Is the average poker player smart? It always depends on how generally or specifically we attempt to define what smart means. Let’s take the general definition of the word. Nitpickers are cancer to businesses so we can let them argue to death what smart means on their own.
Someone who is smart is a person who is intelligent. Smart is the informal definition of intelligence. So, what does it mean to be intelligent? Intelligent means having a high level of mental ability.
We tend to say that an idea or action is smart. “That was a smart move.” We tend to call a person intelligent. “Tyler is intelligent.” Thus, an intelligent person will make smart decisions, come up with smart solutions, and behave in a smart way.
A person does not have to be very intelligent to thrive in any job. In business, intelligence is a function of training and specialized knowledge. If a person is highly trained in the subject of how networking works, they will be well suited for a job at Cisco.
“Cisco hires smart people because its products are complex and they are sold to technical buyers who are highly skilled and intelligent engineers.”
Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume smart and intelligent mean the same thing.
BUT ARE POKER PLAYERS SMART?
I was a guest on Phil Galfond’s podcast a while back. Galfond is one of the smartest poker professionals to ever have played the game for a living. But, I would argue that he’s probably just as smart overall in most things that have nothing to do with poker.
I talked about a lot of different things on that episode - including how a top poker pro would fare in the tech industry.
I said that the Top 3-5% of poker pros would probably do extremely well in the tech industry. What I did not say is how the other 95%+ of poker pros would fare.
On the whole, the tech industry is filled with extremely smart people. Tech also has more than its share of really stupid people. In spite of that fact, the average person in tech is smarter than the average poker pro. Does that even matter, though?
This is not a condemnation of a poker pros intelligence. We are talking about generalizations based on commonly agreed to laws of numbers. Tech attracts more smart people than poker. This is a fact.
Just go ask the top 100 graduates from the top 25 undergraduate schools if they are going into tech or poker. Debate is settled. Again, nitpickers can go argue among themselves until they’re blue in the face. For the rest of us, let’s move along …
It get’s trickier when I think about the Top 3-5% of poker pros. How do they compare to their direct peers in tech?
The main difficulty in assessing how the Top 3-5% of poker pros would compare to their Top 3-5% tech workers is that the latter can be defined in so many ways.
Are we talking about the entire pool of comparable tech workers from a leveling perspective? Are top tech people just the elite executives and top engineers? Are we only talking about non-technical people? Is it just sales? Marketing? Data analysts?
Thus, in the end, I do not think the degree of intelligence matters as much as people think when we are comparing two groups of smart people.
The very best people in any field of endeavor that relies upon mental ability will do great in any other field that requires a high level of mental ability. The top poker pros will be highly competitive and successful in most business roles.
They just need adequate time to acquire the minimum knowledge and skills.
How about those other 95%+ of poker pros, though? Now, this is the fun part to think about.
THE OTHER 95 PERCENT OF POKER PROS
It may surprise you but I think the majority of the “bottom 95 percent” of poker pros would also do very well in a tech job and career. Now, remember that I’m considering a pro as someone who is a winning player who solely depends on playing poker to make a living.
A lifetime losing poker pro is not actually a “pro” - they are problem gamblers.
Many of today’s young poker pros have three things going for them, as follows:
1) Continual deep learners.
Whether a college graduate or college dropout, poker pros continually study and learn not just poker but a wide range of topics; most non-engineers in tech drastically limit continual learning.
The nature of the job has much to do with this dynamic. The typical tech worker tries to disconnect from work once they are off work. Since the work itself is mentally taxing, tech workers like to get their minds off mentally exhaustive activities once they get home.
The average poker pro considers playing poker as only half the actual work - or, even less than half. When they are “off the clock” they still pour a heavy amount of hours into both developing their poker game but also studying other things that require mental horsepower.
This is not every poker pro. There are some pros who will only be obsessed with all things poker and waste free time on mindless stuff, partying, sleeping a lot, and gambling on other games. However, those pros do not tend to last long. They may remain in poker by becoming debtors who are “in action” but they are technically not poker pros - not by my definition.
2) Incredible drive and forced self-awareness.
One of the great things about poker is that the game is unforgiving and unrelenting. Poker has two qualities that most conventional jobs do not have: (a) immediacy of feedback and (b) variance. It causes one to become ultra balanced in the face of extreme volatility if one wants to survive much less thrive.
The feedback can be reward or punishment. A poker pro must monitor the feedback but still push on believing in themselves. Meaning, they must put in the extra work to have cause for self belief. There are no past laurels they can rely on.
