blonde poker forum

yo read ur article tank-good read!!!

I disagree tho that Stu Ungar wasnt one of the greats- he was such a talented guy that just happened to also be a degenerate Gambler- He won three world series main events after all.

He just loved action so much thats why he became broke- the money didnt matter to him at all- thats pretty bad news and the traits of a degenerate but it doesnt distinguish between a good poker player or not-after all he never lost all his millions at the poker table- it was other places such as at the track, casinos and through hangers on and also through drugs!!!

If you've not already read it I would advise getting the biography on him- the man behind the shades-its an excellent read!!!

 :goodpost: ;iagree;

Stu Ungar is definitely one of the best players ever, an all time great!

I would have loved to see him own Ivey hu.

I have read the book. It is good.

What makes him so good compared to a player around today. I know he only died 9 years ago, but he missed the internet phase that poker has taken now.  Doesn't someone like Ivey have a better chance of being a more complete player because of the global appeal of poker. Back in 97 it wasn't as big and as a result Unger wouldn't have faced as many different players as Ivey does.

Ungar still played against all the White Chip players. Brunson, Reese, Harman etc...

Yea I guess you are right

I actually found the "article" slightly offensive, i happen to believe we are judged by our equals and our peers, or by history.
Stu Ungar was one of the greatest players to have ever lived, far more qualified people than the people who frequent this particular forum have said so.

Where is the article?

Man that would be some Heads up game-Phil Ivey Vs Stu Ungar, I generally dont think u can compare players from past to present tho-similar to football where we try and say oh such and such would still be a great footballer in todays game, or you get old timers saying ah it was much better in my day!

For example in football its no doubt the players are a lot more proffesional and train more and drink less and also are a lot fitter-we have more facilities and technolgy at our disposal to achieve all of this, its the same with poker we have so many tools like hand calculators, online forums with hand analysis  ;D and a lot more literature etc at our disposal

In the book there is a props bet(he done loads of these kinda things) where he counts back 2 fully shuffled decks of cards, card for card- I mean I dont think even my memories that impressive ;D ;D ;D

offensive?

I was being diplomatic snippy

ian i will PM you tomorrow, i'll give you tips on diplomacy if you give me some on spelling mind you i am a lexi...... (bugger i cant spell it but you know what i mean) ;D

Now THAT would be ironic :D

I think that the point Tank was trying to make was that money/bankroll management are essential skills for the successful poker player.

If Stu Unger had possessed these skills he would probably be killing the 'The Big Game' today. He did not and was therefore not as successful as he might have been. How much weight you give to these skills is subjective, hence the discussion.

Making a distiction between the worlds most successful poker players and the worlds best poker players, removing entrirely the money management side would give you two very different lists.

 :goodpost:

Yeah I totally agree with you Wardonkey-but he wouldnt be here today no matter what because essentially drugs killed him-altho if he did have this self control for bankroll management then he would probably have the control not to take drugs but thats another issue.....

What I simply getting across was that because he went broke many times and died penniless doesnt mean he wasnt one of the greats-which tank had expressed in his opinion, note that nick the greek also died broke and he was another great!!!

and he there is still not much distinction between most succesful poker players and worlds best- the money you earn would be most succesful and for his time he was one of the most succesful and highest earning poker players- he just wasnt the most succesful gambler  :)up

Imagine if he had stayed away from the craps, the booze, the drugs etc and used his bankroll to make sure he could stay in action as a poker player. Surely then he would have been more successful.

Unger had great successes, but successful people don't die penniless in cheap motels.

Unger had a great talent, but he squandered it.

I have to agree with the article.

A poker player is the whole package, he may have been talented at the table, but he was a poor all round player.

I think the point that Tank made he made very well(as he usually does).

It is a point however that i disagree entirely with.

I think a distinction should be drawn between bad money managment which affects the way in which you play, and a propensity for exuberance and ostentation.

If in any field of employment you earn a tidy sum should you not beable to go out and spend it in any way you see fit?

Tank makes it clear that he's post is not an unaquivical guidline for poker prosperity but one mans opinion pertaining to the correlation between managing ones own bankroll and sucsess at poker.

I think this is not as a generic subject as tank belives it to be though.

I think that impotance placed on money managment is an issue thats main factor is individual character.

Surely the fact that stu unger obtained such success and reverance whilst leading an appauling exessive lifestyle goes towards cementing him as the best player that ever lived?

The difficulty involved in this is of inconcievable enormity.

I've manufactured a situation for myself whereby i'm able to earn an adequete living playing internet poker, as much as if i were hod caryying for £90 a day.

I go out every weekend(all weekend) and probably 3 weeknights.

