this thread sucks.

From what I understand of Ungar, he had a 180 IQ (is this correct?) which places him in the handfull of greatest minds in the history of the human race. A higher IQ means that a person can process information faster and more accurately. As poker is a game of imperfect and incomplete information analysis, amongst others, I would be unsurprised if Ungar could beat Ivey in the long term HU. I'm sure Ivey is clever but 180 is another level entirely.

Don't take this to mean that I think all you need to be good at poker is raw intellect. I just mean that if the other factors are equal or similar (the ability and psychology to gamble, take risk, etc) then the higher intellect will win in the long run. I don't think Ivey should or will take offence at this as a 180 IQ is almost inconceivable.

I know the biggest ******s who actually play poker pretty good. IQ doesnt have anything to do with how good your poker potiential is or how good you are. Ungar as pretty aggressive as I understood which again have nothing to do with IQ or poker theory, just his nature.

A fine, thoughtful post.

One interesting reality...
That 20 somethings just cannot understand...

If you ask elderly men or any man > 50...
What age would you want to be all your life?

The answer ** for men **...
Is invariably 35 to early 40s...
Usually about 40...
Because that's when a man has...
The perfect mix of youth and experience.

No elderly man would EVER want to be 20 or 25 forever...
That is not even remotely the prime of your life.

WHAT THE FK is that awful statement about?

I love Ivey but you guys really dont understand how well stu combined a great with numbers with aggro at the table. But like Mike Sexton always says/implies wtf does it matter because its just sick/wrong how he pissed it away with his drug habit.

Obviously inner things eating away at stu for him to be such an addict but still no excuse.

And yes either one > durrrr. And no Im not the live>internet player because I pick internet player>live any day but come back to ***** reality guys,

durrr= been around a couple of years ... cmon guys.

Have you measured the IQs of the people to who you refer? IQ has nothing to do with how well schooled a person is, it is the natural level of brain capacity and processing speed. These people may not seem academically clever but they may have a decent level of natural intellect. Put it this way, how many of the top 100 poker players are stupid (for want of a better word)? Not many or they wouldn't be where they are.

In any strategy based game; from chess to poker, from business to war, a higher level of natural intellect for a decision maker is favourable. Humans, through Dawinist natural selection, outlasted the Neanderthals because they had higher levels of IQ. Poker is also Dawinist in its structure and, therefore, I see intelligence as a key factor.

Ungar was aggressive but pure aggression is not the only reason a person is a better player. You have to be able to think at a higher level than your opponents and also be completely objective when under pressure and facing emotional pressures. Both Ivey and Ungar deal(t) with gambling risk (an emotional burdan) without difficulty - I believe it would, therefore, come down to raw intelligence to separate them.

Just my 2c

something tells me your IQ isn't that high

lol

having played with you i can confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that yours isn't either.

I used to have doubts on whether or not Sklansky was just trolling 2p2...

that is true for some, and they are annoying, imo. They find it hard to let go and realize the world does not want them. The prime is just one stage of life. Once you have passed through it why would you want to repeat it? Isn't learning new things more interesting? There are things a 50 year old can do that a 40 year old wishes he could do and tries to do but struggles with. And there are things a 50 year old struggles with but has come to the point where he can say, "oh, well. By the time I am 60 I might be able to accomplish it..."

One of the things a man always struggles with, and it doesn't get easier the older you get, is the recurring tendency to act like a 2 year old!

As long as you have good memories from all stages of your life then that is the best you can hope for. One stage is not better than another, just different. And each has their virtues. When you open you eyes you realize there is actually nothing you can do about it. We all go though it. The trick is to not be like some young people: old before your time. Have you noticed how young men are awkward with young ladies? wtf is that? What a tragedy. Have you noticed how at ease an older man is with the opposite sex? Be gentle with the ladies, boys. Be polite. And note the difference...

does the fact that chan is busto and not a good NLH cash game player have any bearing here? this is just a dumb post

This how people incorrectly use IQ in an argument. saying Unger could process information faster and more accurately because of his IQ is just a complete invaild statement. I don't know what Gretzsky or Jordan's IQ are, But in there respective games they processed infomation so fast it was almost as if they knew what would happen before it did. But they don't have IQ of 180. What they did have is a very High IQ in there game, as does Ivey in poker, so i would have to say Ivey's poker IQ is as high as Stu's if not higher.

