IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

Like Howard Lederer, I am a competitive chess player turned poker player. When I'm honest with myself, I know that one of the reasons I made this switch is intellectual insecurity (turns out that this is not an uncommon trait among 2+2ers). I know I'm pretty smart (I'm a Phd student at Harvard), but I resent it when I have to admit to myself that someone else is unarguably smarter than I am. In chess, I had to do this quite often. In poker, I pretty much never have to do it, becuase variance befriends my ego -- I can attribute my good results to skill and my bad results to chance. I've talked with David Sklansky a few times and he strikes me as one of the more intellectually insecure people I've ever met. He's very smart -- but he is several levels below a first-rate talent such as Chris Ferguson. Poker is a game that allows people like David to believe that he is, in fact, a first-rate talent. I can't fault him for it -- I'm attracted to the game for the same reason. -wins_pot

Re: IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

have your honesty caused you any harm?

Re: IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

[ QUOTE ]
intellectual insecurity (turns out that this is not an uncommon trait among

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Harvard

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-DB

Re: IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

"but he is several levels below a first-rate talent such as Chris Ferguson."

Chris Ferguson wrote in a recent issue of ALL IN magazine that it was NEVER correct to bet head up on the river with a hand that can never get a worse hand to call or a better hand to fold. He got his Phd from UCLA.

If you batted 700 in Little League and a teammate batted 460 and then when on to be a major league allstar, you would be presumptious to think you could have done even better just because of your teenage stats. But if he only became a utility infielder in double A ball, that 240 batting average difference even way back when, is more than likely to mean you could still outhit him had you pursued your baseball career.

Re: IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've talked with David Sklansky a few times

[/ QUOTE ]

Big mistake. Now he knows your IQ...

Re: IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

That's incredibly funny.

Re: IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

[ QUOTE ]
Chris Ferguson wrote in a recent issue of ALL IN magazine that it was NEVER correct to bet head up on the river with a hand that can never get a worse hand to call or a better hand to fold. He got his Phd from UCLA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, with a high IQ we would know which players would be holding a better or worse hand and attempt a check raise on a better hand if the player is bluffable or otherwise fold (preferably on an earlier street). Against a worse hand we would check to show weakness and induce a bet.

However, if the stakes are large then of course the best hand will win unopposed because the worse hands being held by intellectualy superior people would have been folded already.

Re: IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

[ QUOTE ]
Like Howard Lederer, I am a competitive chess player turned poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

How competitive? I laugh every time they say Lederer was 'studying to become a master' - if he was, he never got very close. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Although, to be fair, a 1951 rating means he is/was quite a strong player (I'm a mere 1600).

And since when have you had to admit someone was smarter than you while playing chess? If you think chess skill is largely a factor of intelligence, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Many of the players who were masters or better who I've met are hardly geniuses.

Re: IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

[ QUOTE ]
How competitive? I laugh every time they say Lederer was 'studying to become a master' - if he was, he never got very close. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Although, to be fair, a 1951 rating means he is/was quite a strong player (I'm a mere 1600).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that far; master is 2200. 250 points is a lot but if he hadn't already stalled out, it's not undoable.

I got stuck at 1800 myself.

Re: IQ/Poker/David Sklansky
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that far; master is 2200. 250 points is a lot but if he hadn't already stalled out, it's not undoable.

I got stuck at 1800 myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not undoable, but there's a big gap between 2000 and 2200. There are a lot more experts/A players out there than masters, obviously.