Stu Ungar, Anybody Ever Play With Him

[blackjack777]

I have a friend here in Oregon who says he and Stu did drugs together and hung out a few times back in the day in Vegas.

Funny thing I remember about the story, is Stu would toss hundreds around in tips, ect... But would steal extra newspapers out of racks, because he liked to steal.

He was a serial shoplifter, even when he had thousands in his pockets.

He also rarely showered and wasn't into keeping up his appearance.

Strange dude.

[scott2130]

Check out BarryGreenstein.com He has a player analysis section and lists Stu.

[moris]

But
1) how much does he lose?
2) does he shoot lazer beams out of his eyes and lightning bolts out of his arss

[brendanb438]

[ QUOTE ]
But
1) how much does he lose?
2) does he shoot lazer beams out of his eyes and lightning bolts out of his arss

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu was Scottish?

[Ellsworth T]

How can anyone say if we were back in time the players now would stomp Stuey. Theres an obvious logical fallacy. Do you see why?

[FortunaMaximus]

Nice read. Have to wonder how much intimidation was a factor for anyone sitting in with him in cash games.

Stupid question... Were there less deck washes and changes in tournaments than there were in cash games in the early days or was dealing speed not a priority? Just a thought, which has nothing to do with marking and daubing.

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
But
1) how much does he lose?
2) does he shoot lazer beams out of his eyes and lightning bolts out of his arss

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be fire balls, not laser beams. As historically inaccurate as brave heard was, they didnt have medieval highlanders talking about focused beams of energy.

Anyway, to give you a fair idea, Doyle Brunson once said (and im probably paraphrasing) that as good as Stu was, if you could beat his top pair you could take his stack.

Generally speaking, his biggest strength was recognising and taking advantage of weakness in his opponents.

[samsdmf]

[ QUOTE ]
Sam,

You may want to read that book again.

The book indicates he was so good at Gin Rummy that it was very difficult for him to get opponents, even when giving odds.

It is also clear he has the best record in $10,000+ buy in tournaments ever.

However, the book also indicates that he may have actually been a long term loser in cash games.

That is pretty far from saying its clear he is the best in the world.

Peace,

KennyBanya

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea they wouldny play him, becuase he had beaten them so convincingly in the past, (Im pretty sure the guy who was considered the 'best' pre Ungar retired after being beaten so bad by stu)- to the extent of players boycotting whole tournaments he was in.
Probably a cash poker fish because he had too much gamb00l

[EMc]

I ate dinner with the guy that came in second to Ungar in 97 in the Main Event. He said that playing him HU was pretty hard as he was unbelievably good at reading his hands and that he had a certain presence.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sam,

You may want to read that book again.

The book indicates he was so good at Gin Rummy that it was very difficult for him to get opponents, even when giving odds.

It is also clear he has the best record in $10,000+ buy in tournaments ever.

However, the book also indicates that he may have actually been a long term loser in cash games.

That is pretty far from saying its clear he is the best in the world.

Peace,

KennyBanya

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea they wouldny play him, becuase he had beaten them so convincingly in the past, (Im pretty sure the guy who was considered the 'best' pre Ungar retired after being beaten so bad by stu)- to the extent of players boycotting whole tournaments he was in.
Probably a cash poker fish because he had too much gamb00l

[/ QUOTE ]

Cash games were static and had too many opponents to maintain his interest. He was intensely competitive and a genuine action junkie. Looking at old footage, it seems unless he had something to throw his focus on, he never could stay still long enough.

Gin is HU, and tournaments are about getting every chip on the table instead of making a hourly rate. That may not be a noticeable difference to a well-rounded poker player, but it's rather evident to people who can see where he's coming from. He'd do things and brag about it, but has there ever been ancedotal evidence that except for that 7-card gin trick aside, that he was able to explain how he was capable of doing what he does?