iq and poker

[SuM827 0]

Sigh. Many see IQ tests as an assessment of an individual’s problem solving ability rather than general intelligence. However, they are not even a comprehensive test of someone's problem solving ability. Although they may assess analytical and verbal aptitude well, they aren't an accurate test of creativity, practical knowledge, and other skills involved in problem solving.Alot of psychologists have argued that IQ tests only prove you're good at taking IQ tests. I disagree, but there you go J.

I think this is very misleading. First of all, they aren't tests of creativity or practical knowledge. That'd be like hooking a car up to a dyno to test it's air conditioning. The Stanford-Binet IQ test doesn't measure those, so to say they "aren't accurate tests" is, at best, misleading.Also, "Alot of psychologists" don't hold that opinion. One did, and made a very famous quote out of it (his name escapes me). That quote is now mocked in every intro psych textbook ever written.

I didn't mean to imply that IQ tests measure practical knowledge, or creativity. The implication is that creativity, and practical knowlegde ("street smarts") are important in problem solving, and aren't really measured by IQ tests. As for the quote, as I said I don't agree with it, I think that there is some value in IQ tests, but not as much as most believe. As for IQ and poker.... I'd imagine that most people at the top of their field would also have higher IQ's than the rest of the members of that field, poker being no exception. A side note. I'm glad to be part of a forum where 90% of the members have IQs above 130. We should all be proud, because I think that only 5% of the population can claim this. lol.

[JFarrell20 1]

A side note. I'm glad to be part of a forum where 90% of the members have IQs above 130. We should all be proud, because I think that only 5% of the population can claim this. lol.

lol. 90% of the members of this forum do not score above 130. But I know what you're saying. There are a lot of intelligent people on here. I don't think anyone is surprised by this.

[JFarrell20 1]

I'm not trying to flame JFarrell, but I want to be as honest and forthright to what you have said so far, and the answer to much of it, including the above, is a resounding No. I don't mean to sound pretentious, but my parents have psychometrics in their backgrounds (both are psychologists right now, my mom got her postdoc from harvard in psychmetrics). They're about as knowledgeable as it gets, and everything I know about IQ I've learned from them or my studies for my psych major. IQ is MEANT to stay steady with your age, and it does, to some extent. But environmental factors play a significant role (conditioning in particular).Depends on the IQ, but I think IQ is usually defined around 130. I think there probably exists a correlation between very "mathy" poker players with IQ, but I believe most very skilled players--off the top of my head Doyle, Daniel, Juanda, and Chan--are probably more in the 110-125 range.

Since your parents are so knowledgable about the subject, can you please have them post? You do realize that this doesn't necessarily make you an authority on IQ. Especially since your IQ is admittedly below 130.But what you are failing to realize is that IQ is determined by how others your age score. If everyone's IQ "goes up" as they get older, they aren't really making any headway on the competition are they? I mean surely a 25 year old will do better than a 9 year old, given they take the same test. This doesn't mean anything. I believe that you are born with your set IQ and you really can't change it, short of bombing a test. You don't really believe that someone whose IQ is 100 can "work really hard" their whole life, and score 135 by age 50, do you? Preposterous. (I'm exaggerating for clarity).130 is technically defined as "gifted" whereas 140+ is "genius". I'm about 99% certain of this. John Juanda almost certainly scores higher than 125 on an IQ test. Not sure about the others. They may be higher or lower, it's kind of difficult to tell. But I'm almost certain Juanda surpasses 125.BTW, you look like my cousin Mitchell.

[SuM827 0]

A side note. I'm glad to be part of a forum where 90% of the members have IQs above 130. We should all be proud, because I think that only 5% of the population can claim this. lol.

lol. 90% of the members of this forum do not score above 130. But I know what you're saying. There are a lot of intelligent people on here. I don't think anyone is surprised by this.

J, I was being sarcastic. very sarcastic.

