Final Hand of the '97 World Series of Poker

One of the best ways to improve your game is to evaluate hands after they have been played. Pay attention when you are at the table, whether you are in the pot or not. Watch for interesting hands. Think about how they were played and/or how you think they could have been played for better results. Talk about them with your poker peers. It's not only educational to discuss hands, it's fun – and I guarantee it will make you a better player.

I was recently in a discussion about the final hand in the championship event of the 1997 World Series of Poker. The final two participants were the legendary Stu Ungar, who many (including me) believe was the greatest no-limit hold'em player of all time, and casino executive John Strzemp. When the final hand came down, Ungar had around $2 million in chips and Strzemp had about $800,000.

Here's a simple overview of the final hand: Ungar had A-4 and Strzemp had A-8. Most of the money went in on the flop (A-5-3). Stuey caught a deuce at the river to win the pot and the title. Many say Ungar got "lucky," but I disagree. In evaluating the hand, hopefully you will see why I debate those who think Ungar was lucky. I think Ungar analyzed the hand precisely and played it superbly.

Here's what happened: Stuey was on the button and made it $40,000 to go. John called. The flop was A-5-3. John led out with a $120,000 bet. Put yourself in Stuey's position. You raised before the flop and your opponent leads out on the flop when an ace hits – hmm. Here's when you need to "put your opponent on a hand," the most important aspect of successful poker. You should automatically think, "What does he have?"

Stuey figured that if John had an ace, it was a weak ace (something like A-7 or A-8, which is exactly what he had). What led him to think this? Stuey came to this conclusion because John didn't reraise before the flop; he most likely would have done so with A-K or A-Q.

Extend your thought process further. Would he bet with aces up or trips? Stuey thought that if John had flopped aces up or trips, it's more likely that he would have checked on the flop to try to trap him. (Anyone who played with Stuey will tell you he was a very aggressive player.) Not wanting to give John a draw just in case, for example, he had two fours or a 5-4 suited, Stuey decided to come over the top and raise John for all of his chips. He thought John would fold if he had a weak ace. And if Stuey didn't have the best hand, he still had outs.

Suppose you were sitting there in John's position. You were raised before the flop and were raised after the flop with a board of A-5-3. What would you do with your A-8? Would you call a raise for all of your money ($630,000)? What can you beat except a bluff?

I contend that you cannot call $630,000 here unless you think your opponent is bluffing. John called. (If John thought Stuey was bluffing, he made a great call, but his play should have no bearing on how you think Stuey played this hand.) Yes, Stuey got lucky after John called, but he analyzed the situation with pinpoint accuracy and, in my opinion, played the hand perfectly.

You know that if Stuey had lost that pot, he still would have had more than a million in chips. What you might not know is that when Ungar won his first world championship in 1980, he made a wheel (5-high straight) on the last hand of the tournament to defeat Doyle Brunson. Perhaps he had a vision that he would win again with the same hand. Amazingly, that's what happened!

A month or so after he won the 1997 title, and on numerous occasions thereafter, Ungar smiled contentedly and said to me, "Mike, I played a perfect tournament. I'm not kidding you. If every hand from start to finish was filmed – every bet, every raise, even every fold – players would witness a classic performance. It was a no-limit hold'em clinic."

I agree. Take care.