|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stu Ungar hands
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Stanley checked and folded when Ungar bet $225,000. Ungar brashly turned up his cards, showing Q-10. It was a total bluff. He had no hand whatsoever, and Ron Stanley had released the best hand. [/ QUOTE ] Why did Ungar show this? [/ QUOTE ] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stu Ungar hands
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Stanley checked and folded when Ungar bet $225,000. Ungar brashly turned up his cards, showing Q-10. It was a total bluff. He had no hand whatsoever, and Ron Stanley had released the best hand. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Seemingly unnerved by Ungar's bold action, Stanley was eliminated shortly thereafter, while Ungar proceeded to run over the rest of his opponents - who by this time all seemed to realize that they were playing for second place, not the championship [/ QUOTE ] Why did Ungar show this? [/ QUOTE ] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stu Ungar hands
[ 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! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stu Ungar hands
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stu Ungar hands
[ 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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stu Ungar hands
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] Other than the hand against Sztremp, I tend to agree with you; I think there's some dead-hero worship going on. That's not to say the guy wasn't a great player; he was, obviously. Some of the gin rummy anecdotes are pretty impressive. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stu Ungar hands
[ QUOTE ]
Written by Lou Krieger Famous Bluffs: Stu Ungar versus Ron Stanley I was fortunate enough to watch this bluff unfold in person, from the press row at the 1997 World Series of Poker. In the 1997 World Series of Poker, Stu Ungar had been dominating the final table. He was chip leader from the start, and rather than nursing his lead while his opponents eliminated themselves, Ungar attacked early and often. Once he raised on seven successive hands in a row. Bluffing? Of course he was. But none of his opponents wanted to risk early elimination to find out for sure. Each subsequent rung on the pay ladder was a significant increase in winnings, so each of Ungar's adversaries was apparently content to cautiously inch his way upward. After Las Vegas professional poker player Ron Stanley stole the blinds a few times, he moved within $200,000 of Ungar. For a moment, it looked like he might overtake him. But a few hands later the two chip leaders began a heads-up duel. With Ungar in the big blind, Stanley quietly called. 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. Ungar raised $60,000 and Stanley called. The last card was a king. Stanley checked and folded when Ungar bet $225,000. Ungar brashly turned up his cards, showing Q-10. It was a total bluff. He had no hand whatsoever, and Ron Stanley had released the best hand. Seemingly unnerved by Ungar's bold action, Stanley was eliminated shortly thereafter, while Ungar proceeded to run over the rest of his opponents - who by this time all seemed to realize that they were playing for second place, not the championship [/ QUOTE ] Your memory is a little off. Stanley came apart later, after John Stremp hit a one outer on him in a monster pot. He then proceded to bluff off the rest of his chips. After Stuey bluffed him he took it in stride and was still playing well. You also miss quite a bit in the Stuey hand. It is true that Stuey wound up with nothing and made a great bluff on the river. You miss what happened on the turn however. When Stanley bet $25,000, Stuey correctly put him on second pair and felt he could win the pot right there. If Stanley did call his raise, Stuey had picked up an inside straght draw (which would have given him the absolute nuts), he also felt that he could probably win the pot with a ten or queen. If a ten or queen came, it's anybodies guess what Stuey would have done. I believe he would have checked it down. We know what he would do if a blank came. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hey NUMBNUTS, not you, that other guy I forget his handle
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hey NUMBNUTS, not you, that other guy I forget his handle
[ 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hey NUMBNUTS, not you, that other guy I forget his handle
Didn't Ray Zee say "I'd swim a river of glass [to play Stuey in a cash game]"?
|
|
|