Methodology for Fool Proffing

jack.igoe

Hey everyone!

I just got through the CC and am moving on to fool proofing the games. I am hoping to foolproof about 3-4 games per day depending on difficulty using the @pacifico method. As of right now, I am sorting the LG's into a binder and was wondering how you ended up sorting it. I'm conflicted on whether or not to sort them chronologically and foolproof them in that order; or if I should sort them by category/difficulty in order to cement in pattern recognition.

What do you guys think?

Alex

@jackigoe said:
Hey everyone!

I just got through the CC and am moving on to fool proofing the games. I am hoping to foolproof about 3-4 games per day depending on difficulty using the @pacifico method. As of right now, I am sorting the LG's into a binder and was wondering how you ended up sorting it. I'm conflicted on whether or not to sort them chronologically and foolproof them in that order; or if I should sort them by category/difficulty in order to cement in pattern recognition.

What do you guys think?

Just had a thread and discussion about this topic the other day. Here's the link: https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/11442/fool-proofing-lg-by-type-or-not

In short, I think you can get advantages from both. I've known people who have only used the Cambridge Packets then done PTs and gone -0 on tests and tons of people who have fool proofed in order of test. One thing for sure is that when learning I think it helps to do them by category. You start to cement and really instill the set up and techniques of the different games. One advantage I had by doing games by type was that I really saw how similar all the games truly are. I swear when I was going through the LG Cambridge packets (Sorted by type/difficulty) I would have to check to make sure I hadn't already seen a particular game because it felt so intuitive and familiar. I think this helped me tremendously. I got really fast at doing games this way!

I still think fool proofing in order gives you immense advantages too. For one, that is going to be the most realistic practice and you'll get a feel for the different types of games you'll see on sections. You need a much different mindset and feel doing 10 sequencing games in a row then what you'll see on a full-timed section. It is definitely a skill for your mind to be able to recognize games and switch gears quickly. However, it is one that is easily learned in my opinion.

Doing them chronologically also allows you to take timed sections which is a very important skill. One that I neglected for a long time. I got to a point where I could do most games and go -0/ yet on full sections would go like -5 because I wasn't used to doing timed sections, skipping, and game recognition.

Definitely check out the thread post above. There were some really great posters who are much more experienced at logic games than I!

akistotle

Hi @jackigoe !

@jackigoe said:
I'm conflicted on whether or not to sort them chronologically and foolproof them in that order; or if I should sort them by category/difficulty in order to cement in pattern recognition.

I sort them chronologically because I think sorting them by category allows me to anticipate the setup before reading the rules. If I knew what type of game I was drilling, I think I wouldn't be able to determine the correct setup when I see a new game.