All they left out was the bit about villain eating oreo cookies.

So I assume you are folding that river? I guess you havent gone into NVG or BBV to see the 440K hand that Krantz and PA played recently. It involves a sick river over bet and both are very good tricky players. If you are folding to that river bet, I guess you fold the second nuts to Krantz's over bet in that hand too?

I scored 107, but I don't play full ring or donkaments, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

This too.

I got 99 because I have down-syndrome.

got 129 and i'm at work, having to stop a few times for a minute or two for a phone call. i'm pretty sure a couple years ago i did this and actually bought the extended profile (rofl most useless thing ever)

The more vitriol I read from OP the more convinced I am that this whole thread is a giant level.

That's the only charitable explanation I can think of.

I am truly impressed by those posters who, despite an entirely reliable stream of abuse, continue to try to provide sensible and constructive responses. Thanks: you guys make 2+2 the terrific resource that it is.

Are you talking about the K9 < AK hand?

The hands are not remotely similar, and why do you put calling as the worst option of the three? The question is making the point that there is no value in a raise so calling is the best option.

I didnt say calling was the worst option. I said I would probably raise but if I was actually good enough I would realize he isnt calling a shove with a flush so he is only calling with a FH. After thinking about it I would just call. I picked raise all in but realized unless he sees my range as really polarized as either nuts or bluff then I get almost 0 value from a flush here.

I thought you were saying folding was the best option.

I don't want to know how horrible my IQ is.

Stats like these generally make me play worse because I believe them.

I got 119 fwiw, but I'm absolutely horrible at FR cash games and I bet most of the questions I got wrong were those.

I just took it and picked pretty much all random answers and got 109. I will now randomly call/raise/fold when I play.

hilarious thread btw.

Retook, 114 actually read through the questions this time. Just need to take two more times and I'll be a high stakes winner :P

123

119. I took this test last year when I was playing much lower stakes and got 130 or so.

Guess I get dumber as I move up.

116

for the people dat are saying "lol i picked random answers and scored xxx"
remember dis is an IQ test and if ur pikcing random answers, then ur finishing the test MUCH more quickly than u should. the test took me a fairly long time to complete, but if ur just picking random answers, u'd b done in 2 mins which would help ur score.
Remember some of ur answers will be "correct" in some of the questions, and if u consider it at the speed u completed it at, it may be awarding u bonus points for being able to come up with a correct action in a very short amount of time.

if ur taking it correctly, i think it gives u an accurate answer.

-just my 2cents tho

Oh ok, simple misunderstanding, I thought you were ruling out call as too weak tight.

In the link on the first page of the thread, where they discuss all the questions, somebody makes a decent argument that raising still has merit. I like to think this test was manufactured where there isn't one right answer and however many wrong ones but where one option is best, another is decent, et cetera (much like actual poker) and partial credit would still be awarded for solid but not optimal lines. It seems like that would give a more accurate portrayal.

I think raising has merit. Look at it this way if villian only calls with either AA or 89 he folds all flushes, 22 and even 88.

There is 1 way villian can get AA (AA). And there are 3 ways he can have 89 (98; 98; and 98). If he is only going to call you with those 4 specific hands then you beat 3/4 of them. If he folds anything worse than those 4 hands then you would have won the same amount by calling so Ill leave that out of the calculations. And to make it a little simpiler lets assume the pot is $0 when villian makes the 15K bet (since there is realitivly little in the pot compared to stacks behind).

So if you shove you are going to win $50K 3/4 of the time you are called and lose $50K 1/4 the time you are called.

I would still say shoving > Calling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folding. That assumes you are properly rolled for the game you are playing though. But when you include that he has 100% of his roll on the table then I think you cant afford to go broke with the 2nd nuts so calling > shoving>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>folding.

All true, but this is where it gets abstract. I believe we're supposed to accept the idea that TeddyKGB is not only good but will read our soul, and will always be able to get away from the 3rd nuts and below, and probably wouldn't even take this line with the 2nd best hand to begin with. It was one of the more weighted questions in the test where i'm assuming we're supposed to rely heavily on the specific player reads given.

Corro intelligence doesnt mean sh*t if one cant apply it properly. I know some dickheads who state they`re brilliant but complete losers in life. I think your just playing lucky and showing good results. I expect you will crash and burn and be confused as why your excellent play is going south. Now take a valium and breathe deeply.

This is probably the best thread I've ever read.


Oh, and I don't play NL but I pulled out a 119, fwiw.

ummm Just got 107 ...must improve lol

Sick bump brah.

Can we get an update to OP? Anybody?

Your first post ever on 2+2 is to resurrect a troll poster from 2008. Hmmmmm.

Maybe it is YOU that needs to give us an update, C777