By Sklansky criteria: Jim Brier is the Smartest Poker Player

[knifeandfork]

interesting zaxx, why do you think this? because he was a jew with near perfect recall? i think many things ungar(sp) did or was reported to have done show him to not be the smartest. ie naming cards in other players hands etc while playing gin. i tkae nothing away from the guy trust me but smartest person to ever play cards i seriously doubt it.

[Hack]

I agree with this. Stuey Ungar was brilliant at poker and gin rummy, and at reading people, but that doesn't make him the smartest guy to ever play the game. If you're talking about the smartest AT the game, then, yes, maybe. But there are plenty of people worse at poker than Stuey yet were smarter than him.

[partygirluk]

That is completely ridiculous for you to say. I seriously doubt you have any where near enough data to make an even semi-intelligent comment on this matter.

[Vince Lepore]

My point is that like partygirl people that take this post serious are idiots

Vince

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certain you thought e>10.

[/ QUOTE ]

About as certain as you think you are a girl?

Vince

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt you have any where near enough data to make an even semi-intelligent comment on this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true but I've read enough of your posts to determine withut a doubt that you are a dope.

Vince

[shummie]

[ QUOTE ]
Especially for "math" people who think e > 10...

[/ QUOTE ]

It does have more "digits" though. I mean e would take a lot longer to write down on paper than 10...

- Jason

[Jaquen H'gar]

some people think that self-destruction is evidence of stupidity, not intelligence.

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
O.K. genius do you truly believe that mine was a serious post?

Sheesh!


[/ QUOTE ]

Really!! Lighten the ***k up you guys.

Great post Mr. Lepore, thanks for the laugh.

(((Hey MM, give this guy his Forum back!)))


Sincerely, -dsm

[J.A.Sucker]

Hi Vince,

It is likely that it is far more difficult to be a great physical scientist than a mathematician. Being a mediocre one, however, you may have a point.

Your primary assertion that physicists don't invent anything is completely incorrect, of course. To that end, applied mathematicians are usually far advanced beyond what experimentalists can measure, because they have to actually build the thing to measure what the math guys say may exist. This is usually a daunting task that falls on the physicists (and chemists these days - the lines are completely blurred).

In my research, I have usually spent my time trying to measure what theorists (who are basically mathematicians) say will occur. However, I have had a couple of discoveries that have not been predicted by math, simply because the math guys failed to include all of the relevant parameters (that's why we do the experiments). After seeing these new things, math can advance theory and can sometimes offer a better explanation of what's going on. However, as a good experimentalist, one usually offers a begninning theory, so that you are actually playing a theorist, too. Thus, I assert that it's far more difficult to be a physical scientist than a math guy, where you never really have physical limitations on what is possible. Frankly, there are always things that the math guys fail to think about that damns all science to failure (or slow successes).

One more thing: it usually takes about 3-4 years to get a PhD in math or theoretical science. It takes about 5-6 years for experimental physics or chemistry.

That said, I don't really know how this all connects to being the smartest poker player.