I approached Johnny today and asked him if he would answer a hypothetical question about a debate on our forum. "If they were both playing their best who would be favored playing head up NLH, Phil Ivey or Stu Ungar?

He appeared to be ready to say Phil no matter who the other guy was but when I said Stuey he said "Oh my God"! apparently because he was stunned the question turned out not to be a slam dunk. He thought for ten seconds and then said Stuey". I asked him I could quote him. That made him think further. You could see him visualizing this hypothetical match in his mind. He shakes his head and says "you know they play so much alike". And then five seconds later he says "but I gotta go with Stu".

I have zero opinion. But I would like to point out that those who point to the advanced age of the Stuey choosers as evidence of their bias and their ignorance of the modern game, that, even though those are legitimate points, there is also the point that only the older players have seen both players play.

Stuey being dead is obv a huge factor in them choosing him

Who cares? One's a dead crackhead and the other's living the good life.

Stuey was a genius back then, he would have been a genius now. he would have been able to adapt to today's more dynamic game.

This is not a slam dunk either way.

Is OP racist?

too close to call.

. . . unless stuey is coked up, in which case he is +EV.

I'm sure most of the people who would think Ungar is a fav would also think Doyle or Chan is a fav over Durrrr at hunl.

this shts a joke

I know this is my first post and all, so take it with a grain of salt.


But I hardly see this as him choosing "Stu over Ivey." This is Johnny Chan saying he sort of likes Stu heads up in a tournament format when they are both playing their best. That's quite a lot of qualifications you're adding. (Not to mention that you're also handicapping Phil in spotting Stu his best game. What if it was Stud or even PLO v. today's Stu?)

How about "if they played each other for a month straight who would end up with the money?" Or "If you had to stake one player, who would it be?" Or even "who would you rather not see sit at your table at any given time?"

I always thought part of being a good poker player was being able to be a good gambler, know when you're not playing your best, and not let your emotions get to you.


There is a reason one will never have to worry about money in his life, and the other was broke despite winning millions in tournaments.

Pretty perfect post for your first one. My title would have been misleading if not that recent threads made my meaning clear.

I wish we could bring all these old poker legends back to life so Ivey could soul rape them and these ridiculous threads would stop.

you're funny david sklansky.

+1

I think these are pretty much the questions that were asked. How else would you go about answering it but by contemplating these things?

They would rather see Phil sit at their huNL table and they would rather stake Stu if he sat at Phil's.

Point taken about the issue over time/other formats but that was covered before.

pretty pointless question imo and you could argue both sides to no end

OMG STOP POSTING PLZ FAIL

why would you care whether chan thinks phil is better than stuey when phil is almost universally recognized as chans superior?

hey guise i was talking to johnny CHAN today and he said that stuey was the best

just sayin,

discuss

not really. i don't thinks this at all but i think stuey would have a chance against ivey or durrrr. the guy was a card genius. he raped at gin rummy and while it's not the same as poker, he showed that he was very good at logical deduction, understanding his opponents (he could tell what people had by how they organized their cards) and had photographic memory to boot. i just don't see him not being able to figure out how to adjust to today's games if he played enough poker.

your avatar makes me wanna break my computer

Actually it's somewhat interesting that Johnny Chan would pick Stu over Ivey, even though HU NL is but one of the many formats the question could be framed with.

99.999999% of players on 2p2 who pick Stu or Ivey have never played with both players in high stakes, let alone over decades like Johnny Chan with the skill and knowledge that he possesses to be able to make a fair judgement of this matchup.

somehow i thought of that very last rocky movie..
maybe someday a computer simulation to see who will prevail? lol

Right. One of them owns a cheating, illegal, Internet sight, and is a gambling degenerate with unlimited funds.

The other put his life savings on the table much of the time he played.

Both are/were degenerates. Why one has money and the other didn't has nothing to do with talent but is for the most part due to income stream, drugs and degeneracy.

Take away the income stream (flood) and let's see how long this degenerate lasts at the dice tables.

of course everyone will pick the dead guy

true that.

double true that.