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

Mr. Sklansky:

I thought it might be useful to ask you this by separate post.

You recently said about some top level players: "[t]heir greatest asset is in fact that they are very smart. The average IQ of the players in the 4000-8000 game is well above 140."

You believe there is a high correlation between IQ and poker ability, one that you describe as the "greatest asset" of at least two (and presumably many more) top level players. I do not doubt this, but I have two very specific questions to pose to you:

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?

Thank you very much for reading this post and for your anticipated response. I appreciate it.

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

He knows because of their scores on the HLPPAT (High Limit Poker Players Admissions Test), for which an acceptable score correlates to at least an IQ of 140. Obviously, all of the players had to pass in order to even be sitting down at the 4k/8k game.

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

A player with a 140+ IQ would know the answer
intuitively. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
A player with a 140+ IQ would know the answer
intuitively. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess my 134 isnt good then [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]. ohhh yeah, i forgot i dont really have the bankroll to play in a 4000/8000 dollar game [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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

Being smart, in regards to poker success is like being very fast or very strong regarding being a good linebacker. The smarter you are the greater your chances for success.

The reason why this is not well recognized is because:

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

B. Most excellent poker players are not really smart.


Some, (not so smart) people think that A and B combined imply that being really smart is of no great value to being a poker player. I often see both points made on these and other forums. Hopefully you see the fallacious reasoning.

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

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

B. Most excellent poker players are not really smart

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about a fallacious statement. Or is that facetious? Does anyone see anything wrong with David's pictorial here? "Most really smart people are not really good at poker". Well, now what does that mean? It certainly doesn't mean that most smart people are not capable at being good at poker. Does it? Of course not. What it probably means is that most smart people are too smart to waste their time learning to be good at poker. Not being smart myself, I am just guessing. Just guessing is what "not smart" people do.

If David's second statement is correct "Most excellenat poker players are not really smart" one must then consider just what it takes to be an excellent poker player. According to Sklansky "brains" are not a prerequisite. All I can say to that is "Thank God". I think I've picked a game that suits my ability or inaability as the case may be. Thanks to David I feel like I have a chance to succeed at this "not so smart people's" game!
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Vince

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

[ QUOTE ]
A player with a 140+ IQ would know the answer
intuitively. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot to say "Do you see why?"

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

The way I read it is as follows:

Let's say you have 100 random people. Perhaps 1 of them has what it takes to be a great poker player. Now, let's take a group of 100 people with high IQ's -- whatever the number is, it's at least 2 (i.e. more) have the chance to be a great poker player.

Most people aren't smart.
Most people aren't good poker players.

HOWEVER, as in most things in life, being intelligent increases your chances of excellence.

THAT is his point, I believe, not that all great poker players are smart/not smart or that all smart people will automatically make great poker players.

My apologies to David if I completely butchered his point.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

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

[ QUOTE ]
My apologies to David if I completely butchered his point

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Vince

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

and "It Depends"

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

Re: Answers
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you have the ability to determine IQ levels merely by conversing with people for a fraction of the time an IQ test would take, I doubt you have talked to enough people to make your data statistically significant.

At any rate, some people like Russ Boyd can now dismiss his poor play with bad beats and poor shuffling while others like Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim and Puggy Pearson are just flukes...

Re: Answers
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was originally planning on using chess, like in the other thread, to argue against your point, but now that I see what you were trying to say, I'd agree.

In another thread, I mention that I've met a lot of chess players who are masters or better, but aren't particularly intelligent. I'm not saying they're idiots, but they certainly aren't geniuses either. Chess success, in general, isn't a product of genius. It's a product of hard work and study. I think poker is very similar.

However, a fair number of people will put in enough work and study in either of these disciplines so that nobody really has an advantage over another studious, hard working player. The world class players seperate themselves from this crowd by a number of means...including intelligence. The average person could probably become an FM (FIDE Master) in chess with enough hard work and study, and many unremarkable people might even beome IMs or GMs (International Masters and Grandmaster, respectively), but it takes a true genius to be a world champion, a 2700+ rated "Super GM" like Anand or Shirov, or a top 100 player and US Champion at the age of 16 like Hikaru Nakamura.

