88% Concentration blogger aka Bluescouse finally busto.

[MANTIS01]

If poker ability was assessed by money won then a certain Mr. Gold would be afforded legendary status.

Stu Ungar was the greatest poker player that ever lived. The ability to risk EVERYTHING you have because you have absolute faith in yourself and your ability is a mentality that fits No Limit Poker like a silk glove. If you avoid this game or that situation because you are uncertain or have doubt then you can never reach the pinnacle of your game...and be the player you could be.

If you are the tenth best player and avoid a table consisting of the nine most talented then you will forever be the tenth best. The limitation you place upon yourself is a handicap in fulfilling your potential and as such a fundamental flaw in approaching the game of No Limit Texas Hold'em. Risking it all is the very essence of the game!

Players that have an unwaivering can do and will do attitude regardless of the challenge are truely the greatest in this game. Finding a game you know you can win does not make you a great player, it certainly means you are sensible, but by no means a great player.

[MKKfish]

hedgefundaments

What price could I have got on that ever appearing on the Interwebbythingy?

[sovietsong]

If poker ability was assessed by money won then a certain Mr. Gold would be afforded legendary status.

Stu Ungar was the greatest poker player that ever lived. The ability to risk EVERYTHING you have because you have absolute faith in yourself and your ability is a mentality that fits No Limit Poker like a silk glove. If you avoid this game or that situation because you are uncertain or have doubt then you can never reach the pinnacle of your game...and be the player you could be.

If you are the tenth best player and avoid a table consisting of the nine most talented then you will forever be the tenth best. The limitation you place upon yourself is a handicap in fulfilling your potential and as such a fundamental flaw in approaching the game of No Limit Texas Hold'em. Risking it all is the very essence of the game!

Players that have an unwaivering can do and will do attitude regardless of the challenge are truely the greatest in this game. Finding a game you know you can win does not make you a great player, it certainly means you are sensible, but by no means a great player.

Excellent post, couldnt agree more.

[LLevan]

Poker is a game where you wager sums of money either big or small and as such surely a judge of how good a player is comes down to how much a player wins over a period of say 10 years compared to his actual stake. This would also mean that there are plenty of very great player who play 50 cent games and grind a very nice living at it. Just because TJ Cloutier has won x million from tournaments doesnt make him any greater a player than an internet player who has won say 100k from much smaller stakes.
I think most of us appreciate that it is nearly impossible to make a living by solely playing tournaments because of the X's and if a player has gambling leaks such as Dice Roulette Sports Betting etc. it is a surefire quick route to the land of skint members. The only tournament players who have a hope in hell of making a steady income are those who receive sponsorship and thats a fact that few can dispute.
In my mind to be a great in a gambling game you have to be able to show a profit and bankroll management is part and parcel of being a great poker player as is being sensible and cherry picking which games you play in.

[MANTIS01]

Is a boxer who cherry picks his opponents great because he has been a champion for 10 years? Or is the true champion the fearless boxer who takes on all-comers regardless of ability and reigns for just 5?

The money thing gets in the way for us amateurs. Noboby can question the wisdom of bankroll management, it is essential for us. But if you play a poker tournament and have one eye on the money around bubble time you will not be great, you may make a steady income or a good profit, but you wont be great.

[thetank]

Poker is not a sport though. It's not about proving to others that you're good.

[LLevan]

Goodness and Greatness are very subjective but are usually judged by winnings or trophies. Poker is slightly different to most sports in that the prize fund in each tournament or cash game is made up from the entry fees or cash put on the table by all players. Therefore bankroll is important because no matter how great a player you are once your bankroll reaches zero and you run out of backers or people to nip from you are out of the game and can take no further part in it. Now if you have a gambling leak like Dice or Roulette or any other leak eventually you run out of funds and then have to rely on backers before eventually you have no means to raise an entry into a game or tournament. True greats of any disciple be it poker or any sport would never get themselves into a position whereby they cant enter the next tournament/game.

[MANTIS01]

Yep, I appreciate the major importance of bankroll management but I don't think the inability to take part in a tournament reflects upon your ability.

Muhammad Ali was unable to box after being charged with draft evasion in the late 60's. Did his inability to paticipate mean he was no longer the greatest fighter of the time?

When Stu Ungar failed to show for day three of the WSOP Main Event in 1990 when he was chip leader did this mean he wasn't the best player in the field?

Like LLevan says there are probably thousands of great small stakes players out there who never get the chance to reveal that greatness for one reason or another. Maybe it's ill discipline, maybe it's time constraints or whatever but this doesn't stop them from being great poker players. Bankroll is essential for continued participation but participation is not the mark of greatness and in a game that involves luck, sponsorship etc...even winning is not indicative of a players ability.

