What's your Poker IQ?

[MJ4H]

http://www.testyourpoker.com

here is mine:

http://pwatts14.googlepages.com/pokeriq.jpg

90 - 109 Average player, improvement possible in many areas of the game

110 - 119 Above average player, improvement possible in several key areas of the game

120 - 129 Very solid player, improvement possible in several details of the game

130 - 144 Exceptional player, minor improvement possible in details of the game

145+ A true expert, top 1% of the top 1%

[molson]

Without taking that test I know I'm far below 90, though it's on my to-do-list to see what all the fuss is about and get into it.

[sabotai]

http://www.testyourpoker.com

This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota


Oops. I think you broke it.

[MJ4H]

Yeah it does that from time to time. I think the 2+2 guys are all over it right now. I'll bump this tomorrow and it will probably be better.

[Lathum]

I got the same message, but no offens to MJ4H but if he score in the top 1% of 1% it was probably busted to begin with ;)

[Lathum]

D oyou have a link to the 2+2 thread for it, I am curious what they say about it

[MJ4H]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=255852

[MJ4H]

I got the same message, but no offens to MJ4H but if he score in the top 1% of 1% it was probably busted to begin with ;)

harrr. it's not a bad little test.

[larrymcg421]

I took the whole test, but at the end it gave me a message that said it could not calculate my score.

[larrymcg421]

Okay, I got a score of 118, which is about what I expected.

[Radii]

Scored a 134, which is about 175 points higher than I'd expect to score in a No Limit Cash game test.

[Lathum]

how long does it take?

[Radii]

how long does it take?

you play 50 scripted hands, doesn't take long, depending on how much time you put into calculating your bet sizing or if you were to take the time to do any equity calcs, etc.

[clemsonfan]

I got a score of 92.

[Schmidty]

I'm not even going to try. Mine is probably below 20. I don't like the game, and that's mostly because I suck at it.

[CleBrownsfan]

I got a 106 - I'm such a donk :(

I wish I could get those hands IRL

[Oilers9911]

I know poker is played using playing cards. That has to get me at least a 10 right?

[Logan]

93, exactly what I expected.

[albionmoonlight]

89

Just a bit outside

[Barkeep49]

112, slightly better than I expected.

[QuikSand]

I got a 153, but I confess that on at least a couple of hands I think I betrayed what I'd do in person by being aware that I was in a controlled testing environment.

Raised and called, and to me in a blind with ATo, I don't think I always have the discipline to lay that down in person, but it sure smelled like a trap hand for a testing program to me.

[flere-imsaho]

I got a 153, but I confess that on at least a couple of hands I think I betrayed what I'd do in person by being aware that I was in a controlled testing environment.

I also noticed one hand where the game made a mistake.

They should have a new classification:

"150+: We didn't design this test for you, Deep Blue."

[jeheinz72]

96

I had a hard time with it knowing the hands were scripted. I know it shouldn't really matter, but shaking that being-set-up feeling was tough. Still, 96 probably accurately reflects my ability.

[flere-imsaho]

79, which is actually better than I thought I'd do.... :(

[Honolulu_Blue]

I got a whopping 80.

[Schmidty]

Ok, I tried it.

Got a 69. Giggity giggity.

[Jas_lov]

I got a 115 which was better than I thought I'd do because I'm terrible at cash games and rarely ever play them. I'm better at the sit n gos.

[TredWel]

Got a 126, which sounds about right.

[cartman]

134

In the detailed analysis, it said I was better at bluffing than 99.46% of all people in this area. So at least I've got that going for me. It said I needed work with bet size. Which is probably true, since I almost exclusively play tournaments and rarely dive into a ring game.

[Poli]

75! Yahoo!

[Vegas Vic]

I've never played no-limit holdem (I used to play "limit holdem" for a living). I scored a 148.

[BrianD]

I ended up with a 95. I thought I'd do a bit better, but not too much.

[Racer]

96

I had a hard time with it knowing the hands were scripted. I know it shouldn't really matter, but shaking that being-set-up feeling was tough. Still, 96 probably accurately reflects my ability.

