@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
That win was impressive, no question about it.
But i've already mentioned how tournaments are different than cash games.
i think Ungar basically turned into an ATM machine for the best cash game players at the time.
Would Ungar have been the GOAT if he stayed away from the coke? We shall never know.
granted he was probably a little biased seeing as Ungar was a close cohort of his, but the late Mike Sexton (someone whose opinion I always valued greatly) said many times over the years that Ungar was hands down the best hold'em and gin player he had ever seen
Here's a fascinating little article where Daniel Negreanu says Phil Ivey is the GOAT. This is just for reading purposes only, this is not necessarily my opinion. Don't kill the messenger here. I'm strictly a messenger, nothing more, nothing less, just an innocent messenger!
@galaxy27 said:
granted he was probably a little biased seeing as Ungar was a close cohort of his, but the late Mike Sexton (someone whose opinion I always valued greatly) said many times over the years that Ungar was hands down the best hold'em and gin player he had ever seen
@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
That win was impressive, no question about it.
But i've already mentioned how tournaments are different than cash games.
i think Ungar basically turned into an ATM machine for the best cash game players at the time.
Would Ungar have been the GOAT if he stayed away from the coke? We shall never know.
Would Mickey Mantle have been the greatest Yankee rookie of the 50s if he wasn't an alcoholic? We shall never know.
@galaxy27 said:
granted he was probably a little biased seeing as Ungar was a close cohort of his, but the late Mike Sexton (someone whose opinion I always valued greatly) said many times over the years that Ungar was hands down the best hold'em and gin player he had ever seen
Holy TART, I didn't realize Mike had passed.
The young kid that took his place sucks. VanPatten saves the broadcast.
@doubledragon said:
Here's a fascinating little article where Daniel Negreanu says Phil Ivey is the GOAT. This is just for reading purposes only, this is not necessarily my opinion. Don't kill the messenger here. I'm strictly a messenger, nothing more, nothing less, just an innocent messenger!
Although not the GOAT in my view, i agree with the basic sentiment regarding Phil Ivey. Certainly right up there with the best. Ivey rarely makes a mistake.
@doubledragon said:
Here's a fascinating little article where Daniel Negreanu says Phil Ivey is the GOAT. This is just for reading purposes only, this is not necessarily my opinion. Don't kill the messenger here. I'm strictly a messenger, nothing more, nothing less, just an innocent messenger!
Phil Ivey is the greatest living player, but look how much he's lost in Macau also. His reading ability with his stare down is incredible against top poker players, but against billionaires who don't care except about bragging rights of taking down Phil Ivey in a game ...
His abilities diminish quickly against unlimited pockets in a cash game.
@doubledragon said:
Here's a fascinating little article where Daniel Negreanu says Phil Ivey is the GOAT. This is just for reading purposes only, this is not necessarily my opinion. Don't kill the messenger here. I'm strictly a messenger, nothing more, nothing less, just an innocent messenger!
Phil Ivey is the greatest living player, but look how much he's lost in Macau also. His reading ability with his stare down is incredible against top poker players, but against billionaires who don't care except about bragging rights of taking down Phil Ivey in a game ...
His abilities diminish quickly against unlimited pockets in a cash game.
Man, you guys know your stuff. This is a fascinating topic. I'm enjoying the heck out of this!
@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
That win was impressive, no question about it.
But i've already mentioned how tournaments are different than cash games.
i think Ungar basically turned into an ATM machine for the best cash game players at the time.
Would Ungar have been the GOAT if he stayed away from the coke? We shall never know.
Would Mickey Mantle have been the greatest Yankee rookie of the 50s if he wasn't an alcoholic? We shall never know.
I thought we were talking GOAT here.
i doubt if too many out there consider Mantle to be the GOAT.
But inadvertently you made my point about Stu Ungar. If Mantle hadn't been an alcoholic, perhaps he may have become the GOAT.
@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
That win was impressive, no question about it.
But i've already mentioned how tournaments are different than cash games.
i think Ungar basically turned into an ATM machine for the best cash game players at the time.
Would Ungar have been the GOAT if he stayed away from the coke? We shall never know.
Would Mickey Mantle have been the greatest Yankee rookie of the 50s if he wasn't an alcoholic? We shall never know.
I thought we were talking GOAT here.
i doubt if too many out there consider Mantle to be the GOAT.
But inadvertently you made my point about Stu Ungar. If Mantle hadn't been an alcoholic, perhaps he may have become the GOAT.
