7sage method for getting -0 on games. Forum

[MiracleNeeded]

I saw a video a who
E back where the guy from 7sage JY Ping talks about doing a game and if you finish it in time 100% you can forget tha game because you've mastered it. 8; not you run off 10 copies and you watch the video of him doing it and try to memorize all the inferences he makes and do the, fast and controlled. Do that as many times as it takes until you can recall lfrom memory all inferences. When that's done you can move on to the next game.

Anyone try this? I like the repetitive nature of it but not sure it makes all that much sense for getting better at games. I have improved my reading comp to the point where it is my strongest but games are still meh for me.

[tuffyjohnson]

I like the method but there is always going to be a twist that LSAC will throw at you. Forgetting inferences and helping yourself respond to games your unfamiliar with is also helpful.

[bp shinners]

Anyone try this? I like the repetitive nature of it but not sure it makes all that much sense for getting better at games. I have improved my reading comp to the point where it is my strongest but games are still meh for me.

The point of that exercise is to get your brain to instantly recognize where instances are coming from so that when you see similar rules/combinations of rules in the future, your brain automatically fills in the deduction/tells you that there's a deduction, even if you don't see it. I think that method is certainly one way to go about training yourself to do it, though I don't think it's the only way.

[JWP1022]

I do what I call a "hitlist."

For this LSAT cycle I have printed out copies of every LG section from PTs 1-38 and do them in order. When I ace a section, I cross that section off the hitlist. Once I have attempted every section once, I start back at the beginning and attempt those sections I did not ace on the previous go-around. Does a good job of exposing you to all the things LSAC might throw at you.

[flash21]

Anyone try this? I like the repetitive nature of it but not sure it makes all that much sense for getting better at games. I have improved my reading comp to the point where it is my strongest but games are still meh for me.

The point of that exercise is to get your brain to instantly recognize where instances are coming from so that when you see similar rules/combinations of rules in the future, your brain automatically fills in the deduction/tells you that there's a deduction, even if you don't see it. I think that method is certainly one way to go about training yourself to do it, though I don't think it's the only way.

elaborate please shinners

[jrsbaseball5]

Anyone try this? I like the repetitive nature of it but not sure it makes all that much sense for getting better at games. I have improved my reading comp to the point where it is my strongest but games are still meh for me.

The point of that exercise is to get your brain to instantly recognize where instances are coming from so that when you see similar rules/combinations of rules in the future, your brain automatically fills in the deduction/tells you that there's a deduction, even if you don't see it. I think that method is certainly one way to go about training yourself to do it, though I don't think it's the only way.

elaborate please shinners

[neprep]

Anyone try this? I like the repetitive nature of it but not sure it makes all that much sense for getting better at games. I have improved my reading comp to the point where it is my strongest but games are still meh for me.

The point of that exercise is to get your brain to instantly recognize where instances are coming from so that when you see similar rules/combinations of rules in the future, your brain automatically fills in the deduction/tells you that there's a deduction, even if you don't see it. I think that method is certainly one way to go about training yourself to do it, though I don't think it's the only way.

elaborate please shinners

[JWP1022]

He's just saying that there are only so many things LSAC can throw at you, albeit couched in different terms, ways, etc. Once you see this enough, you will recognize it whenever LSAC does it, even on new material.

To give a very basic example, in In/Out games LSAC will often say "If X, then not Y" (X cannot be with Y) and then will say if Z-->Y. You should instantly recognize that this means Z --> ~X.

[jshaffer740]

For the past two weeks I have been implementing this method and my LG's have gone from a consistent -3 to a consistent -0/-1. It has definitely helped my confidence and ability spot inferences.

I think there are two big things it teaches you well: (1) how to most efficiently solve a given question type, since you see the same question on the same game at least 5x, you learn the path of least resistence. This enables you to use the same strategy on future questions of the same type. And (2) how to drastically improve your speed in setup and (related to 1) in answering questions. This means that even if you don't fully "get" a game, you have tons of time to brute force your way through it. Prior to implementing this method I would always be answering question 23 in minute 35. Now, in my most recent PT, I had enough time to go back and check every answer and scored a -0. Such a big improvement for me, and I attribute it to this method.

[bp shinners]

Anyone try this? I like the repetitive nature of it but not sure it makes all that much sense for getting better at games. I have improved my reading comp to the point where it is my strongest but games are still meh for me.

