Stu Ungar's World Series of Poker Results?
I only got into poker three years ago and I consider him a legend. I wish I had been able to see him play when he was alive, but I was very young when he died and hated watching the WSOP on ESPN until a few years ago because I didn't know how to play and thought it was a stupid card game. Ungar is the GOAT in my opinion and Tom Dwan is just a wannabe copycat who will lose it all if he keeps playing recklessly in those high stakes cash games.
What were Stuey's results in the World Series of Poker (Main Event obviously)? It seems like the internet gives a very fragmented history of his Main Event results, and it leads a lot of people to think he only played in it 4 or 5 times and won it 3 times, but I highly doubt that, and I would guess he played in it virtually every year from 1980 to 1997, and just didn't do well in it for 13 or 14 years. Does anyone know his results? I'm also interested in knowing every reputable pro's results in the WSOP over their entire careers. You might think it's useless, but I think there are interesting patterns that you can draw out with this data in front of you.
I miss the good ole days of this forum... you know, before every conversation devolved into the GTO vs. Exploitative play debate.
If Stu Ungar existed in 2024 poker, we would be naming and shaming him for spitting on dealers, throwing objects at dealers and making female dealers cry.
Source:
Imagine if we had video of Doug Polk or Tom Dwan spitting on a dealer?
It wouldn't matter how much Stu won or how good he was or what kind of tips he gave to cocktail when he was in a good mood.
I personally
I agree with everything you said, but I have no idea why you said it in response to my post.
Who knows. Maybe with an actual threat of a ban he'd conduct himself better. Treating dealers like absolute garbage back then was tolerated so scumbags did it way more.
Generally makes little sense to hold people from very different eras to today's standards. If James Ingraham's 1977 Supreme Court case would happen today, the end result would be very different.
I have never understood the Stu Unger love or anyone idolizing him. He was hyper-aggressive in a time when almost no one else was and as a result, he won some tournaments and went on a few heaters.
No need to idolize him but I think we can agree that he was significantly better in a pretty important area of the game than almost everybody else during his time. 10 years after Unger's last WSOP win, during the poker boom years, CTS and a couple others made millions by being more aggressive than others (and understanding ranges).
He was the best ever. I remember Mike S talking about some crazy **** on YouTube. I know I remember Chip Reese and Doyle talking about how little WSOP events they played. Doyle would have the most bracelets in history if they could have mode more in MTTs than cash. Back in the 90s/early 2000s. There are a few high stakes MTT players in today’s scene that are pretty insane.
I have never understood the Stu Unger love or anyone idolizing him. He was hyper-aggressive in a time when almost no one else was and as a result, he won some tournaments and went on a few heaters. Other than that, he was a degenerate gambler who was an awful person, dead-beat father, drug addict, and a cheater. He behaved poorly, berated dealers and floormen, and treated most others like complete crap. Why his name still comes up all the time is beyond me. Who GAF.
The guy was so good at other card games that the entire playing for cash scene in those games died... To say that he was just some hyper LAG who inevitably luckboxed a few wins is simply rewriting history.
Regarding treating people like crap, he definitely seems like he was quite a scumbag. People dont exclude Bobby Fischer from the disccusion of great chess players because he was antisemitic though. Its possible to hold two thoughts at the same time.
My read on Stu Ungar is that he's the kind of guy who would have moved on from today's poker market, as it has dried up relative to what he faced in the 80s. That is in precisely the same way he moved on from Gin Rummy after it dried up.
He'd probably be moving on from DFS by now.
My read on Stu Ungar is that he's the kind of guy who would have moved on from today's poker market, as it has dried up relative to what he faced in the 80s. That is in precisely the same way he moved on from Gin Rummy after it dried up.
He'd probably be moving on from DFS by now.
I think this is an interesting observation.
Ungar has a reputation for being hyper LAG when no one else was hyper LAG. Am I presuming this correctly or incorrectly?
Fast forward a few years later and you had Dnegs championing the "Small Ball" strategy (and even winning the WSOP player of the year) in the mid 2000s.
I think Ungar's style was right place, right time. Just like Dnegs in 2005 although Dnegs has evolved from this style IMO.
I am making two assumptions about two styles of play that I presume to be somewhat opposite. Am I right about this, or off-base?
I don't have a ton of hands to review from Ungar, so I am going off 2nd and 3rd hand information.
We all know Ungar was flawed. My personal opinion is that dealer abuse, to the degree he took it, should have had him removed from the series entirely and permanently 86'd from all properties. He was quite literally the walking-talking embodiment of why poker players had such a poor image in the eyes of the general public up-until the mid 2000s.
On the other hand, I have to wonder if he was thought of as a massive whale by casino owners and that's why they kept him around?