Stuey still put up GOAT numbers while being a cokehead, Mantle had the potential and put up great, but less than GOAT numbers.
@doubledragon said:
Here's a fascinating little article where Daniel Negreanu says Phil Ivey is the GOAT. This is just for reading purposes only, this is not necessarily my opinion. Don't kill the messenger here. I'm strictly a messenger, nothing more, nothing less, just an innocent messenger!
Phil Ivey is the greatest living player, but look how much he's lost in Macau also. His reading ability with his stare down is incredible against top poker players, but against billionaires who don't care except about bragging rights of taking down Phil Ivey in a game ...
His abilities diminish quickly against unlimited pockets in a cash game.
Man, you guys know your stuff. This is a fascinating topic. I'm enjoying the heck out of this!
Some of us might have paid for our wedding with a weekend of grinding SnGs online, back when it was possible to do so.
@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
@LarkinCollector said:
He didn't die broke from losing at poker. He died broke from a cocaine addiction that he spent every penny on (the blue glasses in the photo above were from the 1997 win to hide the fact that his nose had collapsed, leading him to switch to crack). If Stu wanted or needed to win at poker, it was a done deal and no one, not even Doyle could stop him. He could destroy any field at will.
The significant majority of Doyle's money is not from winning at poker. It's from marketing poker and investing wisely. Look at the field size when he won his two main events.
On felt accomplishments are what make a great poker player.
You make some valid points, particularly about Doyle Brunson you are 100% correct. I've read where his first book, priced at $100, sold over 300,000 copies. Doing the math, that alone is a cool 30 million dollars earned.
The big money in online poker has always been not thru playing the game, but thru books, affiliate commission programs, etc. Doyle even had his very own gambling website which took in untold millions for him. I'm not sure if it exists any longer, he may have sold it, i'm not sure.
Now...how do you know that Ungar didn't lose his money at poker? You couldn't possibly know that. Frankly, it's well known that Ungar lost a lot of money on sports gambling and was deep in debt when he passed.
My guess, and i think it's a much better guess than yours, is that whatever the reason for him dying broke, likely the other players caught up with his poker playing tendencies and learned how to beat him.
I think that Ungar could no longer win at hold 'em, nobody would play him at gin rummy, so he gravitated to sports betting for his gambling thrills, thinking that his photographic memory might be able to make him money against the bookies...it didn't.
Yes, that's exactly why he won the Main Event in 1997 shortly before his death (16 and 17 years after his other Main Event wins) after a 24 hour binge of poker and coke that left him sleeping through part of day 1. Everyone had him figured out.
That win was impressive, no question about it.
But i've already mentioned how tournaments are different than cash games.
i think Ungar basically turned into an ATM machine for the best cash game players at the time.
Would Ungar have been the GOAT if he stayed away from the coke? We shall never know.
Would Mickey Mantle have been the greatest Yankee rookie of the 50s if he wasn't an alcoholic? We shall never know.
I thought we were talking GOAT here.
i doubt if too many out there consider Mantle to be the GOAT.
But inadvertently you made my point about Stu Ungar. If Mantle hadn't been an alcoholic, perhaps he may have become the GOAT.
Stuey still put up GOAT numbers while being a cokehead, Mantle had the potential and put up great, but less than GOAT numbers.
Stu Ungar versus Chip Reese, prime for prime, heads up...i would pay to see that match.
@galaxy27 said:
granted he was probably a little biased seeing as Ungar was a close cohort of his, but the late Mike Sexton (someone whose opinion I always valued greatly) said many times over the years that Ungar was hands down the best hold'em and gin player he had ever seen
galaxy I really enjoyed listening to Mike Sexton. I've heard he was a really classy guy.
I'm glad I got to watch him win that tournament(I think it was in Vancouver) two or
three years ago on TV. I was really rooting for him and was glad to see him pull it off.
@doubledragon said:
Here's a fascinating little article where Daniel Negreanu says Phil Ivey is the GOAT. This is just for reading purposes only, this is not necessarily my opinion. Don't kill the messenger here. I'm strictly a messenger, nothing more, nothing less, just an innocent messenger!
Phil Ivey is the greatest living player, but look how much he's lost in Macau also. His reading ability with his stare down is incredible against top poker players, but against billionaires who don't care except about bragging rights of taking down Phil Ivey in a game ...
His abilities diminish quickly against unlimited pockets in a cash game.
I've seen those wealthy Asian poker players on Youtube videos. They certainly bring a different aggressiveness perspective to hold 'em.
