Okay, this is just an experiment. I've often wondered how important raw intelligence is to win at poker. I expect the answer is 'very' but would like to see some data.

I appreciate analysing IQ in relation to current limits isn't a perfect measure of success but seems like a good place to start.

If anyone has other ideas please feel free to suggest them.

This "experiment" is incredibly flawed for so many different reasons. Not the least....is anybody can select whatever they want to select.

What if someone is thick, play at high limit, but loses a lot? You failed to question the win rate or ROI.

I have a high intelligence, but have only been playing for a year, so I lack the necessary experience to kick ass at high stakes (had I started playing 20 years ago I would probably be a high stakes winner now).

IQ IS important, but so is experience and patience, and emotional stability (easily tilted people lose money quickly) and taking the time to study the underlying theory. Maths genius types have an advantage, but not every maths genius will be a winner at poker.

hence why I said...

"I appreciate analysing IQ in relation to current limits isn't a perfect measure"

and

..."If anyone has other ideas please feel free to suggest them."

IQ just doesnt measure your ability in math.

I would say a measure of critical thinking would be better or a measure of how quickly you learn or pick up new skills.

Maybe run a poll of people with further degrees/MBAs+ versus non-degrees to see if there is any relationship?

"What if someone is thick, play at high limit, but loses a lot?"

This is a rare person who doesn't last very long in poker, or atleast not at the high limits. But I agree, and indeed stated, that this possibly isnt the best method of testing.

"You failed to question the win rate or ROI."

I wasn't convinced that many people would have an accurate win rate figure over a large enough sample.

I have an IQ of 192 and am a massively losing NL2 player.

hahaha... is this a level, op? my IQ certainly isnt high enough to figure that out

i think your best shot would be to compare hours played to total profit or something if you want this to at least make a little bit sense. (maybe). everybody can play highstakes and very many could beat highstakes if they dedicated their life to do it.

LOL - 192, which IQ test is that supposed to be from?

176 is about the 1 in one million level, 192 is more than one standard deviation higher again. If the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15 then 192 is just above 6 standard deviations from the mean, this would make someone with an IQ of 192 about 1 in one billion

Disclaimer:
I do realise that the post I am replying to is most likely a level.

This is so ******ed. Some intelligent people don't play high limits because they choose not to. Not because they are incapable of beating them.

Stupid people can play high limits if they have the money to splurge.

A better study would be to compare IQ and intelligence relative to a player's win rate over a large sample size. That of course is also inherently flawed.

'a level'?

this is far from a perfect measure of anything, but i was trying to keep it simple and conduct an unscientific experiment. how many people actually keep accurate records of hours played and total profit etc? and it's the old gag, ask most people what their profit is and they add 10%, or probably more like 500%!

as I said, just a bit of craic.

"IQ and intelligence"? IQ is a measure of intelligence is it not sir?

Clearly this is just a bit of fun and not a scientific experiment. Jesus.

I'm inclined to agree with this being kind of silly. Of course it's not scientific, no one expects it to be.. but man you won't even get CLOSE to a reliable picture here.

All poker players lie, and all poker players think they're smarter than they actually are. Now what do you suppose happens when you ask a poker player to be honest about how intelligent he or she is?

To try to answer your basic question, I don't think intelligence is necessarily the dominant factor in poker, especially if you're talking about a game like NLHE.

I would assume most of us havent had an IQ test before. At the very least you would have to suggest perhaps a site online and everyone could do the same type of test. Even then as far as I know IQ tests are generally rubbish. You could do a poll of level of education but of course that is very limited as well.

i think many of the free online IQ tests are not a comprehensive test of intelligence, though im not sure they are 'rubbish' or worthless.

www.iqtest.com

this isn't a bad place to start.

i also agree that many, many poker players exaggerate their wins and over estimate their ability. i'm not so arrogant to presume im not one of them.

id be very interested to find out the link between IQ and poker success but i can see this poll wont provide the answers. i'd love to see a better experiment conducted.

Does anyone know if any of the successful high stakes poker players have an IQ of under 120? It would seem unlikely that any of the analytical/mathematical players would be under 120 (Andy Bloch, Chris Fergusson, etc). I know that some player do some dumb things, but I have trouble thinking of any of the famous pros that anyone would think have a low IQ. I would also be very surprised if any on the top online winners had a low IQ either (Durrr, Anette, Trix, etc). I would tend to agree with the OPs speculation that there is a correlation between a higher IQ and higher poker ability, but I doubt that the survey in this thread will be helpful (or that it is being answered honestly - I am dubious about the 80-100 IQ responses, I doubt that those people really have an IQ under 100).

I would guess that the vast majority of the worlds top poker players have an IQ of over 120, but there must also be plenty of smart people that aren't good at poker.