“The past does not predict the future. Only the current dictates the future.” Poker pros learn to put the past where it belongs - in the trash can. They must live in the present and only advanced emotional and mental discipline can achieve that state.
When a poker pro is losing money, they have to find the strength from within to put in more hours of study and still play as many hours at the table.
A tech worker’s employer (the company) may experience some level of variance but the individual does not suffer as dramatically from the negative effects of variance - other than losing their job if the variance is lengthy and steep.
If their company is struggling or a boss gives them negative feedback, does the typical tech worker study even more hours to improve their company’s chances of a turnaround? Does the tech worker pour in more hours into their job? Of course not. They do the exact opposite.
The feedback for tech workers is also significantly rigged in the first place. For example, a boss is incentivized to give a more positive feedback about her people than they deserve. Rewards and recognition are embellished.
Punishments are delayed, postponed, discounted, or ignored. This is how a boss can self benefit. “My team is doing great!” gets performance bonuses paid out, more headcount and budget awarded, and team harmony preserved.
A poker pro has nowhere to hide. A boss is not going to protect them. If a poker pro does not become fully self aware quickly, they will inevitably fail and go bankrupt.
This auto-correcting forcing function from the immediacy of feedback makes a poker pro extremely driven or determined to constantly improve. The urgency is constant and ever present. This motor is special. It is rare to find in tech workers. It is abundantly found in most tech startup founders, though.
3) Risk tolerance and thriving in uncertainty.
The typical tech worker seeks an irrational level of certainty. How many times have you heard someone at a company complain that they are not being given clear directions or enough information to work with? Too many times to count, right?
Although the very nature of business requires making decisions with incomplete information - and, thus, necessitates changing directions - the average tech worker demands complete information and clear (and firm) directions. They seek the impossible because it is a way to lower perceived risks.
A poker pro is knee deep in risk and uncertainty. They must overcome risk by reducing the level of uncertainties. It is a completely different frame of mind than “lowering risk by demanding for raising certainty.”
One is a survival instinct while the other is a thrive instinct.
MULTIPLIERS TROUNCE ADDITIVES
Would it be smart for a tech startup CEO to go seek out poker pros and hire them? No, of course not.
My real point is that if faced with two equally strong, high potential candidates for a junior role, I would lean more heavily toward the person with experience playing poker for a living.
If they come to you, take them seriously and try to dig into who they are and why they are interested in your job opening.
Many hiring managers and HR recruiters would instantly harbor deep suspicions of “gamblers” and not even consider them at the point of screening. This is a big mistake.
Most job candidates for junior roles (which accounts for the vast majority of tech jobs) are young people in their early 20s to mid 30s. Startups are biased toward hiring young people because they are cheaper, work longer hours, and are at the peak of their mental capacities (biologically speaking).
But, all three of those factors weigh much less heavily for non-technical jobs. A great engineer may finish a task 10x faster and better than a mediocre one. Steve Jobs swore it was a 100x difference but I digress. A team of engineers who work around the clock will beat a less urgent team to market. A super smart engineer will smash the merely good engineer.
We cannot say the same thing about non-technical functions. A person who is smart enough but works extremely hard and cares deeply (intensely focused) will absolutely clobber a very smart person who is cruising and restless or distracted in their job.
Moreover, non-technical careers peak much later in one’s life. It is due to non-technical jobs requiring more collaborative people skills than specialized, functional skills directly tied to the role. The non-technical jobs carry much more cross-functional work, involve exponentially more external/internal dependencies, and revolve much more around executing through others (vs. independent execution).
I would not want an entire team full of former poker pros. That is just as limiting as not having any on the team. But, I would want to add former poker pros to the mix. They would provide a boost to any team.
Diversity is not only about color or race or age or gender. Real diversity is about having a wide range of perspectives and life experiences that are additive to the whole. And, yes, including a strong mix of that ends up making a team colorful - in more ways than one.
The tech industry right now suffers from wanting everyone to be the same. It wants to hire a minority - just as long as they graduated from an elite university.
It wants to hire a woman - as long as their resume is so strong that it is undeniable. It wants to hire an older, experienced candidate - just as long as it needs an adult to supervise the kids.
Fake diversity just leads to monolithic work forces just as food coloring is for show. Try to break the chain of seeking out a “model” new hire. Actively search for unconventional hires. If you are not proactive about it, the surrounding environment and culture of status quo will force you into the default - bringing in people exactly like you.
A hundred people like you may be fine since you think you are awesome. But, a hundred people like you will never experience breakthroughs or real excellence. Both breakthroughs and excellence requires many types of brains - not just many brains.
Think multiplier, not additive.