Did Sklansky say he Could have won a Nobel?

[tylerdurden]

Physics.

I'm surprised it took this long before someone made a comment about it.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did he say this?

[/ QUOTE ]


A recent Poker Superstars Invitational II.

What he said wasn't that off-the-wall, seeing as how he is obviously very gifted, it is completely plausible that if he pushed himself and continued to push himself in a specific direction that he could have been a Nobel Prize winner.

He didn't say it was an inevitability or anything, he simply said that he could've been one, meaning he had the potential to be a Nobel Prize winner.

Given the revolutionary work he's contributed to poker, is it not therefore likely to think he could've done likewise in another field?

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the revolutionary work he's contributed to poker, is it not therefore likely to think he could've done likewise in another field?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly. But if he were more secure in himself perhaps he would just assume this was self-evident and wouldn't have to tell everyone about it.

[andyfox]

I'm not smart enough to know if David's smart enough to have won one. Let's say he is.

Isn't there something sad about him saying it, though, on a par with Terry Malloy's, "I coulda been a contender"? Unless the comment was made for publicity.

[TransientR]

Sklansky also said on TV he was a 'math prodigy.' Well, the "Theory of Poker" is no "Principia," and David is no Isaac Newton.

Lets have some sense of perspective.

Frank

[Enrique]

If you go by your logic, then anyone could have won the Nobel Prize. Anyone has a possibility.
I am shocked that Sklansky said that, the Noble Prize is the most prestigious award in science. Thinking that if you had gone to science you would get one, is vanity. It is definately not easy.
It's like the good sports guy in your neighborhood. He will always he will be an NBA player (or some sport), although it is very hard. And claiming Nobel Prize it's even worse, because you are not only assuming you would be in the upper tier of science (analogy with upper tier of a sport), you are assuming you would be the best (analogy would be MVP).
So, Sklansky's remark is incredibly vain.
(which I guess most people knew).

[gumpzilla]

That's what I feared.

Even assuming that Sklansky would have been one of the top 200 physicists of his generation by dint of his overpowering megamind - something that I'm somewhat dubious about to begin with - I believe it takes a fair amount of luck above and beyond that to win a Nobel. There are many superb physicists who never get a Nobel, and many of these are smarter (in any sense you care to name) than many of the Nobel winners. The Nobel isn't an intelligence test.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Given the revolutionary work he's contributed to poker, is it not therefore likely to think he could've done likewise in another field?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. (By the way, what did Sklansky do that's so revolutionary? Or is his big role as a popularizer?) In poker, you're taking something that had been subjected to only the most minimal of mathematical analysis. In physics, you're looking at a field that has been thoroughly studied since the 17th century and where probably hundreds of thousands of workers dedicate their lives to working on it. Making a truly groundbreaking contribution here is going to be substantially harder.

Basically, in a young field, it's a lot easier to find the low-lying fruit and pick them.

[JTrout]

Very intelligently put. You could've won a Nobel.

[reubenf]

I was a bit shocked when DS talked about being a math prodigy, learning calculus at age 13 or something. I don't understand his motivation for talking about what he did when he was 13. Does it really matter to him at all that he learned calculus at age 13? He's learned and done so much more since then. I didn't see the Nobel Prize comment, but talking about that would have shocked me too.

However, I lose no respect for the guy just because I don't know why he said something. Just because I don't know why he says something doesn't mean there isn't a good reason for him to say it.