Poll: IQ

[Equal]

Take those results of the poll, throw ouw the -90 and +170 ranges, minus 20-30 points from the numbers, and you have accurate results.

[XChamp]

[ QUOTE ]
Since my opinion seems to be so hilarious, how about a serious wager. For the nominal fee of $18 Mensa will provide anyone with a do-it-at-home honor system IQ test. This is a pre-qualification test to take the monitored Mensa IQ test. You pick the players, have them take the test, then mail you their IQ results. If they correllate I'll send everybody their $18 fee. If not, you pick up the tab. You can post the results and the players of your choosing will get a free IQ test. I'll trust you to determine a players poker skills (assign them a Poker IQ) and then compare Poker IQ to Mensa IQ. We can also have a pool and/or sidebet on the outcome. I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that there is no correlation between intelligence and poker playing ability is ludicrous.

So, the fact that someone's IQ is so low that they cannot add and subtract has no bearing on their performance at the poker tables? They obviously have no understanding of probability, yet they will make the same number of correct calls or folds with draws as someone with a "super-genius" IQ level?

[quix0tic]

What exactly IQ measures and whether it is a meaningful indicator of intelligence is itself a topic of heated debate among cognitive scientists. It is generally assumed that IQ measures something called g, meaning general intelligence. While not definitive, it seems likely g exists and is not a statistical fiction. It is very positively correlated with just about every type of complex reasoning, pattern recognition, even memory. If we agree that high level poker (deep stack nl for example) requires these attributes, it follows that IQ (meaning g) must be correlated to some degree with strong play. Correlation of course does not mean that it is the most prominent factor or even close to it. It only means that, all things being equal (discipline, bravery, perseverance, etc), the higher IQ person will probably be the better player. Anyone who has spent time playing live and denies this is probably not very perceptive.

Sklansky estimated the average IQ in "the big game" to be 140 or something like that, meaning 2-3 standard deviations above average. Average by the way is 100 and SD about 15. Although he has no objective evidence to back this up, I think its probably true. Playing B&M limit hold em from 4-8 to 80-160, I have observed the same trend as sklansky. The players who succeeded at each succesive limit were generally better at modeling opponent behavior, identifying the relevancy of information, instintively understanding game theory and bayesian probablity, and just more clever, than those at the limit below. I can't prove these things per se, but I'm a cognitive science major and have a solid enough understanding that I'm not talking out of my a$$.

There are opposing trends as well. It has been observed that most leaders must be within 20 IQ points of their followers; more specifically that people empathize and understand people closer to their IQ better. This is why people with 160+ IQs often go nowhere in society so to speak. They can think well but can't socialize meaningfully. They just don't have a proper peer group and thus don't learn certain skills. I believe making a good read is in a sense getting inside the opponents head. This may be one reason very high IQ individuals are not always rewarded in poker. Not being able to emulate another's thinking is a serious handicap.

[XChamp]

Great post.


[ QUOTE ]
Correlation of course does not mean that it is the most prominent factor or even close to it. It only means that, all things being equal (discipline, bravery, perseverance, etc), the higher IQ person will probably be the better player. Anyone who has spent time playing live and denies this is probably not very perceptive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was thinking, only spelled out much better. To deny that IQ has nothing to do with poker skill is ridiculous. It may, however, have less to do with poker skill than other attributes.

[ QUOTE ]

There are opposing trends as well. It has been observed that most leaders must be within 20 IQ points of their followers; more specifically that people empathize and understand people closer to their IQ better. This is why people with 160+ IQs often go nowhere in society so to speak. They can think well but can't socialize meaningfully. They just don't have a proper peer group and thus don't learn certain skills. I believe making a good read is in a sense getting inside the opponents head. This may be one reason very high IQ individuals are not always rewarded in poker. Not being able to emulate another's thinking is a serious handicap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally agree.

I think that, as a general rule, it is true that the larger the difference in IQ the harder it is for one person to relate to another, but this is not set in stone. I think of it more as a normal distribution. From my own time spent as a physics major, I have seen such things as: sub-par physics and math majors (in terms of intelligence) be almost completely unable to befriend or socialize. They are so irritating and awkward that people actually start to avoid them. I have also seen extremely intelligent people (members of a top 10 team on the Putnam exam) be perfectly able to interact and befriend a lowly person like me who cannot even complete a simple abstract proof.

[warlockjd]

My IQs are hi.

[Leptyne]

My apologies for going over the top in my earlier post. Since I took the Mensa test in 1980, and I think most people agree that IQ declines with age, it follows that I'm not as smart as I once was. Plus I can't spell.

IQ's of the population are considered by many (but not all) to form the Bell curve, with 48% of the population being at the top of the curve with IQ's of 90-110%. So 26% of the population is both above 110 and below 90. I would grant that good and great poker players, like doctors, lawyers, etc. come from the top 26%.

To suggest correlation says to me that an individual with an IQ of 120 doesn't have an IQ high enough to rank among the very best. IMHO above an IQ level of 120 it's a pretty level playing field. Just my opinion but I don't believe you have to have an IQ that puts you in the top 2% (Mensa level) to be in the top 2% of poker players.

[NiceCatch]

[ QUOTE ]
I was simply amused by how a Mensa super genius, such as yourself, would theorize that intelligence and poker skills have no correlation at all, and then conclude your statement by misspelling "correlation". That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting to like this guy.

[NiceCatch]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IQ DOES NOT decline with age. The IQ number is basically a ratio of how quickly one learns in relation to the average person. I.e. an IQ of 160 means learning at 1.6x the rate of an average human being.

[ChrisHasNoLife]

my iq is around 60, which puts me on a level ground with retards, clever apes and the majority of americans.....u stupid, fat, mass production, geoglogical footprint of over half the earth, constant agressor, two-faced, hypocritical global warming denying bastards.... not at all like us british,, well were not fat

[NiceCatch]

Nice fifth post, Chris. Cheerio.