[goldenteemaster 0]

IMO IQ tests are not that reliable. I get bored at work sometimes and try some of the various available tests. I've scored anywhere from 120-173 so IMO, you can get a general idea of where you would fall in the IQ charts but I wouldn't take any one result as a serious indicator. Proper test administration is key too. I think some of the better IQ tests have time restrictions. Given enough time, anyone can ace a IQ test with some hard work.

[rog 0]

The abstract idea of one's "IQ" is a fixed number. How would someone's natural Intelligence Quotient vary through the course of their life? We're born with the same intelligence we die with.

You're missing the point. Of course that's the abstract idea. The practical measurement of that abstract is fundamentally flawed though. For one thing, it's hard to devise a test that is completely free from cultural bias. It is also hard to devise a test that is free from bias based on experience. We want to measure intelligence capacity, but there is no direct measure. IQ tests are comprehension and problem solving tests that we know are not a direct measure of IQ (in the abstract sense), but they corelate somewhat, so we use them. They are designed to be as free of bias as possible, but they are not perfect. It's not like sticking multimeter probes on a battery and finding it has an electric potential of 3 volts. It's more like guessing the voltage of a battery from the brightness of a light bulb hooked up to it. It's crude, approximate, and doesn't take all factors into consideration.

[JFarrell20 1]

 Given enough time, anyone can ace a IQ test with some hard work.

lol. No they can't... some of the responses people are giving about IQ are truly absurd. There's no way you would think this if you've scored between 120 and 173. No way.

[goldenteemaster 0]

OK, maybe not "ace "the test but definitely they can improve on previous ones. Your brain does get better a certain types of puzzles the more you do them so IMO, people can "improve" their IQ once they familiarize themselves with the kinds of questions they'll be seeing. Of course you will top out on this at some point so I guess the score acheived once you've gotten used to the types of questions would likely be fairly accurate.

[DCWildcat 0]

Since your parents are so knowledgable about the subject, can you please have them post?  You do realize that this doesn't necessarily make you an authority on IQ.  Especially since your IQ is admittedly below 130.But what you are failing to realize is that IQ is determined by how others your age score.  If everyone's IQ "goes up" as they get older, they aren't really making any headway on the competition are they?  I mean surely a 25 year old will do better than a 9 year old, given they take the same test.  This doesn't mean anything.  I believe that you are born with your set IQ and you really can't change it, short of bombing a test.  You don't really believe that someone whose IQ is 100 can "work really hard" their whole life, and score 135 by age 50, do you?  Preposterous.  (I'm exaggerating for clarity).130 is technically defined as "gifted" whereas 140+ is "genius".  I'm about 99% certain of this.  John Juanda almost certainly scores higher than 125 on an IQ test.  Not sure about the others.  They may be higher or lower, it's kind of difficult to tell.  But I'm almost certain Juanda surpasses 125.BTW, you look like my cousin Mitchell.

Actually, you ARE right about 140 and genius. My apologies! I hope I didn't mislead anyone there. As for my parents posting, well, it'd be kind of weird to ask them. I am 8 hours away from them too.It is relative to how others your age group score, that is true. If I understand you correctly, I think your deduction is a little off. It's true that if someone is born with a 160 IQ, is raised by wolves, then tested again say 40 years later, their IQ won't drop to 87. But relative to their age group, it will drop. Let's say you have two guys, Hunter and Cletus, who each have 130 IQs, scoring exactly the same on the test (same questions right, same speed, same ones wrong). Hunter gets a very good education at snotty new england prep schools (no offense to anyone who goes/went to those, I just hate yankees), and Cletusother gets a significantly worse one at a middle rate public school. Hunter then goes on to Stanford and gets his PhD, while Connor begins working at a steel mill. Hunter will almost certainly have a higher IQ at the end. Although intelligence is one of the most strongly correlated traits with genetics, it is still a matter of degree (like all traits). Thus, some is affected by the environment. How much so depends, of course, on the relative effects of each environment.

