are the most talented poker professionals of all time?

Chip never played much tournies, but he was a cash legend. Ivey isn't better than Reese was at cash.. and Ivey is very good at tournaments, but Reese never really played. Stu was so good.. cocaine is a helluva drug.

No.

Stu Unger was a master at NLHE tournaments. He knew who and when to put pressure on people and make them fold. However, even his friends admitted that he was terrible in cash games where he couldn't force folds. He could never adjust his game to that and lost a lot of money.

I consider BRM to be a huge determinant, and this would put Ungar below Ivey, and Ivey below Reese, in my humble opinion.

Like almost all areas of human endeavor the greatest of all time is likely to be whoever is the best today.

I don't think that's always the case when it comes to areas of intelligence and creativity. For example, the greatest philosopher of all time probably isn't alive today. It's possible someone like Stu had better reads and natural intuition than anyone who has played the game since (I heard he just didn't care about the cash games, which would certainly suit his degenerate lifestyle >_>). The best player today surely plays a better technical game, but they still might never be able to match his raw instincts.

Average regs

He asked who is most talented, not who is the greatest or the best.

If you look at Unger, Reese and Ivey, they were the best by a mile during their time, when everyone had access to the same tools. That means that they had some special talent that elevated them above the norm.

If anything, it's probably harder to spot that talent in the current game and talent doesn't go as far, given that the game has been levelled more by analysis.

There were fewer resources meaning people would have to rely on their own wits to understand the game, but to seriously pursue poker back then you'd have to both be from a very small corner of the world geographically AND be willing to play in sketchy games with a group of unsavory characters in vegas while it was mob run.

These days the opportunities are far greater, the path is much safer, and the pool of people who're competing to get there are drawn from all around the world. And when you're talking about people succeeding at the highest levels it makes basically no difference what kind of learning resources are out there.

What is probably true is that it's become more difficult for a layman to distinguish between a competent player and an elite player.

Stu ungar is the greatest tournament player dead or alive and its not even close.

no mention of dnegs? He has won more money then any other persons dead or alive, if money is the method we use to keep score then daniel wins obv

IMO he is the straight up Goat of all time, I believe if he were alive today he would figure out how to use the software and play VS the best online players even Otb_redbaron himself, a true loss for the world . . . R.I.P.

I think these 3 have received the best
"marketing" as the most talented of all time.

They won´t survive nowadays. People were just too nitty in those days.

But can they beat 25 zoom?

Stu may have won money, but he always lost it even more quickly. That, to me, is not indicative of "the best". When you win a fortune and the very next year can't afford to play the same game, that's pretty sad imo. And it. kept. happening.

WTF is a "survant"? How does an intelligent guy mispronounce this word so badly?

So was Stu on the spectrum? (I.e. aspergers?)

It's all in the inconspicuous cobalt blue sunglasses.

That's like saying Ali isn't the greatest boxer of all time because he lost his last few fights, and that there are those with better win/loss records.

Ungar was the greatest card player of all time (factoring in his insane bridge record) and probably the best tournament poker player.

Need to factor in how dominant he was at his peak in addition to long-term success. Three WSOP main event wins across 20 or so years is pretty amazing.

Keep in mind that the VAST majority of losses that f'ed up Stu were done on the track and sports betting.

He was also notorious for betting on anything and everything. The first time he learned golf, he lost like $70,000 on the first hole or something like that. That, combined with kilos of blow at a trot drains the winnings fast.

That book, One Of A Kind, is a great read.

Stu Ungar even though he qualifies as a top degen also.

Stu was [apparently] great at Gin Rummy [his best game]

But poker [?] yikes... the cash games were built around him [as in he was the whale]

Though it was a great time to be an aggro-nut for tournies... he would probably be at the 'Grinder'/'Selbst' level if he were playing tournies now

In that he would get results - as aggression is half the battle - he does have insight... but most people would scratch their heads at how such a 'donk' could do so well

I was always of the belief that cash games were a better indicator as to 'who was the best' [not perfect, but a whole lot better than tournaments]...

So I would have thought [from that list] - in my opinon - a pretty close:

1. Phil
2. Chip

Then miles below those two

3. Stu

wha bout i..sil..dur

All three were greats of their time.

What else can anyone try to achieve in their particular fields.

It's more like if Ali crushed at boxing but went and did MMA and Kickboxing and just got destroying everytime he did those but he was compulsively addicted to the sports he was losing in..............then pile a cocaine addiction on top of that mess.