Anybody done the research on how fast IQ goes up ? Seems like I read it years ago and I can't remember. I know it has something to do with minutes played and minutes practiced, but don't know if there is a formula that could give me an idea

It's WE and minutes practiced, there's a chart somewhere. Maybe oldresorter?

Both excerpts below attributed to Iguana1:

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=428159

there is a direct correlation to high school gpa and the rate of increase in IQ. And I'd estimate it's more important than many realize.
these are the numbers I use for an "average learner" IQ improvement

D- > D 60 min
D > D+ 60
D+ > C- 60
C- > C 120
C > C+ 120
C+ > B- 160
B- > B 320
B > B+ 330
B+ > A- 430
A- > A 670
A > A+ 520

which totals to 2850 total minutes for an "average" learner

an average learner is somewhere in the ranges of: 50WE/3.00gpa; 40WE/3.30gpa; 60WE/2.70gpa; 80WE/2.30gpa
fast learners can knock 10%+ off those numbers: 50WE/3.60gpa; 85WE/2.70gpa
faster learners may require 20% less time: 95WE/3.30 gpa
slow learners can take 10% more than the estimated time: 50WE/2.40gpa; 40WE/2.70gpa; 60WE/2.20gpa
or some slower ones require 20% more time: 25WE/3.00gpa
or the rare combo that can add an additional 50% time: 15WE/2.20gpa

The slowest I had was a non-qualifier with a single digit WE. To go from a C+ to a B took 800 minutes rather than the expected 480.
And in the past month I've had a guy do those same two grades in 380 total minutes, or 420 minutes faster than the first guy.

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=427835

I'd say you see a ever so slight dimished return when you get over 10 minutes of OFF/DEF.

for example the first 10 minutes may return a full 100% of the practice effort
the next 5 minutes (11th-15th), may show improvement of 90-95% of the original practice time
maybe the next 5 minutes (16th-20th), may only show an improvement rate of 75-90% of those original 10 minutes

throwing out some rough numbers

34 practices practice %Ret outcome addit min cumulative results
minutes 10 = +340 100% = 340 gain / 0 lost 340 practiced, 340 gain, 100% eff.
minutes 15 = +170 90% = 150 gain / 20 lost 510 practiced, 490 gain, 96% eff
minutes 20 = +170 80% = 135 gain / 35 lost 680 practiced, 625 gain, 92%
minutes 25 = +170 70% = 120 gain / 50 lost 850 practiced, 745 gain, 88%
minutes 30 = +170 50% = 85 gain / 85 lost 1020 practiced, 830 gain. 81%

Thanks for posting this, dacamel. I have come to the same conclusion, regarding diminished returns starting after the 10th minute of set practice.

IQ growth is practice minutes modified by HS GPA and (to a lesser extent, I think) work ethic. I don’t think playing time affects it, other than through the effect PT has on work ethic. If there is a PT impact, I suspect it’s negligible.

i agree with just about all of dacamel and shoe's posts. hs gpa is definitely a factor. PT is not (or perhaps, as shoe allows, it is negligible)

the only thing is i probably look at WE as a slightly bigger factor than hs gpa, but its close. never really spent any effort trying to figure out which is worth more, WE or hs gpa, so i definitely could be wrong.

This is actually something I never did a systematic study on, but I have the distinct impression that HS GPA is a bigger factor than WE.

I've noticed that the IQ for my players seems to increase slightly faster for my defense when compared to my offense. Both are set at the same duration in practice. Is this something that others have noticed as well? It's usually only 1/3 of a letter grade difference, but I've noticed it enough to believe that the anecdotal evidence is more than just coincidence. Can anyone confirm, or am I crazy?

Posted by zl33 on 3/26/2020 3:40:00 AM (view original):
I've noticed that the IQ for my players seems to increase slightly faster for my defense when compared to my offense. Both are set at the same duration in practice. Is this something that others have noticed as well? It's usually only 1/3 of a letter grade difference, but I've noticed it enough to believe that the anecdotal evidence is more than just coincidence. Can anyone confirm, or am I crazy?

I’ve office that as well. I don’t know why.