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.

[hurlyburly]

I don't have the history, but one that comes to mind is a FT hand where I had 99 UTG with 15BBs. I had just suffered a pretty bad suckout (AQ vs AT) and lost the chip lead. I had led for so long that I undervalued my stack, pushed and got called by JJ and went out in 5th. I could have easily avoided getting knocked out there by not panicking. Another spot came up last week, 5th in chips with 21 to go, I raise it up with JJ, get an all-in I cover behind me, get reraised by a guy who just barely has me covered, and I call anyway. JJ vs. AQ vs. KK. The call was +EV, but the right thing to do was fold. I didn't tighten the second raiser's range enough considering our stack relationship.

[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.

[JonLines]

Thanks for the ideas guys... though I think I am going to have to go into a few more details.

I need a test that is quick to administer, I am going to need quantifiable results, and thus sadly, that poker wizard who doesn’t know what implied odds are may fail the test. As long as the test is a good indicator of the general poker playing population that’s all that is important. As I am going to be going for as large a sample as I can get, it’s just not practical to sit down and analyse each person’s individual game. I need something like a 20 questions test that can generally separate playing abilities.

I am going to be using what is known as an eye scanner, which basically records where people are looking when they perform a task. I then show them some set scenarios of poker tournaments and they are to tell me what they would do in each situation, the point of the test isn’t their answer, but where they look on the screen to derive their answer.

The 20 question test that is done prior to the eye tracker experiment needs to show who is a good player, and who is a bad player, and hopefully, the eye tracker will show similarities between each group as to which information they take from the screen.

So back to the original problem, can anyone suggest some questions I should use in order to devise this 20 question 'IQ' test? (i use the term IQ loosly, just helps define the sort of thing im looking for). Any help would be really appreciated.

Cheers

Jon

(p.s. I am off to bed now because its 3.30am, but I will respond to any replies in the morning)

[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