Whole lotta self-ownage for such a short post.

Stu best tournament player
Chip best cash game player
Phil Ivey as close to either at both as possible. best all-around talent. I just can't say Hellmuth is as good as Stu was. Stu did things unimaginable.

With gin, much of Stuey's rep among knowledgeable people was because the other top players gave up playing him without a spot.

Everyone lost playing Stuey straight up. Gin tournament wins only added.

I knew many of the top gin players of that time (both big money and tournament) and never did any of them even suggest to me that there was anyone better than Stuey.

But yes, Stuey was a degenerate gambler with a drug problem who was loser to all the common forms of ring game poker. Playing ring games with Stuey was a treat.



*Stuey cheated when he could and my comments are based on his honest play.

Gin is often a game with loads of cheating when the big money comes out- obvious reasons and plenty of ways.

Some examples from back then: marked cards, players had gimmiced up numerous hotel rooms in various casinos with electronics and cameras, players dumping off. etc.

Even if the 'best' gin players among what i'm sure was a pretty small number of gamblers who lived in nevada agreed that stuey was top dawg, what does that really prove?

If a very significant opportunity for profit isn't there, why would anyone fly to vegas to compete with these people?

Was hoping I wasn't the only one who noticed. I know little about BJ other than how to play, but I already was thinking of several approaches to this that wouldn't be that difficult IMHO tho I was just musing. I only took like 6 math classes total in university (discounting mechanics and physics and such) and remember very little of the trickier stuff. Def no brag (actually trying to imply my lack of knowledge from those days) and I'm nooo math major nor any genius with numbers. Far from it. I like math from a hobby PoV but only on a small scale. Not stuff relevant to this card counting either in any way.

Rich would you make the bet to me? I'll post it on video in any (reasonable) conditions you request live. I'll escrow too (as you will have to obv). I know I'm new here but Ive played online cash for 4 years now (just PLO though). Not comfortable giving ID but besides that open to any and all terms just as long as you and me escrow first. I have camera equipment. Could do multiple angles. Whatever don't care I'll do it as Stu would've done.


I'd even take 1.5:1 in your favor for 2000$ if you'd be up for it. Or more if you'd like, it's no problem - just only like up to around 5k or 6k (just don't want to escrow more than that).

So would that interest you?? I don't play table games ever really so I've played little very little BJ! That must be good for you right? I swear I don't think I've played 5 hands lifetime. I'm not one to go to casinos nor play anything gambling related besides online poker. Easy bet for us both then right?

Just please don't make ridiculous conditions that'll make any arbiter's decisions more difficult than they should be. I'm open to any and all reasonable ones though. I haven't even tried to attempt it yet. Only just did some pencil and paper work for 20 - 30 minutes max before I wrote all this lol. I must be an overconfident donk!


Anyways back on topic how can people even say any of these people mentioned in the OP could be large sample size winners online, even small-mid stakes NLHE. Just has become a much different game since the days these guys played. Like with Doyle's book for instance, I read it after learning and playing a lot more NLHE (no more than 30-40k hands before I realize I hated it but I was a big winner at the stakes I played). With Super System not only is some info outdated, it's either terribly low EV lines than the alternate route (and some -EV ones too), no attention to bet sizing (in terms of how much bluff/value combos you need in your range) or in general really. Not much attention to the big differences when playing very deep etc etc. Not being hard on the guy, but going back to read it after being a small winner at a reasonable stake and sample was scary to realize. Wish I had this basic knowledge back when those guys were playing big. I'd imagine any semi decent 1/2 player would spot the plethora of bad advice. Not knocking him just pointing out the obvious about today's online atmosphere.

"[Old Player] was good for the time and place" seems to be the right idea about those players, those books, etc. I know I don't play NLHE much (I just don't like the game after really grinding PLO hard and winning at higher stakes more comfortably, plus enjoy the evolving meta right now while NLHE has been slowing down).

Do most people here even play (or win) on any site nowadays? I always lurked for years so I don't know enough about the population of NVG. But this thread seemed ridiculous from the outset. At least it's better than another "is Tom Dwan the best ever at NLHE?" thread.

