Question to David Sklansky re. Something You Said About IQ/Poker

[Demana]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Is it possible, in your opinion, for a player in the range of 115-125 or so to be a top level or world-class poker player?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this question is irrelevant.

Waiting for someone else to tell you what you can or cannot achieve is a waste of the time that you could be using to achieve that goal.

You can do anything you put your mind to.

Get off your butt and do it.

[Hack]

Bingo.

That's what I was trying to say above, but Demana said it better.

[etizzle]

Skanlsky's point is that you have a shot at becoming an excellent poker player, and if you work hard enough I'm sure you can be very good. But the worlds best players have eaten, breathed, and lived poker just as you have done so with law.

To put it another way, do you think you would have been able to graduate 2nd in your class if many of the other students (who you think were inately smarter) actually worked as hard or harder than you did?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You can do anything you put your mind to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's quite true. To reach the pinnacle of many disciplines requires a certain amount of natural talent.

For instance, many novices could probably become Expert chess players, or AAA ball players, or winning 30-60 poker players, if they really devoted themselves to it for many years. However, to become super-GMs at chess, or make it in major league baseball, or to beat the highest games in poker...just requires some innate talent as well as hard work. Since these are all highly competitive endeavors, merely being very good just won't cut it at the highest levels.

As far as reaching a decent level, or even a fairly high level, yes I would pretty much agree with you (depending on the degree of dedication and time committed). But some things are just impossible for many people, depending on how high the bar is set.

[coolhandluke]

You can do anything you put your mind to.

the great american lie.

[MMMMMM]

I think it's mostly true. But your goals have to be within the realm of possibility.

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
the question I pose to you, as an acknowledged expert in the field, is whether someone like me could EVER, no matter how hard I study and practice and try, get to a level where I could compete with you, or Paul Phillps, or Howard Lederer, or William Chen, or the other people on your list? Or, in your opinion, is there only so far I could ever go?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to answer for David since my IQ is somewhere between "good poker player" and "great poker player". Poker is not rocket science. Fundamental concepts of winning poker play are understandable by anyone with average intelligence. On the job training (experience) is essential for one to thouroughly understand and apply those concepts. Through experience one learns not only how to apply winning poker concepts but how to take advantage of flaws in their opponents games.

Sklansky associates IQ with ability. Maybe he's right, I'm not sure. However, he also associates poker playing (intelligence) with the ability to acquire a PHD in Physics. To obtain a PHD in Physics one must be capable of doing advanced mathematics. To do Mathematics one must think logically. Sklansky is really saying that great players are great logical thinkers. However, thinking logically by itself is not enough. One must think quickly also. And finally the most important element in the psyche of a great player just might be "balls" or self confidence depending on how you define it.

Whether or not a Lawyer, which by no means is an easy degree to obtain, is as capable (smart enough) to play poker as a PHD in phsyics is an interesting comparison. Lawyers use logic to plead their case - when it is in their best interest to do so. If a Lawyer can win his case by using the fears, whether unfounded or not, of a jury, he is obliged to do so. Consequently, logic for a lawyer is a tool that can be used flexibly or as he pleases in his professional work. In Physics, "logic", rules. PHD's do not vary from logical discussion when attempting to prove their point. Consequently, the PHD in physics is more likely to use logic correctly to obtain a desired result in poker. A lawyer would have to stop being a lawyer to be an excellant poker player. If you can change your spots, you probably are at least smart enough to survive in the big games. But it would take some adapting. By the way Fossilman is a lawyer too and he won the world series of poker. Now what does that tell us? Hmm.... I wonder.

Vince

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
At least two of those three have IQs way above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take that bet!

Vince

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
PHD's do not vary from logical discussion when attempting to prove their point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahaha.



[Sorry, Vince.]

[snakehead]

would it be fair to say that jennifer harman and annie duke are not likely to make your list but have managed to be succesful in poker anyway?