I think it has a lot to do with mentality, so the boxer who takes on the best and risks it all takes a step towards greatness and although poker is a different discipline the fearless player who is prepared to do likewise is treading the same path. He is not necessarily proving anything to anyone he is just approaching a game that requires you to be fearless with the best possible mentality. And because putting it all on the line is very very difficult to do it is this exceptional mentality that is indictive of exceptional character....And it is a mix of character and ability that makes one great, not trophies or money.

The greatest player does not need to choose the right game. The very act of selecting a game shows how far from greatness someone actually is. Selection is based on fear of loosing and someone who is great by definition would not entertain those thoughts.

[bobby1]

Goodness and Greatness are very subjective but are usually judged by winnings or trophies. Poker is slightly different to most sports in that the prize fund in each tournament or cash game is made up from the entry fees or cash put on the table by all players. Therefore bankroll is important because no matter how great a player you are once your bankroll reaches zero and you run out of backers or people to nip from you are out of the game and can take no further part in it. Now if you have a gambling leak like Dice or Roulette or any other leak eventually you run out of funds and then have to rely on backers before eventually you have no means to raise an entry into a game or tournament. True greats of any disciple be it poker or any sport would never get themselves into a position whereby they cant enter the next tournament/game.

spot on, like 'great' snooker players that cant play safe, like 'great' footballers that cant tackle, have no pace and underperform on the big occasion a great poker player that is skint is not great at all, he might be very good at playing the cards but if he cannot do the other things needed to be great, then he isnt.

[MANTIS01]

Well, I've heard the expression "he has the heart of a champion" many times but never "he has the financial acumen of a champion".

If you look at any genius it seems the prerequisite is a fatally flawed character. So characters like George Best, Diego Maradonna and Paul Gascoigne in football, Alex Higgins in snooker, Ian botham and Shane Warne in cricket and Stuey Ungar in poker all spring to mind. Of course, there are plenty of greats who have a well-rounded character and sound discipline but I don't think having deficiencies outside of the game itself excludes you from being in that club. Now when we talk about poker I think the ability to feel comfortable living on a knife edge and an immunity to risk actually enhances your suitability for a game of risk and gamble. So when Ungar said "I'm all in" he often meant exactly that...and for me that's pure class. Stupid yes, but still class.

[thetank]

When Stu Ungar failed to show for day three of the WSOP Main Event in 1990 when he was chip leader did this mean he wasn't the best player in the field?

Yes. The best player was probably one of the ones that showed up.

[thetank]

Well, I've heard the expression "he has the heart of a champion" many times but never "he has the financial acumen of a champion".

Most times when you hear of a boxer having the heart of a champion, it is because of his intense physical training regime.

Countless hours every day in the gym, treating their body like an absolute temple so they can continue beyond the points of normal endurance. Does having a serious Ben and Jerry's ice cream addiction in your spare time make you a worse boxer? Almost definately.

In poker, we don't play with our bodies, we play with our chips. The chips repesent money and you need to look after it to be great. Spending it all on coke might give you another factor that inhibits your performance, consistancy and ultimately greatness.

The man behind the shades was a fantastic read, appealed to the romantic side of all of us. Stu Ungar probably was the greatest tournament poker player ever. Not the best poker player though, not by a long shot.

[Wardonkey]

In what way are the characters Ian Botham and Shane Warne 'fatally flawed'?

Many more great champions have well rounded characters than have fatal flaws.

Being a compulsive addict is not a trait to be admired.

[bobby1]

In what way are the characters Ian Botham and Shane Warne 'fatally flawed'?

Many more great champions have well rounded characters than have fatal flaws.

Being a compulsive addict is not a trait to be admired.

spot on mate, i find it amazing when people talk of Alex Higgins and Ronnie as the best snooker players when Hendry and Davis were diff class as snooker players, yes the other two were great potters of a ball but as rounded players the two Steves were diff class yet people seem to rate the other two higher.

[Longy]

When saying someone is great poker player you judge their results on the poker table purely, I mean to judge them on their other weaknesses in life is bizarre to be honest unless it affects their ability to play poker. Money is the way of keeping score in poker and therefore the player who wins the most money can claim to be the best, admittedly this is has its exceptions like Jamie Gold winning a massive live donkament.

Stu Ungar was an amazing talent and had a rare ability for all card games including poker, his personal life did affect his performance at the tables and to say he was the greatest of all time I think is stretching it. He was the greatest gin rummy player who has ever lived no doubt about that. The greatest poker player ever has just died, Chip Reese. He won millons upon millons in the toughest games in the world.

Regarding bluescouse he definitely has some ability but he is playing off about 20bb's half the time therefore turning the game into a massive luck fest. Jamie Gold (esque) some might say.