Is a high IQ necessary to be a poker pro

[restrikt]

I'm just curious, among the current poker greats, including Ivey, Brunson, etc. how high are their IQs? (on a range of 0 - 200, with 100 being average and 160+ fairly genius).

I would think that to be at their level of thinking while playing, it takes a fairly high IQ. Perhaps Slansky could give his insight on this.

Because if that is the case, then not just anyone can be a poker great - if they do not possess the high IQ and ability to think and learn.

I would assume that most poker pros have a 130+ IQ, and some (like Gus Hansen, Slansky, Ferguson, etc. for example) probably up in the 160+ range.

[Quicksilvre]

I have no idea, but Stu Ungar was rumored to have an IQ of 180.

[The Young Gun]

A high IQ is not necessary because it is mainly the repetition of various scenarios coupled with rudimentary study that leads to a great player.

[restrikt]

[ QUOTE ]
A high IQ is not necessary because it is mainly the repetition of various scenarios coupled with rudimentary study that leads to a great player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that it takes study and practice to become a great player. But to be at the thinking level of a Ivey or Hansen, high intelligence must be a prerequisite.

I'm sure there are many fairly successful poker pros who are not in the genius range, or perhaps not even above an IQ of 130, but also keep in mind that most pros aren't in the league of "great".

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
But to be at the thinking level of a Ivey or Hansen, high intelligence must be a prerequisite.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sklansky seemed to agree with you in his post just before XMas of 2004 where he rated the 'smartest poker players' (his list included Greenstein, Reese, Ivey, Lederer, Phillips...Hansen didn't make his top 10 but I think he said would probably make his second 10).


It's in the archives somewhere.
I'd dig up the link for you but a common characteristic of super-geniuses like me is laziness.

[restrikt]

I think the main reason many intelligent people are plagued by laziness is simply boredom. What's the point of doing trivial work if it doesn't interest, or more importantly, challenge us?

[IronUnkind]

Neither Reese nor Ivey were in his top ten IIRC.

[threeonefour]

if the IQ test is standard like a normal (binet?) test then 160 should be well beyond fairly genius because every 10 points is a standard deviation. so an IQ of 130 is already in the top 1%.

but to answer your question no you don't need that good of an iq. so much can be done through study. i feel that if you were capable enough to graduate from high school, then you could probably make 40K$+ annually playing poker given the current poker 'market'.

that being said, if you worked your ass off in high school and graduated with a 2.0ish GPA and got a 18 on the act or 875 on the sat, then it will probably be a LOT of study, practice, and hands before you can become good enough. but you definitely could get there imo.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
10 points is a standard deviation. so an IQ of 130 is already in the top 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the SD in a typical IQ test is 15 or 16. My IQ is in the low 160s, and I'm pretty sure I'm around sigma 4.

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
10 points is a standard deviation. so an IQ of 130 is already in the top 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the SD in a typical IQ test is 15 or 16. My IQ is in the low 160s, and I'm pretty sure I'm around sigma 4.

[/ QUOTE ]
that may have changed with the time. initially, meaning when they were first created, they were setup to have a mean of 100 and SD of 10, for the obvious reason of making it very easy to do calculations. i noticed most 'test yourself' or online iq test have much much wider SD which i think is only natural because they are being marketed to the masses and you much rather sell them a test that will give them a big number than a low one.