Question for Mr. Sklansky

CrazyAce · #1 06-06-2007, 12:27 AM

I was perusing the 2+2 archives and came across your Top 10 Smartest Non-Poker Players thread and at the end of your post you add:

"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."

I'm interested in hearing why you made those two exceptions (7 stud and PLHE).

The question is addressed specifially to David, but I would love to hear other opinions.

In the Zone · #2 06-06-2007, 01:13 AM

Could you link to the thread please. Sounds pretty interesting.

mwette · #3 06-06-2007, 08:52 AM

google is your friend

CrazyAce · #4 06-17-2007, 09:11 PM

up

Gigglegirl · #5 06-17-2007, 10:35 PM

Hmmm, I just read through that thread. It's very interesting but I have to disagree with the whole concept of assuming that the worlds most intelligent people could/would be world class poker players after 2 years of training.
Perhaps they would be world class theorists of the game and maybe even winning high stakes players but that's not the same as being world class players.
There are emotional attributes required as well as mental abilities.
For example I'm sure a genius like Mozart (although I accept he wasn't on the original list) would probably exercise terrible bankroll management

JavaNut · #6 06-18-2007, 07:07 AM

What puzzles me the most is that people think a person like Nash would be good at poker. Considering how easy normal people tilt and accuses sites of being rigged, what would happen to an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic after a couple of bad beats or strange plays by others that is not, but could be attributed to, collusion. Poker theory and game theory he would be fine, but playing he wouldn't last 10 seconds.

FWIW I think that David Sklansky put in those exceptions in games they could master in 2 years just to pull everyones legs. He seems like a guy that would consider that as very funny. I don't see the major difference.

ApeAttack · #7 06-18-2007, 07:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, I just read through that thread. It's very interesting but I have to disagree with the whole concept of assuming that the worlds most intelligent people could/would be world class poker players after 2 years of training.
Perhaps they would be world class theorists of the game and maybe even winning high stakes players but that's not the same as being world class players.
There are emotional attributes required as well as mental abilities.
For example I'm sure a genius like Mozart (although I accept he wasn't on the original list) would probably exercise terrible bankroll management

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree.

These 'geniuses' were brilliant in their field in their time and may have been talented in other fields, but it is a bit silly to say that they could be world class players. It would be much better to say that they could PROBABLY become world class players if they devoted 2 years to studying the game.

I have this image of Einstein building a bankroll and then blowing it all on cocaine and hookers.

Blue Lagoon · #8 06-19-2007, 03:31 AM

What would be your opinion if it was not DS who wrote this?

Really...

filsteal · #9 06-19-2007, 03:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I have this image of Einstein building a bankroll and then blowing it all on cocaine and hookers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're thinking of Richard Feynman, in which case you're pretty much spot-on.

emerson · #10 06-19-2007, 06:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, I just read through that thread. It's very interesting but I have to disagree with the whole concept of assuming that the worlds most intelligent people could/would be world class poker players after 2 years of training.
Perhaps they would be world class theorists of the game and maybe even winning high stakes players but that's not the same as being world class players.
There are emotional attributes required as well as mental abilities.
For example I'm sure a genius like Mozart (although I accept he wasn't on the original list) would probably exercise terrible bankroll management

[/ QUOTE ]

Management of one's finances and career are not poker skills and have nothing to do with whether one is a world class player. Using such a rationale one would say that Stu Ungar (three time world champion) was not a world class player. One would say that Mike Tyson was not a world class fighter... or Bobby Fischer a world class chess player.

Whether someone is successful in the game of life has nothing to do with whether they are a world class performer in their field.