Comedians and Poker Players

[Gabe]

I've been scanning some of the posts on this forum about how both comedians and winning poker players have higher IQ's than the general public. Naturally, I, like many of you, have been wondering how a great comedic mind would stack up against a great poker mind.

Norm Macdonald, who is often thought to be one of the more intelligent comedians, and David Sklansky, who is generally recognized as the most intelligent winning poker player, met a year or two ago. However, they did not have the opportunity to match wits.

As luck would have it, last week at the Borgata, Norm Macdonald ran into a guy, wearing a Two Plus Two T-shirt, who looked exactly like David Sklansky. Norm Macdonald asked: "Aren't you David Sklansky?" The guy, who looked like David Sklansky, replied: "I've been told that I am," and quickly ran away.

[ QUOTE ]
Norm Macdonald, who is often thought to be one of the more intelligent comedians,

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't have guessed based on his sitcom.

[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky, who is generally recognized as the most intelligent winning poker player

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, that's a big call. There's a notable lack of WSOP bracelets, especially recent ones. The fact that he wrote an excellent book analysing poker doesn't make him the most intelligent poker player. And it's not even close.

But that's beside the point. Great story.

[andyfox]

"The guy, who looked like David Sklansky, replied: 'I've been told that I am,' and quickly ran away."

Standard.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
As luck would have it, last week at the Borgata, Norm Macdonald ran into a guy, wearing a Two Plus Two T-shirt, who looked exactly like David Sklansky. Norm Macdonald asked: "Aren't you David Sklansky?" The guy, who looked like David Sklansky, replied: "I've been told that I am," and quickly ran away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Further proof that David Sklansky is a space alien.

-Zeno

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As luck would have it, last week at the Borgata, Norm Macdonald ran into a guy, wearing a Two Plus Two T-shirt, who looked exactly like David Sklansky. Norm Macdonald asked: "Aren't you David Sklansky?" The guy, who looked like David Sklansky, replied: "I've been told that I am," and quickly ran away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Further proof that I built David Sklansky in my basement.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[David Sklansky]

"Wow, that's a big call. There's a notable lack of WSOP bracelets, especially recent ones. The fact that he wrote an excellent book analysing poker doesn't make him the most intelligent poker player. And it's not even close.

But that's beside the point. Great story."

First I hope everyone realizes that WASN"T me.

As to your other point let me know when you want to pick anyone who has more bracelets than me to take the GRE Aptitude Test against me for a bet of 25K. You choose from among a hundred or so players. You can also choose whether we compete on only the math or the combined score. You can also choose whether we have the full time allotted on the math or any other fraction of YOUR choice. And if you don't choose Chris Ferguson I'll lay 6to 5.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
"Wow, that's a big call. There's a notable lack of WSOP bracelets, especially recent ones. The fact that he wrote an excellent book analysing poker doesn't make him the most intelligent poker player. And it's not even close.

But that's beside the point. Great story."

First I hope everyone realizes that WASN"T me.

As to your other point let me know when you want to pick anyone who has more bracelets than me to take the GRE Aptitude Test against me for a bet of 25K. You choose from among a hundred or so players. You can also choose whether we compete on only the math or the combined score. You can also choose whether we have the full time allotted on the math or any other fraction of YOUR choice. And if you don't choose Chris Ferguson I'll lay 6to 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bah, everyone knows that there is a direct correlation between WSOP bracelets and intelligence. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Nice prop. From my limited knowledge I wouldn't back anyone with 3+ bracelets against you. However, I would take:

-Andrew Bloch: (0 bracelets) Law degree from Harvard, undergrad from MIT
-Howard Lederer: (2 bracelets) Former chess master, father is a Harvard law graduate, sister is also a champion poker player. Schooled at St. Pauls (New Hampshire) and Columbia University.
-I might consider Jennifer Harman (I believe she's 3 now?) on the analytical reasoning section. I don't follow the WPT much so I'd have to do some reasearch first, especially on her math proficiency.

Either way I'm going to see what NVG says. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
"The guy, who looked like David Sklansky, replied: 'I've been told that I am,' and quickly ran away."

Standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice hand.

[ QUOTE ]
From my limited knowledge I wouldn't back anyone with 3+ bracelets against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did you use the lack of recent WSOP bracelets as part of your argument against his intelligence? Oh nevermind, I remember, you are an angry irrational christian. Hehe.

