What would the equivalent of a NLHE PhD be?

MrMxyztplk · #1 09-22-2006, 04:25 PM

Kind of a silly question:

What would the equivalent of a NLHE PhD be in terms of your mastery of the game?

5ptbb/100 at 1000NL?

AKQJ10 · #2 09-22-2006, 05:15 PM

I'm probably going to regret trying to formulate a serious response, but here goes.

The only way to make sense out of this question is to think more generally about the meaning of comparisons across academic and non-academic fields. I can suggest some metrics:
<ul type="square">[*]time spent attaining mastery[*]exclusivity - i.e. how many people on Earth have attained a certain level of mastery [*]----> But even across academic disciplines this item opens up a whole host of other ambiguities. Are we talking about mastery of the role of women in the economic history of medieval France, or mastery of economics? It's not at all clear to me that the scope in which one declares oneself an "expert" is anything but arbitrary[*]What's the average performance metric (for poker, winrate) among enthusiasts who have actually attained a PhD in another field[*]---->But this is also messy. Chris Ferguson may have a math PhD, but there's no way of knowing how much of his "energy" or "smarts" he apportions to math versus poker. And at any rate, suppose he's just so brilliant that his tournament winrate reflects far more than a "PhD in poker". How would you find the lower bound of PhD equivalence?[/list]

I'm sure there are other ways to look at the question I haven't thought of.

I'm not going to poo poo your question because it got me to think about the difficulties inherent in attempting to credential expertise. But making meaningful sense of questions like "What's the equivalent of a masters in soccer?" or "What's the equivalent of a bachelors, only in chess?" is a thorny problem not confined to poker.

I was tempted to violate my moratorium on poo-pooing, but I edited this to keep myself in check.

Galwegian · #3 09-23-2006, 01:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Chris Ferguson may have a math PhD, ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Does he? I though that he studied computer science? Also I thought that he dropped out before fnishing his Ph.D. - cos he was making too much money from poker. Is this false?

AKQJ10 · #4 09-23-2006, 07:12 PM

Let's compromise: You're right that the discipline was compsci, and I'm right that he has a PhD. But it looks like his parents are mathematicians.

Pilket · #5 09-24-2006, 01:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chris Ferguson may have a math PhD, ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Does he? I though that he studied computer science? Also I thought that he dropped out before fnishing his Ph.D. - cos he was making too much money from poker. Is this false?

[/ QUOTE ]

He has his PhD and a PhD in Computer Science is a degree in mathematics, just a specialized field.

Pilket

heater · #6 09-27-2006, 10:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chris Ferguson may have a math PhD, ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Does he? I though that he studied computer science? Also I thought that he dropped out before fnishing his Ph.D. - cos he was making too much money from poker. Is this false?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually he spent 18 years at UCLA and received his PhD in computer science.

"In 1999, Chris Ferguson had spent exactly half his life at UCLA. After 5 years as an undergrad and another 13 as a graduate student, UCLA awarded him a Ph.D. in Computer Science and told him it was time to leave the nest of academia. He went reluctantly. "

http://www.flopturnriver.com/Chris-Ferguson.html

engineer_mba · #7 09-23-2006, 08:14 PM

Hi All,

Like AKQJ10, I will try to answer this question seriously. As some one who has two master's degrees, academia has always been a passion of mine. So without further ado, here's my thoughts on it.

A Harvard professor, Dave Sullivan, described graduate studies as learning to "create information" for a given field. Students with a PhD in computer science develop new algorithms, math students create proofs, and literature students write dissertations on the simulartities (or differences) within a collection of works. However, in every case they are always adding something to the body of knowledge within the field.

I also don't think results have a great deal to do with whether or not some one has a PhD. In college, we always joked that grad school was just for the people who couldn't get a job out of college. Although, quite seriously several of my friends did use grad school as a safety net when they didn't get a top job offer.

Albeit an extreme example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have been extremely successful in their given fields. I believe most people would agree they have "a mastery" in what they are doing; however, neither have a PhD. I am also certain that every one knows a clueless professor who used academia as an escape from the working world with little success at anything. I simply discount the direct link between success and having PhD.

To specifically answer the question, I believe some one would qualify for a PhD when they become a cited authority on a given subject. For poker, examples of this would be Slansky, Malmuth, and Miller. There are definitely pro's who put up better stats and may earn more money playing, but I do not know a single author who has done more for the collective knowledge base than Slansky.

Just my two cents,

Leo

AaronBrown · #8 09-25-2006, 07:09 PM

I'm also going to attempt a serious answer.

The problem with the question is PhD's are not granted in practice areas. Being a successful poker player is more like being a successful businessperson, or doctor or lawyer than being a researcher in business, medicine or law (actually medicine awards doctorates for practice, but PhD's only for research, Law is really messed up with doctorates for practice and master's degrees for research; but I'm taking PhD to mean "research degree" rather than "doctorate").

So the person with an equivalent of a PhD in poker should be someone you would go to for new poker ideas, not necessarily someone who can play well or teach well. A successful practitioner who has written useful books is also not the same thing as a professional researcher.

Of course, there are PhD's who study poker: mathematicians, computer scientists and economists. But these are PhD's in other fields who study poker, not poker PhD's.

I think a PhD in poker would have to (a) be familiar with the range of poker theory and literature, and (b) have contributed to it in a way valued by other researchers, not necessarily the general public. Sklansky, Malmuth and Miller play so much, and are so popular, that they could be PhD/popularizers (like Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking) or successful practioners who also write (like F. Lee Bailey or George Soros). The pure poker PhD should be a theorist more than a player or popularizer.

So I would ask, "who writes the books and articles that are most read by other theorists"? Ed Thorp ("Beat the Dealer" and "Beat the Market") is a great example of a guy who doesn't play poker and isn't interested in it, but whose books are certainly read by people interested in poker theory.

LearnedfromTV · #9 09-25-2006, 08:13 PM

Bill Chen

patrick10 · #10 09-27-2006, 10:19 AM

engineer mba and a couple of the above posts are on the right track i beleive. one of my tutors explained to our class in very simplistic terms;

bachelor level = learning the theories and concepts
masters/honours = questioning the theories and concepts
PH.D = formulating your own concepts and theories

i'm not saying to be a poker phd you must invent a new theory or style of play or formula to determine implied odds - but there must be such a deep understanding of the game and psychology that you are able to communicate ideas of others as well as your own, better than has been done before.

thus, solid posters, authors, etc. even players who shape the game and impact how it is played- all qualify