There is a lot to be said about the fact that you can score higher than many players just by filling in random answers. It doesn't surprise me either.

Exactly.. just as it is with a real IQ test. Anything online must be TAKEN WITH A HUGE GRAIN OF SALT. Like I and other people have said, if you score well you are probably a pretty decent player but if you do poorly at it, it doesnt mean ****.

The reason is simple.. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT A ****ING MONKEY IS A BETTER PLAYER THEN ME CHOOSING RANDOM ANSWERS!

Enough said.

Seems alright with me. I fit right in my ranking

Scored 127 fwiw. There were a couple pretty tough questions in there imo, but then this test seems to be weighted towards cash games and I've never been a winner at them.

Oh, and I noticed later that the score is affected by time spent. Well, I am ADD and a VERY slow test taker... have to reread everything a couple times, sometimes more for it to sink in.

Its funny maybe some time I will post all the answers I chose.. or do it again and see what I get, "Though I doubt it will be much different" and run it trough a second time to see how much the time matters.

And everyone here can pick me apart to see how well I did.

- Coro

I have just thought of something vary interesting... a good test to see if your a good poker player or not.. you ready for it?

Here it is:

Do you consistently win money when playing poker?

1. Yes

2. No

Answer Sheet:

1. Good Player

2. Not a good player

Lol.. now I know that this is far from a comprehensive test, but trust me when I say that if there is one thing that reigns above all else its this..

For the TYPE OF POKER YOU ARE PLAYING if you are making money over the long run you are a good player!

I need to make myself clear on that, its the TYPE of poker that your playing that your good at if your making money! If a low stakes winner was to go into a high stakes game he would most likely start losing. But he is still a winner overall.

Thats how I would judge a good player... Let me put this in another simple analogy.. "I know I like using them.."

Say there was a great college football player, vary good.. You'd say he was great, way better then you, or most everybody. But when he is put in the big leagues, then.. well I think you know the rest..

Thats all I really wanted to say about that, so for the most part I will be off. I think I might redo the poker test one more time and post my answers..

We will see what happens.

- Coro

If you are a winning micro-stakes player you could very well suck at poker. Being near the top of the distribution of bad players does not make you good. Being able to make $1000 bucks a month grinding 25NL for 30k hands per month does not make you good.

This said - scoring low on the donkey test doesn't necessarily mean that you are bad. It may just mean you are a bad test taking.

Lucky

Do you realize how horrible this would be in terms of winning in comparison to the stakes? Im not even go to post the numbers if you reconvert them to micro limits.

That being said, I only partially agree with you. If you had read my football analogy I think you would understand. You can be a good player if you consistently win at the micro stakes, there are people that are. If you dont believe it thats fine. I never said thats all I play or am good at.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my statement. What I maybe should have said was that, "As long as you make a REASONABLE amount of money in comparison to the stakes/and or whatever then you are a WINNING PLAYER".

Its all relative, to one person you may be great, to another horrible.

Just like everything in life.. like the guy with an IQ of 120 "Me" Im supposedly smarter then 95% of the population, but to someone with an IQ of 160 Im an imbecile.

- Coro

It isn't really bad at all. If someone wins 10 big blinds per 100 hands that they are winning a buy-in every 1000 hands. If they play 25NL for 30k hands that would be 30BIs - or $25*30=$750. Before you tell me that 10 big blinds per 100 hands is not a good win rate, I need to see a screen shot.

There are not very many good players playing microstakes. This is just a fact. Why? Because they good move up and play higher.

Lucky

30,000 x 50 = 1,500,000 seconds (Average game length for online poker)

1,500,000 seconds = 417 Hours

1/417 of 1,000 a month

$2.40 an hour

9.6% of 25 = 2.40

9.6% of 0.10 = 0.0096

0.0096 x 105 = 1.00

100+ hours for $1.00 in the $0.05/$0.10 NL games, not even counting anything lower.

End result: 40 hours a week for 2-3 weeks for $1.00

- Coro

P.S. I agree but there are still some.. why? Who knows.. they just like playing at those levels I guess..