[ QUOTE ]
Then why did you use the lack of recent WSOP bracelets as part of your argument against his intelligence?

[/ QUOTE ]
OP said:
[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky, who is generally recognized as the most intelligent winning poker player

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying he's not highly intelligent, but to be generally recognised as the most intelligent winning poker player requires more than this:
http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/173/sklanskybracelets5yv.jpg
http://www.pokertips.org/wsop/players/David_Sklansky

and several good books. The games were very different back then, and far smaller. And WTF is mixed doubles? Tennis, anyone? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If OP had said "the most intelligent poker author" instead, I would agree (sorry Mason). Also, the GRE test Sklansky proposed is biased toward math and acquired verbal reasoning skills, which he would have inevitably developed to a high degree as a leading poker author. This doesn't necessarily mean he is the most intelligent.

Not trying to diss the guy on his own forum, but he did make a "high falootin philosopher" comment in another thread that I took offence to /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[disjunction]

I'm annoyed at the fact that I find this interesting.

FWIW, without any studying, my over/under on Sklansky's score in the old-style format (math, verbal, logic) is 2310. 800 math, 800 logic, 710 verbal. Whether the computer format is used makes a difference because you can make mistakes and still get an 800. With a non-computer format I'd make the over/under on math and logic 799. This might be generous because if he hasn't taken a test in awhile he may make careless mistakes. On the other hand, there won't be a question he doesn't find easy. There's a small possibility of him blowing up on the logic, but I'd put that at 10%.

With 6 months of studying I'd kick the verbal up to 760. Having read his posts, I don't see putting it any higher. Anybody disagree?

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/173/sklanskybracelets5yv.jpg
http://www.pokertips.org/wsop/players/David_Sklansky

And WTF is mixed doubles? Tennis, anyone?



[/ QUOTE ]

He was obviously trying to get into the pants of whoever his partner happened to be (Jackie Jean, Dani Kelly?). Whether it worked or not, he'll be only too happy to tell you.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying he's not highly intelligent, but to be generally recognised as the most intelligent winning poker player requires more than this: [WSOP bracelets]

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you are totally wrong. The only poker-related requirement to being the "most intelligent winning player" is only to be a winning player, not the winningest player. So if you're a winning player, then the rest of the criteria for the claim is strictly intelligence-based not poker-based. And you yourself alluded to the idea that the players with more bracelets were not more intelligent than DS, yet you still want to use the metric of WSOP bracelets as a measure of DS's intelligence, which shows your irrationality in the argument.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice prop. From my limited knowledge I wouldn't back anyone with 3+ bracelets against you. However, I would take:

-Andrew Bloch: (0 bracelets) Law degree from Harvard, undergrad from MIT
-Howard Lederer: (2 bracelets) Former chess master, father is a Harvard law graduate, sister is also a champion poker player. Schooled at St. Pauls (New Hampshire) and Columbia University.
-I might consider Jennifer Harman (I believe she's 3 now?) on the analytical reasoning section. I don't follow the WPT much so I'd have to do some reasearch first, especially on her math proficiency.

Either way I'm going to see what NVG says. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd lay 5-1 vs any of these players.

[Daliman]

You are mistaking tournament wins and breacelets for the true arbiter of what makes a "winning" poker player...



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying he's not highly intelligent, but to be generally recognised as the most intelligent winning poker player requires more than this: [WSOP bracelets]

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you are totally wrong. The only poker-related requirement to being the "most intelligent winning player" is only to be a winning player, not the winningest player. So if you're a winning player, then the rest of the criteria for the claim is strictly intelligence-based not poker-based. And you yourself alluded to the idea that the players with more bracelets were not more intelligent than DS, yet you still want to use the metric of WSOP bracelets as a measure of DS's intelligence, which shows your irrationality in the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't understood what I've said. The part in bold, generally recognised, is not about his actual intelligence but whether or not he is recognised for it. I'm not in any way equating bracelets and intelligence, only making a point about public opinion. There are winning poker players who would trump David on any IQ or aptitude test, but no one has ever heard of them. Does that make them generally recognised as the most intelligent winning poker player? That part aside....