[ChuckSty 0]

iq i'm sure doesn't hurt a poker player at all but it certainly doesn't automatically make you great. I think it can certainly help you develop a certain aspect fo your game to a higher level. but at the same time there may be a part of having a high iq that could possibly be a hindrance; such as over analyizing. Poker is such a multi-faceted game that any number of skills can make someone a better player than someone else.I'd be willing to bet that alot of the top pros are not genius's when it comes to iq. I would also bet that some of them are. anyway just my thoughtsgranted i'm sure everyone would rather have it than not

[ChuckSty 0]

actually there are ways to increase your iq;practicing problem solving skills and learning different ways to think through to solutions statistically increases your iq small amounts. I read about a study where they had people of different ages work on all these puzzles and riddles and weird word problems and also some math excercises and there iq's went up. generally however the consensus is that your actual iq goes down as you get older; but that is only based on a certain kind of testing.

[wingnut7 0]

someone with a high iq may have some natural skills to help them succeed at poker, making it easier for them, but if you have a low iq you are still certainly capable of being a great poker player if you take the time to learn. (kinda like how its so much harder for the fat kid to make the basketball team in middle school) unless of course you're so mentally retarded you can't keep your own saliva in your mouth, although it would be pretty tough to get a read off an opponent like that.

[ChuckSty 0]

yeah example one time i got serious food poisonign during final table of 70 man tourney. i was getting up every five minutes and puking and puking in my mouth and stuff. regardless noone would ever call me when i bet; seriously i ran over the whole table; and for the most part i just wanted to go home and get knocked out.noone could read me becasue i was dead white; completely blood shot and smelled like vomit. moral of the story: hard to read a tard

[digitalmonkey 929]

On the other front, you could be born with an IQ of 180, on a deserted island and never learn to read or write, but you're still intelligent. You still have a great capacity for knowledge.

But how one would go about measuring the intelligence of such a person?

Look at the people on Jeopardy, they're both highly intelligent, AND well-learned.  It's two separate things.

How do you know the people on Jeopardy are highly intelligent? Is it not possible to memorize a seemingly infinite number of trivial answers (or questions in this case)? Is an excellent memory on your list of traits of highly intelligent people?

[JFarrell20 1]

they probably didnt want to "win" the chips you'd just splashed into the pot after touching them with your vomit-laden hands.JMHO.

[JFarrell20 1]

Look at the people on Jeopardy, they're both highly intelligent, AND well-learned.  It's two separate things.

How do you know the people on Jeopardy are highly intelligent? Is it not possible to memorize a seemingly infinite number of trivial answers (or questions in this case)? Is an excellent memory on your list of traits of highly intelligent people?

It's possible, yes. But I highly doubt anyone would invest that much time into memorizing stuff. I think the highly intelligent people just retain useless info. a lot easier than dumb people. Yes I do think there is a link between memory and intelligence. I could be wrong.I always do rather well when I watch Jeopardy. But I don't go out of my way to do so. I'm sure if I applied myself I could make it on the show, but I'd rather invest my time in poker than Jeopardy. Poker has a much higher expected value than Jeopardy.

[ChuckSty 0]

if you actually get on the show of jeopardy i would think that the 3-1 odds you have on winning on average i'd say at least 10 grand are pretty + ev. and then going to to the next show and winning again. for one night unless you are rolling pretty high stakes poker then one night of jeopardy's got to take it.now obviously you cannot make a career out of jeopardy where as maybe you can make a career out of poker. bottom line: ntn trivia rocks.

[DCWildcat 0]

Look at the people on Jeopardy, they're both highly intelligent, AND well-learned.  It's two separate things.

How do you know the people on Jeopardy are highly intelligent? Is it not possible to memorize a seemingly infinite number of trivial answers (or questions in this case)? Is an excellent memory on your list of traits of highly intelligent people?

It's possible, yes. But I highly doubt anyone would invest that much time into memorizing stuff. I think the highly intelligent people just retain useless info. a lot easier than dumb people. Yes I do think there is a link between memory and intelligence. I could be wrong.I always do rather well when I watch Jeopardy. But I don't go out of my way to do so. I'm sure if I applied myself I could make it on the show, but I'd rather invest my time in poker than Jeopardy. Poker has a much higher expected value than Jeopardy.

