Poker and I.Q.

[bcunha]

8 inches.

[cain06]

[ QUOTE ]
8 inches.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL

[og5]

I hope I don't get flamed but I think this is a good question, just maybe not asked the right way. Sure low limits can be beaten by anyone who is willing and able to follow the correct strategy, but what about the mid and high limits where it's all sharks (maybe a few fish, but the majority sharks) Now it's not just about following correct strategy but outdoing your opponents, your reads have to be better than theirs. We can't all be winners right?

[JihadOnTheRiver]

I pooped a candle

[Quad fours]

Skalansky, in the WPT forum, gave his estimation on what the I.Q. of a player that wins in the "big game" was. This post was meant to find the difference between a winning low limit player and a winning high limit player. I think the easiest way to do that is I.Q. because the test is based mostly on pattern recognition and vocabulary. Flame away 2+2.

[SenecaJim]

could you link that for us?

[Quad fours]

[ QUOTE ]
could you link that for us?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a while ago Jim, but I'm looking for it now.

[Quad fours]

Sklansky on I.Q. in the big game

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Skalansky, in the WPT forum, gave his estimation on what the I.Q. of a player that wins in the "big game" was.

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to think that sklansky was a wanker - but if this is true then i'm upgrading him to king of the enormous wanker people

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Skalansky, in the WPT forum, gave his estimation on what the I.Q. of a player that wins in the "big game" was.

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to think that sklansky was a wanker - but if this is true then i'm upgrading him to king of the enormous wanker people

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[/ QUOTE ]

we don't have kings in america like you're crazy country, geeeze foolio, he'd be the president of enormous wanker people.