[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]

It would have to be weighted. You have to start with some basis, and shouldn't the results of the test fit with general principles of game theory? I doubt there are many winning poker players who aren't competitive in any game they play. Some questions have clearly right and wrong answers, others are less clear. Give the least clear the most weight. Good cEV/$EV calculations late in a tourny are about the toughest spots I'm faced with, as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]
But can't you be a great player and have never heard of cEV, $EV or M?
By the same token, couldn't you be a walking computer when it comes to these concepts and still be unable to beat the game (perhaps a person lacks creativity, is overly nervous, simply unable to play well because the money gets to them and they play weak-tight, or for whatever reason)?
Indeed, this distintion between knowing how to play well and playing well IMO can be pretty vast when it comes to poker. Accordingly, the whole idea of an IQ test to rate the ability of players may be problematic, although some creative wording can probably get you around that.

[ QUOTE ]
uhm Bankroll would be a good indicator of skill.
The more money they have the better player they are.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is the same kind of thinking that makes people believe Donald Trump is a good business man.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought about seeing how people play certain hands, the only problem I am having with this is how to mark their answer. They may not have the same answer as Harrington but does that really mean they are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly, no it doesn't, DH himself points this out numerous times. What you might consider doing though is asking how people would play certain hands (or better yet observing people in controled circumstances and seeing how they play these hands), then running tons of simulations, and deriving from the results which approach is the winning(est) strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
sounds like a great idea! good luck with it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Word.