The point of that exercise is to get your brain to instantly recognize where instances are coming from so that when you see similar rules/combinations of rules in the future, your brain automatically fills in the deduction/tells you that there's a deduction, even if you don't see it. I think that method is certainly one way to go about training yourself to do it, though I don't think it's the only way.

elaborate please shinners

The LSAT uses the same type of rules for the same type of games over and over. These rules can only interact in certain ways. If you do the games over and over, your brain will start to pick up on which type of rules can be combined to form inferences, and which types of rules don't interact.

For instance, one of the grouping game relationships is what we call a "hate" or "can't be together" relationship. If you have two hate relationships, even if they share a player, they can't be combined. However, a tag-along relationship (Mary is in the photo if John is in the photo) can be combined with a can't be together relationship to form a deduction. Noticing these things over time makes deductions jump out at you; they also prevent you from looking for deductions where none can exist (similar to not wasting time trying to combine two "some" statements in Logical Reasoning).

The repetition that comes from the drills advocated by 7Sage are a great way to internalize this, but it isn't the only way - you can learn this stuff by actually learning about what type of rules can and cannot be combined, such as my example from the preceding paragraph.

[jrsbaseball5]

Anyone try this? I like the repetitive nature of it but not sure it makes all that much sense for getting better at games. I have improved my reading comp to the point where it is my strongest but games are still meh for me.

The point of that exercise is to get your brain to instantly recognize where instances are coming from so that when you see similar rules/combinations of rules in the future, your brain automatically fills in the deduction/tells you that there's a deduction, even if you don't see it. I think that method is certainly one way to go about training yourself to do it, though I don't think it's the only way.

elaborate please shinners

The LSAT uses the same type of rules for the same type of games over and over. These rules can only interact in certain ways. If you do the games over and over, your brain will start to pick up on which type of rules can be combined to form inferences, and which types of rules don't interact.

For instance, one of the grouping game relationships is what we call a "hate" or "can't be together" relationship. If you have two hate relationships, even if they share a player, they can't be combined. However, a tag-along relationship (Mary is in the photo if John is in the photo) can be combined with a can't be together relationship to form a deduction. Noticing these things over time makes deductions jump out at you; they also prevent you from looking for deductions where none can exist (similar to not wasting time trying to combine two "some" statements in Logical Reasoning).

The repetition that comes from the drills advocated by 7Sage are a great way to internalize this, but it isn't the only way - you can learn this stuff by actually learning about what type of rules can and cannot be combined, such as my example from the preceding paragraph.

Thank you for this. I realize that I have to get quicker at spotting inferences since the only thing I seem to struggle with in most games is time. I have to write out too many hypos because I don't eliminate effectively or efficiently.

[bp shinners]

Thank you for this. I realize that I have to get quicker at spotting inferences since the only thing I seem to struggle with in most games is time. I have to write out too many hypos because I don't eliminate effectively or efficiently.

The best thing you can do for yourself with inferences is to recognize that they're not some crazy, John-Nash-style, genius-level flash of inspiration; they're just a combination of two rules that both talk about the same thing. So if there are two rules that talk about Mary, there might be a deduction. If there are two rules that talk about the Appropriations committee, there might be a deduction. If there are two rules that talk about the horse ranked third, there might be a deduction. My entire process of making inferences is to compare the first rule to each subsequent one to see if it talks about the same player/group/slot, and combine them if they do and you can. Then, do it for the second rule, and so on.

[neprep]

Thank you for this. I realize that I have to get quicker at spotting inferences since the only thing I seem to struggle with in most games is time. I have to write out too many hypos because I don't eliminate effectively or efficiently.

The best thing you can do for yourself with inferences is to recognize that they're not some crazy, John-Nash-style, genius-level flash of inspiration; they're just a combination of two rules that both talk about the same thing. So if there are two rules that talk about Mary, there might be a deduction. If there are two rules that talk about the Appropriations committee, there might be a deduction. If there are two rules that talk about the horse ranked third, there might be a deduction. My entire process of making inferences is to compare the first rule to each subsequent one to see if it talks about the same player/group/slot, and combine them if they do and you can. Then, do it for the second rule, and so on.

But BP, how much of the recent games are really cracked with one or two solid inferences? Is it true more recent games depend more on building hypotheticals on a question-by-questions basis?

[JWP1022]

But BP, how much of the recent games are really cracked with one or two solid inferences? Is it true more recent games depend more on building hypotheticals on a question-by-questions basis?

The more recent games seem to force you to be comfortable with inferences that only reveal the broader structure of the game, instead of inferences that give you the entire game "world," so to speak. So, if you are comfortable thinking on that more structural level, then yes, they can be "cracked" by making the right deductions.

