Fool Proofing LG By Type or Not?

Comments

• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  June 2017 edited June 2017 23929 karma

  @Csuposki said:
  Hi everyone,

  I plan on fool proofing LG using the typical method of using the PT 1-35 bundle. I was just wondering what are people's thoughts on fool proofing LG by type versus just going through the bundle from PT 1 to 35 in order. I read the Pacifico guide and he states that one shouldn't record the type of game one attempts, which makes sense to me, since we don't have that luxury during real test conditions. However, I have since read some other guides by people who have done really well on LG, and they recommend drilling by LG type (I guess to really drill the strategies for each type) So I am now having second thoughts!

  So, I guess I'd just like some input from the high LG scorers out there, what are the pros and cons of fool proofing by type/not, and what method do you think is more useful for a beginner?

  Thanks!

  Disclaimer: Not an LG Pro.

  However, I think when learning games doing them by type first can be extremely helpful. I began using the Cambridge Packets which were organized by type and difficulty. By doing 10 sequencing games or 10 grouping games in a row, you really, REALLY start to see how the inferences repeat.

  Though Pacifico is right and on the real day you won't have the luxury of what type of game it is, I still think there are major advantages to starting by doing liked games. Even 7Sage has problem sets of like games to do first before fool proofing. It is important to be able to quickly recognize game types, but at the same time, after you do enough games I don't really think you'd have any problem. I can't imagine someone going through a course and on test day not being able to distinguish between a sequencing or a grouping game.

  IF you find yourself having issues with specific game types definitely consider drilling games of the same type. That's just the only way I could learn grouping games.

  In sum, my opinion is that it's not a matter of whether you fool proof by type or by PT, but to make sure you do plenty of timed sections period. Personally, I think doing a mixture is best. I fool proof and when I find myself having trouble with a certain type of game, I do a group of the same type of game.
• Pink Dust Alum Member

  June 2017 edited June 2017 403 karma

  I would do it by type if you are new to it. but move onto the timed 4 games. When you do like 5 back to back in out games for example, you already know its an in out game.
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  June 2017 23929 karma

  @"Pink Dust" said:
  I would do it by type if you are new to it. but move onto the timed 4 games. When you do like 5 back to back in out games for example, you already know its an in out game.

  Yeah, you definitely can start to get into robotic mode when you are doing a packet of in-and-out games. This is good in the beginning for learning and reviewing. However, I think you'll get more later on in your studies from fool proofing full sections.
• Freddy_D Core Member ⭐

  June 2017 2983 karma

  Just like with LR, it's okay to drill by type in the beginning, but, as you progress, I think it's better to drill games as they appear on the actual test.
• akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  June 2017 9382 karma

  @"Alex Divine" said:

  @Csuposki said:
  Hi everyone,

  I plan on fool proofing LG using the typical method of using the PT 1-35 bundle. I was just wondering what are people's thoughts on fool proofing LG by type versus just going through the bundle from PT 1 to 35 in order. I read the Pacifico guide and he states that one shouldn't record the type of game one attempts, which makes sense to me, since we don't have that luxury during real test conditions. However, I have since read some other guides by people who have done really well on LG, and they recommend drilling by LG type (I guess to really drill the strategies for each type) So I am now having second thoughts!

  So, I guess I'd just like some input from the high LG scorers out there, what are the pros and cons of fool proofing by type/not, and what method do you think is more useful for a beginner?

  Thanks!

  Disclaimer: Not an LG Pro.

  However, I think when learning games doing them by type first can be extremely helpful. I began using the Cambridge Packets which were organized by type and difficulty. By doing 10 sequencing games or 10 grouping games in a row, you really, REALLY start to see how the inferences repeat.

  Though Pacifico is right and on the real day you won't have the luxury of what type of game it is, I still think there are major advantages to starting by doing liked games. Even 7Sage has problem sets of like games to do first before fool proofing. It is important to be able to quickly recognize game types, but at the same time, after you do enough games I don't really think you'd have any problem. I can't imagine someone going through a course and on test day not being able to distinguish between a sequencing or a grouping game.

  IF you find yourself having issues with specific game types definitely consider drilling games of the same type. That's just the only way I could learn grouping games.

  In sum, my opinion is that it's not a matter of whether you fool proof by type or by PT, but to make sure you do plenty of timed sections period. Personally, I think doing a mixture is best. I fool proof and when I find myself having trouble with a certain type of game, I do a group of the same type of game.

  I agree. At first, I think drilling by type can be really helpful. I think Pacifico's method is helpful after mastering each game type.

  I drilled all the In/Out Games using Question Bank first because it was my weakest LG type and then moved on to Pacifico's LG Attack Strategy.
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  June 2017 23929 karma

  @Freddy_D said:
  Just like with LR, it's okay to drill by type in the beginning, but, as you progress, I think it's better to drill games as they appear on the actual test.

  No doubt. I just know so many people who used the Cambridge Packets to learn and drill games (much like fool proofing) and then doing PTs where they would practice full sections. So I feel like either way can be successful.
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  June 2017 23929 karma

  @"Alex Divine" said:

  @Freddy_D said:
  Just like with LR, it's okay to drill by type in the beginning, but, as you progress, I think it's better to drill games as they appear on the actual test.

  No doubt. I just know so many people who used the Cambridge Packets to learn and drill games (much like fool proofing) and then doing PTs where they would practice full sections. So I feel like either way can be successful.

  There's no question in my mind that the fool proofing method is the way to go though. It doesn't have to be an either/or.
• Freddy_D Core Member ⭐

  June 2017 2983 karma

  @"Alex Divine" said:

  @"Alex Divine" said:

  @Freddy_D said:
  Just like with LR, it's okay to drill by type in the beginning, but, as you progress, I think it's better to drill games as they appear on the actual test.

  No doubt. I just know so many people who used the Cambridge Packets to learn and drill games (much like fool proofing) and then doing PTs where they would practice full sections. So I feel like either way can be successful.

  There's no question in my mind that the fool proofing method is the way to go though. It doesn't have to be an either/or.

  Oh, for sure. Fool proofing is a godsend. Lord knows where I would be without it
• Nikkkkkkk Live Member

  June 2017 250 karma

  Great, thanks for all the help guys!