Poker Iq test

[runout_mick]

127

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

[kindling]

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.

[Strickly Bidness]

[ 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.

[bucktotal]

[ 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.

[Strickly Bidness]

[ 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??).

[Valsuvious]

[ 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 ]

sweet, I'm not the only degenerate that didn't score above 100.

Then again, I think that based on the test I'm a calling station [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[cha59]

[ 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.

[Strickly Bidness]

[ 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 ?

[Jay S]

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?

[cha59]

[ 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]