Among the well known poker players (say the top 200), what credentials does David have that provides objective evidence for his intelligence? I know very little of his biography, but he's competing against former chess masters, Harvard and MIT graduates, and extremely successful businessmen (outside of poker). Apart from that, what credentials does he have for success in the poker world, as a player? His three bracelets are impressive, but hardly anywhere near the top of his field, especially considering the decade he earned them and the fact that two were in obscure games. And what IQ do you need to write a poker book like Theory of Poker? He has a talent for clear expression and good analysis, but as objective evidence of very high intelligence it's quite inadequate.

As I said before, he is probably the most intelligent poker author there is, and he could definitely be seen as a great poker mind, which is all the OP was talking about. Geez. He was the one who made it about being the best.

[Daliman]

I don't remember DS ever saying he was the best poker player in the world. He IS, however, it's foremost writer and thinker, and is very successful at the games he chooses to play.

Other newflashes:
Butch Harmon is NOT the best golfer in the world. Never was even close.

Nick Bolletieri is NOT the best tennis player in the world. Never was even close.

Bill Belichick is NOT the best football player ever. Never was even close.

Tony Larussa.....
Scotty Bowman....
Pat Riley/Larry Brown/Red Auerbach/Phil Jackson.......

Getting the point yet?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember DS ever saying he was the best poker player in the world. He IS, however, it's foremost writer and thinker, and is very successful at the games he chooses to play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course he didn't. I only questioned the idea that he is recognised as the most intelligent player in the game. From the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky, who is generally recognized as the most intelligent winning poker player

[/ QUOTE ]
He then went on to offer a bet that he could beat any of the top 100 or so players in the GRE test. And the melee ensued.

To be clear: I only question the assertions that:

> He is the most intelligent of the well known poker players (say the top 100 or so)
> He is recognised as such.

edit: He is of course considered the top poker authority in the world.

[Daliman]

Fair enough, but I doubt anyone would seriously challenge that he is. I'd also not necessarily consider him a top 100 player either, though.

[David Sklansky]

"Nice prop. From my limited knowledge I wouldn't back anyone with 3+ bracelets against you. However, I would take:

-Andrew Bloch: (0 bracelets) Law degree from Harvard, undergrad from MIT
-Howard Lederer: (2 bracelets) Former chess master, father is a Harvard law graduate, sister is also a champion poker player. Schooled at St. Pauls (New Hampshire) and Columbia University.
-I might consider Jennifer Harman (I believe she's 3 now?) on the analytical reasoning section. I don't follow the WPT much so I'd have to do some reasearch first, especially on her math proficiency."

OK When?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

"Nice prop. From my limited knowledge I wouldn't back anyone with 3+ bracelets against you. However, I would take:

-Andrew Bloch: (0 bracelets) Law degree from Harvard, undergrad from MIT
-Howard Lederer: (2 bracelets) Former chess master, father is a Harvard law graduate, sister is also a champion poker player. Schooled at St. Pauls (New Hampshire) and Columbia University.
-I might consider Jennifer Harman (I believe she's 3 now?) on the analytical reasoning section. I don't follow the WPT much so I'd have to do some reasearch first, especially on her math proficiency."

OK When?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to put a back DS for a large chunk of money provided he has significantly more at stake than I do.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Nice prop. From my limited knowledge I wouldn't back anyone with 3+ bracelets against you. However, I would take:

-Andrew Bloch: (0 bracelets) Law degree from Harvard, undergrad from MIT
-Howard Lederer: (2 bracelets) Former chess master, father is a Harvard law graduate, sister is also a champion poker player. Schooled at St. Pauls (New Hampshire) and Columbia University.
-I might consider Jennifer Harman (I believe she's 3 now?) on the analytical reasoning section. I don't follow the WPT much so I'd have to do some reasearch first, especially on her math proficiency."

OK When?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to put a back DS for a large chunk of money provided he has significantly more at stake than I do.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

He already put more at stake than you - his reputation. That’s more than enough for me. I got his back, too. Put me down for at least the amount you are in for.

