T
TDTODDY
Rock Star
Silver Level
Daniel played with Stu. He says there is no question Stu was a once in a lifetime player. Could he have survived the grueling large tournament formats of today? Without getting high? Doubtful. Sometimes surviving lowers your standing in these sorts of things.Would Hendrix or Cobain be making music we wanted to hear as they reached middle age? Stu dominated for a relatively short period of time, Daniel has been upper tier for many years.
zinzir
Legend
Silver Level
Stu Ungar is considered the best poker player of all time by the Poker Greats who played against him. Daniel Negreanu is famous poker pro with a likable personality, but as far as poker skills there are many better than him today, among whom: Johnny Chan, Chris Ferguson, Doyle Brunson, Antonio Esfandiari,Tom Dwan, Phil Ivey, Phil Laack, Daniel Cates.
Yes, Daniel made a few amazing poker reads that gained him huge notoriety on Youtube, but most of the time he played those hands in complete disregard of his reads and lost money.
Yes, Daniel made a few amazing poker reads that gained him huge notoriety on Youtube, but most of the time he played those hands in complete disregard of his reads and lost money.
D
DS3
Legend
Loyaler
Agree with Zinzir (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 kid. 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.
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 kid. 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.
Last edited:
N
neptun1914
Legend
Silver Level
It is not correct to compare players from different poker ages because the game changes constantly. Also it is very subjective how you rate which player is best. What would be the criteria? Total money won? Bracelets? Whatever you select it will be different in 80s, 90s and modern era. You can't compare wsop title with 100 players with WSOP title with 5000 players for example.
G
gwj63
Rock Star
Silver Level
hellmuth and ferguson both have more cashes
Daniel hasn't won anything in years,
I think Daniel is overrated, probably because he's a nice guy.
stu has a better record then Daniel and more wins at the wsop and hes been gone a long time.
giving Daniel plenty of time to catch up but he hasn't.
therefore, in my opinion stu was a better poker player then Daniel