Tanks Article!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hairydude]

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.

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 

[Wardonkey]

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.

[Royal Flush]

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.

[bolt pp]

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.

[AndrewT]

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.

[Wardonkey]

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

Top story, front page...

Good post bolt!

[bundle]

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

[Hairydude]

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!!!!!

[Nem]

f John Travolta went broke tomorrow, would he still not be a great actor?

He wasnt a good actor in the first place!

[bundle]

f John Travolta went broke tomorrow, would he still not be a great actor?

He wasnt a good actor in the first place!

  I think you still get my point Nem

[Hairydude]

f John Travolta went broke tomorrow, would he still not be a great actor?

He wasnt a good actor in the first place!

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

[GlasgowBandit]

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!

[bundle]

OMG Unreal 

same for any of your favorite actors or actresses,

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

[tikay]

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.

[bundle]

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.

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