Same here. I got a 96 and also felt my play was impacted knowing it was scripted.

[primelord]

I got a 4.

Worst. Poker. Player. Ever.

[Barkeep49]

I agree that the scripting impacted, and I think I actually lost more because of trying to compensate that I might have in RL. For instance in the AA vs KK hand I think I could hvae gotten away for less than I did.

Cartman: How good is the analysis?

[Klinglerware]

94. Not bad for someone who doesn't play and barely knows the rules.

I have to admit that it was kind of fun. Hmm...

[JeeberD]

94. Better than I thought I would do!

[MJ4H]

I concentrated on making the correct decision every time it was my turn. I didn't even think about whether it was scripted or random. The test is to see if you can make the right decisions. Sometimes you have to go broke based on how the cards work out. If you are supposed to and you make a fold that is not profitable in the long run, I'm sure it will actually count against you, not for you. I've seen a lot of people get very results-oriented with this test. It does a pretty good job of highlighting that flaw in people's thinking, in my opinion.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I got a 4.

Worst. Poker. Player. Ever.

Dude! You are like the St. Louis Blues of poker!

[primelord]

Dude! You are like the St. Louis Blues of poker!

Why ya gotta get personal?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Why ya gotta get personal?

Well, if you showed up in the NHL threads like you used to, then I wouldn't have to.

Then again, since St. Louis really hasn't had an NHL team for a while, I can see why those threads wouldn't really hold that much appeal.

I AM ENFUEGO

[Coffee Warlord]

At least I made it on the board at a 93. Better than I thought I'd do, and I did basically ignore the fact it was scripted. The analysis excerpt below is pretty spot on for me.

The greatest overall strength in your game is Strategic Play. You are better than 80.14% of all people in this area. You have the ability to profit significantly from this skill. Continue to take advantage of it!

The greatest overall area for improvement in your game is Responding to Opponents' Tendencies

[cartman]

Cartman: How good is the analysis?

I didn't get the extended analysis, I just got what was sent in the email. It doesn't really tell you how it derived those observations, so I can't really give an opinion on what they come up with.

[fantom1979]

80, this is why I dont play

[Lathum]

149 but there were some hands where I knew for sure it was a set up and in a cash game I would play them differently.

Mostly when I had an overpair to anything on the board facing a reraise I knew the program wanted me fold.

[MJ4H]

Why do you think the program wanted you to fold?

edit to add: just because you lost the hand doesn't mean you played it incorrectly.

[Lathum]

Why do you think the program wanted you to fold?

edit to add: just because you lost the hand doesn't mean you played it incorrectly.

I understand, it was just so obvious.

The reality of it is in a cash game I'm not folding KK or QQ to a rainbow 9 10 2 board but it was obvious when the "tough" player re raises you the computer wants you to realize you are up against aces and fold

[MJ4H]

I don't think the computer "wants" you to play weak tight. I would imagine your score would be lower for folding there.

[Lathum]

I don't think the computer "wants" you to play weak tight. I would imagine your score would be lower for folding there.

I see it the other way, I think they want you to be able to identify when you are beat

[MJ4H]

And you attempted to do that by guessing that the computer set you up? Completely disagree. I called the all-in with QQ against AA or whatever the hand was and feel that was the right play all day. I strongly feel folding was the wrong play there and if the game scored me lower for calling there, then the test is flawed. I did not get the detailed analysis because the server was having troubles when I took it, but there apparently is the option of watching the "pro" play through it with commentary. Maybe we should watch that. Don't know if it's free.

[MJ4H]

Here are the designer's comments in the 2+2 thread, in which he addresses the issue Lathum and I were discussing, along with some others. He briefly quotes someone who posted on 2+2 and then addresses the comment:

First, I'll respond to this post. Amazing Allen NEVER folds KK preflop. In fact, on the hand he has KK (the 43rd hand), he open raises from 1st position. You have JJ from middle position. If you push like this poster did, he calls and you get stacked.