They throw around 25k chips like it's pennies. LOL
One of the greatest players ever. Calling him a fish is one of the stupidest things I've seen on the internet.
>
You bring up he lost one time???LMAO. You didn't really bring up ONE loss did you? OMG!!!
Talk about not knowing what you're talking about. You take the prize **today, sonny**.
This appears to me to be piling it on. Like I've said many times, disagree with each other all you want. But do so respectfully.
There is nothing wrong with that post .
As noted by multiple posters in this thread stevek made a number of outlandish posts- rising to the level of trolling.
You admonished the wrong person. You should've admonished the instigator that caused the bevy of disagreements.
I know nothing about poker, so the content of the statements in this thread mean nothing to me. However, your post stuck out to me as unnecessary in the way it was worded and that is why I said what I did.
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
@hammer1 said:
How much are casinos suing Phil for?
$25M?
Which ones? There were several
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Phil Ivey went from literally sleeping under the Atlantic City boardwalk, to eventually becoming a regular playing in the biggest cash games with Brunson, Reese, Greenstein, etc, along with the latest rich fish who thought they could beat them.
I think it was over a different game where they said he was cheating?
I believe it was baccarat. Casino said he knew which cards were coming up because he read the pattern on the back of the cards.
It was actually the edges of the cards. It's called edge sorting. Looking for anomaly's on long edges. I know he lost 12 million in a London Court ruling. He admitted to doing it but insists it's just a strategy that skilled players can take advantage of. The court said no way Jose.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I think it was over a different game where they said he was cheating?
I believe it was baccarat. Casino said he knew which cards were coming up because he read the pattern on the back of the cards.
It was actually the edges of the cards. It's called edge sorting. Looking for anomaly's on long edges. I know he lost 12 million in a London Court ruling. He admitted to doing it but insists it's just a strategy that skilled players can take advantage of. The court said no way Jose.
m
I'm no card playing expert, but how is that cheating? Wasn't that "pattern" or "edge of card" available for all to see?
If these cards are being used in million dollar games, they should be made so this cannot be done.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I think it was over a different game where they said he was cheating?
I believe it was baccarat. Casino said he knew which cards were coming up because he read the pattern on the back of the cards.
It was actually the edges of the cards. It's called edge sorting. Looking for anomaly's on long edges. I know he lost 12 million in a London Court ruling. He admitted to doing it but insists it's just a strategy that skilled players can take advantage of. The court said no way Jose.
m
I'm no card playing expert, but how is that cheating? Wasn't that "pattern" or "edge of card" available for all to see?
If these cards are being used in million dollar games, they should be made so this cannot be done.
That was Ivey's defense. It didn't work.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I think it was over a different game where they said he was cheating?
I believe it was baccarat. Casino said he knew which cards were coming up because he read the pattern on the back of the cards.
It was actually the edges of the cards. It's called edge sorting. Looking for anomaly's on long edges. I know he lost 12 million in a London Court ruling. He admitted to doing it but insists it's just a strategy that skilled players can take advantage of. The court said no way Jose.
m
I'm no card playing expert, but how is that cheating? Wasn't that "pattern" or "edge of card" available for all to see?
If these cards are being used in million dollar games, they should be made so this cannot be done.
That was Ivey's defense. It didn't work.
m
Wow.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I think it was over a different game where they said he was cheating?
I believe it was baccarat. Casino said he knew which cards were coming up because he read the pattern on the back of the cards.
It was actually the edges of the cards. It's called edge sorting. Looking for anomaly's on long edges. I know he lost 12 million in a London Court ruling. He admitted to doing it but insists it's just a strategy that skilled players can take advantage of. The court said no way Jose.
m
I'm no card playing expert, but how is that cheating? Wasn't that "pattern" or "edge of card" available for all to see?
If these cards are being used in million dollar games, they should be made so this cannot be done.
That was Ivey's defense. It didn't work.
m
Wow.
He has been involved in litigation for edge sorting in a few countries over the past decade. It's not gone particularly well for him.
In the London case the casino refused to pay out his 12.0 million winnings. Ivey sued for it and lost.
At the crux of the case:
Ivey admitted using edge sorting, which involves spotting tiny differences between the long edges of playing cards to keep track of good ones, but argued this was a legitimate advantage.
As part of his plan, his associate feigned superstition to induce a croupier to turn cards in a particular manner. The croupier had no idea of the significance of what she was doing.
