eLROY
12-13-2002, 04:53 PM
The name Stu Ungar appears so frequently in poker conversation, I figured I'd look up the rules of this "gin" game he knew himself to be so exceptional at. Is gin good training for poker? Is there some necessary way of employing the brain to play gin, that will favor someone to be good at a particular form of poker, such as no-limit tournament hold'em?
Combine this with Sklansky's recent statement that "Howard Lederer solved such-and-such problem in two minutes," and I am reflecting again on the idea of a basic battery of challenges, which could test poker aptitude. (I say again, because my original thinking on this matter was inspired by a search for a game that disposed with the noise of camouflage, and exposed true poker skill.)
Half the beauty of poker, is that every idiot fancies himself capable of beating you at it. Fortunately, these people are so arrogant that few would ever take a precautionary poker aptitude test, or believe it if they did.
But for more sensible, calculating beginners who are serious students of the game - like we find on 2+2 - $200 spent on a poker aptitude testing kit would be a wise investment. Much money and misery and time has been wasted by people who invested more hope than they should have, in trying to make poker more than a leisurely pastime.
It is hard for any structured battery to truly test aptitude, as any test can be prepared for. It is for this reason that any poker aptitude exam should come with a planned training strategy, so as to standardize the level of preparation for purposes of comparison. As such, a longtime table pro might not do much better than a beginner, except for to the extent he has succeeded as a pro because of his aptitude (meaning not vice versa).
Two key things, which I would suspect a test would have to assess, would be card sense, and speed. I am no expert on poker education, but I know there are different ways to arrive at the right answer, and some of them aren't useful at a poker table at 4:30 AM. Anybody can solve a math problem by thinking about it consciously, but can you play?
If somebody wants to spend $200 on the preparation program, then slack off the practice, and browse the shrink-wrapped final exam without adhering to the strict self-discipline of time constraints with a stopwatch, that's great. His lack of discipline is all that is necessary to prove he will be a failure at poker, and to ensure that this fact will remain hidden from him.
eLROY
Combine this with Sklansky's recent statement that "Howard Lederer solved such-and-such problem in two minutes," and I am reflecting again on the idea of a basic battery of challenges, which could test poker aptitude. (I say again, because my original thinking on this matter was inspired by a search for a game that disposed with the noise of camouflage, and exposed true poker skill.)
Half the beauty of poker, is that every idiot fancies himself capable of beating you at it. Fortunately, these people are so arrogant that few would ever take a precautionary poker aptitude test, or believe it if they did.
But for more sensible, calculating beginners who are serious students of the game - like we find on 2+2 - $200 spent on a poker aptitude testing kit would be a wise investment. Much money and misery and time has been wasted by people who invested more hope than they should have, in trying to make poker more than a leisurely pastime.
It is hard for any structured battery to truly test aptitude, as any test can be prepared for. It is for this reason that any poker aptitude exam should come with a planned training strategy, so as to standardize the level of preparation for purposes of comparison. As such, a longtime table pro might not do much better than a beginner, except for to the extent he has succeeded as a pro because of his aptitude (meaning not vice versa).
Two key things, which I would suspect a test would have to assess, would be card sense, and speed. I am no expert on poker education, but I know there are different ways to arrive at the right answer, and some of them aren't useful at a poker table at 4:30 AM. Anybody can solve a math problem by thinking about it consciously, but can you play?
If somebody wants to spend $200 on the preparation program, then slack off the practice, and browse the shrink-wrapped final exam without adhering to the strict self-discipline of time constraints with a stopwatch, that's great. His lack of discipline is all that is necessary to prove he will be a failure at poker, and to ensure that this fact will remain hidden from him.
eLROY