Poker Iq test
 

I stumbled over this test, and just wondered if ppl here have tried it?

Spam link removed

It says it's developed by professionals, anyone know if this is a fact, if so who?
I felt u got to little info to make accurate decisions..
Anyway, figured I would post it, would be fun to see what good players get on this test.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

109, but I rushed through it. Not enough info on a lot of the questions. I did confirm that I suck at playing big pairs and do well with positional play.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

I got 116.. In some of the questions there could be several good answers though.. so that's wierd.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

111, and I have no idea why. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I hope the e-mail 'splains some of the answers.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

112...I think they should have included some info on your image and some other stuff, but overall pretty cool.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

120...seems a bit flawed though as some useful info is missing from some hands + hands are taken in a vaccum. Quite like the analysis bit after the test though, quite interesting. (also, never played cash games so quite tough to answer some qs)

Re: Poker Iq test
 

115


but so many questions were asked in a way that they basically told you the answear is to be a tight nit..

Re: Poker Iq test
 

89. Obviously my knowledge is as bad as I thought that it was =p

Re: Poker Iq test
 

118...rushed through it and had to walk away from my desk during the middle of it, so if the timer impacted your score, that probably didn't help me. Definitely some flaws and I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote it doesn't understand poker well enough to ask questions properly. And not being a cash game player probably hurt my ability to answer some of those questions.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

120... I'm too a bit crappy on cash games, so that probably lowers my score. I have a feeling that the answers the constructor thinks is right probably differs from what 2+2ers would see correct. A lot of the questions lacked enough information as previously stated.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

i got 122, but since i am pretty tight anyway and i thought the questions were trying to lead you to make laydowns more, doesn't mean i'm any good. I'm a cash player, but not at the stakes that that guy is asking about

Re: Poker Iq test
 

114...computation speed was abysmal

Re: Poker Iq test
 

113...had to much time to kill and got 9% on computational speed. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I very rarely play ring games, and the scores say my weakest areas are flop texture and tournament play????

Re: Poker Iq test
 

I got 111, but sisn't know you were being graded on speed, so did it while 6-tabling.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

126 ... wish my $ results were that good though

Re: Poker Iq test
 

something funny about this test in the FAQ. It says that the mean is 108 with a SD of 14, but then goes on to say that "average" is between 85-114 as 68% of test takers fall in this range. That makes no sense as the central limit theorm says that approx 68% should be between 108+-14 doesnt it?

Re: Poker Iq test
 

took me about an hour to get my 89%, cause I'm at work and doing other things while attempting to hide it from my co-workers.. wonder how much that affected my score hehe.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

127. Always been a better test taker than poker player.

If speed was figured into this I suffered badly from eating lunch while doing this.


Tons of crucial info missing from those questions.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

112 here. Didn't realize there was a time component as I was taking it, or I wouldn't have gone to get lunch before doing (what turned out to be) the last question.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

126, but answered a few qs at odds with what I would or think i should do cause the set up of the question were looking for an other answer. missed that time thingie too.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

124- which provides a lot of evidence that this is not the most accurate test of poker ability [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Poker Iq test
 

132

i agree that the test is flawed and not very meaningful. but somewhat fun.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

127

this is really really bad btw, but props for the arrogance to think you know enough about poker to come up with this

Re: Poker Iq test
 

Gobbo owned this test by just making the big laydowns.

Re: Poker Iq test
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gobbo owned this test by just making the big laydowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truth? I had a feeling that the authors suffered from serious MOTB syndrome (but I didn't answer accordingly).

very flawed test
 

here's why this test sucks....There are a few very close decisions that can really sway your score. Problem is that there is too much info left out for these questions...

I scored 121 the first time and changed only the 3-4 close decisions to a tighter style and the score popped out a crappy 102.

The questions that can really change your score are: 24 (very close call here), 33(come on this is tricky and close-I can see myself folding this), 35, 36 (i call but could see someone folding w/more info).

Hell, just change these few questions from aggressive moves to tighter ones and you go from 121 to 102...WTF???

Re: very flawed test
 

omg..looked into this test further and realized that speed is much more important than anything....if you fly through and give your first reaction you are gonna do better than sitting there pondering the best answer....WTF WTF??? I mean, poker isn't about a quick answer anyway so WTF kinda [censored] marketing scam is this anyway? You can actually stick in a wide range of crazy answers from tight to aggro and get about 125 or so if you just do it really fast....They need to explain that speed is the majority of the test, not accuracy in answers.

Stupid test.

Re: very flawed test
 

127

I think the authors probably want you to lay down more than I did...

Re: very flawed test
 

not sure I understand the scoring of the test. Took it once, tried to think about the answers, got interrupted a few times. I got 100.

Took it again, as fast as possible, under 1 minute for whole thing, answering fold when it was an option, 1st answer otherwise, and only giving any time to a couple of questions.

Got exactly 100 again. Difference in time must have made up for my almost random answers.

