I think your second hypothesis is the correct one: honest people tend to be better poker players. The reason for that is that they can handle losing. People who have a shaky code of ethics tend to equate unfairness with anything that doesn't benefit them. Every time they lose a hand, they feel like they're getting cheated. And that would make them get sick of playing pretty quickly.
I really miss poker too. I never played at the level you did, but I had a pretty healthy obsession going for a couple years. And the people I "met" were more on places like 2+2 and the play sites than live, but I see your point about a latent honesty and honor.
re: "...but not one where they ended up getting stiffed when the stakee went on to win..." one exception came to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gold#Winnings_controversy Yeah, he's an exceptional douchebag, and he wasn't exactly staked from his rep, but still. (I just wanted to call him a douchebag again.)
Your description of "the honor among poker players" reminds me of the diamond merchants in NYC. Millions of dollars moved around in people's pockets based on honor only (sometimes not even a handshake i.e. a man and a woman). No one breaks the honor or they're shunned for life.
Sometimes the same thing with friends and family. I've had bankers try to make me do yoga on a thimble for a lousy $10K while friends (or even friends of friends) say, "How much do you want. I'll write you a check. I know you'll do the right thing."
Funny how far you're reputation will take you. Sometimes, that's all you got.
I think the diamond merchants in NYC is a different situation since it is a tight-knit community of people that rarely lets insiders in. Most people have known each other and each others families for years, so its easier to hold them accountable.
Poker is a much more diverse group.
Maybe the number of player's at Matt Maroon's level were smaller than the number of VC and startup founders, which would tend to explain his observation.
Matt, by upper percentile in math, where did that place you, i.e. SAT scores, etc? I'm curious whether I have the math chops. Also, is it entirely math and logic, or do you also need a good cold reading ability?
I'm nowhere near MM's level in poker, but I'll chime in since he hasn't yet. The value of ability to read tells is vastly inflated in the public consciousness. Some bad players have very obvious ones, but at higher levels it just doesn't happen much that anybody picks up anybody else's tells. You read other players by how they bet, not by which way they twitch. Good poker players are good at picking out patterns by induction.
I had really high math scores (aced it on ACT, close on SAT) but to answer your question, they're both two sides of the same coin. I'll probably address it in a post on the poker blog as that's the most common question I get asked by hackers (less common but still there amongst others).
The short version is that the two are highly interrelated. Math helps you make the right play given the information you have, reading gives you more information with which to use math and come up with the right play.
And I mean reading more in terms of reverse engineering someone's range of holdings from their actions rather than tells. Tells certainly exist, and have the same effect when you spot one, but they're highly romanticized in movies, etc. Once you get past the lower limits they become fairly rare.
1) I was relatively lazy because I didn't enjoy the game, but with really hard work I think I could have done 7 figures a year, or at least close.
2) Most top players are probably around where I am in math. A few are far beyond though.
3) I don't think so. A large part of poker is reining in your emotions.
4) No
5) I doubt it.
6) Like I said, math and reading ability are two sides of the same coin. Computers can't read people for shit, especially when there's more than 1 opponent. Even the worst human can do a better job of it than the best computer.So even though a computer is clearly superior at math, it will always have to put me on such a wide range of holdings that it won't help much. They can do a good job at heads up limit hold'em, but the more players you add to the table, the worse the AI becomes.
