Stu Ungar hands

[MCS]

[ 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.

[Punker]

[ 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!

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ 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

[shaniac]

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.

[ 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.

[Publos Nemesis]

[ 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?

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

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ 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.

[shaniac]

[ 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.

[SNOWBALL138]

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