I drink vast somes of alcohol which accounts for a significant portion of my weekly earnings and as does whatever else i do when out.

I get cabs everywhere as i cant bare public transport and eat takeaways almost everyday.

With what my girlfriend earns at work the money we earn is just enough to sustain the current level of lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.

In the sense that the money i earn allows us to succeed in achieving the three basic neccesities in life and a standard of life thereafter, i would speculate that i've forefilled my own perception of poker success.

I probably play at a level marginal to my bank roll and make no attempt to save my money.

I play in live cash games at the weekend that are well above my limits and raid my bankroll for non poker exploits.

All of the above mean that i have not achieved the concensus for "poker success" but I'm confident in my ability and am happy in the knowlege that if i were to adopt the correct routine and procedures conducive to proffessional poker, advocated by the big earners, then i could trebble my expected weekly earnings within a few months.

The ONLY regret i feel about my current situation is that it restricts my ability to play on the circit and is something that compells me to perhaps address my "attitude"

In conclusion, in understanding that the level of importance stu unger placed on poker was periferal to the desires that were ultimatly to consume him you can begin to comprehend the magnatude of he's success and realise that although money managment is undoubtably integral to modern day poker success not all successfull players are working off of the same criterea.

Am I just being the biggest dimwit ever - I can't find the article on the site.

Can someone point me in the right direction.

http://www.blondepoker.com/index.php?q=node/2199

Top story, front page...

Good post bolt!

I find it strange that poker players are judged by how much money they have got in the bank, basically they are judged on their whole life style rather than the success on the tables.
If Tiger woods done all his money in bad investments and choices, would he not be still rated as one of the best golfers to have ever played the game, same for any of your favorite actors or actresses, if John Travolta went broke tomorrow, would he still not be a great actor?

Imagine someone comes to your home game week in week out, and wins all the money EVERY week, you call him to tell him about your next game and he tells you he can’t come he’s skint  (done it all at the track) is he still not the greatest player to ever grace your table?

BTW another great read tank, you should consider writing a lot more

To sum up IMO being a good poker player is what you do at the table, not what you do away from it!!!

And being a succesful person in life is down to the individual-success in some eyes is to become rich and famous while in others its merely to stay fit & healthy & have a family


Good debate!!!!!

He wasnt a good actor in the first place!

 :D I think you still get my point Nem

lol I was thinking that too- anyone see that scientology film he made-what a lot of bollocks!!! in fact scientology is a farce in itself

I haven't read the article yet, but I will do so in the next 10 minutes. 

Before doing that I will give an opinion on what I have read on this thread and what I already know.

I don't think there is any doubting that Stu Unger was a poker great, in terms of his success at the table.  However, I don't think he was a great man.  He had an addiction to gambling, drugs and alcohol.  Rather than fight these addictions he chose a cowardly way to live his life and died at a very young age through bad management.  Thats bad management of his lifestyle choices and his finances.  I don't doubt that had Unger cleaned up his act it would probably have taken much away from his game.

IMO he is the equivalent to George Best or Alex Higgins, an absolute genius who gave it all away. 

Earlier in this thread someone asked that if Tiger Woods lost his money through bad investments would that alter his image of being the one of the greatest golfers of all time?  Clearly the answer is NO, there is a major difference from making a bad investment that gambling all your money away or indeed from blwoing in on a copious ammount of drugs and alcohol.

Ask the same question of Alex Higgins or George Best did the publics perception of these two greats change due to they way they conducted their lifestyle?  The answer to this one is yes.  Although there was a public outpour of sympathy for best when he died many people didn't care and indeed didn't see it as a major loss when he died.  Ultimately he got what he deserved.  Not only did he waste his own kidney but he wasted a kidney that someone more needing could have had.

Stu Unger a legeng and a looser - RIP!

OMG Unreal  rotflmfao
I just choose him as an example since he has done so well for himself away from acting

This IS a good debate.

John Daly (Golf), Alex Higgins (snooker), George Best (footie), all had "problems" away from their specialist field.

In the case of Ungar, he was in a game where money-management is a component of success.

But, I suppose, taking Best & Higgins as examples, they did things "off-field" which diluted or reduced their on-field abilities.

Ok so if Tiger Woods done all his money on drugs and loose women,would he still not be one of the greatest players to ever grace the game?

If Stu Unger sat on your table it's Basically game over for you, it matters not what he does with his money, it's a fact he was one of the great's.

Another great debate is chopping the prize at the end of a game, same thing applies here. It’s their money to do as they please with. It takes nothing away from his game

Yes.

Maradona spunk alot of his money of Cocaine but he is still the greatest footballer to "grace the game"

Oh right *looks sheepish*

For some reason I expected it to be in the Tankbank.

