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

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
While most excellent poker players are not "really smart", most world class players are.

I didn't say all the best 4000-8000 players had an IQ above 140. I said that their average IQ was. Some may be 130.

I have talked to these players, discussed concepts and quizzed them enough to make a good guess as to what their IQs are.

Someone with an IQ of 120 is much less likely to become world class at bridge, backgammon, and poker than someone with an IQ of 150. In the first two games he is almost drawing dead. In poker he still has a chance, especially in short handed games or pot limit or no limit. But not much of one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you have the ability to determine IQ levels merely by conversing with people for a fraction of the time an IQ test would take, I doubt you have talked to enough people to make your data statistically significant.

At any rate, some people like Russ Boyd can now dismiss his poor play with bad beats and poor shuffling while others like Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim and Puggy Pearson are just flukes...

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
While most excellent poker players are not "really smart", most world class players are.

I didn't say all the best 4000-8000 players had an IQ above 140. I said that their average IQ was. Some may be 130.

I have talked to these players, discussed concepts and quizzed them enough to make a good guess as to what their IQs are.

Someone with an IQ of 120 is much less likely to become world class at bridge, backgammon, and poker than someone with an IQ of 150. In the first two games he is almost drawing dead. In poker he still has a chance, especially in short handed games or pot limit or no limit. But not much of one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was originally planning on using chess, like in the other thread, to argue against your point, but now that I see what you were trying to say, I'd agree.

In another thread, I mention that I've met a lot of chess players who are masters or better, but aren't particularly intelligent. I'm not saying they're idiots, but they certainly aren't geniuses either. Chess success, in general, isn't a product of genius. It's a product of hard work and study. I think poker is very similar.

However, a fair number of people will put in enough work and study in either of these disciplines so that nobody really has an advantage over another studious, hard working player. The world class players seperate themselves from this crowd by a number of means...including intelligence. The average person could probably become an FM (FIDE Master) in chess with enough hard work and study, and many unremarkable people might even beome IMs or GMs (International Masters and Grandmaster, respectively), but it takes a true genius to be a world champion, a 2700+ rated "Super GM" like Anand or Shirov, or a top 100 player and US Champion at the age of 16 like Hikaru Nakamura.

Poker is probably the same way. With enough hard work, discipline and study, along with experience, an average person could probably learn to beat fairly high limit games. But to be successful in the 4,000/8,000 game, it takes more - and a high level of intelligence is likely one of those factors.

[esbesb]

Mr. Sklansky:

You made a statement in a previous thread (well known by now) that the best 4000-8000 players have an average IQ above 140. When asked how you know this, you say, "I have talked to these players, discussed concepts and quizzed them enough to make a good guess as to what their IQs are."

Ignoring, for the moment, whether you (or anyone) is qualified to opine on a person's IQ by "discuss[ing] concepts" and "quizz[ing] them," how do you know that the results of your discussions and quizzes with these experienced players reveals their innate IQ as opposed to the product of hard work and study by intelligent (but not necessarily brilliant) people in their chosen field?

I think these threads are really interesting. Maybe I can generate some further discussion by offering myself as an example, since there may be others similarly situated.

I do not have an IQ of 140. I am above average in intelligence, but have been told by people who purport to measure these things that my IQ is about 120-125. That is nowhere near 140, which I consider much smarter -- indeed, extremely smart.

In college, I applied myself and worked hard, and got a degree summa cum laude in a double major in 3 years. (NOT math, physics or engineering, by the way, which blows me away -- philosophy and psychology). I then went to a top level law school and graduated second in my class, out of about 200 students. I can say without a doubt that I studied MUCH harder than the vast majority of my fellow law students, many of whom I considered to be much more inately intelligent than me. I ate, slept and breathed the subject for three years, thereby mastering it, relative to my fellow law students (and competitors). I have had an extremely successful law practice over the past ten years.

Now, like many on this forum, I am interested in becoming a really good poker player. But I have NO DOUBT that I am not as inately smart as many.

So I guess 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?

Thus far, I do not believe you've cited any real evidence to back up what you say about these players' IQ.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Vince did you even try to understand what Sklansky said before making fun of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Understand Sklansky? Is that possible?

Vince

[Bataglin]

That's because he'll let others elaborate.

[David Sklansky]

Your question is like asking me if you can excel in a sport if your hundred yard dash time is only 11.2 It makes it harder but if you have enough other talents it can be done. But it would be wise to think more about first base than cornerback.

[David Sklansky]

"while others like Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim and Puggy Pearson are just flukes..."

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

[esbesb]

In response to my last post, you do not answer the question I posed. Instead, you state, "Your question is like asking me if you can excel in a sport if your hundred yard dash time is only 11.2 It makes it harder but if you have enough other talents it can be done. But it would be wise to think more about first base than cornerback."

I think you are incorrect.

Rather, my question is more like asking a professional football coach [poker expert] whether an individual with a maximum potential 40 yard dash time [IQ] can ever compete successfully as a professional wide receiver [4000-8000 limit poker player] in the NFL [against the poker players of the caliber you mention].

I would think the NFL football coach could answer the question very directly. Can you answer it? Can someone with a 120 IQ ever compete successfully in 4000-8000 holdem against the caliber of players you mention in your top ten?

Thank you.

[Hack]

Dude, you can do it if you work hard at it. No one is saying you will be world class, but with a lot of hard work you can become an excellent poker player. Work on being good, then excellent, then world-class.

You don't need Sklansky's permission to become a good poker player. Don't let his comments or anyone else's stop you from trying to meet your goals.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
"while others like Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim and Puggy Pearson are just flukes..."

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, at most two of those three have IQs way above average.