Talk:Stu Ungar

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Comments

I just wonder about one word in this article. In the sentence

   "He won the main event becoming the youngest champion in its 
    history (he would later be superseded by Phil Hellmuth)."

shouldn't "superseded" be "surpassed"?

Supersede: to take the place, room, or position of

World Poker Tour

I don't see how it makes any sense to mention World Poker Tour final tables and cashes seeing as how the World Poker Tour evolved after Stu Ungar. This will most likely only confuse novice poker players and it has no meaning to more experienced players. I recommend removing it from the pages of all players who came after the event.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.146.138 (talk • contribs)

Good point, this was due to the limitations of the previous infobox, it's fixed now ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Should Stefanie Ungar be merged into this article? Is she notable enough for her own article? She only has about 50 google hits, of which most come from the same website. Any thoughts? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that she should not have an article, or anything above being mentioned that she is his legacy and that she is doing well, not a drug addict, yada yada yada. She will have to create a foundation in his name, or become a poker player herself to note her above the side story of the 97 WSOP, And this story would be fine in his article. --: DKP 23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I dissagree. I think the two articles should be kept. There's informaton of intrest that you couldn't say in her fathers article, so let's just leave it. 69.204.1.97 14:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that she should not have her own article and the two should be merged. I don't believe she is of any note other than being her father's daughter and therefore can be handeld with a mention in the parent article....

Merge--Jones77 13:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge--Bltpdx 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Stu Ungar was a genius with an eidetic memory"

Doesn't sound much encyclopediac to me. --GTubio 19:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC) What's more, there's no citations. 209.205.147.113 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the "was able to keep track of every card in a six-deck blackjack shoe" that comes after it gives a false representation of card counting, as it doesn't involve keeping track of every card, or require photographic memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.109.134 (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"S T U"?

Could someone please explain why it says "S T U" is his nickname. Should it not be 'Stuart Errol "The Kid" Ungar'? That's what he's generally always refered to as. SeaFlat 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC) SeaFlat

Deck Count

Bob Stupak bet him that he could tell him the last card of a single deck that had been turned face-up in order in front of him. Not as it'sd written here. It's in his biography 'One Of A Kind'

Room number at Oasis Motel?

I was curious if the motel allows (morbid) guests to request the specific room in which Stu died. Was the room number published at time of death? Is it a relevant addition to article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.41 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Room number is 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.41 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Moss

The article mentions three times that one of Johnny Moss's WSOP wins was voted on, and not won at the table. Wouldn't one or two times be enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.163.221 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent edits to this page

The last version by 2005 is the most definitive version of this page. I am obivously not the sockpuppet editor who has in the past month repeatedly vandalism POV edits on Chip Reese article and all article that suggest Chip Reese is not the best player in the world. The wording that Storyhope has edited is less concise and more convoluted that the preivous version. Also the line "Although not as publicized, Ungar was also known for spewing money in high stakes cash games. After early success, Ungar squandered virtually all of his winnings on cocaine and cash games other forms of gambling, and went from millionaire to broke four times." is completely POV and false. I'm going to need to see a citation for that. First off he made most his money from cash games. According to the Hen Mob Stu Ungar has made $ 3,428,796 in tournament play. He has made over $30 million at the poker tables and most of that came from cash games so please spare me the trouble. He was up almost up 27 million from cash games. 71.248.235.167 (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro tries to mince words but ends up just wrong

Ungar AND Moss won, I repeat, WON, three times. The intro says "only" then qualifies Moss' first win because he "won" it through a vote. I fail to see how Moss winning, with different criteria, makes his win any less more of a win. In short, the intro is factually incorrect in a way the is POV, and I'm changing it. 166.192.5.111 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Blappo

Citations and reference cleanup

To User:207.69.137.35 - this article needs to be better cited, but please do not remove content without discussing it here first. Most of the text that you have removed can be sourced to the Alson biography. I have restored most of what has been recently removed; I did my best to keep the newly added {{fact}} and other reference tags in place. Please start a discussion on this page before removing significant content. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN - it is the responsibility of the person adding or returning content to provide reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.35 (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

207.69.137.35 - Why was the entire "tales" section removed? This section was tagged appropriately. I think it should be restored. Also, the barrage of "citation needed" tags is just plain ridiculous and makes the article hard to read. Hazir (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See section below. 1) the "Tales" were not sourced and 2) they are not encyclopedic.

Pretty much everything in this article comes from his biography. The article sure lacks inline citations, but I don't see how it helps to pepper it with 's. One tag at the top should be sufficient. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Because lots of unsourced content had been removed and then was returned under the claim "you cant just remove stuff, you need to tag and discuss it first." Well now its [bleep]ing tagged.

