Is Poker Skill Just Intelligence?

Not everyone makes a great poker player, but what separates those who do? Mathematical ability? Analytic ability? People skills? Or, is it just plain old intelligence? Is there more to playing good poker than just being smart?

The smartest player in the room and the best poker player are rarely the same person (especially if the room is big enough). We all can think of examples of players who seem to be well-educated and highly intelligent in other respects, but don't seem to have the knack for poker. And conversely, we've all seen players who excel at poker but don't otherwise seem all that bright. So, if the question is whether there's more to poker than intelligence, it would seem like an open-and-shut case. But what, then, are the abilities that separate poker players, from the great to the mediocre to the truly awful?



The past century of research on intelligence has been centered around an observation made by Charles Spearman in 1904, that a broad variety of seemingly unrelated cognitive abilities are positively correlated; if you're good at one, you tend to be good at another. This pattern, which has since been observed in many studies, has been widely taken to suggest that a fundamental difference among individuals can be captured with a single "general intelligence" variable, sometimes called Spearman's "g." The correlations aren't perfect, however, which suggests that in addition to general intelligence, a variety of specific abilities make up our capacity for cognitive behavior. As a result of this, numerous theories postulating "multiple intelligences" have arisen, ranging from a handful to hundreds of specific capacities. While the details and theoretical significance of these multiple kinds of intelligence may be in doubt, it is relatively uncontroversial that more than one kind of aptitude underlies the potential for achievement.



Assuming that poker isn't any different from other cognitive skills, it almost certainly draws on both general intelligence and on one or more specific aptitudes. Even for someone with high general intelligence, playing poker well may be a struggle if some of the more poker-specific aptitudes are lacking. So, we can already say with some confidence that poker is more than just (general) intelligence; it almost certainly depends on other kinds of intelligence, as well.



Another good place to look is suggested by a distinction first made by Raymond Cattell in 1936, between fluid and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence, loosely speaking, is a kind of mental agility that tends to peak at around the age of 40 and decline thereafter. Crystallized intelligence is more akin to acquired abilities or knowledge. In poker terms, fluid intelligence is the ability to make the right decision by thinking it through at the table, while crystallized intelligence is the ability to make the right decision because you've seen similar situations many times and know the correct decision.



Not everyone derives the same benefit from experience, and certainly not everyone has the same opportunities and experiences. While a lot of research on interindividual differences focuses on factors that are supposed to be invariant, or are at least supposed to follow a predictable trajectory, crystallized intelligence is clearly dependent on experience.



Some people are not natural poker players, but through hard work develop a foundation of knowledge to compensate for the lack of natural ability. It's easy to imagine compensating even for personality factors that aren't well-suited to poker. Even though you might be naturally risk-averse, if you know through years of study and experience that reraising in a certain situation with a draw is the right move, you may have little trouble circumventing your natural inclination to save your money for surer bets. Alas, while crystallized intelligence may sound like an aptitude due to its catchy name, it's really more a measure of realized potential than aptitude. So, we'll leave it off the list and just bear in mind that even if all of your other aptitudes fall short, you can still benefit from knowledge and experience.



If we're willing to call a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities as well as acquired knowledge intelligence, does that settle the question? Not quite – we still haven't considered personality. Personality is not normally considered a part of intelligence, but may be important for success at poker. There's often controversy about whether a given ability is more properly considered part of intelligence or personality, and it's been trendy lately to describe various kinds of personality traits as forms of intelligence. Although it's not the most principled distinction, I like to think about whether a given trait has a clear gradation from good to bad. Within the normal range, more is better for things like memory and mathematical ability. But it's not clear what the optimal point would be for a personality factor like risk-aversion. High risk-aversion might be good for a retirement fund manager but bad for a boxer. If risk-aversion is a kind of intelligence, which direction is "more"? Well, it doesn't really matter. However we describe them, personality factors are clearly critical to success in various arenas. And at least in poker, the desirable direction is usually clear. Some people certainly make poor poker players because they're too risk-averse – a facet of their personality that may generally serve them well, but that can get in the way of making good poker decisions.



While the precise nature of the different factors in personality may be open for debate, less controversial is the observation that personality can be divided into independent factors. In fact, when it comes to predicting ability at poker, we can single out factors that don't exactly match the categories used by psychologists, but differ in ways that are helpful in predicting poker ability. Risk-aversion and tolerance for frustration would be high on my list, but aren't typically on the lists of personality factors discussed by psychologists.



Of course, it's not necessary that all of the relevant factors be mental. Stamina and fitness can be major factors in tournaments, especially multiday events or at a multievent series like the World Series of Poker. While you can improve your stamina with various kinds of exercise, diet, and lifestyle changes, natural ability is certainly important. So, in sum, we can be pretty confident that poker draws on at least four kinds of aptitude: general intelligence, some additional cognitive aptitudes, personality factors, and stamina.



I've left off the hard part of identifying the specific cognitive abilities and personality factors that make for good poker players. Although you can probably make some good guesses, one problem that arises is that poker isn't one single activity. Different skills may be differentially important for different kinds of games, including low limits versus high limits, tournaments versus ring games, big-bet versus limit, hold'em versus stud, and so on. While these games do share many features, and learning one will save you some time in learning another, it's unlikely that they tap exactly the same set of natural abilities. And for this reason, we often see players who can't quite seem to reach the same level of achievement in one form of poker versus another. Analytic ability may be supremely important for mid-limit hold'em ring games, while interpersonal insight may be more valuable in big-bet hold'em tournaments.



Another problem is that you don't learn all poker-related skills at the same time. You may first master (or at least stop improving at) hand selection, followed by post-flop play, followed by reading players, followed by mathematical play, and so on. This is a caricature, but the basic point is that as you improve as an overall poker player, the set of skills you're improving on changes. If you reach a point where the most available avenue for further improvement is reading players, and you happen to have poor interpersonal abilities, you may find you've hit a wall; you've exposed a weakness in your poker-relevant aptitudes that will slow your rate of progress, even though you've done well so far. It's sort of like what happens to many college quarterbacks who are drafted into the NFL to play other positions. The criteria for advancement are not as closely related to the criteria for success as one would expect.



Is there more to poker ability than intelligence? The answer is clearly no, because you can always find someone to claim that just about anything (even stamina, probably) is a form of intelligence. But flip answers aside, what's most clear is that poker is a multifaceted activity that draws on different kinds of aptitudes. Even if those particular aptitudes don't always coincide with the characteristics we associate with intellectual achievement, the most talented poker players certainly draw on natural abilities, bolstered by experience, that the rest of us wish we had.



Daniel Kimberg is the author of Serious Poker and he maintains a web site for serious poker players at http://www.seriouspoker.com/.