Maybe when new things are posted on the front page, they could be credited to whoever wrote it, rather than whoever submitted it - my eyes scanned down the list of submitters and I just saw snoopy's name.

*I realise I'm just making excuses for my own donkiness*

OK, I've read the article now.

As Tikay said, the key is whether the player's off-field antics had a negative impact upon their game. With George Best and Alex Higgins, it undoubtedly did - without the drinking they'd have been able to play at the tops of their games for longer than they did. Similarly with Stuey, without the drugs he'd have been able to be a top poker player for longer, and would have won more bracelets (he was playing back when winning bracelets was easier than it is today)

True, but that shouldnt take away what he did. He could only beat the field that was put in front of him. I dont think that from 2002 onwards he would have definitley won a bracelet as the field size has became ridicolous, but that woudlnt have made him a bad player.

I've read his book and when you dont have your own major physcological issue, addictive personality, etc, then its easy to dismiss hia actions as someone who lacks the control or will power to choose the 'sensible' course. Mental illness, such as Stu had, is a disease of the mind just as cancer is a disease of the body. Just because we cant see his brain breaking down and dieing, doesnt mean it isnt!!

Great debate!

I don't think you can denigrate Stu Ungar's poker talent by highlighting the negative aspects of his life.

He clearly had a massive talent for poker and just because in the view of many he wasted the money he won in other areas of his life, this shouldn't detract from the recognition he receives for his poker gifts.

The old cliche about genius being a hair's breadth away from madness is one that is perenially confirmed.

Maradona won a world cup virtually single HANDed (ill get over it one day) yet had a coke problem.

George Best was a magnificent player but hopelessly addicted to alcohol.

Kurt Cobain wrote an album that stormed the world yet only a few years later blew his brains out.

Einstein was a visionary physicist but could never find his comb.



People point at these icons and say, if only they hadn't done this, hadn't smoked that, hadn't drunk this and had known a good hair salon, they could have been so much more. To me the genius of these folk is closely interwoven with the unique facets of their personality and lifestyle. Pull at the loose thread and the entire tapestry may unravel.

Maybe you could have had a drug-free Stu and Diego, an interminably jovial Kurt, a sober George and a neatly coiffered Albert, but would they have been the same men who took the world by storm and left their mark in history?

Don't bet on it...

Thankyou for your kind words Hairydude and others. If the article did offend anyone, I apoligise. I'll confess to having phrased it in a manner that might spark a little controversy.

Some great posts on this thread and a fantastic one by bolt.

Having never had the good fortune to meet the man, (Stu Ungar that is, not bolt) anything I say is third hand and from a somewhat ignorant and speculative perspective. That's something we can all be guilty of when it comes to those who are in the public eye, to those whom books have been written about. That's not about to change. It wasn't my intention to insult or belittle anything he had achieved in his career. Just one man's opinion.

I don't think it's a fair comparisom of Ungar to Higgins, Maradonna or Woods. To play snooker, football or golf, you need a cue, a ball or a club. To play poker at the top level, you need money. You can play poker with someone else's money, but not if you've already betrayed their confidences on multiple occasions.

Although I do understand that there is more to life than cash, that's one of the things you get from sporting success. Losing it doesn't take away what you have already achieved. In the case of poker in particular though, it does somewhat limit your chances of building on that success as it's an essential tool of the trade.

The principle reason I wouldn't list him among the all time greats, is that I believe that list should be populated by role models with the whole package.
Don't get me wrong, you can f*** up as often as like and still make the grade, so long as you eventually learn from your mistakes. It's not so much the drug problems, or the sports betting, but that when he had some money to his name, he would often times play over his head. Game selection is where he falls down in my eyes and why I would consider him for "most feared" player, but not "greatest."



The main point I was trying to make in the piece, was not about Stuey, but about how going bust is considered a right of passage in poker. While positive things may come of it in the long term, too many people I see are overly proud of "having the balls" to have risked it all in one game.

It's less romantic, but unparraleled natural talent aside, I've got acres more respect for people who are blessed with discipline the size of grapefruits.

People respect true sporting genius, Steve Davis, Hendry, Shearer tho these people are not always liked. In fact they are regarded as 'boring'........but they love flawed sporting genius because at the end of the day we cannot relate to being a genius but we can relate to being flawed......and they give us all hope that we too could reach the heights that these people have achieved even carrying our emotional baggage whilst disliking the people that seem superhuman(Davis) because they seem to be perfect and jealousy/grudging respect is felt instead of love.

I dont think Stu Ungar would have swapped his success for anything even tho many aspects of his life seemed a mess. I think the real beauty of his life story is that it isnt how far you fall that counts, its how far you bounce back and making a personal judgement whether all the bad times he had were worth going through to make the good times even sweeter.

