Ten Smartest Non Poker Players

[David Sklansky]

They are in order:

1. Euclid

2. Newton

3. Euler

4. Shannon

5. Gauss

6. Von Neumman

7. Russell

8. Feynman

9. Kamen

10. Einstein

I recused myself from considering my father.

Eveyone on this list is smarter than everyone on the poker players list.

Everyone on this list, if they devoted two years to learning poker, could successfully cross book with either Chip Reese or Phil Ivey at a full table multiple game format as long as seven card stud or pot limit holdem was not one of the games.

[Daliman]

Ok, I'll bite, why not PL holdem or stud? Simply because CHip and Phil are just too good at those games?


P.S. Where's the Socrates luv?

[slickpoppa]

DS, how do you define "smart"?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
They are in order:

[/ QUOTE ]

???? I'm surprised you did that. It seems that the geniuses of old outweigh the geniuses of new. What do you consider the bigger feat, discovering the fundamentals, or making several revolutionary breakthroughs after all of the basics have been exhausted.

Does more of less outweigh less of more? (This is Ph.D. speak for all of you that are looking at it like it's bad english.)

[andyfox]

Von Neumann over Einstein? Somebody told me Einstein wanted $10,000/year to work at Cal-Tech, but they thought it was too much money. So they took von Neumann for less.

If you find yourself in L.A., there's a nice Einstein exhibit just now at the Skirball Center near Mulholland just off the 405.

[zaxx19]

Dean Kamen??

Over Leonardo Davinci.....among others...

And

A MIT undergrad in physics over Bach.

I feel this discussion has moved into the realm of complete and utter absurdity.

Im hoping you meant that guy Dean Kamen ; if not oh well I didnt study physics past my Jr Yr in H.S. so flame all you want.

Im just curious if you people believe that persons of incredible brilliance ALWAYS feel themselves drawn to the fields of theoretical physics or mathematics?

This probably is a VERY ILLOGICAL assumption isnt it??

[jakuda]

Hm... how did you filter other people out like Riemann, William Sidis, various Physics, Chemistry Nobel laureates and Fields medal winners?

Although I'd agree with 80-90% of your list...

[turnipmonster]

I am very curious why you specifically exempted PLHE and 7CS, mostly about 7CS.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Im just curious if you people believe that persons of incredible brilliance ALWAYS feel themselves drawn to the fields of theoretical physics or mathematics?

This probably is a VERY ILLOGICAL assumption isnt it??

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends, brilliant minds have to be challenged or they will become bored and go insane. Nothing can challenge them like the hard sciences do. Also, people can excel in physics and math simply by thinking about the problem. This is not the case in other fields. Experiments, money, business, and numerous other problems can slow down progress. It is easiest to identify brilliance in physics/math.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Von Neumann over Einstein? Somebody told me Einstein wanted $10,000/year to work at Cal-Tech, but they thought it was too much money. So they took von Neumann for less.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding, list the number of theories that were proved after Einstein died and then do the same for Von Neumann.