I'm following the EPT Vilamoura in Portugal, and for those that may not be familiar, Jeff Sarwer was a young chess prodigy , by the age of 7.
(See more on http://jeffsarwer.com/ )

He then had some serious problems in life , left chess and re-appeared now in the poker scene ( He claims he has been playing poker for only 9 months ) and already cashed in on his first EPT Warsaw ( finishing 10th ) and now looking good on EPT Vilamoura beeing 2nd in chips with 18 left.

Even tho 2 ITM finishes out of 2 is not a significant sample size to really say how good this guy is, he's beeing quite impressive IMO.

http://tv.pokernews.com/featured-vid...er/51724066001

confirmed, new poker prodigy.

(honestly what do you expect people to say in here you summed up your entire thread with the last sentence)

Isildur1 imo

i'd crossbook him in any EPT against anyone but elky or ivey, he's probably the greatest mind to enter the tournament poker world in history, no exaggeration.

You don't need to be a genius to be great at poker. Smart, yes, genius, no. Pure intellect is not enough.

noone said you HAVE to be a genius to be good at poker, the post you quoted just said he is a great mind and obviously being a genious sure doens't hurt

genius' do not perform well in poker

/thread

never played v him...but wow, quite a statement, guess hes a sicko

Whoa.

It's not as though there's a large sample size! This guy only plays as a hobby. I'm sure if he was a genius and he wanted to he could pretty much crush poker. Genius's can make more money doing other things though, look at Chris Ferguson and Andy Bloch, I wouldn't say they are genius's but they both made a ton on money before they started playing poker full time.

Is FE levelling?

he cashed in 2 tourneys in a row? sicko

FE is not leveling jeff if he sticks to poker for another 6 months I have 0 doubt he'll be considered like in the same sentance with menlo. I've spent a lot of time with him since I first met him in kiev and I wish I could teach him what I know about tourneys because he can take them so much further. And watching him in action was a factor in why I quit I'll never be as good as he will be and once people of his intelligence level see how easy they can crush poker they will all follow.

Also, jeff is an awesome guy great friend I consider now as well. Also, I think everyone whose hungout with him so far out here has been so impressed with almost everything he does. He superuses people live including myself 100% of the time his thoughtprocess is so far above levels I could ever imagine it's sick to watch it in play. Also he actually has personality which will really help once the spotlight is on him again.

It's NO FUN being a genius... and dominating your field.

It's way MUCH better to be just "smart"...
And grind $1,000/month as a "subsistence level gambler".

Funny thing is that he'd probably be better than you and FE within a year if he decides to take the game seriously.

Isn't that exactly what ShaunDeeb says?

Guys, you are just missing the point.

If stephan hawking sat down to play poker, it would take him hundreds of thousands of hands to get good, just as it does with everyone else.

Why? Because you have to build up a mental database of signifacnt size to be able to predict villains ranges/plays and make accurate estimates.

It doesnt matter how smart you are, if you havent spent hundreds of hours being shown hands at SD with enough money on the line so that you care, you will not win.

/thread

This isn't entirely true. Chris Ferguson said there are two ways to get good at poker, one is to play a lot and another is to work things out mathematically - he choose the latter approach.

If a genius were to go into poker they would probably just spend a year calculating and memerizing near-optimal lines for different ranges in different situations against another player playing a near-optimal game. This would insure that they'd have hardly any leaks. Then it would simply be a matter of incorporating exploitative lines against players who were drifting away from/not playing near-optimal lines.

this is ******ed

This is ******ed = I don't understand this post.

What a cool find, OP.

After reading the descriptions and profile of him in "Searching for Bobby Fischer," I thought there was no way this kid was going to turn out ok. Not many scholastic chess players can handle the pressure and stress, much less a seven-year-old.

I'm just glad to see him resurface successfully. He seems upbeat and doing just fine. Best of luck.

So they just automatically know what villains hand range is in the many "different situations" from being a genius? sure.

I don't doubt that this guy has the potential to be the best player in the world. But the fact that people think someone can be guranteed to blow up in live toruneys over 6 months shows why there are so many donks. Even ivey can't gurantee positive results over 6months of live tourneys.

My question is if this guy is so good why is he playing tournaments? Why isn't he focusing on cash games? (maybe he is and I just don't know).

Then how do you explain Paul Magriel's tremendous success?

BTW no way am I bad mouthing the guy as I have no doubt he will crush games if he applies himself. Just that I think live tourneys are a terrible measuring stick.