Buffett, Gates, & Harrington on hold'em

[Warren Whitmore]

At a question and answer session at a college when computers were just getting started.

Student: How much more are you willing to pay for companies now that computers are available?

Buffett: None, its like standing on tip toes at a parade. No one can see any better and its hell on the legs.

Gates: More for the better companies, those companies that are leading now will have a better edge because they will be better able to integrate the technology.

I dont know which one was right. Whats your opinion. Does Harrington on hold'em.

[KenProspero]

If you sit down in a MTT

1. What percentage of players have read any poker book at all (I'd be surprised if it's more than 25%)?

2. Of those who have read any book, what percentage have read it all the way through, as opposed to opening it, and deciding that it's much more fun to play hands than to read a book? (My guess is that no more than half of those who have bought a book have ever finished one).

3. Of those who have actually read a book cover to cover, what percentage do you think have taken the time to really think about what's being taught,as opposed to just looking for the magic bullet that will make them a winning poker player. (I'd again say, no more than 1/2 of those who read the book make the effort).

If all of these people bought Harrington, no more than 5%-6% of the people in any tourneyment have gotten what they can from the book (to be honest, I think it's probably 1%-2%).

If you really absorb Harrington (admittedly, I think I've only scratched the surface), I think you'll be better prepared than at least 95% of the people playing. Very +ev

[maurile]

It will help people who benefit from it at the expense of those who don't.

Not everyone will benefit from it. For example, the people who don't read it will not.

I don't think IQ matters as much as effort. Those who read and reread the books and spend time thinking about the concepts will do much better than those who just skim (or don't read at all).

A smart person will get more out of the books on a first read, but I think a person with 100 IQ can squeeze just as much out of them over the long run. A very smart person who grasps the theory quickly and easily but who never really bothers to master its implementation can remain a big loser, while a relatively dumb person who works hard to internalize the principles and apply them to his game can be a big winner.

I've never read HOH, so this is based more my impressions of TOP, GSHE, and SSHE - but it seems like it would be applicable to most good poker books. I also find resourcefulness to be a better measure of success in general than intellect.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think IQ matters as much as effort.

[/ QUOTE ] Agreed. It's when effort is equal that it gets interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
while a relatively dumb person who works hard to internalize the principles and apply them to his game can be a big winner.

[/ QUOTE ] It gets trickier at this point. My observation is that the dumber you get the more you think in terms of 'rules' and 'specifics' and less in terms of broad underlying principles that flex with the changing variables in the environment.

It almost doesn't matter what the subject matter is. Balancing a ton of variables in your head and weighing short-term goals vs long-term goals and doing it well in a very short time frame is one advantage intelligent people have over less so.

You'll have a lineup of people wanting to be taught "what do I do in X situation". Or at least some formula to apply. In a certain subset of situations you can codify actions, but 'it depends' holds sway in too many not to create a gap.

I think this question is a little loaded. First, I am not following the Gates versus Buffet quote.

Second, it's a little loaded by tying IQ into it. Obviously, IQ relates to someone's potential, but IQ seems hard to measure. Take Chess for instance, there are a lot of brilliant people who will never get the game. Then there are prodigies, who really don't fare well in any other mental "arena." Wouldn't poker be the same way?

Also, KenProspero's points are well put. Not everyone has read the book, and poker is not like a stock market, where we can assume that the information is out there and reflected in our opponents' bankrolls.

I would add this to Kenprospero's points. How many people have read HOH but are incapable of applying the concepts in the heat of battle? Reading a book will not get you ready for the emotional factor of play.

[purnell]

From the desk of the worlds greatest under-acheiver:

IMO organization and willingness to work hard are far more predictive of success (as commonly defined) than the results of an IQ test.

[Warren Whitmore]

If thats true than Lederer, Harrington, Sklansky, Schoonmaker, Brunson, Fergesson, Malmuth, Gates, Buffett, Cloutier, Baldwin Greenstein,....have IQ's closer to 100 than to 140. Do you really believe that?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
If thats true than Lederer, Harrington, Sklansky, Schoonmaker, Brunson, Fergesson, Malmuth, Gates, Buffett, Cloutier, Baldwin Greenstein,....have IQ's closer to 100 than to 140. Do you really believe that?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow from my statement. Do you see why? (lol, couldn't resist)

edit: BTW, 140 ain't sh*t. I would guess that all of those guys score well above that number.

edit again: wait: most of those guys, but probably not all of them.

[Warren Whitmore]

"I don't think IQ matters as much as effort. Those who read and reread the books and spend time thinking about the concepts will do much better than those who just skim."

Maybe

Prior to reading the book, playing $30 buy in tourneyments n=200 my placing in tourneyments was 58%.

After studying the book, playing $30 buy in tourneyments n=200 my placing in tourneyments increased to 67%.

This is more important than it may seem because the standrard deviation did not change and the payout structure is not linear it is a 2nd degree polynomial.

The point is if I played as the book suggested it would not have improved as much.

Why?

Because it occured to me that the books were broken into 2 parts one for full handed ring type nl and the other into inflextion points and short handed play. Therefor the thing to do was to move from 300 player type games into 5 player type games to take advantage of the advice given. Would a player with an IQ of 100 do this if he read the book 100 times? I don't think so.