“What Mr Ivey did was to stage a carefully planned and executed sting,” it said in its judgement. “That it was clever and skilful, and must have involved remarkably sharp eyes, cannot alter that truth.”
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
In principle, it's much the same as card counting. Casinos frown upon it, but it's a grey area and not technically against any rules here in the US (unless the player is intentionally "marking" the edges). I don't know the technicalities of the other jurisdictions where these lawsuits have been argued.
Let's see now...Casinos with their monstrous influence on government, politicians, judges, and almost everyone else in their geographical area...or Phil Ivey?
It's a mystery which one was going to win this case? 🤔
@stevek said:
Let's see now...Casinos with their monstrous influence on government, politicians, judges, and almost everyone else in their geographical area...or Phil Ivey?
It's a mystery which one was going to win this case? 🤔
Ya know I hate Casinos but for some strange reason I can’t stand professional poker players either so I’m not the least bit feeling bad for Ivey losing that case.
My feeling is if you notice something and act on it during play it's fair game. However, if you plan for it and manipulate it it's no bueno
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@LarkinCollector said:
In principle, it's much the same as card counting. Casinos frown upon it, but it's a grey area and not technically against any rules here in the US (unless the player is intentionally "marking" the edges). I don't know the technicalities of the other jurisdictions where these lawsuits have been argued.
Card counting should also be just fine. Being good at remembering what's been played is not cheating.
Anyone here ever heard of Vas Spanos?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@LarkinCollector said:
In principle, it's much the same as card counting. Casinos frown upon it, but it's a grey area and not technically against any rules here in the US (unless the player is intentionally "marking" the edges). I don't know the technicalities of the other jurisdictions where these lawsuits have been argued.
Card counting should also be just fine. Being good at remembering what's been played is not cheating.
Anyone here ever heard of Vas Spanos?
The only Spanos I know of is the owner of the Chargers. I'm guessing @AFLfan is not a fan of the family.
Comments
That win was impressive, no question about it.
But i've already mentioned how tournaments are different than cash games.
i think Ungar basically turned into an ATM machine for the best cash game players at the time.
Would Ungar have been the GOAT if he stayed away from the coke? We shall never know.
There's a good book about Ungar.
granted he was probably a little biased seeing as Ungar was a close cohort of his, but the late Mike Sexton (someone whose opinion I always valued greatly) said many times over the years that Ungar was hands down the best hold'em and gin player he had ever seen
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Here's a fascinating little article where Daniel Negreanu says Phil Ivey is the GOAT. This is just for reading purposes only, this is not necessarily my opinion. Don't kill the messenger here. I'm strictly a messenger, nothing more, nothing less, just an innocent messenger!
https://www.highstakesdb.com/10513-daniel-negreanu-says-phil-ivey-is-the-greatest-poker-player-of-all-time.aspx
Holy TART, I didn't realize Mike had passed.
Would Mickey Mantle have been the greatest Yankee rookie of the 50s if he wasn't an alcoholic? We shall never know.
The young kid that took his place sucks. VanPatten saves the broadcast.
Pasted: (About Chip Reese)
<<< Poker legend Doyle Brunson is quoted as saying: “He’s certainly the best poker player that ever lived,” >>>
Based on the videos i've seen, i agree with Doyle.
There is a heads up video on Youtube with Reese against Phil Hellmuth, whereby Reese just makes a meal out of Hellmuth, he beat him so easily.
Although not the GOAT in my view, i agree with the basic sentiment regarding Phil Ivey. Certainly right up there with the best. Ivey rarely makes a mistake.
Phil Ivey is the greatest living player, but look how much he's lost in Macau also. His reading ability with his stare down is incredible against top poker players, but against billionaires who don't care except about bragging rights of taking down Phil Ivey in a game ...
His abilities diminish quickly against unlimited pockets in a cash game.
yep, last fall. prostate cancer, i believe.
consummate gentleman and arguably poker's greatest ambassador
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Man, you guys know your stuff. This is a fascinating topic. I'm enjoying the heck out of this!
I thought we were talking GOAT here.
i doubt if too many out there consider Mantle to be the GOAT.
But inadvertently you made my point about Stu Ungar. If Mantle hadn't been an alcoholic, perhaps he may have become the GOAT.
Stuey still put up GOAT numbers while being a cokehead, Mantle had the potential and put up great, but less than GOAT numbers.
Sexton was always informative and entertaining at the same time. A rare quality.
Some of us might have paid for our wedding with a weekend of grinding SnGs online, back when it was possible to do so.
