Hacker News Reader

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.

> 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.

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).

> 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.

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.

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.

Bobby Fischer's legacy is haunted by his personal life namely his racism and problems with authorities, both his defiance and his being abused. But he was at least one of the greatest chess players, at least in my humble opinion. It's hard to say because of advances in the game, but just judging a player's ability to "play chess," which means to a chess player once you are well-out of theory, some still say he was the best ever, at least one of them.

Alekhine and Capablanca are also among the best ever chess players, of course most probably there are lots of today’s players that could probably beat them (as today there are better defenders than Beckenbauer or better strikers than Gerd Muller or Van Basten) but in the great scheme of things they are among the greatest in the history of chess. And there’s always Kasparov and I would add Karpov, too, even though he is not as liked.

> There are a couple of players online of which we can easily say that they are the best players to ever live

Who are they?

I don't know who OP is referring to but I would argue against the notion that there are a couple of players who are clearly the best to ever live. The edges between the top players are way too small to determine this especially at the small sample sizes that they play against each other.

And the question becomes more complex when you realise that poker isn't just one game and you need to consider NLH vs PLO vs mixed, heads-up vs 6-max, cash vs tournaments. Some people specialise in a variant, others just play everything.

We could explore every variants indeed, but nlhe is the most popular and Stu's game choice. I was thinking about Linus and Baron as pete_mc replied, they've both crushed it in the past few years.

Of course there are other specialists above their competition in every variant ; my point remain, though, that the level is much better now, and would we analyse the plays made by Stu with solvers, we would find lots of mistakes made. (Actually I will probably do it for fun).

My point being, Stu was incredibly dominant in his time, and props to him for figuring out so much about the game especially back then, and that's a feat just for itself, but other players are incredibly dominant now too and with a much better understanding of what they are doing.

Linus Loeliger (llinusllove) and Jonas Mols (OtB_RedBaron) are probably some of the best online players currently.

Where's Tom Dwan in the ratings these days?

He seems to mostly play cash games in Asia. You will see him if you watch the triton streams sometimes. Not sure if he's in contention as an absolute top flight player any more with the use of solvers and GTO strategies.

In terms of making money, probably high up there. In terms of skill I highly doubt he would be in the top 100.