[magickware]

But BP, how much of the recent games are really cracked with one or two solid inferences? Is it true more recent games depend more on building hypotheticals on a question-by-questions basis?

Fundamentally, all games are based on inferences. It's just a matter of whether the inferences are made upfront at the start of the game and have far-reaching consequences (basically where all the variables can go is greatly limited to begin with), or whether the inferences are made later on, when specific situations cause things to occur.

Basically, each question that pops up something like "If X is in 4, then blah blah", is throwing another rule at you, and you have to make an inference with that new rule included.

That's why it pays to move quickly and not spend a lot of time making inferences at the start in the first place. Or, at least, recognizing whether the game wants you to make inferences at the start or not.

Generally speaking, games that have a bunch of "What must/cannot be true, and could be true" inferences want you to make inferences at the start, while games that have a lot of "If 'insert new rule here'" Qs want you to be constantly making inferences as you go.

Anyways, the point I want to make is that it's better to think of games in that they're all the same. Your initial approach should be the same. I can't imagine why it should be different. Spending time trying to recognize whether this game is difference for this or that just wastes time.

[RobertGolddust]

The -0 still eludes me!

[062914123]

.

[Jeffort]

I think some of this discussion of games methods from different sources is making invalid comparisons. The 7Sage advice about repetition of games is not a different substitutable method of learning and approaching games than what is taught in the PS, BP and Manhattan prep guides.

It's just a study and practice strategy that you use to get better at applying whatever method you are currently using to set-up and diagram game types, find deductions, and solve questions whether it be the PS diagramming system, the BP one, some hybrid, etc.
It's not a different method for the mechanics of how to attack and solve games.

As already described, the method is meant to train your brain through repetition and recognition to notice and spot the types of common deductions that always flow from certain rule combinations by forcing you to look at the steps to make each one a bunch of times over and over until you can recognize it in your sleep when presented with a similar rule situation. As Shinners said, you don't have to repeat every game 10 times to memorize the common rule combinations that always lead to helpful deductions, you can learn those same things other ways that are less tedious.

[MiracleNeeded]

So I'm doing the method since I've seen so many people say that they've had success and I'm a little confused. Not sure if I'm doing this right. I memorized the infrences very quickly on the nine supermarket aisle game. After ten tries I actually made an inference JY never made in the video. (o can only go in 67or8 for those familiar with the game). Other games were back ended and ao I watched him answer questions
. Should I watch the entire video answers and all? Am I reading the rules and diagramming or should I just do the board set up and try to remember rules and inferences from memory? After 2 of the same games I could do that.

[bp shinners]

Thank you for this. I realize that I have to get quicker at spotting inferences since the only thing I seem to struggle with in most games is time. I have to write out too many hypos because I don't eliminate effectively or efficiently.

The best thing you can do for yourself with inferences is to recognize that they're not some crazy, John-Nash-style, genius-level flash of inspiration; they're just a combination of two rules that both talk about the same thing. So if there are two rules that talk about Mary, there might be a deduction. If there are two rules that talk about the Appropriations committee, there might be a deduction. If there are two rules that talk about the horse ranked third, there might be a deduction. My entire process of making inferences is to compare the first rule to each subsequent one to see if it talks about the same player/group/slot, and combine them if they do and you can. Then, do it for the second rule, and so on.

But BP, how much of the recent games are really cracked with one or two solid inferences? Is it true more recent games depend more on building hypotheticals on a question-by-questions basis?

About the same amount as always. There have just been more companies coming out with methods that advocate skipping inferences and going straight to the questions, which means more people are doing that, which means more people feel there aren't deductions to be made*.


*That's my theory, at least.

[bp shinners]

I think some of this discussion of games methods from different sources is making invalid comparisons. The 7Sage advice about repetition of games is not a different substitutable method of learning and approaching games than what is taught in the PS, BP and Manhattan prep guides.

It's just a study and practice strategy that you use to get better at applying whatever method you are currently using to set-up and diagram game types, find deductions, and solve questions whether it be the PS diagramming system, the BP one, some hybrid, etc.
It's not a different method for the mechanics of how to attack and solve games.

As already described, the method is meant to train your brain through repetition and recognition to notice and spot the types of common deductions that always flow from certain rule combinations by forcing you to look at the steps to make each one a bunch of times over and over until you can recognize it in your sleep when presented with a similar rule situation. As Shinners said, you don't have to repeat every game 10 times to memorize the common rule combinations that always lead to helpful deductions, you can learn those same things other ways that are less tedious.

Exactly this.