What's your Poker IQ?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

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