Anyone have tips for Advanced In/Out Games?

Comments

• 2 Likes

  FindingSage Alum Member ⭐

  February 2021 edited February 2021 2042 karma

  In and out games are my favorite game type ( seriously the CD game is my actual favorite game).

  The first thing I would say is that to be successful you need to be so completely comfortable knowing when rules trigger versus when they fall away. Even though I would of could course write a rule like this down as I am writing I have already worked out the logical possibilities. So for example, if there is a something that says J requires L what I have already worked out in my mind is the following:
  - If I see J in the in group, I better see L
  - L can be in the in group without J
  - Both J and L can be out

  Next, chaining rules and combining rules is often a major component of these games. So for example you might see a rule that says L and G can’t both be in. You should be able to build a chain that would say something along the lines of: If J then L then no G. So an inference you are making here is that both J and and G can’t both be in. On more advanced games they often will push this inference out two or three levels by having another rule like: H requires G. So the chain here would look like:
  If H then G then no J. You should also learn to be able to see it another way which is: If you have J then you have L and you don’t have H and you don’t have G.

  • Another important aspect of chaining is realizing when variables have no relationship with each other. There are in and out games which also have sequencing so you will want to learn things like if you see a rule that says: J must come before F and T then F and T have no relationship to each other.

  In and out games often feature many of the same rules expressed over and over again. For example there is often a rule about two variables being forever apart. There is also often a rule about two or three even three variables that have to be together and sometimes multiple if or statements which again require you to know when rules trigger and when they fall away.

  Distribution is also a repeat part of in and out games and is especially powerful in games with limited distribution possibilities. So if you have a game for example with only 5 variables in the IN group and you have 9 variables total you will see that the questions are repeatedly testing your ability to understand what happens when the in group is full or the out group is full.
• jbromero Member

  February 2021 31 karma

  Thanks so much for this response. It was quite insightful, and I tried to write down some of your explanations to aid in my understanding.

  However, I was a bit confused with where you said "If H then G then no J. L becomes a floater and can be in or out." Maybe, I just chained my conditionals incorrectly, but I wrote down /J <-- /L <--> G <-- H. If this is correct, would that not prevent L from being a floater in cases where the H is triggered?

  Also, I am interested to what you explained about distribution. I feel like I often overlook this. Would you be able to explain what you mean a bit more?

  I really appreciate all of this guidance!
• jbromero Member

  February 2021 31 karma

  One other question that just popped into my head was which words trigger the biconditionals? Is it always anything that contains "not both," "except," "not otherwise," and "if and only if?" I cannot think of any others that have popped up.
• 1 Like

  lilpingling Member ⭐

  February 2021 638 karma

  I struggled with these types of games for months before finally mastering them (I'm excellent at them now), so I completely understand the frustration. A few questions for you- are you doing them timed? What happens when you do them untimed?

  I ask this because I found that the biggest issue I had with conditional logic and chaining was that the pressure of a timed game often lead me to panic and write down rules/chains incorrectly. What's worse is that I didn't always understand exactly how to chain them up, so I often did it wrong. What helped me the most was to start over and do as many of them untimed as possible, WITHOUT chaining. It took forever, because I had to go back and look at every rule at every question, but eventually I got to where I was getting them 100% right all of the time. Then I started gradually reducing time- still without chaining- until I got down to my desired time. Suddenly the ability to link rules and chain just made sense. If you're struggling with them under untimed conditions, I'd highly recommend starting over until you really have them down, then work on time. My theory is that I will never get anything under timed conditions if I don't get it under untimed conditions.

  The good news is, that you can improve on these incredibly quickly. My skill level in LG improved about 200% in a week once I started tackling them.
• kkole444 Alum Member ⭐

  February 2021 1687 karma

  @lilpingling and @FindingSage have excellent points. I would also work on games untimed and slowly and methodically pick them apart and find out exactly why (where my weakness is) and work on drills to strengthen them. Use BR and don't just glaze over the questions once you have do it a couple time turn off 'autopilot' when trying to refine your skills. I would know when rules trigger versus when they don't. and when rules fall away versus when they don't like what @FindingSage was showing in the conditionals. Also knowing which word is a sufficient indicator or necessary I think is key. I am with @lilpingling at first I was bad and that was the reason I was bad at advanced in/out. Now however I want those games because the answers to me are much easier to find and they are 'guaranteed' because you just read the logic chain. Know
  I made a long post today about how I got to -0 consistently.
  https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/27505/link-to-ggs-free-for-everyone-trying-to-get-to-0-on-lg-i-explain-what-helped-me

  I realize that it is not specific to advanced in/out but there are many tips that apply to in/out as well.
• 1 Like

  FindingSage Alum Member ⭐

  February 2021 edited February 2021 2042 karma

  @jbromero said:
  Thanks so much for this response. It was quite insightful, and I tried to write down some of your explanations to aid in my understanding.

