Poker EV and Education Level

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
A very intelligent person would *probably* have an easier time becoming a top chess player, but I bet most people have the "potential" to do so: it just takes varying amounts of time and effort. I often wonder when this potential "caps," I.E. it wouldn't shock me at all if certain players who are on the lesser side of intelligence would be almost completely unable to advance past a certain level of competition, in either game (chess or poker.) Is potential unlimited, limited by time, or do other factors limit it as well? It's an interesting topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're probably right that your intellegence "caps" how high you can go in either game. In a silly (and grossly oversimplified) way to think about it numerically: imagine that in chess, intellegence is a set value that earns you 1-10 points, chess knowledge/study gets you 1-20 (obviously, knowing what you're doing is the biggest factor in any game), and experience can get you another 1-10. Let's say your average guy on the street who knows the rules would score about an 8 total, a decent tournament player 20-25, an expert 32, a master around 35, grandmaster 37+, and a world-class top 10 player is at least 39 out of the possible 40. This would preclude any 'average' person from being a grandmaster; however, with extremely hard work, they could become an expert or possibly even a master. On the other hand, a person scoring 10 in intellegence would have a definite advantage in reaching the top, but they could still very well suck. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So there is proably a built in cap, but the majority of people can climb most of the way up - it's only the very upper echelons that are "restricted" to the very intellegent. This is probably true in poker too, but the caps are even higher; while I doubt a person of average intelligence could beat the 4000/8000 game, it's likely possible for them to be a winner at 20/40 with enough work.

[Shaman]

For the purposes of our discussion, let's make this strictly on-line poker. Reading faces and controlling one's tells thus have no value. What's the youngest age and education level that can generate 1 small bet per hour at 3-6 holdem? This is obviously just a hypothetical question since children should be encouraged to go to school rather than gamble.

[Ghazban]

The hardest part of playing winning poker is keeping your cool. I think you could easily get an intelligent, fairly young person to play one hand well in a vacuum against the caliber of opposition generally found at a 3/6 table but its a different matter to teach a younger person the patience and discipline to sit for 3 hours straight and play profitably the whole time.

I see a lot of players at all ages who, for any given hand, might play excellent poker but are unable to keep it up in the long run and are overall losers. This might be because they don't have the patience to wait for quality starting hands (or good steal opportunities); it might be because they tilt easily and spew chips after a bad beat; or many other reasons.

Self-discipline and patience are, in my opinion, far more important to being a successful player than intelligence and, from my limited experience with people younger people (well, at least since I was one myself), these qualities are some of the last ones to mature.

[jtr]

Off topic, but: I'm puzzled by the posting of personal IQ scores that a couple of posters have done in this thread. I would be so much happier telling someone how much I earn or whether I'm circumcised than I would be telling them my IQ. Is it just me or do others feel that this number (assuming you even know it) is something that should stay private?

[Mayhap]

It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well.
-- Rene Descartes

[Dov]

My 6 year old can beat the party .5/1.

[motorholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
The hardest part of playing winning poker is keeping your cool. I think you could easily get an intelligent, fairly young person to play one hand well in a vacuum against the caliber of opposition generally found at a 3/6 table but its a different matter to teach a younger person the patience and discipline to sit for 3 hours straight and play profitably the whole time.

I see a lot of players at all ages who, for any given hand, might play excellent poker but are unable to keep it up in the long run and are overall losers. This might be because they don't have the patience to wait for quality starting hands (or good steal opportunities); it might be because they tilt easily and spew chips after a bad beat; or many other reasons.

Self-discipline and patience are, in my opinion, far more important to being a successful player than intelligence and, from my limited experience with people younger people (well, at least since I was one myself), these qualities are some of the last ones to mature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. I think apptitude, discipline and paitence are key.

One thing I could add is that I have friends from a wide cross-scetion of society (as I am sure many of you do). Most of the friends who are very-very good at poker have been through some tough times (emotially, financially, having to fend for themseleves at a young age, etc). As such, they have lots of street smarts, are bright, but do not have high levels of formal education.

When I compare these folks to some of my collegues with Masters or PHds, well.....lets just say some of my street smart buddies own them in poker. I am taling about guys with grade 10 and 11..

For some reason "hardened" folks seem to have an edge that is hard to define, but definetly present.

Of course I realize that this is a generaliation. I would say, however, that apptitude and temperment would be better predictors of success than education level.

Excuse the typos.

[motorholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Off topic, but: I'm puzzled by the posting of personal IQ scores that a couple of posters have done in this thread. I would be so much happier telling someone how much I earn or whether I'm circumcised than I would be telling them my IQ. Is it just me or do others feel that this number (assuming you even know it) is something that should stay private?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny about societal norms. Where I am from you don't discuss how much you earn, and though I am no prude, I really don't care if your circumsised or not...

But on the IQ guestion, consider this. It's the internet, so when someone says they have a 178IQ it really doesn't mean anything. I mean this is a poker forum afterall..lol

My understanding is that about 1/2 of us are above 100IQ and half are below 100(or something like that).

But, I have never had anyone tell me their IQ was 92? Have you? In fact, I have never seen anyone post a personal IQ less than 125. But, with that said, and in the context of the posts I am reading on this thread, I don't see that any poster is bragging. The posters were just trying to frame a context for their point of view, so that we the readers would know that it was from someone on the far right side of the old bell curve. That is, they had some personal insight on high IQ and poker ability. Under those terms, I think talking about IQ is fine.

Mine is 78, by the way......lol

[jtr]

Thanks for the reply, Motor.

You're right, of course: we shouldn't put any stock in any of the IQ numbers given, as this is the internet after all. And more positively, I agree that probably a good part of the IQ poster's motivation is simply to place themselves on the right hand side of the normal curve, in order to put their other comments in context.

I agree, but I guess I have a sneaking suspicion that it's deeper than just putting yourself on the right hand side of the curve. "Show me don't tell me" would seem to a good maxim here -- if you're genuinely on the right hand side of the curve, just say something intelligent on the topic at hand and your status will become obvious. Needing to specify a number looks like inadequacy of the "my dad could beat up your dad" variety.

As for the numbers themselves, if I recall correctly the original Stanford-Binet IQ test was scaled so as to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. So yes, half of us should be >100 and half should be <100.
Although I think the problem is that average scores on this and other measures (like the more popular WAIS test) have increased over the years. I don't believe there's been any effort at rescaling these things such that the mean is still 100. So it could well be true that a sizeable majority of the population have IQs over 100.

Kudos to you for coming out with your score of 78. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] And don't worry, I won't be subjecting you to any details of my anatomy, salary, or indeed IQ.

[Bacchus]

Average IQ is 100 and standard deviation is 15 points (for the Wechsler version). Stanford Binet has an average of 100 and SD of 16.

Having said that, I agree with the above poster that posting IQ scores is pointless.