Poker EV and Education Level

[Shaman]

What is the lowest level of education needed to become a positive EV player in LIMIT texas hold'em?

Would that be junior high? Or would that be more like Sophomore level in high school, having passed at least two semesters of algebra in addition to pre-algebra? A little college maybe?

I learned to play poker at the age of 8 (at least 20 years ago), we played for matchsticks in our living room. We just played for fun.

But let's say that what if when I was 8 years old (with an IQ of, say, 130 and a diligent and disciplined student at the top three of my class), someone who was a master of the concepts found in the 2+2 books had come along and educated me on optimum play, could I have been "programmed" into being a 1 small bet per hour winner at 3-6 at this tender young age?

What if I was 9? Or 10? Or a high school sophomore? At what age (assuming an IQ of 130, with good study habits, top three in class) would I have been "programmable" to be an at least 1 small bet per hour winner at 3-6 hold'em?

[reubenf]

I'm pretty sure a reasonably intelligent hard-working 12 year old with good emotional control can become a winning player up to at least 3/6. Non-genius 12 year olds have excelled at more complex games.

[blackize]

Education level has little to no bearing on poker success. Math skills are good for figuring odds, but odds tables can also be memorized making it so almost anyone can figure out their odds in a moments notice. Emotional stability is far more important. There are so many things related to poker that dont involve intelligence or study ability. I firmly believe intelligence will help you in anything you do, but with an IQ of 152 I am a bit biased. But in poker you need to be able to control your emotions and your body. I think empathy is the most important aspect of poker. You need to be able to sense your opponents emotions and be able to get a read on how him, arguably intelligence may play a part in being able to do this, but some of the best people Ive ever seen at reading an opponent in poker have been relatively dimwitted.

[maldini]

i think ON AVERAGE, a player would have to be closer to 15 or 16. i think you have to have puberty and some adult thinking to understand peoples motivations and moods and such. really to make money in the long run the emotional side is most important. can a 12 year old hold it together for very long? dunno. dont think so.

would it be his own roll or someone else's? does it matter? i dont think i could play as well with someone else's roll.

are you looking for a summer job for your son?

[Jersey Nick]

If you started playing the violin at 8 y.o., how long would it take you to play the Tchaikovsky violin concerto in a technically proficient manner? I had a friend who did that by the time he was 14. He really loved playing the violin. I would argue that it's a bigger leap to play that concerto than to be an +EV LTHE 3/6 player, but it would depend on just how much that young person wants to be a +EV LTHE 3/6 player.

When you were 8 you had no internet. Matchsticks and bets for all-the-tea-in-China were fun wagers. Girls gave you cooties. I don’t want to sound like the morality police, but is it a great idea for a kid to learn about real gambling at 8? Or 12? Or 16? Maybe 16 so he doesn’t get fleeced in college.

Is this a regret post for not mis-spending your youth or do you want to teach your nephew to manage your online accounts this summer? Either way we might want to steer this subject over to the psychology forum.

[OrangeKing]

There have been a lot of these threads lately. I think people are way too concerned with how intellegent you have to be to win at poker. It helps, but (especially at low limits) you can overcome being well below average if you're very motivated to get better at this game. I think as you move up limits, however, you probably have to be of an average intellegence to be able to win in the mid-to-high range before even considering other factors.

People already overestimate how much of a factor intellegence is in chess, and it's probably somewhat less of a factor in poker.

[PotatoStew]

Thinking about making your kids earn their keep?

[elmitchbo]

people do not over estimate the correlation of chess and intellignece. i defy you to find any state or regional chess champion that is not in the 98th percentile of IQ. you have to be intelligent to be a winning chess player.

people might over estimate the correleation to poker, but not by much. i agree with blackize that intelligence will help you with almost anything(i'm not quite as biased...with an IQ 140). motivation and determination can make a huge difference of course. IQ's being equal the player that studies and works the hardest will have more success. another thing to keep in mind are the different types of intelligence. you can make the argument that determination is part of a person's intelligence. reading people, analyzing hands, keeping track of what happened earlier at the table, and self control are directly connected to interpersonal, logic-math, spatial, and intrapersonal intelligence respectively.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
people do not over estimate the correlation of chess and intellignece. i defy you to find any state or regional chess champion that is not in the 98th percentile of IQ. you have to be intelligent to be a winning chess player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've met plenty of masters while I worked at the USCF, and a fair number of them weren't even close to being geniuses. Even Bruce Pandolfini freely admits that any average person, given the time and inclination to work at it , could likely become a master.

Now if you want to talk about GMs, or especially, say, the top 100 players in the world...then yes, you need to be of a special intelligence (among other things). But most people think anyone who is a strong (read: average tournament player or better) chess player needs to be smart to do so, and it's just not true. And, of course, at any high level of chess mastery - say, expert or better - there will be a much larger pool of players who are very intellegent than not, simply because it takes much more effort for a less intellegent player to attain that level. And I do doubt that an average person could rise much higher than to the level of a "weak" (relatively speaking) master.

The problem, however, is that people generally take this concept way too far, and that's what I was getting at. A lot of people think they're not smart enough for chess; or that anyone who is a decent tournament player, and thus could probably simul 50 typical 'casual' players without losing a game, must be extremely smart. Neither of those statements is true.

I found that the belief that chess is only for geniuses was one of the big barriers to getting it into more schools, or to more students in schools where it already existed. People seem to think that only the smart kids could play chess, when research suggests that playing chess will make all of their students smarter.

Edit: I guess the better way to make my point is that I could set up 100 boards in a convention center and play 100 people with extremely high IQs, but no formal chess training (however, they would all know the rules and have played occasionally). I would feel extremely confident in saying I would score at least 98 points in 100 games, and I'm merely an average tournament player. Most people would find this feat astonishing, because they overvalue intellegence in chess - while it's an important skill to have, it's not nearly as important as the general public thinks.

[Snoogins47]

To me, General Intelligence in games like poker/chess is along the same lines as general Athleticism in sports.

You take a guy who is in very good shape and is well coordinated, chances are he'll catch on quickly and be able to handle himself in any sport. But in any sport, there are almost certainly people who, while not maybe at the same level of overall fitness/athleticism, completely crush a "better" athlete due to experience and skill.

Clearly different sports show this in different ways and to differing degrees, but I think that's the best way to look at it.

A very intelligent person would *probably* have an easier time becoming a top chess player, but I bet most people have the "potential" to do so: it just takes varying amounts of time and effort. I often wonder when this potential "caps," I.E. it wouldn't shock me at all if certain players who are on the lesser side of intelligence would be almost completelyuinable to advance past a certain level of competition, in either game (chess or poker.) Is potential unlimited, limited by time, or do other factors limit it as well? It's an interesting topic.