I didnt think the article was offensive but I did draw a breath at the phrase 'dead dude'.I dont think that was needed and it has certainly brought on a good debate.

Considering that Scientology is a religion that was invented by a science-fiction writer...........

I know- theres a hilarious South park episode that totally rips the pi$$ out of Scientology- you should download it-its called in the closet and Tom Cruise is in it(obviously not the real tom cruise)

Tank I wasnt offended by the said article I just disagree and have my own opinion on it- I agree there is a semi-romantic appeal to the flawed genius tho!!

Offensive was a strong word but once sonopy quoted it i couldn't change it.

Bolt made the best post in this thread, class.
I just don't understand how you can judge someone's success by their failings?, it makes no sense to me.
The very fact that every poker player knows who Stu Ungar was is testiment to his greatness.

Isn't he the man who said: "The best way to get rich quick is to start a religion", he then did just that and got rich quick.

I disagree with tank and some of the other comments on here too.

I don't think what you do outside the game is relevant to your ability as a player.

He was one of the greats because he was good at poker, full stop. Okay, so he did all of his money on drugs and so on, but that's not bad money management in terms of the game, and just isn't poker related. That's his outside life and what he chooses to do with the money won from poker is irrelevant to his skill level as a player.

If Pele had splashed all his money on gambling or something, would we suddenly start saying that he was a poor player?

 ;iagree; :goodpost:

The true gauge of a great player is to ask his or her peers. I believe if you asked Brunson,Chan,Helmuth or reece they would say that Stu Unger was a great poker player. He was just a loser off the table which makes it all the more tragic that such a talent should not be around today.

The point I tried to make was that Stu was a great player, I don't think thats questionable but he was a looser.  In terms of he lost all his cash to drugs, dring and gambling.

TK said other night if he was giving advice to anyone playing poker just now it would be to stay away from the gaming tables after a poker event as its the easiest way to blow cash after a decent win. 

Ungers play is not in dispute its the way he chose to live his life and yest that does reflect on how people judge him.

Well he was certainly a great tournament player, and they say that he was the best ever at gin-rummy.

Perhaps he was just another great tournament player who consistently lost in cash games.

How is game selction not poker related?

There was an Austrian artist once who moved to Germany and got mixed up in politics. Everyone knows who he is, but that doesn't make him a great painter.

It was a long weekend for me, and I finished reading The man behind the shades, Withing the first few pages of the book i was captivated and unable to put it down, To say i was riveted by the meteoric rise Stuey had from his humble beginnings in New York would be an understatement.

The authors captivated the greatness of a cardplayer that Stuey was, as well as his shortcomings as a father, and his weaknesses in his character, showing how neglecting and selfish he could be, without realising he was doing anything wrong until it was too late.

The book estimates that Stuey won more that $30 million in his poker career, I'd say that impressive for a Gin Rummy player, its just a shame he had nothing to show for it when he passed away, Its also seems inconceivable to me as a father how another father could allow his child to be without the essentials in life when I was earning so much, Yet in Stueys life he had never learned the basics that we as individuals take for granted a common sense, an example would be delayed gratification or the value of money. These concepts were alien to Stuey hence we can see from where his downfall is born.

This brings me back to Tanks article, after completion of the book I got to thinking about this thread, I have to disagree with Tank on the front that Stuey was without a doubt one of the great poker players, as the book suggests, when he was playing poker he could control and maintain a bankroll that is without question, Stueys problems would begin when he was bored, stressed, depressed or generally unhappy. Sure he had a problem with his sports betting, but he just craved the challenge as he found very little challenge in the cardrooms.

What saddened me most about Stuey's story was the way he spent his final months, He was a troubled man who squandered his Gift, his fortune, his friends and most of all his family. Stuey was reduced to begging in order to buys school clothes for his daughter, And when he asked friends for help they turned him down as they had been burned so many times when stuey used good faith money to purchase drugs, I believe his friends like Chip Reece, Doyle Brunson and Billy Baxter found Stueys self destructive addiction hard to watch, as they had all at some point tried in vain to intervene and help straighten Stuey out.

As it turned out Stuey got one last handout, His friends took up a collection at his funeral, in order to pay for the funeral.

I cant understand as a father of children how Stuey could self destruct in such a horrific way, yet as a poker lover and player, I cant deny the guy was one of the all time greats at the game, who else do you know that could call a guy with 10 high and know he was ahead ( unless you are playing flushy, 10 high is usually good enough).

In short, in my humble opinion Stuart E Ungar was one of the all time greats of poker, he was just terribly bad at living life with the important things in perspective.

Well thats my opinion on this subject anyway.

Cheers


Billy