Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="DS3, post: 5385517, member: 407846"] Agree with [B]Zinzir[/B] (others) above - Stu Ungar was a truly exceptional player. It appears to me a lot of those opting for Daniel Negreanu might have little actual knowledge of Stu Unger, they simply like Negreanu. Stu Unger grew up in a card environment and showed exceptional talent from the off. He was 'on the spectrum' if not autistic. His original passion was gin rummy, he started winning tournaments as a [U]kid[/U]. Such was his brilliance at gin rummy he turned to poker because no one (the best in the US) would play him at gin rummy anymore. I am not an old school versus new school guy. I think the game has progressed at a phenomenal rate and todays players are roundly better, more educated than the players that went before. There are very few players from yesteryear that I believe could compete (truly compete) in todays game. Stu Ungar is the exception- if he was born in this era I have no doubt he would regularly beat any of the present day 'wizards'. As for Daniel Negreanu, he works his PR relentlessly (more than his game) so I understand why his public loves him. But he plays a mediocre game at best when compared to the best players today. He might win player of the year but I take issues with all the rebuys etc.etc. One of the more embarrassing Negreanu episodes in Rozvadov (WSOPE) was his attempt at short deck. Prior to the tourney he had never played seriously, but simply declared he had a feel for the game, had studied a bit so thought he had it down. In the 2.5K short deck event, after 5 or 6 rebuys, he did not even cash. Stu Ungar never having played short deck, doubtlessly could have sat down for his first game and within a short spell of hands work out odds and optimal play. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us