I know that some celebrities that play poker have a high IQ - it has been mentioned that James Woods is a member of Mensa and so is Mimi Rodgers - that would put their IQs at 133+ (top 2% of IQ scores per population).

For me personally, even though I know the average IQ is 100, that would not be the average IQ of people I know. The average IQ of everyone I know would have to be at least 115 I think, and some of those don't seem too smart to me. I have trouble thinking of many people that I know that would have an IQ of 100 or less, less than I could count on one hand I think.

This test seems not too bad, I have seen many much worse ones anyway.

I got 141, probably not far from the true number.

To join Mensa they get you to do an accurate IQ test, but at least here in New Zealand they don't give you a result with an IQ number. I think the people that don't qualify to join Mensa just get sent a letter saying that they didn't qualify. Those that do qualify know they are in the upper 2 percentile, which would put their IQ at 133 or higher. When I got my letter of acceptance they said I was in the upper 1 percentile which would put my IQ at 138 or higher, I guess for those that qualify but aren't told they are in the top 1% they could assume that means an IQ of 133-137. It is difficult comparing IQ scores from one test to those from another test though, because each one tests differently and would have a different mean. Some IQ tests are more mathematical, some test more general knowledge and aren't really a good measure of IQ, some are based on pattern matching. I person could score really well on one IQ test, but not so good on another one.

Does anyone here have any experience of Mensa IQ tests in any other country? Do they tell you an IQ score? Surely there must be some US Mensa members on 2P2 and maybe some from other countries too.

Doesn't everyone get 140+ on those online things?

On this page: http://www.iqtest.com/faq.html#chart
They claim that 68% of test takers get 85-114 and by their figures less than 4% of test takers would get 130+.
On this page: http://www.iqtest.com/faq.html
They claim that the mean result from 5.42 million people that have taken their online test is 108.447 and the standard deviation is 14.889
But we don't really know if they are being honest about the actual scores gained by the people that take their test.

Personally I would not give the test too much credibility, smarter people are more likely to score higher but I wouldn't expect the accuracy to be too high.

Einstein had an IQ of 160 and changed our understanding of the Universe. IQ tests measure how well you do at IQ tests. I have come across lots of high IQ non-entities.

op i would bet money on that the average iq is higher in the world class levels of almost every single sport or activity there is in this world.... iq is one factor that makes beeing the best in a sport easier. this will include fighting in the UFC, sprinters or pokerplayers.

but your poll doesnt give us anything useful. the more you play and study poker the higher stakes you will be able to beat so age is a factor and when you started playing is another. a mensa member wich discovered poker last week is probably still a loosing player and might not even be able to beat nl5. and a rich kid might be playing nl1000 just for fun, without beeing able to beat the game. i think actually for the new players to poker playing lowstakes indicates HIGHER iq than playing highstakes, because beeing able to understand the -ev in gambling without an edge might indicicate smarter persons.

with a GIGANTIC number of people responding to this i think you are right that on average better poker players = slightly higher iq but how useful that knowledge is i dont know. and i really dont know if players playing with more money have higher iq since most of them are fish wich is just gambling with their money like donks.

another aspect is of course most iq-tests are not accurate, the different iq tests give TOTALLY different results, people may vote on the wrong alternative, ..... etc. so you have to come up with something better imo if you want an answer to your question

I don't know if English is not your first language or if you are just not good at expressing yourself. But your first sentence seems to support the IQ tests by giving an example of someone that scored VERY high (an IQ of 164 would indicate someone who is 1 in 30000, with an IQ of 160 Einstein would have been smarter than about 99.99% of the population) that achieved greatness. Your second sentence seems to suggest that IQ tests are completely meaningless. Your 3rd sentence probably makes some point, but I am not too sure what - not all smart people are famous?

BTW
What good (well designed) IQ tests measure is intelligence quotient - a measure of mental capacity for reason and logic in general. Some of the poorer test measure things like general knowledge, not a great correlation with IQ.

1 of the best HU limitplayers, Quaternion, once said he had 162 or something.

Either PapaWarbucks or Valesco (can't remember which) said he had 142 or so.

Bryce is a crazy math genius

Hoss probably has 160+

I think in especially limit, intelligence plays a large role. I don't think anybody with an IQ lower than 120 can beat the 100-200+ on Stars. But that's just my guess.

Bryce is not a math genius but yet he's one of the best heads up limit hold em players. You don't have to be a game theory guru or a math professor to excel at poker.

Do you think David Sklansky is a better poker player than Doyle Brunson or Phil Ivey?

I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that David has a higher IQ than Doyle but that he'd be an underdog even after all the poker books David has written. Education does not replace experience at the poker tables and as long as you have the passion, you can achieve great things in anything you do in life.

the bias is written right in your poll. Where is the category for "genius, low limit".