Poker is probably the same way. With enough hard work, discipline and study, along with experience, an average person could probably learn to beat fairly high limit games. But to be successful in the 4,000/8,000 game, it takes more - and a high level of intelligence is likely one of those factors.

Mr. Sklansky: Surprised by Your \"Answer\" / Have Another Question
 

Mr. Sklansky:

You made a statement in a previous thread (well known by now) that the best 4000-8000 players have an average IQ above 140. When asked how you know this, you say, "I have talked to these players, discussed concepts and quizzed them enough to make a good guess as to what their IQs are."

Ignoring, for the moment, whether you (or anyone) is qualified to opine on a person's IQ by "discuss[ing] concepts" and "quizz[ing] them," how do you know that the results of your discussions and quizzes with these experienced players reveals their innate IQ as opposed to the product of hard work and study by intelligent (but not necessarily brilliant) people in their chosen field?

I think these threads are really interesting. Maybe I can generate some further discussion by offering myself as an example, since there may be others similarly situated.

I do not have an IQ of 140. I am above average in intelligence, but have been told by people who purport to measure these things that my IQ is about 120-125. That is nowhere near 140, which I consider much smarter -- indeed, extremely smart.

In college, I applied myself and worked hard, and got a degree summa cum laude in a double major in 3 years. (NOT math, physics or engineering, by the way, which blows me away -- philosophy and psychology). I then went to a top level law school and graduated second in my class, out of about 200 students. I can say without a doubt that I studied MUCH harder than the vast majority of my fellow law students, many of whom I considered to be much more inately intelligent than me. I ate, slept and breathed the subject for three years, thereby mastering it, relative to my fellow law students (and competitors). I have had an extremely successful law practice over the past ten years.

Now, like many on this forum, I am interested in becoming a really good poker player. But I have NO DOUBT that I am not as inately smart as many.

So I guess the question I pose to you, as an acknowledged expert in the field, is whether someone like me could EVER, no matter how hard I study and practice and try, get to a level where I could compete with you, or Paul Phillps, or Howard Lederer, or William Chen, or the other people on your list? Or, in your opinion, is there only so far I could ever go?

Thus far, I do not believe you've cited any real evidence to back up what you say about these players' IQ.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Understand Sklansky? Is that possible?

Vince

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

That's because he'll let others elaborate.

Re: Mr. Sklansky: Surprised by Your \"Answer\" / Have Another Question
 

Your question is like asking me if you can excel in a sport if your hundred yard dash time is only 11.2 It makes it harder but if you have enough other talents it can be done. But it would be wise to think more about first base than cornerback.

Re: Answers
 

"while others like Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim and Puggy Pearson are just flukes..."

At least two of those three have IQs way above average.

Re: Mr. Sklansky: Surprised by Your \"Answer\" / Have Another Question
 

In response to my last post, you do not answer the question I posed. Instead, you state, "Your question is like asking me if you can excel in a sport if your hundred yard dash time is only 11.2 It makes it harder but if you have enough other talents it can be done. But it would be wise to think more about first base than cornerback."

I think you are incorrect.

Rather, my question is more like asking a professional football coach [poker expert] whether an individual with a maximum potential 40 yard dash time [IQ] can ever compete successfully as a professional wide receiver [4000-8000 limit poker player] in the NFL [against the poker players of the caliber you mention].

I would think the NFL football coach could answer the question very directly. Can you answer it? Can someone with a 120 IQ ever compete successfully in 4000-8000 holdem against the caliber of players you mention in your top ten?

Thank you.

Re: Mr. Sklansky: Surprised by Your \"Answer\" / Have Another Question
 

Dude, you can do it if you work hard at it. No one is saying you will be world class, but with a lot of hard work you can become an excellent poker player. Work on being good, then excellent, then world-class.

You don't need Sklansky's permission to become a good poker player. Don't let his comments or anyone else's stop you from trying to meet your goals.

Re: Answers
 

[ QUOTE ]
"while others like Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim and Puggy Pearson are just flukes..."