Stu Ungar versus Chip Reese, prime for prime, heads up...i would pay to see that match.
galaxy I really enjoyed listening to Mike Sexton. I've heard he was a really classy guy.
I'm glad I got to watch him win that tournament(I think it was in Vancouver) two or
three years ago on TV. I was really rooting for him and was glad to see him pull it off.
I've seen those wealthy Asian poker players on Youtube videos. They certainly bring a different aggressiveness perspective to hold 'em.
They throw around 25k chips like it's pennies. LOL
in honor of sexton, here he is getting one over on mike the mouth
then negreanu dumped salt in the wound
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
A pair of 3's. Ouch.
One heckuva hero call by Mike Sexton.
Most would have folded in that spot.
I remember watching this guy. I think he was drunk a few times.
20 years in chat rooms, I've never seen this admonishment.
Pls explain how I 'piled on'.
>
This appears to me to be piling it on. Like I've said many times, disagree with each other all you want. But do so respectfully.
There is nothing wrong with that post .
As noted by multiple posters in this thread stevek made a number of outlandish posts- rising to the level of trolling.
You admonished the wrong person. You should've admonished the instigator that caused the bevy of disagreements.
Don't forget that Chip Reese is the GOAT
I know nothing about poker, so the content of the statements in this thread mean nothing to me. However, your post stuck out to me as unnecessary in the way it was worded and that is why I said what I did.
Phil Ivey gets my vote for greatest (living) hold'em player
check this hand out @doubledragon @LarkinCollector @stevek @hammer1 @Darin @Justacommeman
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
That was intense, Phil Ivey is ice cold!
How much are casinos suing Phil for?
$25M?
Which ones? There were several
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yeah, some in Europe, some in US, I think Canada too.
It wasn't over poker though was it?
I think it was over a different game where they said he was cheating?
I believe it was baccarat. Casino said he knew which cards were coming up because he read the pattern on the back of the cards.
Amazing poker. 👍
Phil Ivey went from literally sleeping under the Atlantic City boardwalk, to eventually becoming a regular playing in the biggest cash games with Brunson, Reese, Greenstein, etc, along with the latest rich fish who thought they could beat them.
It was actually the edges of the cards. It's called edge sorting. Looking for anomaly's on long edges. I know he lost 12 million in a London Court ruling. He admitted to doing it but insists it's just a strategy that skilled players can take advantage of. The court said no way Jose.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm no card playing expert, but how is that cheating? Wasn't that "pattern" or "edge of card" available for all to see?
If these cards are being used in million dollar games, they should be made so this cannot be done.
That was Ivey's defense. It didn't work.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Wow.
He has been involved in litigation for edge sorting in a few countries over the past decade. It's not gone particularly well for him.
In the London case the casino refused to pay out his 12.0 million winnings. Ivey sued for it and lost.
At the crux of the case:
Ivey admitted using edge sorting, which involves spotting tiny differences between the long edges of playing cards to keep track of good ones, but argued this was a legitimate advantage.
As part of his plan, his associate feigned superstition to induce a croupier to turn cards in a particular manner. The croupier had no idea of the significance of what she was doing.
“What Mr Ivey did was to stage a carefully planned and executed sting,” it said in its judgement. “That it was clever and skilful, and must have involved remarkably sharp eyes, cannot alter that truth.”
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
That last sentence is exactly what I was thinking, you must have extremely good eyesight
to detect any nuances in the edges of cards.
In principle, it's much the same as card counting. Casinos frown upon it, but it's a grey area and not technically against any rules here in the US (unless the player is intentionally "marking" the edges). I don't know the technicalities of the other jurisdictions where these lawsuits have been argued.
Let's see now...Casinos with their monstrous influence on government, politicians, judges, and almost everyone else in their geographical area...or Phil Ivey?
It's a mystery which one was going to win this case? 🤔
Ya know I hate Casinos but for some strange reason I can’t stand professional poker players either so I’m not the least bit feeling bad for Ivey losing that case.
My feeling is if you notice something and act on it during play it's fair game. However, if you plan for it and manipulate it it's no bueno
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Wasn't the Ivey key that he made the casino use a deck he provided? I thought that was part of it.
If that's what happened and a casino would agree to that, that's their own stupidity.
Card counting should also be just fine. Being good at remembering what's been played is not cheating.
Anyone here ever heard of Vas Spanos?
The only Spanos I know of is the owner of the Chargers. I'm guessing @AFLfan is not a fan of the family.