JFarrell is right. Memory, though not completely indicative of intelligence, has some traits that relate the two.Consider vocabulary. The SATs have so much vocab and crap for a reason--a person's vocabulary is one of the strongest indicators of their intelligence. And that just has to do with how many words someone holds in their head.

[TakenItEasy 0]

I have read plenty about the important traits successful poker players possess, i.e. steam control, competitive nature, etc...One of the most obvious traits all the best poker players certainly have is a high IQ.  Though always implicit in most discussions of poker aptitude and traits that the pros possess, I have never read anything specifically talking about general intelligence.  So I have a few questions:Keeping all other attributes constant, how much of a factor is a player's IQ while playing?  Can you really imagine anyone playing at the highest levels without basically a genius IQ?Keeping all other attributes constant, how good of a measure would someone's general intelligence be for measuring their poker aptitude?I understand that any measure of intelligence (including generic IQ tests) is a rather suspect notion.  But you get the idea...I don't post on here very much but I read all the time, so I was curious about the board's thoughts on this subject.

Recently on the twoplustwo Mid/High stakes NL Hold'em poker forum. Generally considered to be $500 NL and up. An IQ poll was taken. Note that this poll only shows results after the people submit an answer so as to not be results driven. Also the pollster added in the <90 and >170 to weed out the jokers as the results show nicely. A very good normal distribution curve was the result with 130-140 being the mean. 130 being minimum requirement for mensa at 98th percentile and 140 being 99.5 percentile. Here are the results:Less than 90 22 04% 90-100 2 00% 100-110 10 02% 110-120 20 04% 120-130 79 17% 130-140 140 30% 140-150 84 18% 150-160 44 09% 160-170 23 05% 170+ 29 06%

[JFarrell20 1]

I have read plenty about the important traits successful poker players possess, i.e. steam control, competitive nature, etc...One of the most obvious traits all the best poker players certainly have is a high IQ.  Though always implicit in most discussions of poker aptitude and traits that the pros possess, I have never read anything specifically talking about general intelligence.  So I have a few questions:Keeping all other attributes constant, how much of a factor is a player's IQ while playing?  Can you really imagine anyone playing at the highest levels without basically a genius IQ?Keeping all other attributes constant, how good of a measure would someone's general intelligence be for measuring their poker aptitude?I understand that any measure of intelligence (including generic IQ tests) is a rather suspect notion.  But you get the idea...I don't post on here very much but I read all the time, so I was curious about the board's thoughts on this subject.

Recently on the twoplustwo Mid/High stakes NL Hold'em poker forum. Generally considered to be $500 NL and up. An IQ poll was taken. Note that this poll only shows results after the people submit an answer so as to not be results driven. Also the pollster added in the <90 and >170 to weed out the jokers as the results show nicely. A very good normal distribution curve was the result with 130-140 being the mean. 130 being minimum requirement for mensa at 98th percentile and 140 being 99.5 percentile. Here are the results:Less than 90 22 04% 90-100 2 00% 100-110 10 02% 110-120 20 04% 120-130 79 17% 130-140 140 30% 140-150 84 18% 150-160 44 09% 160-170 23 05% 170+ 29 06%

I'm sorry but these number have to be highly flawed. 4% had less than 90? 38% were above 150!? No f.ucking way.

[DCWildcat 0]

How scientific was that poll? There are NO other walks of life where nearly 70% of the sample is in the profoundly gifted (>130) range. This includes Nobel laureates, bestselling authors, ivy league professors, pulitzer winners.There's no way there are over 100 people with >150 IQs on there. It's just not possible.

[guinevar 0]

Of course it is.  I'm not sure you are aware of what the word "intelligence" means.Someone with a low IQ can read all day long and learn a lot, it doesn't make them intelligent, it makes them "well-read", and "learned".On the other front, you could be born with an IQ of 180, on a deserted island and never learn to read or write, but you're still intelligent.  You still have a great capacity for knowledge.

