I've read One of a Kind by Nolan Dalla. It was a great book but it didn't mention any hands. Same with the Biggest Game in Town by A. Alvarez. I've also seen the videos of the 1981 and 1997 WSOP - useless since they didn't show hole cards back then.

Are there any books (eBooks preferably) that describe hands that Stu Ungar played?

Pretty sure "puggy Neutron" who produces a list of kindle pamphlets has gone over Stu's hands in one of those, he doesnt get good reviews, but IDK if you feel like rolling the dice, you can give them a try here is one link

http://www.amazon.com/Poker-Games-St...8511869&sr=8-1

I guess the guy has played with him in the past, and IDK if this is worth the money, as I havent read it, I just remember stumbling across it a month ago or so.

I know from what I have heard that he was very loose and aggressive, which was facilitated by his amazing hand reading abilities. Like out of this world hand reading abilities.

I've heard numerous legendary tales about him picking off bluffs with 10 high, and calling someone's exact hand. It almost seemed like he could see his opponents cards.

So if you wanna play like Stuey, become an amazing hand reader, and pound viciously on your opponents with aggression.

Good point but I think Barry Greenstein also made a good point about his play: He always made great calls but I've never seen him make a good laydown either.

he was prob the dwan of the 90's

He was more influential in the 80s than the 90s. He was one of the few players back then who was both a good card player, in the sense of having memory, calculation and strategy skills, and keen psychological insight (except about himself, of course). Older players generally got by on psychology and rote, younger ones were bringing mathematical theory and strategy to the table, but often were poor judges of people.

He would not be a top player today, however. His main poker fame is his WSOP main event titles, which he won by aggressiveness as much as anything else. Today everyone knows to be aggressive in tournaments. Plus the events were much smaller and, as always, luck in a huge factor in tournaments. In cash games Ungar not a consistent winner versus top players. He made his money in gin rummy against anyone and hustling less skilled players in poker.

I didn't play him much. In those days (early 80's) mob influence was waning in Las Vegas, but there were still friends of mobsters and civilians. If you guarded your civilian status, you were safe, but if you hung around connected people, you were on your own. Ungar was definitely on the dark side. I know people who liked to play with him, however. The claim was he shook money loose and if you played steady and tight it fell into your pocket.

He played today's style back then.

I agree, there are probably alot of Stuey's out there today !!!!

Awesome stuff. Thanks for the recollections. Like OP, i've read One of A Kind and enjoyed it. Was also curious about what people's memories were who had played him, so very much enjoyed your thoughts.

100% agree. He was a great great player and would still be great today. You put a handful of pros from today in his team and they would have been considered the best as well. Not to take anything away from him because he owned the game

It kinda amazes me how he was so successful in poker with no discipline in real life. And unshakeable confidence in one self really overules everything else.

Wait, you actually played Stu Ungar?

Do tell us everything, Sir.

Stu beat tournaments, Gin, heads-up poker.

Stu lost in the normal Vegas ring-games and it was not even close. The pros loved playing with him. Stu was far too loose, steamy and tilty in all games.. even NLH. This was well known by the cash game players.

In Gin you can be involved every second. In heads-up you are constantly in action.

In cash games sometimes you must be able to "sit on your hands" and stay in control for long periods when losing. Sometimes simple starting hand selection is needed.

Being able to make more (and better) lay downs in the tougher NL cash games would have helped as well. Some days there were some nice "reads", great looking calls, extra raising and betting, but this was not enough.

I dont know if he ever played it but PLO wouldve been a game he wouldve enoyed/excelled at for obvious reasons.

It's no great honor. If you played at high stakes in Las Vegas in the 80's you'd run into him. There were a lot fewer players in those days, and a lot fewer places to play.

As I said, I didn't play him much. I wouldn't leave if he came into a game, but I wouldn't sit down if he was there already. I remember him mostly as a mob guy, not as a famous player. The WSOP was still a casino publicity stunt, not considered the place to find the best poker player in the world. Gardena had a much higher level of play at the top stakes than Las Vegas. Bracelets didn't mean much, only Amarillo Slim managed to get much traction out of one, and that was due to folksy humor and talk show success more than poker winnings. And remember that Unger had to beat only a total of 146 other players to win BOTH in 1980 and 1981. In 2006, after doing what Unger did in both years, you'd still have 60 more people to beat to win.

It's kind of funny how young players today think of early WSOP winners as superstars or demigods. To me most of them were just the guys hanging around the high-stakes poker rooms, trying to make a living. There were just as good players from that generation who never won the main event. I was part of a younger crowd of mostly college-educated mathematical players, 2+2 style, not Texas road gamblers. Stu Unger was somewhere in between. If he had better self-discipline, he would have made his fortune in sports betting. That was the big money in those days.

