sure stuey HU nl A's game was world class.. he won three bracelets..... was by all accounts a psycho lag, I can't imagine he would beat Ivey over 50,000 hands just because he would lose so much when running bad... but i think its fair say he prob best MTT player of all time

i gotta go with phil ivey because he plays constant solid poker, even though I am a big fan of stu ungar.

amen

while phil is solid and a huge fan favorite, 5 bracelets etc etc etc he isn't unbeatable. i watch him quite often on ftp and it seems certian people have his number at times, although durrrr doesn't seem to be one of them.

say what you will about ungers drug habits (meant for all the haters in this thread) and all, the guy was simply amazing.

did you ever watch ungar play? ffs enough with this ****

ummmm, i'm missing the point of your response to my post here. if you are tired of people thinking unger would have won, not my problem, lol.


why do people read the forums to begin with if all they want to do is flame away at people for no reason rather than add to these threads? FFS enough of the flaming, lol.

like the old saying goes, if you dont have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

I take it you watched him on TV a couple times and think he sucks. I mean he may or may not be overrated, and by all accounts was a total degen and an asshat, but he crushed the games when he played.

Not-so-subtle 'FTP rigged' theories ITT

yea.. IF stuey was able to play his best, which he wasnt 99%+

IF Phil didn't have a dice problem he'd be richer too.. why someone so good at gambling likes dice....

People always look back and think the old ones were the best. Some people think Bjorn Borg might have beat Roger Federer - not a hope in hell. Mind you, Muhammed Ali......................yep, he would have beaten everybody. Damn, I've just killed my argument. I go for Stu then.

1st ask doyle and chan if they could beat ivey

This statement has a lot of truth in it.. It's also kinda hard to compare both because they were playing in different times.. Although from what I've heard Stuey was a very aggressive player and that style of play would fit right in today's high stakes games.. Also Stuey would've obv evolved with the modern games and adjusted his game on that.. I think it's hard to compare both still, even more so because they never had a chance to play eachother.

phil is a degen because he shoots dice?

i just spoke to stuey...he said ivey is to focused and would own him.

Sklansky, do you think you're being hilariously smart or something?

You feel your genius wit and poker mind are not getting enough recognition?

Ban OP IMO.

Lol, epic first post. I totally agree. Are you like a huge lurker, or what?

Maybe a better question is are lessor poker players (us) able to effectively handicap the best? If we really understood their respective styles wouldn't we be as good? We know that Ivey and Unger are awesome hand readers, awesome at anticipating their opponents reactions, but we really don't know how they do it.

We might be able to look at two boxers and postulate some idea as to how one boxers style will trump the others. We don't have to be a boxer to do this. But with poker it's kind of like the handicapping analysis in effect IS the thing itself. That is, if you assume you can handicap a great poker player then you assume you have significant knowledge about his game. When your talking about handicapping the best players in the world it's like your saying you can see inside their black box. But if that were true then you would be the best.

lol how could i have ever watched him on tv? that's part of my point. almost everyone who praises him has never seen him play and are basing their opinions on stories/tournament results. plus he supposedly sucked at cash games. if phil hellmuth died before the poker boom, people would be saying how amazing he was too. i'm sure he was great, but wtf.

This thread smells of desperation.

i mean wtf? can people please explain to me wtf 'dynamic game' means? how are todays games more 'dynamic' whatever that means

Do people think that in the past people did not go all in wht flush draws, they didnt try bluffing, they didnt raise, re raise, re raise all in , they didnt bluff completely with air

i mean........... someone please explain how todays game is 'more dynamic' as this guy put it - than in the past

sup doyle

Kolo has a crush on him.

just ad block it.

in the algebra class i heard david tell johnny stu and phil were gonna fight after gym class is this true?

ivey>stuey> chan. i bet chan thinks he could beat both of em which is lol so wtf