Quote:
Originally Posted by sauce123
Introverted (I) 60% Extroverted (E) 40%
Intuitive (N) 65.63% Sensing (S) 34.38%
Thinking (T) 70.59% Feeling (F) 29.41%
Perceiving (P) 55.56% Judging (J) 44.44%
Obv took the 1-5 scaled version.
On the yes/no version i scored ~10-25 on everything but the N/S distinction, where I was ~85.
I've been doing this personality theory crap for a long time, and based on watching some of your videos and reading your blog I think you are a pretty clear INTP.
If you're curious, other well-known probable INTP poker professionals include Galfond, Greenstein, luckychewy, and jungleman (who is hilariously INTP.)
One of the most common threads I've noticed in INTP players is their focus on the concept of balance in all things. The idea of internal, structural consistency has to be there for everything; every concept in the structure of an idea must imply another analogous concept, etc. This is one of the central themes of Introverted Thinking, the dominant function of INTPs.
Most of the INTP players that I've known tend to prefer approaching the game from the standpoint of making themselves as unexploitable as possible. Thinking in terms of macro-level ranges seems to make more sense to them than thinking in terms of trying to pinpoint precise, "this exact hand"-style reads relating to timing/sizing/physical tells. Your propensity for Bayesian probability is very much characteristic of Introverted Thinking.
This is as opposed to the dominant iNtuitive types, who often seem to prefer designing exploitative strategies and making precise reads on exact hands based on game flow, placing less emphasis on balance under the assumption that they will intuitively exploit their opponents to the point that they don't need as much balance.
For example, AEJones, who is the most blatantly obvious ENTP in the history of poker, is an extroverted iNtuitive dominant. (There are certainly successful players who are neither Thinking-dominant nor iNtuitive-dominant, but they're fairly uncommon at high stakes and many of them are much better live players than online.)
Anyway, I felt your discussion in HSNL with durrrr (who I have labeled as INFJ, an introverted iNtuitive-dominant type) regarding the existence of GTO strategy in HUNL really highlighted this difference especially well.
I thought it was really interesting that the guy approaches poker from such a profoundly intuitive/exploitative mindset that he doesn't understand relatively basic concepts like Nash Equilibrium. He kept devising arbitrary exploitative situations in which the GTO bot would be unable to adjust properly to his exploitative genius, as if those situations would ever come up in the first place against a true GTO bot, as if the GTO bot would ever need to adjust anything in the first place.
It's a testament to both his talent for creative exploitative play and his heavily iNtuitive-dominant nature, making millions intuitively exploiting people but missing central structural concepts inherent in game theory that a more Thinking-dominant player like yourself would find very obviously crucial to the whole concept of strategy games in general.
Sorry for the ramble--just thought I'd chime in, as I've enjoyed the few poker materials of yours that I've seen, and thought maybe you'd find some of this interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebreaker27
Where are you getting this, I've seen discrepancies but everywhere I saw INTJ were less common in general population than INTP.
At wiki: 1–4% INTJ, 3–5% INTP.
Hard to think it would be "by far".
Not to toot my own horn too much, but I probably have more experience with this particular model than anyone else in thread, and in my experience all of the xNxJ types are generally rarer than any of xNxP types in the overall population. (I myself am an ENTP, so I'm not bragging about special rarity or anything.)
I generally see INTJ as the 2nd rarest type overall, behind INFJ. INTP is something like 5th or 6th rarest. This changes if you divide by gender, as INTJ is the #1 rarest type among women, with INTP in a close 2nd...at least based on my own research/reading/personal experience with MBTI over the years.
Last edited by setoverset55; 07-05-2012 at 04:52 AM.
