what are u talking about? U know math-based optimal game is unexploitable and cannot be beaten by whatever "style" you choose to play vs it. Not saying current top players are playing completely optimal but they are getting closer. Saying current "style" might not be effective in 70's games is stupid

Russ Georgiev is back from the dead.

I enjoyed the movie. Anyone else?

It was pretty sad seeing what he did to his daughter. It's a shame people only recognize his poker skills, and not what a POS he was.

For some reason I remember best the blue glasses he used for disguising his snort-deformed nose. "Very sophisticated" is the key line in the movie, imo. Greatest degen ever lived.

Elvis of poker.

I read he was a loser in cash games back then and I would assume the cash games of that era were the equivalent to 50nl at party poker in 2006

He ran well in three prestigious small field sized tournaments. Don't believe the hype.

He also won Amarillo Slim's Super Bowl of Poker, the second most prestigious tournament in the world at the time, three times. He was the only person to ever win both tournaments 3 times. Yes the fields were small but they were all competent players. There were few soft spots. The fact is, he's widely regarded as the best hold 'em player ever by the people who knew him and played with him. You clearly aren't either, because you use the word "assume" to indicate that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Not only that, but the cash games he would have played in likely would have been the toughest anywhere. So he could be a lifetime loser in those games yet still be in the top 1 percent of players. It's that adage of being the "eighth-best player in the world at the table with the seven best" notion. Not saying Stu was No. 8, but the principle would still apply.

some old timer started a thread here on 2p2 and he talked about Stu. he said that stu was absolutely feared in shorthanded or heads up games, but when he showed up to a full table people would be licking their chops. i can't remember the name of the thread or I'd link it.

Everybody questioning if Stu was good or not, have a read: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/0...tuey-ungar.htm

Lol at how bad the competition is?

List to Allan Boston talk about him and you will gain more respect for him.
Also the fact that he was regarded as the best gin player ever can't be ignored.

OP is a super troll trying to win the troll of the month award and get his name etched on his teams bridge it is mildly entertaining though

You can't compare different generations with each other. I don't understand why people try to, it's a completely different battlefield. The competition was different, and the known game was different. Stop trying to compare Stu Ungar with todays game.

He played in the ME at least 10 times- 1980, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1996 & 1997.

I'm pretty sure he didn't defend his title in 82(don't know why) and that he skipped 92-95 due to being jacked up on coke and/or being broke.

He turned up drugged out his mind in 96 and was one of the first to bust out.

So that's 3 wins in 10-12 attempts, which is pretty impressive.

On his wiki page it says he won 10 of the 30 events 5k buyin or greater that he entered.

And my post disputes that claim how exactly?

That is probably true, with a slight change though. He won 10 of the 30 HOLDEM events 5k buyin or greater that he entered. Stud was his second best poker variant and he played in the 5k stud event at the WSOP pretty much every year and he only won it once. I think he played the 2-7 draw event also and that had a buyin of 5k or 10k throughout the 80s. Although he often cashed in both of these, he rarely won it.

It is very much possible that the 10/30 statistic in big buy-in events is correct in the context of HOLDEM events though. Apart from the ME, the only major events at that time were Slim's Super Bowl and the America's Cup. Ungar won the ME 3 times, the Super Bowl 3 times and 3 big buy-in events at the America's Cup. Thatbrings the total to 9. And he surely must've won at least one other less prestigious event hosted by one of the casinos. So yeah, it's probably true.

Lol, you are an idiot. The "very good" players of today are only good because they have copied a bunch of math based strategies developed mostly from online play. The old school players pre 1990 just played cards.

It's not even comparable.

they may be sit n go size fields but the level of play at the time was fing hi,, think of the first time you played poker a field like that would rip through the average player back then....

if Ungar was so good why doesn't he play anymore? Must of gone busto.

As we have seen, the level of play back then was a total and complete joke.

you're right. pre 1990 (and 2000) players were awful.

lol nice troll i think i saw stu having lunch with paul walker the other day odd couple

Why do think that is idiots????

People from the 70s were really dumb??????

I don't think they were dumb. I know they were oblivious to the complex math of the game. You can see this from past broadcasts and how people talked about the game.

Now I'm not saying they weren't respectable for their time being, but you bring players from the 1970-1980s to today's game and you'd see a lot of them would be fish today.