4 ms·

That is true that the best players are better than he was, but they did not play during his era so the comparison doesn't seem particularly important. He did no

That is true that the best players are better than he was, but they did not play during his era so the comparison doesn't seem particularly important. He did not have access to the same information, the same solvers, the same top level players. If he had access to these things, then he would have played at an even higher level than he did.

psv1 7y ago
> If he had access to these things, then he would have played at an even higher level than he did. Access isn't enough, it takes a lot of work. There are plenty of talented players who simply can't hang with the people who spend most of their time studying. Now I don't have a way to know if Stu Ungar would have been up for studying solver results for 10 hours a day, but the rest of his personality seems to indicate otherwise.
- armitron 7y ago
  Online poker is a different game to live poker. Stu was a live player and he would probably eat every current "online" poker player alive if he sat down on a real table and could get his legendary reads off. The sort of technical analysis and "solvers" that you see ppl bring up in this thread is completely nullified when one plays live and is really good at reading people (Stu was considered the best ever).
  - psv1 7y ago
    > Stu was a live player and he would probably eat every current "online" poker player alive if he sat down on a real table and could get his legendary reads off. I couldn't disagree more with this but all of that is just speculation. > The sort of technical analysis and "solvers" that you see ppl bring up in this thread is completely nullified when one plays live and is really good at reading people This is just mathematically wrong. You're also overestimating the degree to which live reads matter. And underestimating how little it takes for an even half-decent player to have good live-poker composure.
0x445442 7y ago
I'm not so sure you can say the best players today are better than he was because, at least in the case of no limit hold em, the game is as much about psychology as it is about math. I've watched some of the video of his playing and, from what I saw, he controlled the table with a very aggressive style. It's one of the more interesting things I've seen in game composition because one would think that component of the game would not be such a determining factor. Who knows how, Phil Ivey for instance, would handle it.
- paulcole 7y ago
  When asked about Stu making that insane call with like 10-high, Doyle Brunson (I think) said something like, "When Stuey has the second best hand, he's gonna go broke." There are so many stories about his successful aggression that people really overlook his unsuccessful aggression.

psv1 7y ago

> If he had access to these things, then he would have played at an even higher level than he did. Access isn't enough, it takes a lot of work. There are plenty of talented players who simply can't hang with the people who spend most of their time studying. Now I don't have a way to know if Stu Ungar would have been up for studying solver results for 10 hours a day, but the rest of his personality seems to indicate otherwise.

armitron 7y ago
Online poker is a different game to live poker. Stu was a live player and he would probably eat every current "online" poker player alive if he sat down on a real table and could get his legendary reads off. The sort of technical analysis and "solvers" that you see ppl bring up in this thread is completely nullified when one plays live and is really good at reading people (Stu was considered the best ever).
- psv1 7y ago
  > Stu was a live player and he would probably eat every current "online" poker player alive if he sat down on a real table and could get his legendary reads off. I couldn't disagree more with this but all of that is just speculation. > The sort of technical analysis and "solvers" that you see ppl bring up in this thread is completely nullified when one plays live and is really good at reading people This is just mathematically wrong. You're also overestimating the degree to which live reads matter. And underestimating how little it takes for an even half-decent player to have good live-poker composure.

0x445442 7y ago

I'm not so sure you can say the best players today are better than he was because, at least in the case of no limit hold em, the game is as much about psychology as it is about math. I've watched some of the video of his playing and, from what I saw, he controlled the table with a very aggressive style. It's one of the more interesting things I've seen in game composition because one would think that component of the game would not be such a determining factor. Who knows how, Phil Ivey for instance, would handle it.

paulcole 7y ago
When asked about Stu making that insane call with like 10-high, Doyle Brunson (I think) said something like, "When Stuey has the second best hand, he's gonna go broke." There are so many stories about his successful aggression that people really overlook his unsuccessful aggression.