Re: very flawed test
 

[ QUOTE ]
not sure I understand the scoring of the test. Took it once, tried to think about the answers, got interrupted a few times. I got 100.

Took it again, as fast as possible, under 1 minute for whole thing, answering fold when it was an option, 1st answer otherwise, and only giving any time to a couple of questions.

Got exactly 100 again. Difference in time must have made up for my almost random answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the problem. This isn't a test of poker smarts...its a test of speed. They didnt tell us that did they? if they had we could have optimized our strategy.

Re: very flawed test
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not sure I understand the scoring of the test. Took it once, tried to think about the answers, got interrupted a few times. I got 100.

Took it again, as fast as possible, under 1 minute for whole thing, answering fold when it was an option, 1st answer otherwise, and only giving any time to a couple of questions.

Got exactly 100 again. Difference in time must have made up for my almost random answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the problem. This isn't a test of poker smarts...its a test of speed. They didnt tell us that did they? if they had we could have optimized our strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. this probably explains why i got 91.

i took the test at work over 3 hours and got 0% on the time factor.

Re: very flawed test
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not sure I understand the scoring of the test. Took it once, tried to think about the answers, got interrupted a few times. I got 100.

Took it again, as fast as possible, under 1 minute for whole thing, answering fold when it was an option, 1st answer otherwise, and only giving any time to a couple of questions.

Got exactly 100 again. Difference in time must have made up for my almost random answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the problem. This isn't a test of poker smarts...its a test of speed. They didnt tell us that did they? if they had we could have optimized our strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. this probably explains why i got 91.

i took the test at work over 3 hours and got 0% on the time factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

just about anybody who has played some poker can zip through and get 110 if they go fast...taking your time is the big issue here (which is what we are trained to do as poker players??).

Re: very flawed test
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not sure I understand the scoring of the test. Took it once, tried to think about the answers, got interrupted a few times. I got 100.

Took it again, as fast as possible, under 1 minute for whole thing, answering fold when it was an option, 1st answer otherwise, and only giving any time to a couple of questions.

Got exactly 100 again. Difference in time must have made up for my almost random answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the problem. This isn't a test of poker smarts...its a test of speed. They didnt tell us that did they? if they had we could have optimized our strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I ate too much and had a big beer for lunch. I dozed off a few times during this quiz and got 115.

Re: very flawed test
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not sure I understand the scoring of the test. Took it once, tried to think about the answers, got interrupted a few times. I got 100.

Took it again, as fast as possible, under 1 minute for whole thing, answering fold when it was an option, 1st answer otherwise, and only giving any time to a couple of questions.

Got exactly 100 again. Difference in time must have made up for my almost random answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the problem. This isn't a test of poker smarts...its a test of speed. They didnt tell us that did they? if they had we could have optimized our strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I ate too much and had a big beer for lunch. I dozed off a few times during this quiz and got 115.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's pretty good for a homely STTF'er [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] by the way, isn't it a little early to be boozing ?

Re: very flawed test
 

117, but I took a 10-minute break in the middle. I had a few big problems with this test. The time issue and lack of contextual information were major ones.

I got very low scores in terms of my decisions with pocket pairs, both high and otherwise. To me, these questions seemed to set up difficult decisions by having the hero play badly earlier in the hand. Are good players really as min-raise happy as the hero is in some of those scenarios? I've always felt that the goal with high pairs is to get as much money in as possible early when you're pretty certain you're ahead, thus increasing your EV and making your subsequent decisions much easier. But then, I play lower stakes than described on that test. Does the same logic apply at 5/10 and 10/20?

Re: very flawed test
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not sure I understand the scoring of the test. Took it once, tried to think about the answers, got interrupted a few times. I got 100.

Took it again, as fast as possible, under 1 minute for whole thing, answering fold when it was an option, 1st answer otherwise, and only giving any time to a couple of questions.

Got exactly 100 again. Difference in time must have made up for my almost random answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the problem. This isn't a test of poker smarts...its a test of speed. They didnt tell us that did they? if they had we could have optimized our strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I ate too much and had a big beer for lunch. I dozed off a few times during this quiz and got 115.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's pretty good for a homely STTF'er [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] by the way, isn't it a little early to be boozing ?

[/ QUOTE ]

ya, the wife & I took the day off and had lunch at one of those places that brews their own beer. I couldnt resist one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: very flawed test
 

i cant believe i almost wasted my time on this test.


<font color="white"> I will probably do it in the near future</font>

Re: very flawed test
 

Hard to answer some of the questions. There were parts of the flop and my hand missing on some of the questions.

Sometimes, my hand would just be an ace. Or the flop would just be two cards.

I got a 110, but I'm not quite counting that. Maybe it was my browser.

EDIT: Retook it and got a 116. I seem to choose call too often for river bets and chose shove all-in too often as well.

Re: very flawed test
 

107. Gay.

Re: very flawed test
 

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to choose call too often for river bets and chose shove all-in too often as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really want to tell the guy who created this test that an open bet and sizable reraise at the flop is NOT THE NUT EVERY TIME.