Comedians and Poker Players

[ QUOTE ]
From my limited knowledge I wouldn't back anyone with 3+ bracelets against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did you use the lack of recent WSOP bracelets as part of your argument against his intelligence? Oh nevermind, I remember, you are an angry irrational christian. Hehe.

[ QUOTE ]
Then why did you use the lack of recent WSOP bracelets as part of your argument against his intelligence?

[/ QUOTE ]
OP said:
[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky, who is generally recognized as the most intelligent winning poker player

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying he's not highly intelligent, but to be generally recognised as the most intelligent winning poker player requires more than this:

http://www.pokertips.org/wsop/players/David_Sklansky

and several good books. The games were very different back then, and far smaller. And WTF is mixed doubles? Tennis, anyone? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

If OP had said "the most intelligent poker author" instead, I would agree (sorry Mason). Also, the GRE test Sklansky proposed is biased toward math and acquired verbal reasoning skills, which he would have inevitably developed to a high degree as a leading poker author. This doesn't necessarily mean he is the most intelligent.

Not trying to diss the guy on his own forum, but he did make a "high falootin philosopher" comment in another thread that I took offence to [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[disjunction]

I'm annoyed at the fact that I find this interesting.

FWIW, without any studying, my over/under on Sklansky's score in the old-style format (math, verbal, logic) is 2310. 800 math, 800 logic, 710 verbal. Whether the computer format is used makes a difference because you can make mistakes and still get an 800. With a non-computer format I'd make the over/under on math and logic 799. This might be generous because if he hasn't taken a test in awhile he may make careless mistakes. On the other hand, there won't be a question he doesn't find easy. There's a small possibility of him blowing up on the logic, but I'd put that at 10%.

With 6 months of studying I'd kick the verbal up to 760. Having read his posts, I don't see putting it any higher. Anybody disagree?

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


http://www.pokertips.org/wsop/players/David_Sklansky

And WTF is mixed doubles? Tennis, anyone?



[/ QUOTE ]

He was obviously trying to get into the pants of whoever his partner happened to be (Jackie Jean, Dani Kelly?). Whether it worked or not, he'll be only too happy to tell you.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying he's not highly intelligent, but to be generally recognised as the most intelligent winning poker player requires more than this: [WSOP bracelets]

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you are totally wrong. The only poker-related requirement to being the "most intelligent winning player" is only to be a winning player, not the winningest player. So if you're a winning player, then the rest of the criteria for the claim is strictly intelligence-based not poker-based. And you yourself alluded to the idea that the players with more bracelets were not more intelligent than DS, yet you still want to use the metric of WSOP bracelets as a measure of DS's intelligence, which shows your irrationality in the argument.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice prop. From my limited knowledge I wouldn't back anyone with 3+ bracelets against you. However, I would take:

-Andrew Bloch: (0 bracelets) Law degree from Harvard, undergrad from MIT
-Howard Lederer: (2 bracelets) Former chess master, father is a Harvard law graduate, sister is also a champion poker player. Schooled at St. Pauls (New Hampshire) and Columbia University.
-I might consider Jennifer Harman (I believe she's 3 now?) on the analytical reasoning section. I don't follow the WPT much so I'd have to do some reasearch first, especially on her math proficiency.

Either way I'm going to see what NVG says. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd lay 5-1 vs any of these players.

[Daliman]

You are mistaking tournament wins and breacelets for the true arbiter of what makes a "winning" poker player...



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying he's not highly intelligent, but to be generally recognised as the most intelligent winning poker player requires more than this: [WSOP bracelets]

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you are totally wrong. The only poker-related requirement to being the "most intelligent winning player" is only to be a winning player, not the winningest player. So if you're a winning player, then the rest of the criteria for the claim is strictly intelligence-based not poker-based. And you yourself alluded to the idea that the players with more bracelets were not more intelligent than DS, yet you still want to use the metric of WSOP bracelets as a measure of DS's intelligence, which shows your irrationality in the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't understood what I've said. The part in bold, generally recognised, is not about his actual intelligence but whether or not he is recognised for it. I'm not in any way equating bracelets and intelligence, only making a point about public opinion. There are winning poker players who would trump David on any IQ or aptitude test, but no one has ever heard of them. Does that make them generally recognised as the most intelligent winning poker player? That part aside....

Among the well known poker players (say the top 200), what credentials does David have that provides objective evidence for his intelligence? I know very little of his biography, but he's competing against former chess masters, Harvard and MIT graduates, and extremely successful businessmen (outside of poker). Apart from that, what credentials does he have for success in the poker world, as a player? His three bracelets are impressive, but hardly anywhere near the top of his field, especially considering the decade he earned them and the fact that two were in obscure games. And what IQ do you need to write a poker book like Theory of Poker? He has a talent for clear expression and good analysis, but as objective evidence of very high intelligence it's quite inadequate.

As I said before, he is probably the most intelligent poker author there is, and he could definitely be seen as a great poker mind, which is all the OP was talking about. Geez. He was the one who made it about being the best.

[Daliman]

I don't remember DS ever saying he was the best poker player in the world. He IS, however, it's foremost writer and thinker, and is very successful at the games he chooses to play.

Other newflashes:
Butch Harmon is NOT the best golfer in the world. Never was even close.

Nick Bolletieri is NOT the best tennis player in the world. Never was even close.

Bill Belichick is NOT the best football player ever. Never was even close.

Tony Larussa.....
Scotty Bowman....
Pat Riley/Larry Brown/Red Auerbach/Phil Jackson.......

Getting the point yet?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember DS ever saying he was the best poker player in the world. He IS, however, it's foremost writer and thinker, and is very successful at the games he chooses to play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course he didn't. I only questioned the idea that he is recognised as the most intelligent player in the game. From the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky, who is generally recognized as the most intelligent winning poker player

[/ QUOTE ]
He then went on to offer a bet that he could beat any of the top 100 or so players in the GRE test. And the melee ensued.

To be clear: I only question the assertions that:

> He is the most intelligent of the well known poker players (say the top 100 or so)
> He is recognised as such.

edit: He is of course considered the top poker authority in the world.