Nobody liked professional poker players back then. Casinos considered poker an annoying sideline where players lost money that the house didn't get. They stuck us under the stairs or in dark corners next to the loudest slot machines. Everyone else thought we were degenerate bums or hustlers. You could get respect playing poker only if it was a hobby, and you earned your living from a good job.

Stu Unger was certainly the most dramatic player in those days, everyone knew him. His game was unusual and his gin rummy fame got respect. He also did lots of unusual things away from the poker table. As I mentioned, a lot of pros liked to play in his games, not to win money from him, but because his aggressive play and manner got tourists to play loose. There was a kind of tourist who liked a slight whiff of mob connections, guys who idolized Frank Sinatra's rat pack in the 60s and thought organized crime was cute.

I wish I could tell you I had some memorable hands where I took him for a hundred grand on the river, and he said afterwards, "Aaron you're twice the poker player I am," but I don't. My guess is he didn't know my name, he certainly never knew my last name. I was just one of a faceless college kids who were showing up more and more in Las Vegas.

I think he laid the ground work for today's style of play. Probably more than anyone else he influenced the game.

How so if no one seems to be able to describe how he played beyond 'crazy' and 'aggressive'?

Doyle Brunson fits your description much more accurately.

from what I've read stu was a very good SH and tourney player...way ahead of his time. however, he didnt have access to the same tools we have now to help plug up leaks in his game...not to mention he was a hopeless tilter and coke head

Now you're being unfair in the opposite direction. The tools we have today allow anyone with discipline to do the things Stu could do in his head, I don't think they would have helped his game. And he was the opposite of a hopeless tilter (in poker, that is, in life he tilted with the best of them). His tantrums were calculated with great precision. His leak was not caring enough about money. He wanted to beat people, not collect chips. That's what made him so much more formidable in a tournament than in a cash game.

Having played with Stu, having spoken with many that have, including Chip... Stu was a losing cash game player in ring-games (the venue of most poker). Also, Stu did suffer from the weaknesses you mention, as well as those mentioned in my earlier detailed post in this thread.

Heads-up, Gin and tournaments are another story.

Of course I have heard many times: "what if" Stu had not done this, "if only Stu had" done that, if he had gotten rid of his serious bad had habits outside of poker, been more stable, and so on....

Man this is one of the most interesting threads I've read in a long time. Thank you Aaron Brown and tuccotrading for being so candid. I love it. Please share more if you can.

What did it mean to be a friend of a mobster as a poker player? What made it so dangerous?

I'd imagine there was a lot of money lending going on, and, well, I wouldn't want to be in debt to the mob.

It meant a lot of things. Especially back then. Guys who were connected to real outfit guys had an umbrella of protection. They played in games that were often cheated. They were protected from being hustled, cheated, outplayed. Not because they were special, but because they were earners/victims of some pretty dangerous people. It is a whole scene, whether in the poker room, sportsbook, at the racetrack, that is just best avoided. The short term benefits like being able to borrow, having access to cheated games, protection from being scammed, is not worth the long term damage of these people owning you. Chip commented on it before he died.

Teams under Tony Spilotro's protection plied their trade for his benefit at various casinos in the 70's and 80's. Stardust, dunes, et cetera. Just from reading, Stu was under the New York umbrella, and out of respect to his guy and caretaker, he wasn't targeted like Chip and Danny Robison and others were. Whereas the Texas guys had Benny Binion to look out for them.

There is a reason Greenstein and other cali guys were avoiding Vegas at this time, and the above is pretty much it. It was hard to be on your own if you were a real money machine, and even harder if you were hooked up.

Names, oh let's see. Mike O'Conner, Tommy H., Nicky Vachiano, Jimmy Shahady, Billy Baxter. Dangerous and connected guys have always been around poker. The one benefit of the boom is they have less influence.

Stu was way more aggressive than Doyle Brunson. Brunson def was a huge influence with super system but today's game has gone past that now to a much more aggro style. Stu's game could still win even today, but Brunson would have a lot harder time winning in today's poker world.

You guys are missing the point. Its pointless to take the game and style that a person played with 20 years ago and guess whether or not it would win in todays game. The point is he played a style that worked before people understood why it worked.

Stu if he were alive today would be successful not because of his game he played then, but because of the fact he would find a way to win in whatever game hes playing in. He was a genius, and not a genius in the way alot of people throw around.