Re: Question to David Sklansky re. Something You Said About IQ/Poker
 

Mr.Sklansky:

I've read all your posts regarding IQ and poker abilities, and find it rather interesting. However, esbesb's original post stated two questions for you, in which I feel you've touched upon, but did not really answer.

"1) How do you know that "[t]he average IQ of the players in the 4000-8000 game is well above 140?"

2) Is it possible, in your opinion, for a player in the range of 115-125 or so to be a top level or world-class poker player?".

If indeed you are certain that players in the 4000-8000 game(winning players) hold IQ's well above 140, then it's fair to say that not "all" poker players can reach a poker IQ equivalent to the pros in the "big game". Thus, many poker players, despite vast amounts of poker experience and knowledge, are better served to save their bankrolls on limits, and players outside the correlated 140 and up IQ(players in the 4000-8000 game). I'm not trying to be bold or sound like a smart ass, I think these answers would be informative, and posse as a realization of how far the "poker dream" really is.
Thank you very much for reading this post and for your anticipated response. I appreciate it.
Gil

Re: Question to David Sklansky re. Something You Said About IQ/Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
B. Most excellent poker players are not really smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is awesome. i still have a chance to be an excellent player!

Re: Question to David Sklansky re. Something You Said About IQ/Poker
 

Vince did you even try to understand what Sklansky said before making fun of it?

Re: Question to David Sklansky re. Something You Said About IQ/Poker
 

"B. Most excellent poker players are not really smart."

Where does this come from? All the excellent players I know are really smart.

Re: Question to David Sklansky re. Something You Said About IQ/Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
A. Most really smart people are not that good at poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a more accurate thing to say is "Many, if not most, 'really smart people' have no interest in acheiving excellence in poker." I'll let others elaborate.


[ QUOTE ]
B. Most excellent poker players are not really smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I don't get....I thought the original question in the post was based on the premise that excellent poker players are really smart.

Clearly, I'm missing something.

Shane

Re: Question to David Sklansky re. Something You Said About IQ/Poker
 

What's the definition of an excellent player here?
Success at $100-200? More? Less?

The more you include, the less likely it is
that they are 'really smart'.

In just the 4000-8000, perhaps nearly all the
excellent players are 'really smart'.

This is another example of the pyramid, or the
iceberg, or some such where incremental changes
in level start to take significantly more
intellegence.

Another way to look at it would be the tail of
a distribution curve, for those statistically
minded.

Answers
 

While most excellent poker players are not "really smart", most world class players are.

I didn't say all the best 4000-8000 players had an IQ above 140. I said that their average IQ was. Some may be 130.

I have talked to these players, discussed concepts and quizzed them enough to make a good guess as to what their IQs are.

Someone with an IQ of 120 is much less likely to become world class at bridge, backgammon, and poker than someone with an IQ of 150. In the first two games he is almost drawing dead. In poker he still has a chance, especially in short handed games or pot limit or no limit. But not much of one.

Re: Answers
 

I know many of the World's top bridge players quite well. 95%+ of them would have an IQ in the top 1% A couple of them would only be top 5%. Do you play bridge David?

Re: Answers
 

WOOHOO! I have an IQ of 144, can somebody bankroll me? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Question to David Sklansky re. Something You Said About IQ/Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]


Well if you completely butchered his point can we assume that you are not smart enough to play poker?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]


That is true. And it's not even close.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com