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