This last comment throws a shadow over all of your anonymous edits in the past few days. Hazir (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

aparently some people have sensitive ears. you probably shouldnt watch the Ungar documentary or read anything that directly quotes him

Tone and Style issues

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an "insiders view of the steamy underbelly of the world of professional poker" expose. Sourced facts please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.35 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent removal of information

IP editor 207.69.137.27 and 207.69.137.35 (probably same person) has recently removed a large portion of cited and notable information without rewording it. Formerly "tales" section now Personality and gameplay is source from the stu ungar biography One of a Kind: The Stu Ungar Story ESPN documentary. In fact everything in this article can be found in the biography One of a Kind: The Rise and Fall of Stu Ungar except for the death section and the circumstances regarding his death.

Secondly Stu ungar has been repeatly cited by both espn (by Mike Sexton and others), in the biography, and (just for kicks) on 2+2 as the greatest nlh and gin rummy player of all time this is not wp:weasel it is cited and sourced. Removal of cited information is vandalism. Valoem ^talk 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible sneaky vandalism:

For those established editors who have been following this article, in early to mid 2008 an unknown ip editor who was apparently a huge Chip Reese fan started removing any information that claim anyone other than Reese was the greatest of all time. He or she repeated added that chip reese was the greatest of all time and repeatly removed the cited information of ungar being a top contender.

This current IP editor began removing all sources claiming that youtube and imdb are not valid sources. Given his tone and style he seems to have some background as an editor. However any experienced editor can see that imdb and youtube were not the sources it was citing. It was simply a datebase referencing the source.

This ip editor also downplayed all cited claims. I still can not explain way he changed the Bob Stupak bet from a six deck shoe (which is what every citation says) to a two deck shoe. I can only see sneaky vandalism as the answer. FYI all information on this page has been source I will continue to cite this sources so this can't happen again. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you at all familiar with what sources meet our requirements for sourcing? Most of the "sources" cited as "references" in this article fall so far short that they fall under the umbrella of uncited content that can be challenged and removed. It is the WP:BURDEN of the person adding or returning content to provide adequate, inline citations. Not vague claims that "most of this information can be found in some of the sources used later." NO - that is NOT adequate. It is not vandalism of any sort, sneaky or otherwise to require our articles to meet our guidelines and policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.25 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are very familiar with WP policy. Many of the source you are contesting are reliable such as Phil Hellmuth who is a columnist on his web page. As I said before the entire section on Personality (which need to be wikified and reworded) and gameplay (which needs to be expanded) is covered in his biography One of a Kind: The Rise and Fall of Stu Ungar. If you want you can added those inline citations. Is there any reason why you don't have a user name? I recommend you create one. Valoem ^talk 15:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

Despite registered editors attempt to add inline citation as a part of WP BURDEN several experienced IP editors have insisted on maintaining WP BURDEN by removing the information immediately making it difficult to add citations and improve the article.

The paragraph regarding Personality needs to be wikify and citations need to reference the page numbers. This information is accurately described in the biography: Stu Ungar: One of a Kind. I added the citation to the bottom of the section. However, ip editors have removed each quote that was not directly cited when they could have simply added the citations themselves.

I am asking the ip editors to please give the article some time for citations to be added as the information is accurate. Thank you. Valoem ^talk 16:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has had since at least September to be appropriately inlined source from the claimed reference. Take whatever version you like, copy it to your WP:USERSUBPAGE, take all the time you want to find sources, THEN add the content back in. MM207.69.137.26 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

recent removal and readdition of information

Several IP editors have shown WP:OSTRICH due to some form of bias against Ungar. I was very quickly able to find information most of which is covered in his biography Stu Ungar One of a Kind. Please research before removing information. Also Ungar IS widely regarded as the best player in history www.wsop.com/news/2010/Jun/2884/A-BRAT-A-MOUTH-AND-A-GRINDER---POKER-NICKNAMES.html along with Chip Reese (for those who are not familiar with the poker world). Phil Ivey is now regarded as the best living player.Valoem ^talk 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

There is currently an edit war occurring regarding a statement in the article. I'm in support of the original article but I'd like to have others give their opinions and say whether I'm right or wrong. I believe that the original statement isn't factually or historically incorrect, and that it gives a distinction in that Ungar won the tournament three times, whilst Moss also won three times but the first time wasn't a tournament. I'd prefer if the article on Ungar highlighted the difference, rather than a statement being copied from an article on the WSOP itself. Of course, I could be wrong. Please comment!

Original statement:

Along with Johnny Moss, Ungar is the only three-time WSOP main event champion. Moreover, Johnny Moss's first win at the inaugural WSOP in 1970 was by popular vote, making Ungar the only player to ever win the WSOP main event tournament itself three times.

Proposed statement:

Along with Johnny Moss, Ungar and Johnny Moss are the only players to have won the Main Event three times. However, Moss' first victory came in a different format, as he was elected winner by vote of his fellow players at the conclusion of what was then a timed event.

JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The original statement is inconsistent with the second paragraph of this page, "He is one of only two people to have won the World Series of Poker Main Event three times". It is inconsistent with the WSOP Wikipedia page which states, "Stu Ungar and Johnny Moss are the only players to have won the Main Event three times. However, Moss' first victory came in a different format, as he was elected winner by vote of his fellow players at the conclusion of what was then a timed event." You'll note that the proposed statement is a copy of the statement contained in the WSOP Wikipedia page. And lastly, the WSOP has ALWAYS been a tournament. Johnny Moss won the first one which the WSOP Wikipedia page describes as, "The first World Series of Poker was a single tournament". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The 1970 Main Event may have always been a tournament, but Johnny Moss was decided as the winner by vote. The fact that Ungar won three Main Event tournaments is the distinction that I want preserved in Ungar's article. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But Moss won three tournaments as well. It's true that he won the first won by a vote, but he still WON it. Even you describe it as a win. Obama won the Presidency with a vote, it's still described as a win. Moss and Ungar are both the only players to have won three times. Qualifying Moss' win is acceptable, the article does that a few times (perhaps too many times). But you can't take the win away from him. By the way, what you describe as the "Original Statement" above is incorrect. It should be: "Ungar is the only three-time WSOP main event champion. Moreover, Johnny Moss's first win at the inaugural WSOP in 1970 was by popular vote, making Ungar the only player to ever win the WSOP main event tournament itself three times." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. Describe to me the three things that Ungar won that Moss did not. Ungar won three WSOP bracelets. So did Moss. Ungar won three WSOP tournaments. So did Moss. They both won three WSOP bracelets and tournaments. One of Moss' wins was by a vote, and the page reflects that reality. But there's no way to give Ungar three wins and not Moss, because Moss does have three wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Politics is always decided by vote; Poker is decided by tournaments. Don't bother making silly comparisons like that. The statement "Both Moss and Ungar have won the Main Event three times" is correct, as is the statement "Ungar won the tournament three times whilst one of Moss' wins was by vote." None of what I've said is incorrect. I'm not taking any win away from Moss, but Ungar's accomplishment was unique in its own way and I believe it should be kept in the article for that reason. What I put as the original article IS correct, too. I'm not going to bother re-editing the article or commenting further until others have had their say. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And Moss won three tournaments. I have no problem qualifying Moss' win so that its clear that Ungar's three wins are unique. And the changes do just that - EXACTLY that. But there is no way to describe Ungar as the only three time winner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In one of your edits you state, "The 1970 Main Event was a tournament that Johnny Moss didn't directly win." That's your own POV. The WSOP states, "Johnny Moss, a 63 year old Texas gambler won the first World Series of Poker". You can read that at: http://www.wsop.com/news/2010/Jul/2989/WSOP-IN-THE-MONEY.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not denying that he won the first WSOP! I'm saying that he didn't win the first tournament. That's all that I've said. Leave it to other editors to decide what the article should say but the ONLY thing I've been saying is that he didn't win the first WSOP tournament. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But the first WSOP was a tournament. The WSOP Wikipedia page states, "The first World Series of Poker was a single tournament". That means by winning the first WSOP he did win the first tournament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

He didn't win the tournament; he won the WSOP Main Event title through vote. I've said that plenty of times now! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Moss won the first WSOP championship. Unlike today, the culmination of the cash game WSOP was a vote. Bracelets were not awarded back then. You are both hung up on the word "tournament". The reality is WSOP titles, WSOP championships. Ungar won three freeze out style tournaments to get his titles. Moss won his three titles differently. 2005 (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with what you wrote above. But the original version stated, "Ungar is the only three-time WSOP main event champion". And as I have written before, that's factually incorrect. I changed it to read, "Along with Johnny Moss, Ungar and Johnny Moss are the only players to have won the Main Event three times. However, Moss' first victory came in a different format, as he was elected winner by vote of his fellow players at the conclusion of what was then a timed event." Not exactly the wording I'd pick, but exactly the wording the WSOP Wikipedia page uses. Anyway, pointing out the uniqueness of Ungar's win isn't a problem, though I suppose there's a uniqueness to probably every WSOP win, but the original version is factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The original version never stated that Ungar was the only three-time WSOP Main Event Champion. That's all I have to say. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There's still some problems with the new wording. It states, "Moss' first victory came in a non-tournament format". That's incorrect. The WSOP Wikipedia pages states the following about this tournament, "The first World Series of Poker was a single tournament". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The first WSOP was a single tournament that Johnny Moss didn't directly win. I've repeated that countless times, please stop flogging the damn issue and put it to rest. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:StuUngar CardPlayer Magazine.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:StuUngar CardPlayer Magazine.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stu Ungar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125045458/http://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/hallofame/ to http://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/hallofame/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212055239/http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/pokergreats/stu-ungar01.htm to http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/pokergreats/stu-ungar01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)