Anyways, please PLEASE Rich get back to me. We'll agree on terms and escrow. Need to find a good arbiter though because I'm not active here and don't want you to pick your best buddy. No offense - it's not that'd you'll go do that but you must understand my position. No silly terms either. If it's going to be ridiculous than I won't take the bet, but anything reasonable to ensure it's just me counting. Me winning would be just meeting exactly what you stated - determine last card in shoe. I have lots of camera equipment, microphone, should be done live for you for fairness (can't think of another way), shuffling is the biggest concern I'm guessing you'd have but I'll leave that up to you. I'd prefer the 1k+ bet at least, tho with the better odds for you as i feel it's more worth my time (not trying to be a dick at all just why work this out and practice a useless skill when I could jump in a PLO game or work my day job and make more with less effort). Not trying to be a dick seriously. If you're so sure then it's best for both of us.

Cheers.

Why would he agree to this - his offer was when he couldn't work out the method I 'sort of spelled out' - I have since spelled it out

Of course you can do this

I get it - it's a poker site and we are meant to be trying to win money - but your post comes off a bit mean/money grabbing

I refused the offer - before I made it clear how to do it

I could have taken the bet - but never would.

If you need the money that much maybe take up mugging

The counting cards story is amazing!!!

For the "significant" money that could be won in Vegas.

Never heard anyone suggest there was no significant money to be won playing gin in Vegas.. sigh.

Even during gin tournaments, the real money was made in the private play.

* But don't like travel? These players would come to you, if the money was high enough.

Before Stuey moved to Vegas he had crushed the East coast gin scene.

Do a search for the 1962-1963 Friar's Club card-cheating scandal, where industrialists and celebrities were cheated out of tens or hundreds of thousands in gin rummy games.

And here's a 1964 Sports Illustrated article about a 740-entry $100 gin rummy tournament with players flying in from across the country. Much like the early WSOP days, the big money games were probably not in the tournament.

https://www.si.com/vault/1964/04/06/...f-gin-in-vegas

I'd guess for some years gin was the big heads-up gambling game, though I'd need some confirmation on that.

The point being: gin rummy not being a particularly popular, big money game today doesn't mean it wasn't one during the time period we're discussing. It probably was more profitable to be a great gin rummy player in the 60s and 70s than a great no-limit Texas hold `em player.

That being said:
It's a little strange to use the "MONEY -- that's how you measure success" quote in support of somebody who died broke.

Yeah - I did think that the quote suggests that Ungar was one of the worst card players

It's hard not to think of him as a loser

As even when he had money - and a big win - he would spew it away

So I've never felt he was a genius - I've always felt sorry for the way he lived his life

I did think he was meant to be one of the best [or a very good at least] gin players... but I know nothing to prove that one way or the other. He may well have been a cheat - then again Doyle admitted to 'taking advantage' of players back in the day

So what you're saying is, Stu would excel in a cash game of degenerates on their case money?

Yes honestly point taken. After rereading my post it did come across as condescending. HOWEVER, I didn't read your whole post on the last page. Ranking by bridge bidding was quite clever - wished I had thought of that as I'm an avid player. I've thought of other methods than you're own though, not sure what's most efficient as I wouldn't put more thought into it without a bet made (I hate table games personally and don't want to put valuable time into something I despise and will be useless after).

I skim quickly through threads and am not really accustomed to this forum. I make a lot of bets IRL when I see value so perhaps I was too hasty. I just saw value and was hoping I could capitalize before you. Maybe its unethical but he did offer it, not me. I can see your point though. I don't want to go on and embarrass him further. Adderall and a keyboard can make me a bit of a jerk so I apologize. It's just my nature, especially when it comes to problems related to probability/stats/etc as I can see the value quickly and be blinded by other considerations.

You seem very decent not taking his bet in retrospect and while I won't post much here as I don't usually need to (nor want my usernames tied backed to me - always fear that for many reasons plus I value privacy anyways), I hope I haven't been labelled a money hungry dick after <10 posts by you or others. Value and math are in my nature to some degree. I like solving problems like his for free for fun so I was rushing into it.

