realize when I have "one sided" infomation in front of me. And that is what I was trying to say. My previous post meant that IF the book gave an objectional outlook on Stu's play, then he was a poker god. Key word = if. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#5
11-14-2005, 02:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why is Hellmuth checking in the dark?
these days there are some many guys tired of this god-like image stu ungar has that you'll hear exagerations from both sides of the argument.
I seriously doubt a 3time world champion was as bad in side games as people want it to look like PS: and quoting Paul Phillips I also "doubt he had a life long +EV calling all-ins on the river with T-high"
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