Sigh. Many see IQ tests as an assessment of an individual’s problem solving ability rather than general intelligence. However, they are not even a comprehensive test of someone's problem solving ability. Although they may assess analytical and verbal aptitude well, they aren't an accurate test of creativity, practical knowledge, and other skills involved in problem solving.

Creativity has little to do with intelligence. Why would it be tested? Practical knowledge...read my previous statement. Practical knowledge is complementary to natural intelligence. Look at the people on Jeopardy, they're both highly intelligent, AND well-learned. It's two separate things.Other skills involved in problem solving? Like what?

You'd probably be suprised how little your IQ actually means. People give too much creedence to this "trait" simply because they took an IQ test on emode.com and it made them feel good about themselves. There is nothing wrong with that, it just needs to be identified as such.There are however professional IQ tests that are mostly used for determining levels of mental retardation. It is rare that they decide to give the Myers-Briggs test to someone to test the "vastness" of their intellect. That having been said, some people are brighter than others. This should be obvious. The degree to which this is discernable (empirically that is, anyone can have their opinions) is in a large part not known and generally impractical.

[guinevar 0]

actually there are ways to increase your iq;generally however the consensus is that your actual iq goes down as you get older; but that is only based on a certain kind of testing.

There is no truth in those statements. IQ does not rise and fall if tested properly.

[troutsmart 0]

I believe this to be a very interesting arguement and have given it some thought. If IQ equates to memory, than I believe a high IQ to be an enormous asset at the poker table. Top players can describe hands that took place decades previous, down to the miniscule details. The more information we can retain on our opponents and situations, and the proper application of such information, the more we can potentially profit.Above IQ, I believe creativity plays a large role in a players capacity. Most people are either left or right brain dominant, correlating to analysis and creativity. The hightest level players are likely able to draw from both thought processes. Imagine the player that has a large capacity for memory, and the abiltiy to remember thousands of hands, situations, and opponents. Add to that player a high level of analyis capacity, taking mathmatics and combining it with reason to reach decision. Now, add to that player creativity, and the abiltiy to think abstractly, where thinking occurs on many levels. That sounds like a Daniel Negreanu, Doyle Brunson, Gus Hansen, etc. I have no idea what those players IQ's are, but I'm sure that these players are able to combine thought processes at a very high level.

[Scott Aigner MD 0]

Improving one's scores on an I.Q. test is not only possible but has been proven. Education does influence it by as much as 4 points. If you take two 18 year olds and test them 4 years later the student who went to college will improve on his I.Q. test and the one who did not go to college will stay about the same.Despite this being a great post we really have not proved a whole lot about a high I.Q. and it's relationship to the most successful poker players. I have to agree that John Juanda's I.Q. is definitely above average. I also think there are many successful players whose I.Q. would be in the average or just above average range. That still does not mean there is not a correlation with the two just that there are exceptions to the rules. In regards to the 2+2 forum poll I think that poker players lie about their I.Q. like they tend to do about their poker results. Then again maybe 2+2 is the poker forum for all of the sklansky like geeks. The poll proves very little.Finally, isn't the ability to lie an attribute of a poker player? Maybe we should be testing a player's ability to lie and to act (like in hollywood act) as attributes that are necessary to become successful in poker. Once again this will have a correlation but how strong it really is would be difficult to acertain unless we had some type of testing required before a person could sit down to play poker. I remember reading a study back in medical school (that I just now remembered from 1988) that revealed that the children who could lie and look right into your eyes at an early age ended up being the people with a higher intelligence level when tested later on in life. Maybe we should be discussing this rather than just the I.Q. to Poker success relationship. Certainly there are other measures of intelligence that the I.Q. exams do not test. Can we not state that the more intelligent the person, the more likely he will do well on these tests? Can we not also state that the I.Q. exams do test an individual's ability in math and problem solving. Are these not positive attributes for poker? To me it is a no brainer (lol) that the higher the I.Q. a person has, the more likely he will be successful in poker. Note that I said more likely to and not more successful in general. Scott