MTT IQ Test

[JonLines]

The short story - I need to find or produce an MTT IQ test for help with my dissertation, does anyone know where I could find one, or give me some help in devising one.

The long(er) story - I am a final year student at Bath University in England, I am studying BSc Psychology and Communication Engineering. My final year dissertation is going to be on the perceptual aspect of skilled performance in poker; specifically the difference between an Amateur and a Professional in the game of No-Limit Hold’em Tournament poker (Online). Many studies of this kind have been done before on other games, mostly on chess. The results have been very positive and I would like to see if they can be repeated in poker. The problem I am now faced with is rating the ability levels of willing participants, chess has a structured rating system for all levels of participants, poker doesn’t (or at least not one I am aware of), except obviously, at the highest level.

As we all know poker players can’t be relied upon to judge their own ability, and while I feel I could happily rate people’s abilities by talking or playing poker with them, I need a scientifically more viable option. So I figure, some form of interview slash test of their poker ‘IQ’ could be a good option. Please could you reply with any suggestions, or point me in the direction of anything that has been done before.

(I am posting this in MTT because I want to be able to judge a person’s MTT ability, but if you feel this thread would be better suited somewhere else, please let me know).

Cheers

Jon

[TomHimself]

sounds like a great idea! good luck with it.

as far as a IQ test type of deal, i believe harrington is coming out with a book that is just going to be multiple choice questions and have his opinio on what the best play is. i dont know if you would be allowed to use his material jsut lettin u know, i have no idea when the book comes out

[JonLines]

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?

I was thinking more along the lines of whether people understand different poker/tournament concepts such as; what are implied odds, what is the bubble, what are the odds of AKs vs JJ. That sort of thing, does anyone think that would work? If so what questions do you think I should ask? I don’t want to list too many of my own as I am hoping to find that other peoples ideas correlate with mine.

[hurlyburly]

[ QUOTE ]
They may not have the same answer as Harrington but does that really mean they are wrong?

[/ 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.

[JonLines]

Cheers Hurly, care to give some examples of some good cEV/$EV calculations late in a tourny that I could use? I guess I could use some of the stuff from 'Play a Hand with the Masters'.

Any more examples would be greatly appreciated hurly.

[CallMeNow]

uhm Bankroll would be a good indicator of skill.

The more money they have the better player they are.

[TomHimself]

[ QUOTE ]
uhm Bankroll would be a good indicator of skill.

The more money they have the better player they are.

[/ QUOTE ]uhm uhm uhm, did u read his post?
bankroll isnt the only thing to base ability on, u could be a rich lawyer and suck

[CallMeNow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uhm Bankroll would be a good indicator of skill.

The more money they have the better player they are.

[/ QUOTE ]uhm uhm uhm, did u read his post?
bankroll isnt the only thing to base ability on, u could be a rich lawyer and suck

[/ QUOTE ]


oh you mean like "what's the best way to create a successfull small business person".....give them a large successful busines to start with.

[TomHimself]

i dont understand what ur saying, u can have a large bankroll and be a losing player

[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.