What Myers Briggs personalty types do you think make for the best poker player? Is it different for the online player vs the live player? If you're not familiar with the system or what type you are, you can take the test here for free. https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

I'm an INTP and I have a feeling most online players are introverted.

I would guess (currently) INTJ and INTP...though for live the 'E' variants of these types may have an edge reading people.

some truth in i/e rest is astrology

I'm ENTP and yes, I find live poker much more interesting than online.

Myers Briggs was made up by Isabel Myers in her basement. It's really not an indicator of much, but introversion is best for online--extraversion best for live if you ask me.

As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to suggest personality tests are really any use in predicting success in sports or leisure pursuits.

Yeah, I find it useful as a shorthand taxonomy but actual psych researchers seem to think the Big Five is more meaningful. I don't think the "cognitive functions" stuff (introverted feeling and extraverted sensing or whatever it is) has any validity at all.

I'm an INFP. We NFs tend to love the personality type stuff btw.

With the disclaimers above about what MBTI really means....

Introverts shouldn't have any harder time reading people than extraverts. That's really not what I vs. E in the theory is about, unless I'm badly misunderstanding it.

Yeah, I think Briggs-Meyers is pretty useless as a predictor for anything - it's much closer to astrology than science.

However, I'm not a fan of personality theories generally.

i couldn't care less what psych "researchers" claim about intro and extroversion. my personal observation is that minds respond to stimuli of internal and external variety, and someone more introverted is more willing/able/likely to respond to an internal source vs. an extrovert depending or having a preference for external information. i don't think people have to be one or the other though.

In Myers Briggs there are many mixed types. You aren't necessarily just one or the other (that would be exceedingly rare...maybe even psychopathic if you didn't at least have a modicum of the opposite type).

Being "I" or "E" just means you have a preference in that direction - not that you aren't the other at all.

how does the i/e breakdown work for mixed types? i thought there were 8 introvert types and 8 extrovert types? i'm playing devil's advocate fwiw but if anyone can convince me there is anything worthy in the mbti system then i'd laugh and say uncle.

There's 16 main types. But realistically you are (or should be) at least a tiny bit of all of them.
It's a like "straight" or "gay". There's a lot of gray area for people who are 'mostly this, but still a little bit that'.

The type that you get at the end of the test is just your main type. Think of it as the thing you would default to in a pinch or when not making any conscious effort.

"I couldn't care less what some poker "analyst" says about the game! I know that 92s won big pots the last three times I played it."

(I'm fine with you disbelieving researchers because it doesn't affect me, but I thought the parallel on a poker forum was kind of funny. It's people who don't believe sample size who make us money at the tables.)

I believe Jung's original theory the opposite, was very dichotomous -- you're either one or the other -- but I agree with what you wrote and that's usually how it's used. The "Myers Briggs II"assessment makes money off of that notion that you can fall somewhere in between.

psychology gave us mbti and the dsm. poker gave us The Theory of Poker and bill chen. what am i missing??

I've written a lot about MBTI in my PGC if anyone is curious about this. There's also this thread that includes a breakdown of personality types on 2p2 among self-reporters: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...sonality+types

I'm still not sure how seriously I take it myself, but I have found it useful for understanding people, its whole purpose. For example, I've known three confirmed INTJs very well and each in a different phase of my life, and it makes perfect sense to me that they're all the same type and helps me understand each of them better.

Here are some takes from me re: MBTI and poker, though admittedly I haven't thought much about MBTI in awhile and my understanding atm is pretty rusty (so don't take these too seriously):

The E/I discussion above is pretty misguided. That component affects poker ability the least of any of the four. The "N" preference is almost certainly the most impactful one on poker ability, probably followed by the "T" preference. "S" types are more likely to struggle caring about theory and the long game, and "F" types are more likely to struggle with the cold logic of poker.

INTJs are the best poker players on average, almost to a certainty; the temperament suits poker perfectly. This type is the least likely to have mental game struggles and should have a solid grasp of theory. (think Cole South)

INTPS are capable of being very good but from what I've observed can struggle with some elements of poker such as getting in the heads of opponents. But they can understand some elements of poker theory extremely well. IMO this is a type that will tend to do better in online poker than live poker. (think Sklansky)

ENTPs and ENTJs are capable of being good and excelling at any aspect of the game but might struggle putting in the effort to get good and sustain a high level of play. (think Doug Polk)

INFJs (me) and INFPs are capable of being good but they need to learn how to be more objectively logical (this is probably easier for INFJs than INFPs). These types are probably the best at understanding how opponents think but they might also have the biggest mental game struggles. They're also more likely to struggle with moral issues related to winning $ off others. These types are more likely to excel at live rather than online poker and are also more likely to excel at short handed rather than full ring play. (think DGAF and Sam Abernathy)

The best way to think of it is that each of the four letters states a preference. For example, someone might be a strong introvert (60% I/40% E) but only a mild feeling type (52/48). We are all capable of being introverted sometimes and extraverted other times, inclined to act upon feelings rather than logic sometimes but not other times, etc.. The balance of each of these preferences is one factor resulting in variations among people of each type.

Jungs work on introvert/extravert says that there is alway's compensation, a pure introvert or extravert type would be an unworkable thing.

Also, in Jungs work, being extravert or introvert is about how you deal with reality. The extravert views the object as it is, while the introvert works with an interpretation of the object. Which result often in very different views on life in general, look at the different branches of christianity, they are all based on the great divide between the 2 types.

Nice summary of the qualities, kara. I do think as a strict 16-type personality test it is fairly good and possibly even the best ever. The big problem is that mbti tries to be a lot more (book sales, career development, etc.) when it's based off of a system of jumbled nonsense. It's problematic when nobody in the world can explain how the basic components work.

Five factors >>>>> MBTI

They're both terrible. FFM is just a lexical hypothesis with no underlying theory. And what exactly does "neuroticism" even mean? That's not even a currently used term in psychology. It's just a dated umbrella term for traits deemed socially undesirable. The entire model is biased towards traits deemed socially desirable.

But anyway, this thread is about MBPTs, however useful they are in their predictiveness of anything (not a lot IMO outside of I/E and maybe T/F).

-------------------

I'm an INTP...I score close to 100% on I and N, T is a barely, P is a barely.

I play live poker and can read people well enough despite being super introverted. It's just analysis. I don't need to be genuinely interested in people to study their behavior.

I did prefer playing online poker before Black Friday, but I make more live being in the US.

Introversion/extroversion has nothing to do with being able to read people, nor with being interested in people. It has to do primarily with how the brain handles stimulation. Extroverts feed off social stimulation and are energized by it. Thus they love parties. Introverts are the opposite - their energy is drained by social stimulation and they require isolation ("me time") to re-energize. Thus they tend to hate parties, or at least enjoy them for only a short time.

Live poker can be a huge challenge for introverts because it involves extended social stimulation. So on breaks, for example, introverts will prefer to be by themselves - take a walk, listen to music or meditate, whatever. Extroverts will look for people to discuss hands with or have dinner with friends.

I've heard the term ambivert and it seems to apply to me. I play live because I love being around people... for a while. Actually poker is one of the few pursuits where I can be around people for 4 hours and then not want to hole up in a corner by myself. I guess it's because I can always put headphones on and pretend I'm just playing the cards.

The term ambivert arose from the realization that most people don't fit into one extreme or the other but exist along a spectrum. Ambiverts are a mix of introvert and extrovert, and most people fall into this category. Personally I'm an extreme introvert.