I'll be sure to read more carefully in the future and not be money hungry. I'm not poor by any means (poker is profitable enough but not like my salaried day job) nor in need to be "the winner" so I get this isn't the time nor place now. Just usually IRL I take bets on things I'm sure of instinctively. Usually at tables where people don't have the info/knowledge I do (not bragging can't word it better right now however). Bad habit maybe, esp here I see now. Those meds make me want the value even more than usual so I don't think about consequences or how it'd be viewed. I really DID come across bad in some ways (though I'd always accept a bet I know I have near perfect odds to win). Just was focused on solving the problem on paper and forgot about all else before posting. Tunnel vision you could say.

But Rich PM me now and I'll give you 4 to 1 on any amount with escrow! /s
Bad joke I know but couldn't be helped.

Hope this post clears that up. I don't like to seem like I'm some hustler or money hungry. I just like math but amps make me a bit more cold than my usual self. I def didn't sign up here for money nor betting. I just got carried away when i saw something quickly solved on paper. In fact i'd be happy to share some other clever methods to solve the problem for free now. Or at least outline them if only to clear the air. But it's getting OT now. And it's my fault too

Just wanted to say - point well taken. Little sleep and artificial stimulation isn't conducive to kindness nor attention to others. If I continue to post I hope those that read that won't define me by that one post as I agree with you 100% in hindsight. Not the time nor place here.

If I read your post and hadn't skimmed it so quick I'd of realized he'd know how wrong he was and never take my bet after anyways. Nor would it be appropriate to. Its like betting 2:1 on solving something trivial like 2a + 3 = X or an evenly weighted coin. I was just gung ho at the time due to my mental state and ignorance of what you wrote.

I'm glad I took time to reread my post and see yours after the next day. Should be more kind in the future and not be looking for value everywhere. Cheers for the insight.

Consensus for all people not really interested in the state of modern poker.

I think poker has kind of come full circle now like snooker has here in the uk. Snooker used to be an older mans game back in the 70s and 80s like poker and then in the 90s it became a young guys game with a new aggressive style where you were considered past it at 30. But now 20 years later those same guys winning the biggest snooker tournaments in the 90s are still winning them today aged in their 40s.

Poker had that faze in the mid 2000s where everyone making final tables was in their 20s playing the new super aggressive style but that doesn't work anymore and now you're starting to see older guys at final tables again such as in the wsop. Maybe experience is starting to matter more in poker now like with snooker?

The argument was also that the older guys found WSOP main event [in paticular] much harder because of the long days

So if even with that advantage - the younger guys are no longer dominating - it over proves your point

Except... it depends...

You would have to know the % of younger to older players entering

As having two older guys on the final table could be more than should be expected on average [down to entrant ages] or a lot less

As of course [another factor] the players in their 40's now, were possibly in their 20's in the mid 2000's - so it's the same players [range of players] that are making the final tables

I think a honorable mention should be given to some of the best sports betters such as



and of course Haralabos Voulgaris . . .


Shout out To Arron Jones, still running the streets . . .

Huh? Honorable mention? This thread is about poker players, not sports betting.

If there was this kind of shift in demographics among people making final tables in tournaments between the 2000's and the 2010's (which if it's true the impact is probably very weak) it would be much better explained by the demographics of people entering the tournaments than the effectiveness of their playstyles.

The 2000's was around where there were hundreds if not thousands of newly minted online poker millionaires who were the first on the scene to take advantage of opportunities online. Now those people are getting older, and the youngest demographics who're starting off now don't have nearly as much opportunity to climb the ladder.

you guys all think you're so smart. how long would you need to look at each card to do the math in your head? with no practice you propose to make this bet, though you make so much more money doing anything else yet this is profitable for you how then? how about this we also throw in an MMA fight into the wager. so if you win the counting bet then you have to also kick my ass to win the bet otherwise its a wash. you are an insufferable think you know it all. you don't know crap.