Stu Ungar FACTS

Ryan_21 · #1 10-23-2003, 01:21 AM

ESPN estimated that he won over $30 million dollars playing poker in his livetime. And, i know for a fact that he took $3 million+ off of Larry Flint playing heads up. The fact that he died broke has nothing to do with his poker playing ability. The man did not loose one dime of that +$30million playing poker, he lost it by spending it on coke/crack and making dumbass fu ckin bets on other things like sports and golf.

The fact that he died broke is irrelivant. It is the same as someone who is up + $30 million playing poker and decided to give that money to a charity.

Anybody who discredits his accomplishments are just playa hatin and jealous because they are not up +$30 million playing poker, and only those, and I do mean only those who are up overall more than $30 million have the right to say anything negative about Stuey, and I dont think there is anybody on here in that stature.

So, if you are not up +$30 million or better shut your f'in mouth about the deceased and give the man his props.

Ryan_21

Homer · #2 10-23-2003, 01:28 AM

The man did not loose one dime of that +$30million playing poker, he lost it by spending it on coke/crack and making dumbass fu ckin bets on other things like sports and golf.

The fact that he died broke is irrelivant. It is the same as someone who is up + $30 million playing poker and decided to give that money to a charity.

You are correct that it is irrelevant when judging his poker playing ability. However, it is certainly not irrelevant when judging him as a human being. Obviously, someone who gives $30 million to charity will be viewed in higher regard than someone who blows the same amount on drugs and foolish wagers.

only those who are up overall more than $30 million have the right to say anything negative about Stuey

How do you figure?

-- Homer

Ryan_21 · #3 10-23-2003, 01:51 AM

How do I figure?

I figure if I cant hit a 25 foot jumper I cant talk smack about Iverson if he misses a few.

I figure if I cant rush for 43 yards against the Bucs defense I cant talk smack about Marshall Faulk if he only rushes for 53 yards against them.

I figure if I cant return a 105 mph serve I cant talk smack about Agassi if he blows an Ace against Samprass.

I figure if I cant dunk on Shaq, I cant talk smack about T-Mac if he gets packed against Shaq.

Get the picture? If you cant do it dont hate! Its that simple.

Ryan_21

Ryan_21 · #4 10-23-2003, 01:53 AM

...Nobody was trying to judge him as a human being, we were trying to judge him as a card player!!!!!!!!

Ryan_21

Mason Malmuth · #5 10-23-2003, 01:58 AM

Hi Ryan:

I don't know where or how they came up with that $30 million figure. I use to see him walk in and out of the Mirage poker room but he almost never sat down and played.

I would see him occasionally playing in a big side game at a tournament, and I do know some other people who played against him in other games, and their opinion (or at least what they have told me), is similar to what Ray Zee has stated here.

Again, my impression, and it could be wrong, is that while Unger was gifted in some ways, he had way too much gamble in him. And, having way too much gamble is not a formula for ring game success, especially when the table is full.

Best wishes,
Mason

Howard Burroughs · #6 10-23-2003, 02:02 AM

Hi Ryan,

I'm about as big a Stu Ungar fan as you'll find. I used to love to watch him play (from the rail) back in the day. Sometimes (when a good spot on the rail was handy), I'd watch him for hours on end.

You're right that he was something special. But when Ray Zee says (in a post a while back), that playing live games (cash games) with Stu was like taking candy from a baby; and when Doyle says Stu's cash game play is WAY over rated. I believe Doyle & Ray.

My understanding (from talking to many who knew Stu over the years), is that while he won a ton of money in big buy-in tournies, he lost a lot of money in the big side games. They call it Phil Hellmuth syndrome in Vegas (though Stu was a much better poker player then Phil as far as I can tell).

I think Stu was a great, great player (see Dynasty's post) in his niche. He was just no Chip Reese (able to beat any poker game for any stakes) like a lot of people are led to believe.

Best of Luck

Howard

Homer · #7 10-23-2003, 02:05 AM

Get the picture? If you cant do it dont hate! Its that simple.

Who said anything about hate?

I had assumed that this discussion was going to be about both his poker playing ability and his lifestyle. I can understand your position regarding others judging him as a poker player without ever having squared off against him, though I don't necessarily agree with it.

-- Homer

Ryan_21 · #8 10-23-2003, 02:07 AM

This discussion was never about his lifestyle and was 100% about his playing ability from what I've read.

Ryan_21

Duke · #9 10-23-2003, 02:15 AM

Agreed - and as well we shouldn't. Everyone has their own demons that they do battle with in their own ways.

To judge someone as a human being I want to hear about them killing babies or running out of a burning building to leave some other people inside.

Now, maybe he didn't help out his wife and daughter too much, which is something that I'll agree is messed up, and makes him a jackass in my eyes, but the self-abuse has nothing at all to do with it, save in that specific context.

~D

Tyler Durden · #10 10-23-2003, 12:36 PM

I have won more than $30 million playing poker. No joke.