I would pick Stu because I don't think Ivey would give a **** knowing he could sell Stu some coke later on and get his money back

No, it doesn't.

No, it isn't.

ban op

Where did you get that information from?

Ivey would win because he knows more than Stu Unger. He knows a 100 times more about Ungar's game than Ungar knows about his.

A bright high school student knows more than Newton about physics. Dwarves on the shoulders of giants, etc...

yes ivey is a dwarf on the shoulders of stu the towering crackhead ungar

This needs more love.

This too. Im 28 and be honest I think the best eyars are ahead of me. When im 30 im gonna be making good money from my job plus all the real world experience to know how to handle situations.

Er, yes it is. Do an IQ test and you'll find there are two important pieces of information the test analyst requires - the amount of questions you get right and the time it takes to complete the test. Wouldn't you say that points to accuracy and speed? Ok, there is a third piece of information, age.

IQ is not knowledge which you pick up from a classroom, it is something that is inherent.

I have to be totally honest and say it isn't proven, it's just what scientists believe based on some findings. All of what follows is what I have read, from various sources, regarding ancient man, neanderthals and evolution. One of the sources is called 'The Times: The Complete History of the World' which is a great read and goes though 50,000 years of the human race and who and what we evolved from prior to this period.

Regarding the neanderthals:

They constructed very heavy spears when humans had the ability to construct considerably lighter ones which could do just as good a job. It's highly likely the neanderthals could make lighter spears but didn't 'think' to do so.

No cave paintings have ever been found by Neanderthals suggesting that they did not have the capacity to organise and process their observations, unlike the ancient man.

They lacked sophisticated communication skills, despite the fact they did have language. They could only live in very small communities.

They could not adapt to the changing environments as well as humans which is ultimately what is thought to have lead to their demise.

They were thought to have had larger brains than humans but we now know that a bigger brain isn't necessarily a more intelligent one - it comes down to chemistry at the nanoscopic level - neurons, synapses, etc.

All in all, it is thought we outlasted them because of our superior brains.

Bjorg is v similar to Federer, Its not the skill you are comparing but the mental/physical ability to be unbeatable in your time. Same as the Woods/Nicklaus debate. To compare poker players is even more pointless.

imo

You seem to think that IQ and IQ tests are synonymous. I can take a child with an IQ score of 120, train him for a week, and shoot his score up to 135. Am i increasing the natural level of brain capacity and processing speed in his brain? I doubt it.


List all the acceptable IQ tests, and then note how many of them are timed.

Then where does one learn to answer the questions on vocabulary, arithmetic, geography, that almost always show up on standard IQ tests, etc?

This is complete falsehood. For a start, all IQ tests are timed without exception - this is the basis of an IQ test. Everyone could get near to 100% given enough time. You are just talking about generic exams and tests. The truest form of IQ test consists of deciphering patterns of letters, shapes and numbers. Where did you get geography from? That has nothing to do with natural intelligence.

The whole point of IQ is that it tries to determine 'natural' intelligence not 'nurtured' intelligence.

If I teach you the meaning of the word 'sesquipedalian' and it comes up on an IQ test and you get it right, that hardly measures your intelligence. That's just something you've learnt. However, if I put something in a test which can't be learnt like showing five identical shapes where one is a mirror image of the others and asking which is the odd one out; that can't be learnt - it is inherent spatial ability.

I agree IQ test scores can vary but if you do a large amount of them, they should trend to an average number or tight range.