  However, I was a bit confused with where you said "If H then G then no J. L becomes a floater and can be in or out." Maybe, I just chained my conditionals incorrectly, but I wrote down /J <-- /L <--> G <-- H. If this is correct, would that not prevent L from being a floater in cases where the H is triggered?

  Also, I am interested to what you explained about distribution. I feel like I often overlook this. Would you be able to explain what you mean a bit more?

  I really appreciate all of this guidance!

  I looked up my made up rules and yes L can’t be a floater because L and g can’t both be in together. That is what I get for responding form my phone and not using actual rules/ game.

  In real life I would of course write things down and also as I am reading rules, push the rules up against the previous ones. Can they be chained together? Does the first rule have any impact on the second rule or visa versa?

  I would also work on this untimed as well with the focus on develops your ability to make inferences in combining rules and becoming increasingly comfortable with how or why rules trigger and fall away.

  Distribution is very powerful idea, particularly in games where the distribution is limited or where you have an unequal number of spots and variables. This applies to all game types.

  For In and out games it is most powerful when groups ( either the in group or the out group) fills up. One of the questions that tests your understanding of this is a question that would about fully determining the game board.

  When you have an in and out game where it asks you if which of the following were true would the game board be fully determined for example, the variables you want to look at are variables which create the most movement.

  So if you know G and L both can’t be in you might look for answer choice that involves one of those variables first.
• jbromero Member

  February 2021 31 karma

  @lilpingling said:
  I struggled with these types of games for months before finally mastering them (I'm excellent at them now), so I completely understand the frustration. A few questions for you- are you doing them timed? What happens when you do them untimed?

  I ask this because I found that the biggest issue I had with conditional logic and chaining was that the pressure of a timed game often lead me to panic and write down rules/chains incorrectly. What's worse is that I didn't always understand exactly how to chain them up, so I often did it wrong. What helped me the most was to start over and do as many of them untimed as possible, WITHOUT chaining. It took forever, because I had to go back and look at every rule at every question, but eventually I got to where I was getting them 100% right all of the time. Then I started gradually reducing time- still without chaining- until I got down to my desired time. Suddenly the ability to link rules and chain just made sense. If you're struggling with them under untimed conditions, I'd highly recommend starting over until you really have them down, then work on time. My theory is that I will never get anything under timed conditions if I don't get it under untimed conditions.

  The good news is, that you can improve on these incredibly quickly. My skill level in LG improved about 200% in a week once I started tackling them.

  I have practiced a ton untimed and always blind review! I think I mainly get confused when the games are indicating negate necessary v. biconditionals. I also sometimes miss the inferences that can be made from interpreting the number of game pieces left for repeat games/min number of slots.
• jbromero Member

  February 2021 31 karma

  @FindingSage said:

  @jbromero said:
  Thanks so much for this response. It was quite insightful, and I tried to write down some of your explanations to aid in my understanding.

  However, I was a bit confused with where you said "If H then G then no J. L becomes a floater and can be in or out." Maybe, I just chained my conditionals incorrectly, but I wrote down /J <-- /L <--> G <-- H. If this is correct, would that not prevent L from being a floater in cases where the H is triggered?

  Also, I am interested to what you explained about distribution. I feel like I often overlook this. Would you be able to explain what you mean a bit more?

  I really appreciate all of this guidance!

  I looked up my made up rules and yes L can’t be a floater because L and g can’t both be in together. That is what I get for responding form my phone and not using actual rules/ game.

  In real life I would of course write things down and also as I am reading rules, push the rules up against the previous ones. Can they be chained together? Does the first rule have any impact on the second rule or visa versa?

  I would also work on this untimed as well with the focus on develops your ability to make inferences in combining rules and becoming increasingly comfortable with how or why rules trigger and fall away.

  Distribution is very powerful idea, particularly in games where the distribution is limited or where you have an unequal number of spots and variables. This applies to all game types.

  For In and out games it is most powerful when groups ( either the in group or the out group) fills up. One of the questions that tests your understanding of this is a question that would about fully determining the game board.

  When you have an in and out game where it asks you if which of the following were true would the game board be fully determined for example, the variables you want to look at are variables which create the most movement.

  So if you know G and L both can’t be in you might look for answer choice that involves one of those variables first.

  Do you have any ideas on how to get better at making distribution inferences? Is there anything I can read about or learn about, in addition to practicing games.