On the hand where he calls a push with QTs, you had A4 off-suit and were not in any position to make a play on it (you were in middle position, there were already 2 limpers in the pot). Frankly, the test is designed to analyze your ability, not consider bizarre possibilities. Once you push, the hand is over from an analysis point of view - the results are irrelevant. It wasn't a good time to attempt a push in low stakes full ring NL holdem.

Related to the comment that "playing good is definately not the way to get a good score," I think you might want to consider the other person who posted that he is a mid-stakes pro and got in the 150s, and many of the other respected players on here posting scores of 115 and up. Playing well is definitely the way to get a good score.

Just to clear up a couple other misconceptions about the test:

rminusq said, "Apparently, there's no such thing as a below avg. player." Just to clarify, the average score is 100 by mathematical design. It's not surprising that most 2+2ers are better than the average person who plays this. But...the average score is still 100. So, I'd venture that the people who are getting below average scores are just not posting about it!

gongshow said, "This test is LOL bad. I finish up 4 buyins and get 118." This test is not results oriented at all. It is completely based on your play, not your luck. Also, 118 is a good score, way above average.

jimpo said in response to several people complaining about the QQ vs AA hand, "Why would you assume that you would have gotten a higher score by folding the QQ hand? I bet, if the test is anything decent, you get negative points for folding the QQ preflop." He is absolutely correct. Folding that hand pre-flop would be a huge error. In fact, when it comes to crunch time post flop, you are getting 3:1 on your money, so you have to be over 75% sure that you are beat to make that fold. That's a judgment call and isn't an error either way unless you had much more information about your opponent than you had in the game.

Finally, keep in mind that this is designed to be a low stakes full ring game. The typical play in a full ring game differs substantially in aggressiveness compared to 6max. So if you are used to 6max, that makes a huge difference. Our 6max test is much more aggressive in nature than this free full ring one.

In summary, the game is not results-oriented, is based on overall patterns in your play, and has been developed and tested by a large number of highly skilled professional players (and not just TAGs). It is accurate, but you won't get a good score by trying to maximize your chip count for those 50 hands or by worrying about your hand by hand results.

[primelord]

Fwiw my actual score was 131, I think I have a very strong NL cash game and I scored pretty well playing my style. So I would agree that the test rewards you for making the right play, regardless of if you would have won or lost.

[kingnebwsu]

Thank you for taking the No Limit Hold'em Test. Your PokerIQScore is 121.5775. Our analysis engine reports the following overall details about your game:

The greatest overall strength in your game is Flop Play. You are better than 98.34% of all people in this area. You have the ability to profit significantly from this skill. Continue to take advantage of it!

The greatest overall area for improvement in your game is River Play.

----------------

Sounds about right to me. At least I paid attention in Flop Class...but I probably should have stayed after school for River Detention :(

[Buccaneer]

94. Not bad for someone who doesn't play and barely knows the rules.

I have to admit that it was kind of fun. Hmm...

It was fun but unfortunately I played it like I play Casino Poker on the PC, barely knowing the rules. Scored a 79.

[digamma]

I scored 124 or 127 (can't remember exactly). I don't consider myself a particularly strong cash game player (better in tournaments), and I think I thought of it too much of a game, with nothing at risk. Don't know if that benefitted me or not.

[lighthousekeeper]

91 - just about as mediocre as i'd expect.

[Vince]

100. The sad thing is that I already know my weaknesses, I know why they are weaknesses, and I just simply fail to correct them. I need to be more patient at the table.

[Huckleberry]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll105/Huck_L_Berry/pokeriq.png

Pleased and a little surprised it was even that high. I haven't been playing much at all for the last 4 months with a new kiddo, and it was mostly tournaments in 2008 with only a few cash game trips. I'm rusty and I didn't think I was that good to begin with.

[NoSkillz]

132...way better than I thought I'd do...

Geez, I think it's a trap to get me to put some money back in my account ;)

[AlexB]

104 - wasn't overly impressed with that when it came up, but not so bad compared to other non-pro's on here