What?

The standard way reference win rates in internet cash games is in terms of big blinds - or some multiplicative transformation of big blinds (i.e. poker tracker big bet being 2x a big blind). A win rate of 10bb (=5ptbb per 100 hands) is generally considered very respectable and would put you at the top of the distribution of players at a particular level. Such a win rate earns you 100bb or a buy-in every 1000 hands.

If you take this win rate and consider that you can play 85 hands per table hour, it would take you 88 hours 4-tabling to earn $750, amounting to an hourly rate of $8.5. What a grind.

Lucky

I have no idea what you just said.. lol...

- Coro

Ok here we go.. this is how it turned out..



The test took me a little over 1 hour and 20 minutes to do, as I tried to concentrate on the questions, as I believe from my perhaps not so intuitive reasoning that the minor, "As far as I can tell, and from what I read.. maybe a 10% score increase or what have you, is not worth getting a number of them wrong from rushing trough it...". score increase is not worth it.

And trust me when I say that I went as fast as I reasonably could trough the first half of the test, but when I looked at the clock I realized how futile it would be to even try to get it in under 30 minutes, and being able to even understand what is going on.

Well here it is:

--Test answers--

11131341512225254312122151
12223131214323243134531224

For each of the answers, I chose the bullet at that number, i.e the first "1" on the list would mean the first bullet on the first question and so on.

Lets see what people have to say. Im sure it won't be to good, but who knows.

- I'd like to note though that however it turns out, if choosing random answers is better than me, a human being that has played poker for almost a year now, wins at cash money games, ect. then there is something seriously wrong with the test. I dont care what anyone has to say.

- Coro

Update: I just did the test through again within the time frame choosing all the same answers.. 10% increase, to a score of 89.

Lol..

If anyone has any critique on my unbelievably horrible score, I would love to see it.

I welcome one and all to rip apart my logic and show me why my answers are worse then the stupidest, poorest call station of them all choosing random answers because he doesnt know a ****ing thing about the game.

Iv'e just got to know why my answers are 10 POINTS worse then choosing all random answers on the test!

Please someone, for the love of god enlighten me..

Its killing me inside..

- Coro

Could anyone offer any help with this? Its driving me crazy! I posted my answers to the test.. if that offers any clues, which I hope..

If so I would truly appreciate it... damn.. why this **** bothers me I dont know.. I just wish to know how I can be so bad that random answers are better then my well thought out ones!

Maybe I should just do random things at the table.. according to the test I would be a much better player if I did.

Anyone else think so..?

You already got a link on the first page to a thread that reviews each question in great detail. Perhaps the advice I have for you is to LISTEN to what people are telling you as your question has already been answered. 2+2 is a great resource for information but nobody is here to hold your hand, you need to be willing to help yourself.

I think the validity of the test is pretty much proven in the fact that people who are regarded as the best players seem to get the highest scores. FWIW my score indicates I am a winning player at low limits which seems to fit right in with my current progress.

I shall humbly ignore your pathetic post, and will reiterate.

If anyone knows why my answers are 10 points worse then choosing random ones, I would really like to know why.. hell even a guess would suffice..

Otherwise I will just have to put up a Blackball page on the front of google to warn anyone that the test is ****.

Thanks again.

P.S

I didn't get a score that is online with my track record, but I blame it on the test format. I suspect that if I had to actually play through the situations on an actual table (real or virtual) I would score much better as I had problems visualizing the situation when I was just reading the words.

I'm not mad at the test though. If you scored v. highly on the test you probably are a v. good player. If you scored low then it may mean that you suck - it might also mean something else.

Lucky

3 x 1 = 3

5 x 5 = 25

3/25 = 0.12

0.12 x 100 = 12

12 x 1 = times I've read your "formula" and came to a conclusion that you are on crack

What in gods name are you talking about?

Because that's how bad you play. Barry could probably teach Gavin to beat you.

huh? what

don't be so hard on yourself

who cares if donkeytest says you're not a "winning player"

just play, learn, and improve.

i believe you lose points for taking your time
you need to answer quickly

great post btw