Experienced poker players differ from inexperienced poker players in estimation bias and decision bias
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the similarity or difference in cognitive bias on a poker task between experienced poker players (EPPs) and inexperienced poker players (IPPs). EPPs were compared with IPPs on probability estimation (estimation bias) and choice (decision bias). It was hypothesized that EPPs would have lower estimation bias and lower decision bias compared with IPPs, and that a player's level of experience could be identified from gambling behavior. Results indicate that EPPs significantly overestimated accepted gambles, but had significantly smaller estimation bias and decision bias compared with IPPs. All players could accurately be classified as "experienced" or "inexperienced" based on their estimation bias and decision bias. It is concluded that EPPs have significantly lower estimation bias and decision bias than do IPPs on the poker task presented in this research study. Despite significantly higher overestimation, EPPs make better decisions than IPPs. These findings are posited to have implications for the study of cognitive bias in pathological gambling and addiction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it