A Fibonacci-style planning poker deck spaces its numbers farther apart as estimates grow. That creates broad comparison buckets rather than encouraging a debate between two almost identical large numbers.
PointRoom uses 0, ½, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 and 89, plus ? and coffee. This is an adapted estimation deck, not the exact mathematical Fibonacci sequence: zero, half points and the special cards serve practical purposes.
Why do the gaps get bigger?
In the mathematical sequence, each new value is the sum of the previous two. For estimation, the important practical feature is the increasing distance between choices. A team deciding between 3 and 5 is making a different distinction from a team deciding between 34 and 55.
The deck does not make estimates objectively accurate. It gives the team a shared vocabulary for comparison. Someone choosing 13 when everyone else chooses 5 is an invitation to examine scope or uncertainty, not evidence that either side has calculated incorrectly.
A useful working agreement for the cards
These meanings are suggestions, not universal definitions. Agree on them before the session. The coffee card is a request to pause, and ? asks for clarification; neither is treated as a numeric estimate in PointRoom.
| Card | Possible team agreement | Question to ask |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | No meaningful implementation work | Are review and verification included? |
| ½ | Smaller than our one-point reference | Does this distinction help us? |
| 1–3 | Relatively small, understood work | Which reference story is this like? |
| 5–8 | A larger change with several parts | What are we assuming about scope? |
| 13 and above | Large or uncertain relative to our references | Could we split or investigate first? |
| ? | Not enough information to estimate | What would make this understandable? |
| Coffee | Request a pause | Does the team need a break? |
Example: a 5-versus-13 split
Suppose a team is sizing “Invite a colleague by email.” Three people choose 5 and one chooses 13. Before picking a compromise, ask whether the story includes delivery retries, invitation expiry, permissions, an audit trail and translated email templates.
The team might discover that basic invitations can use an existing service, while audit and translation work belong in separate stories. It can then estimate the smaller, clearer item. The large card was useful because it exposed a different interpretation.
A large card is a conversation starter
PointRoom lets you play values up to 89, but the existence of a card is not a recommendation to keep a large item intact. If the team cannot describe a small outcome it can finish and verify, refine the item before treating its estimate as a planning input.
When splitting, keep user outcomes in view. “Build the database” and “build the interface” may be useful tasks, but they do not automatically form independently valuable stories. A smaller end-to-end use case often gives a clearer basis for comparison.
How PointRoom handles the numbers
Numeric cards, including ½ and zero, contribute to the average, median, most-voted value and range after reveal. Unknown, coffee and missing votes are excluded. Only the host can accept a final estimate, and that estimate does not have to equal the automatic average.
If the team changes its mind, Vote again clears the current round. The story stays available for another private vote. Accepted estimates appear in the session ledger for the lifetime of the room.
Sources and further reading
For the underlying methods and framework, start with these primary sources. Worked examples and suggested agendas above are illustrative.
A shared estimate starts with a shared table.
Create a free room, invite your team and try one clear story. No signup needed.
Create a free planning poker room