You actually did better than 70%-80% of non-expert poker players from a previous experiment in terms of accuracy, and 90% of non-expert poker players in terms of consistency.

No, you're better than 70%-80%, and 90%

Probably not. 90% and 70%-80%


Bottom 30%, and 60%-70%

Hi handsome. 99+% for both.

70%-80% and 90%

80%-90% and 99%

80% and 90%

90% and 70%-80%

I think you owe it to everyone to apologise and just admit that you simply messed up the comparisons. It's fine to use an approximation but there's no excuse not to use the correct percentiles for that figure!!

How can you read everyone's responses (e.g. "I'm terrible", "Am I ******ed?", "Dang it, I thought I was better at probability than that!!!") and not feel the need to correct yourself. People have given up their time to help you and you've basically told them "Thanks, and you're really dumb."

And if you didn't realise the results were so far off, then how could you possibly not have!?

To be more precise, 90% scores should say 90% - 99%

Hi MeleaB,

I am one of collaborators in this study responsible for programming the survey.

Thank you for your time taking the survey and kindly rectified the feedback information.

I am really sorry for the use of bad approximation in providing the feedback. The original idea was to have a guess of what general population would be like given that we only have a sample of 82 recreational poker players. The resultant approximation, however, was too much a boost in their performance scores (especially in the incoherence scores).

We didn't mean to provide misleading feedback and downplay anyone's real performances. However, the approximation doesn't serve our original purpose well and now it looks like a disastrous idea.

Adjusting the feedback scores halfway through the data collection process would create unnecessary confound in our study, which would basically create two subgroups of people whose feedback is based on different comparisons. To avoid this confound, we decided to let everyone have the same comparison, at least for the period of data collection.

In retrospect, we regret to use approximations and apology to people who have sacrificed times to take our survey. I hope the additional quantile information that Phil posted earlier can be somewhat helpful.

I also include a more detailed individual-level scatterplot of performance scores (each dot represents one participant):



Best regards,
Zhu

Yea obviously it is not a test of how good of a poker player you are lmao. It is not a poker test. It is a probability test. In other words it is more of a logic and intelligence test than a poker ability test since it doesn't even contain a single poker question. However, a lot of what you do in poker is based on probability or at least should be. If you are bad at probability there is little chance you are an elite poker player.

3% yikes!

Hi Zhu. Thanks for your response to everyone.

No, 70% - 80%

See last few posts.

Says can only be taken by invitation

I just saw this thread today and I clicked on the link in the OP. I got this same result: invitation only. I assume your survey is closed now?

See the following from an earlier post:

I have a question regarding the inconsistency score.

Is it inconsistency between the two games, the one with the cards and the balls? Ie, if you answer 1000 to what is the likelihood of drawing three green balls, but 0 to what is the likelihood of drawing three spades, then that's the worst possible inconsistency?

Or, is it responding to questions that should equal 1000 together, but don't? Ie how many flops will contain a 7 + how many flops don't contain a seven should equal a thousand, so would it be max inconsistent if you answered 1,000 or 0 to both?

where the card and ball questions identical?
i thought they were so for me the ball question were just more thinking time too refine my answers. but iam wondering if my inconsistency score went down because i changed my answers?

I've always wondered though if people interpret "Linda is a bank teller" as "Linda is a bank teller ONLY and not also active in the feminist movement." It might be possible that the it is more likely, under this interpretation, that Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement.

The research that this is a part of has now been published:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...10027722000105

Thanks everyone for taking your time to help out.


If a mod could update the OP with this link then that would be greatly appreciated!