Education and +EVability (crossposted)

[Shaman]

What is the lowest level of education needed to become a positive EV player in LIMIT texas hold'em?

Would that be junior high? Or would that be more like Sophomore level in high school, having passed at least two semesters of algebra in addition to pre-algebra? A little college maybe?

I learned to play poker at the age of 8 (at least 20 years ago), we played for matchsticks in our living room. We just played for fun.

But let's say that what if when I was 8 years old (with an IQ of, say, 130 and a diligent and disciplined student at the top three of my class), someone who was a master of the concepts found in the 2+2 books had come along and educated me on optimum play, could I have been "programmed" into being a 1 small bet per hour winner at 3-6 at this tender young age?

What if I was 9? Or 10? Or a high school sophomore? At what age (assuming an IQ of 130, with good study habits, top three in class) would I have been "programmable" to be an at least 1 small bet per hour winner at 3-6 hold'em?

I'm talking online play.

[mosquito]

Intererting thoughts, I have a theory that it is
easier to learn logical games at a young(ish) age,
something like early school years (everyone is a
bit different).

It is akin to learning a language, it is easier
when you are young. Chess and Bridge are other
prime examples. Obviously, some of the complexities
need to be learned 'later', but getting the basic
understanding of the game at a young age is a
HUGE advantage.....

[poker-penguin]

I was thinking about a similar issue recently - if you started moulding a child from age two/three to become a great poker player (much like some of the tennis stars have been), how much of an advantage would it be?

If you have a rigid program (for 1-2 games, it could be as simple as starting hands by position, and what to do with various post-flop hands/boards), then the child only needs to be able to read and understand rules like "if I have top pair top kicker and there is no flush on the board, then bet/raise, but call a three bet".

Depending on the developmental stage of the child, I'd say that intellectually, a seven year old should be able to do it (although I was a precotious child).

The problem is that poker, even with a rigid system of rules, requires discipline (and an ability to extract principles from rules, and other fuzzyish logic skills)

But for a fishy 3/6 game? A child who can read, follow instructions, and stick to the plan could possibly be made a winning player (by a good porgrammer) before the end of primary school, certainly by the start of high-school.

Or maybe not, as long as I can avoid giving a DNA sample, I don't have any children.

[Bodhi]

Well, considering that I got beat 2 out of 3 chess games by an 8 year old last summer (first and only time a student has beat me!)... I'd say a kid around that age could become a very mean poker player. But most children don't have the focus, discipline, or desire to become logical wizards--let alone if their parents encourage them.

Notice that even most adults don't play poker well, no matter how much information is there for them to learn.

[soah]

I don't think you've picked a good question. Some people won't be able to play winning poker regardless of how much education they receive. Others could do it with minimal education.

Statistics & Probability is the only class I ever took which has really has any relevence to poker, and I thought that was the easiest class I ever took -- virtually all of the stuff we learned about was stuff that I already understood intuitively.

[Kaz The Original]

30 hours of training and I could teach any 130IQ 8 year old to beat a loose 3/6 game.

[bones]

And the first generation of obsessive poker-parents begins...

[maldini]

im calling bs here. an 8yr old? only 30hrs?

can you teach me? im a microlimit NL player. i'd love to 4 table 3/6 and make what? $36/hr at 3BB/100?

i'm grinding out $10/hr at NLHE currently.

seriously. i could probably learn everything i need to know in 5 hrs or less. my first read was HEFAP (1.5 yrs ago though).

anyone want a project?

[bones]

This brings up an interesting question that has been discussed several times before I'm sure.

There is obviously enough material out there for anyone who is interested in learning. The concepts needed to beat the party 2/4 and 3/6 are fairly simple (just beat it, not crush it). So why isn't everybody at 2+2 making a profit?

Is it merely psychological factors, like lack of focus and tilt control? Willingness to put in the effort to learn?

[Mike]

Start the flame throwers. I think the reason not everyone is beating the game on this forum is because of bad information, lack of real discussion, and lack of imagination.

If you have been here a year or more, you have seen a lot of hype of over aggressive play promoted to people who barely know why their preflop hand is good. Then they come back and say, 'Gee, I am down $xxxxx I think I don't think I am cut out for this'. The usual response is: post some hands and keep playing, it will turn around. Then they float off into the sunset. Next....

If you have been here six months you have seen SSH promoted to golden end all status. It doesn't matter that the first stressor Ed placed in his book is that it is geared towards playing the clueless.

Then you have people who's ego will not let them admit they aren't all that. They have read a book or two, have a few hours playing time, they won and are now giving lessons. They badmouth anyone who disagrees with what they have read, and can not comprehend that there may be good advice hidden in that nugget of text somewhere they just ran down.

Then consider the fact, that you or I do not have access to any information that everyone else has access to. Everything we need to learn to win can be bought for less than a few hundred dolalrs.

Finally, many experienced losing players lack what it takes to try anything new. There are three or four mainline ways to play poker and be successful, but when some of us run into one of them, we are very quick to classify the player as: moron, loser, maniac, or something not printable. That loser is winning not because they are lucky, but because they know something some of us may not. They have a job or money to throw away from somewhere, and they just might have a much bigger income than the person who thinks they are stupid.

One of the most fascinating things I see at the table is how people play. I play the same pool of people week after week, year after year. We all read the same books, watch the same poker on tv, and think we are the only ones at the table who can play. Yet a few of us are consistant winners and the rest are not. Hmmm....what are we doing different? You have to change your game around to win and many either can't or will not for whatever reason.

Most likely it is the fact that most people are afraid of failure. Losing slowely is like a battered woman getting beaten weekly. It may be bad, but at least it's comfortable
and safe in a twisted way, unlike the unknown of changing.

----Stepping off his soap box puffing lightly, going to look for his flame proof underwear....lol----

[Goodnews]

Ok, first off, there are certain criterion a child needs to surpass their level of thinking development.

First, a nurturing environment without any basic needs being neglected. Second, an older trusted figure that is able to correct and teach any incorrect actions.

After that stuff is corrected, there are still barriers that children face, according to Piaget (http://www.funderstanding.com/piaget.cfm). So obviously there are limitations as to what a child understands up to the age of 11 years old. The reason 8 year olds can play chess very well is because the two above criteria have been completed, and their internal crisis of industry vs inferiority has finished with industry winning. Also, according to Piaget, 8 year olds are capable of understanding abstract situations, however a game like chess has less variables than a game of poker and all actions have a foreseeable outcome whereas poker is based on statistical variables.

I have no ethical qualm with teaching a child to play poker, since poker is probably the best game a child can learn. As it teaches them a very important lesson, mediocrity is unacceptable. However, drilling a child to learn how to play poker may make them a bit of a socially retarded since it is more of an introverted game thus robbing them of a sensitive period in their life, which can lead to problems of greater magnitude in their adulthood.