but the question doesnt randomise those variables

its more also based on reality, like if its like he scored 1000000 you can basically say 0
if its 100 then you really have no idea


edit: yea stupid captcha

put another way,

in this test, half the statements are true and half are false.. so if you have no clue at all then the optimal answer is 50%.

in real life, when you read something.. it will not be correct 50% of the time and wrong 50% of the time in the long run. the % of times it is right or wrong will depend on many factors.

so in a real life situation, answering 50% when you have no clue at all will not be optimal.

Would you agree that there may be one, rather unusual real life situation where answering 50% might be optimal?
Might two such situations exist? How about 20... or 200..

This is not an idle question in light of the subject.
The test measures how much confidence we have in our decisions and how strongly we cling to our conclusions; perhaps much too strongly for our own good.

The objective is to help us practice an optimal level of confidence... a level where our guesses are more likely to be correct than incorrect, and result in more profit than losses.

In real life, we are constantly forced to guess... to make decisions based on incomplete information. Will the gas station be open when I get there? I don't have enough gas to get back home. What should I do?

Seems like the test is more a measure of how pig headed someone is.

haha... thanks.. captcha .. i couldn't think of the word.. was drivin me nuts.

The test is absolutely fine.

All it does is measure whether you get 9/10 of your estimated 90% shots, 8/10 of your 80% shots, 7/10 of your 70% shots, etc, etc.

It tests your judgement about how well you have estimated something. It is claiming to do something relatively simple, and not claiming to do anything else.

It probably expects to find that people overestimate their own knowledge, so they find <80% true of those they rate 90/100 and >10% true for those they rate 0/10.

Its like a looking at correct river call % vs pot-odds to measure hand reading capability. Or calculating whether your sports bets at various odds are profitable to rate your judgement of your own sports knowledge.

The test is the ability to "predict" risk; it's not about one's appetite for it.

A lower score implies that you tend to see things rather black and white; while a higher score, one is more aware of the consequences of those choices.

BTW, there is short blip before results that states that all the answers are true.

Why is this a thread? It has nothing to do with poker and is incredibly stupid.

It's as good as can be under the circumstances, but it lacks a very important element: The pressures of real life.

Question Did you unload the gun the last time you used it?
Hey... i'm like 100% sure. I always unload it.

Again, with that gun pointed at your head, and trigger will be pulled in 10 seconds:
Did you unload the gun the last time you used it?
ummm.... I'm pretty sure. Can I double check?

Read the article linked in the OP. Winning poker players and gamblers tend to score high on the test.

here...
http://www.slate.com/articles/health...bilities_.html

77 percent, i definitely thought Sahara was the biggest desert on Earth but appearantly its not . Whatevaaaa, i scored high anyway..

42% braat.

I scored 96,02%. I answered with 100% or 0% only to questions where i was absolutely sure. It was in total 9 or 10 questions. All the rest i put 50%.

Disagree somewhat. A good gambler should be good at assessing risks, a high score indicates an awareness of how much you do or do not know and hence your ability to assess risk. Of course too many 50%'s would appear to indicate not enough risk taking ability to also be a good gambler but you could no ZERO of these answers and still be a good gambler in theory.

I rate this statement 0% true....

YAY! my risk IQ just went up a point!