At least two of those three have IQs way above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, at most two of those three have IQs way above average.

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

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this question is irrelevant.

Waiting for someone else to tell you what you can or cannot achieve is a waste of the time that you could be using to achieve that goal.

You can do anything you put your mind to.

Get off your butt and do it.

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

Bingo.

That's what I was trying to say above, but Demana said it better.

Re: Mr. Sklansky: Surprised by Your \"Answer\" / Have Another Question
 

Skanlsky's point is that you have a shot at becoming an excellent poker player, and if you work hard enough I'm sure you can be very good. But the worlds best players have eaten, breathed, and lived poker just as you have done so with law.

To put it another way, do you think you would have been able to graduate 2nd in your class if many of the other students (who you think were inately smarter) actually worked as hard or harder than you did?

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

[ QUOTE ]
You can do anything you put your mind to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's quite true. To reach the pinnacle of many disciplines requires a certain amount of natural talent.

For instance, many novices could probably become Expert chess players, or AAA ball players, or winning 30-60 poker players, if they really devoted themselves to it for many years. However, to become super-GMs at chess, or make it in major league baseball, or to beat the highest games in poker...just requires some innate talent as well as hard work. Since these are all highly competitive endeavors, merely being very good just won't cut it at the highest levels.

As far as reaching a decent level, or even a fairly high level, yes I would pretty much agree with you (depending on the degree of dedication and time committed). But some things are just impossible for many people, depending on how high the bar is set.

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

You can do anything you put your mind to.

the great american lie.

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

I think it's mostly true. But your goals have to be within the realm of possibility.

Re: Mr. Sklansky: Surprised by Your \"Answer\" / Have Another Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
the question I pose to you, as an acknowledged expert in the field, is whether someone like me could EVER, no matter how hard I study and practice and try, get to a level where I could compete with you, or Paul Phillps, or Howard Lederer, or William Chen, or the other people on your list? Or, in your opinion, is there only so far I could ever go?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to answer for David since my IQ is somewhere between "good poker player" and "great poker player". Poker is not rocket science. Fundamental concepts of winning poker play are understandable by anyone with average intelligence. On the job training (experience) is essential for one to thouroughly understand and apply those concepts. Through experience one learns not only how to apply winning poker concepts but how to take advantage of flaws in their opponents games.

Sklansky associates IQ with ability. Maybe he's right, I'm not sure. However, he also associates poker playing (intelligence) with the ability to acquire a PHD in Physics. To obtain a PHD in Physics one must be capable of doing advanced mathematics. To do Mathematics one must think logically. Sklansky is really saying that great players are great logical thinkers. However, thinking logically by itself is not enough. One must think quickly also. And finally the most important element in the psyche of a great player just might be "balls" or self confidence depending on how you define it.

Whether or not a Lawyer, which by no means is an easy degree to obtain, is as capable (smart enough) to play poker as a PHD in phsyics is an interesting comparison. Lawyers use logic to plead their case - when it is in their best interest to do so. If a Lawyer can win his case by using the fears, whether unfounded or not, of a jury, he is obliged to do so. Consequently, logic for a lawyer is a tool that can be used flexibly or as he pleases in his professional work. In Physics, "logic", rules. PHD's do not vary from logical discussion when attempting to prove their point. Consequently, the PHD in physics is more likely to use logic correctly to obtain a desired result in poker. A lawyer would have to stop being a lawyer to be an excellant poker player. If you can change your spots, you probably are at least smart enough to survive in the big games. But it would take some adapting. By the way Fossilman is a lawyer too and he won the world series of poker. Now what does that tell us? Hmm.... I wonder.

Vince

Re: Answers
 

[ QUOTE ]
At least two of those three have IQs way above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take that bet!

Vince

Re: Mr. Sklansky: Surprised by Your \"Answer\" / Have Another Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
PHD's do not vary from logical discussion when attempting to prove their point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahaha.



[Sorry, Vince.]

Re: Mr. Sklansky: Surprised by Your \"Answer\" / Have Another Question
 

would it be fair to say that jennifer harman and annie duke are not likely to make your list but have managed to be succesful in poker anyway?