RJT

[DougShrapnel]

before you take the bet here is what sklansky says

"Besides scoring perfectly on the SAT and GRE in 30% of the allotted time, I also scored perfectly on the math and science sections of the National Merit Scholarship test.( I think no one else did that that year in NJ) I won a statewide (NJ) math exam to determine scholarships by the CPAs of America. I easily passed the first Actuarial exam given the Society of actuaries as a JUNIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL.( Most who take this test, and often fail are well into college.) It is hard to imagine I would have not gotten one of the highest scores in the country had I waited one year and learned some extra calculus. There was a test given by insurance companies called the Actuarial Aptitude test that is much harder than the SAT and requires you to work much faster. Mutual Benefit Life told me I was the only one to EVER get a perfect score anywhere. (Admittedly few of the super math prodigies took this test). I knew algebra perfectly in fourth grade and much calculus in sixth grade. I was burnt out by 9th. But I saw kids who I could run circles around in my younger days go on to become academically elite. And if today I ever challenged them to some sort of pure thinking exam they would decline in an instant."

[David Sklansky]

But those could all be lies.

After consulting the collective wisdom of 2+2, I concede that betting against you on this test would be a very bad idea.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
After consulting the collective wisdom of 2+2, I concede that betting against you on this test would be a very bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

OOO,

I no longer will refer to you as the poster formerly known as The Little Prince (an allusion to the rock musician Prince and his symbol-name and also the French book.). I will refer to you as the poster formerly known as Doubting Thomas. (In case you hadn’t read my other post – I used words to say your name, because I don’t know how to type your name with the 2 umlauts and the dash.)

In case you are unaware of the origin of Doubting Thomas, it refers to the Apostle of Jesus, Thomas. Thomas didn’t believe Jesus rose from the dead. He wouldn’t believe it unless he could put his hand in His wounds. After Jesus appeared to Thomas and Thomas did such, then Thomas believed.

You, OOO- the poster formerly known as Doubting Thomas, had little faith in our master, David S. It wasn’t until you had the “evidence” that you believed. Tsk, tsk. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

RJT

p.s. David S., did you think it was going to be easy being god(-like)?

I would prefer to named after a non-mythical figure /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I would prefer to named after a non-mythical figure /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got it, good buddy. I’ll go back to calling you the poster formerly known as The Little Prince (emphasizing the more real character by Antoine de Saint Exupery, as opposed to the somewhat mythical rock artist.) I liked it better anyway. I trust you like it, too.

[gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After consulting the collective wisdom of 2+2, I concede that betting against you on this test would be a very bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

OOO,

I no longer will refer to you as the poster formerly known as The Little Prince (an allusion to the rock musician Prince and his symbol-name and also the French book.). I will refer to you as the poster formerly known as Doubting Thomas. (In case you hadn’t read my other post – I used words to say your name, because I don’t know how to type your name with the 2 umlauts and the dash.)

In case you are unaware of the origin of Doubting Thomas, it refers to the Apostle of Jesus, Thomas. Thomas didn’t believe Jesus rose from the dead. He wouldn’t believe it unless he could put his hand in His wounds. After Jesus appeared to Thomas and Thomas did such, then Thomas believed.

You, OOO- the poster formerly known as Doubting Thomas, had little faith in our master, David S. It wasn’t until you had the “evidence” that you believed. Tsk, tsk. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

RJT

p.s. David S., did you think it was going to be easy being god(-like)?

[/ QUOTE ]

The hero worship on this forum scares me sometimes.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


OOO,

I no longer will refer to you as the poster formerly known as The Little Prince (an allusion to the rock musician Prince and his symbol-name and also the French book.). I will refer to you as the poster formerly known as Doubting Thomas. (In case you hadn’t read my other post – I used words to say your name, because I don’t know how to type your name with the 2 umlauts and the dash.)

In case you are unaware of the origin of Doubting Thomas, it refers to the Apostle of Jesus, Thomas. Thomas didn’t believe Jesus rose from the dead. He wouldn’t believe it unless he could put his hand in His wounds. After Jesus appeared to Thomas and Thomas did such, then Thomas believed.

You, OOO- the poster formerly known as Doubting Thomas, had little faith in our master, David S. It wasn’t until you had the “evidence” that you believed. Tsk, tsk. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

RJT

p.s. David S., did you think it was going to be easy being god(-like)?

[/ QUOTE ]

The hero worship on this forum scares me sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]


It is a literary form known as irony (was meant to be at least.)