Rake is being raked whether he plays poker or not. It's no secret he would degen on sports and horses (6 figure horse wagers), as reported in the documentary. This was at a time where I am not clear if horse wagers went into the parimutuel pools at the track or if casinos were just pocketing his 6 figure wagers and laying him odds.
Maybe the casinos owners kept him around because he was simply an off-loading ramp for the bankrolls of the poker player's he would beat?
I understand times were different, but assault and battery is assault and battery...and to do it on the biggest poker stage (at that time) makes it that much worse.
My read on Stu Ungar is that he's the kind of guy who would have moved on from today's poker market, as it has dried up relative to what he faced in the 80s. That is in precisely the same way he moved on from Gin Rummy after it dried up.
He'd probably be moving on from DFS by now.
He moved on from Rummy bc literally nobody would play him.
It's not like poker tournaments would have ceased to exist if he kept playing. Very different things.
Right, he wasn't afraid to skin the sheep. And he'd recognize it being done by others.
The guy was so good at other card games that the entire playing for cash scene in those games died... To say that he was just some hyper LAG who inevitably luckboxed a few wins is simply rewriting history.
Regarding treating people like crap, he definitely seems like he was quite a scumbag. People dont exclude Bobby Fischer from the disccusion of great chess players because he was antisemitic though. Its possible to hold two thoughts at the same time.
I never said he luck-boxed anything or tried to 're-write history', nor did I say a single thing that was not true.
My read on Stu Ungar is that he's the kind of guy who would have moved on from today's poker market, as it has dried up relative to what he faced in the 80s. That is in precisely the same way he moved on from Gin Rummy after it dried up.
He'd probably be moving on from DFS by now.
Get real, he'd probably be doing Fentanyl on skid row somewhere.
And literally while I was writing that, some guy on a 2/5 table just blurts out that Stu was the greatest player of all time and now I'm listening to 5 minutes of cringe conversation about who the GOAT was.
Holy **** it's just getting worse and worse.
And literally while I was writing that, some guy on a 2/5 table just blurts out that Stu was the greatest player of all time and now I'm listening to 5 minutes of cringe conversation about who the GOAT was.
Holy **** it's just getting worse and worse.
Either bring headphones or get kids so you learn how to look like you're in the middle of the conversation without listening to a single word.
He was hyper-aggressive in a time when almost no one else was and as a result, he won some tournaments and went on a few heaters
You basically said he loldonkament varianced his way into a few wins due to aggression so yea, you kinda did.
Is there anywhere where we can analyze a decent sample of Ungar hand histories? Or is everything we know about him just based on word of mouth and results?
Old time players played many games besides holdem. When they did play holdem cash games it was nine handed without an ante where tight was usually right. Most importantly old time players were uneducated because there was a stigma to being a pro player that the smartest students didn't want to fade.. But the math graduate students at MIT in 1970 were familiar with John Nash and if they had access to today's computers and it was a matter of life or death for them to get good enough to beat 2024 pro players coming back to them on a time machine, it would be, on average, no contest.
(Its kind of funny to me that in the old days when I stated my opinion that poker players should be glad that they are not playing against MIT types, there was a reasonable comeback that such people would not be as good as poker players especially talented at reading hands or disguising their own hands. But now, if the subject is good player against better player, that comeback can't be used. In other words I can now say with certainty that almost all the new school GTO aficianados are lucky they are not facing MIT math Phd's who have specialized in poker whether it is now or via time machine back then.)
I‘m not sure about that. Learning and understanding theory is imo just a small part of being successful at poker. If all mit students start playing then of course a few would be crushing and would be the top dogs, but I think a fast majority wouldn‘t.
I play online competitive highstakes for about 15 years and I‘m so surprised about the lack of mathematical understanding of almost all my peers I met through the years. Most of them have no statistical an mathematical knowledge and are crushing. On the other hand my brother, who is a genius in understanding basically everything from a theoretical standpoint, tried to play for about two years and quit. But he really crushed real life business afterwards.
can confirm the above as someone who has played highstakes plo very succesfully for years
Poker is nuanced. It's not a math problem.
The only years Ungar didn't enter the ME were 1992 & 1993 (plus 1998 shortly before he passed away).
Stu Ungar's Complete WSOP Main Event History:
1980: 1st
1981: 1st
1982: no cash (Day 2 [3:30pm])
1983: no cash (57th Day 2)
1984: no cash (109th Day 1)
1985: no cash (Day 2)
1986: no cash (early Day 1)
1987: no cash (Day 1)
1988: no cash
1989: no cash (176th Day 1 [just 15 minutes in!]; maybe 175th)
1990: 9th
1991: no cash (76th Day 1)
1992: N/A
1993: N/A
1994: no cash (Day 1)
1995: no cash (131st Day 1 [late; m
Amazing that you were able to find all those results of the previous Main Events.
