Re-evaluating Stuey Ungar

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
he asked me many times about simple odds questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ray, I believe what you're saying, but this flies in the face of the Stuey myth--i.e., he was such a numbers genius he was setting odds for his father's bookmaking operation when he was a kid. Was his brain so fried he could no longer do the math?

TANSTAAFL--there ain't no such thing as a free lunch

For all his amazing talents, he lacked the one that might have kept him from going broke, or better yet, dying. He had no self-control. Maybe this was why he was so amazing, his disregard for anything that wasn't in the moment, but he serves as a cautionary tale, doesn't he.

Ray, I heard his rudeness was legendary. A dealer at Binion's told me Stuey could put an entire table on tilt. More stories, please?

CJ

[fungaimike56]

Hey Busto.
Most 'opinion' about Ungar's Gin ability rates him as being without peer, the best player, maybe ever. None of which mattered because once this became generally known he couldn't get a game without giving away too much edge in negotiating the match. And so, being the superior negotiator, Billy Baxter would clean him out despite being the lesser player.

Tournament poker, specifically big buy-in hold-em, was his arena. It would have been fun to see him playing twenty or thirty $10,000 buy-in events a year which is now possible. What would he have done? We'll never know. It is not unreasonable to assume that he wouldn't have been able to stay in cash to finance these buy-ins himself. He'd need a backer. The name of the backer who put Unger into his last victorious WSOP big one is Billy Baxter.

Questioning Ray Zee in that manner was one sad display of plain dumbness.

[bustowithnobra]

In what manner? One of maybe 100's of proffessional gamblers who knew Stuey? Doyle Brunson on record has said, among many others, Stuey was a genius with an IQ 10 times greater than that of the norm. But apparantly he can't do mathematically simple odds questions? Apparantly he can call out his opponent has 4-5 against the one of the best tournament poker players in the world at the time, but he couldn't do this in a cash game against amateurs? Stuey was a degenerate who lost all his money, but where did the money come from if he played only in 30 tourneys in his lifetime. Ray leveled Stu down to a "fearsome table maniac who could read players well." it takes a lot more than the ability just to read people well and be a maniac to be good in any form of poker, tournament or cash game. This completely takes away Stuey's ability to bet just the right amounts, and discounts him as just some "maniac." He could read people well for sure, but how does that make people call your bets when you have the nuts and they have middle pair. Most "maniacs" like that are out of a tourney in the first five minutes, and like I said, you put 10 of today's players in tournaments then, they probably would not have the unqualified success of Stuey. If Stuey mostly lost in cash games too, how did he have 100's of thousands of dollars to bet elsewhere.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
In what manner? One of maybe 100's of proffessional gamblers who knew Stuey? Doyle Brunson on record has said, among many others, Stuey was a genius with an IQ 10 times greater than that of the norm. But apparantly he can't do mathematically simple odds questions? Apparantly he can call out his opponent has 4-5 against the one of the best tournament poker players in the world at the time, but he couldn't do this in a cash game against amateurs? Stuey was a degenerate who lost all his money, but where did the money come from if he played only in 30 tourneys in his lifetime. Ray leveled Stu down to a "fearsome table maniac who could read players well." it takes a lot more than the ability just to read people well and be a maniac to be good in any form of poker, tournament or cash game. This completely takes away Stuey's ability to bet just the right amounts, and discounts him as just some "maniac." He could read people well for sure, but how does that make people call your bets when you have the nuts and they have middle pair. Most "maniacs" like that are out of a tourney in the first five minutes, and like I said, you put 10 of today's players in tournaments then, they probably would not have the unqualified success of Stuey. If Stuey mostly lost in cash games too, how did he have 100's of thousands of dollars to bet elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be wrong on this but I think what Ray Zee was referring to when he said Stu asked him for the pot odds was that back in the 80's the concept of pot odds was not as well known or understood. Stu was a great "feel" player and also one with photographic memory so he may have been able to recall tells and such. He may not have understood the whole pot odds concept as well though, at least not back in the 80's.

Edit: When I was playing stud and draw back then I don't recall pot odds ever being discussed. When I started playing HE in maybe early 90's it was a while before the whole concept of pot odds became familiar.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was his ability to master gin just a function of great memory, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

From talking to a number of his acquaintances, it seems like it was a combination of photographic memory, superior logic skills and a remarkable attention to detail. According to One of a Kind, he could name off a gin opponent's hand after eight draws just about every time.

[/ QUOTE ]


I tried posting in another forum to ask whether Ungar's card memory was the bulk of his advantage. The only reply I got was Jimbo (who seems to know his stuff), and he said perfect card recall is par for the course at top gin. So apparently it's more subtle than that.