AN EXPERT gambler is likely to enjoy numbers, be a good decision-maker who is adept at judging risk and unlikely to be anyway arrogant, according to a UCC academic.
Dr Dylan Evans is a behavioural scientist at the Department of Medicine and is fascinated with risk-taking. In his work, he is attempting to gauge what motivates people to take risk and what makes certain people particularly proficient at risk-taking.
Dr Evans believes that successful gamblers – "those rare people who manage consistently to profit by making informed bets, judge risk in a different way to most other men and women" – display a group of traits that aren’t found in other people.
As part of his latest round of research, he is seeking to establish whether risk intelligence can be taught so that people can learn to take better decisions.
In the first phase of this project, he looked at the "consistent patterns of behaviour" that are found in expert gamblers. This group, he found, were able to set emotion aside when making calculated gambling decisions.
"Unlike leisure gamblers and problem gamblers, the expert gamblers did not get a great kick out of winning – one expert said it was more like the pleasure of a slow burning cigar, whereas less successful gamblers got a real buzz. However, the expert gamblers found losing much more painful. Last, but not least, the expert gamblers knew their weaknesses, unlike less successful gamblers who tended to be overconfident," he said.
As part of the second phase of this project, he has developed a test for evaluating risk intelligence. He wants to compare their risk intelligence with that of the general population and is asking the general public to answer 50 general knowledge questions on his website "There is a twist to the questions. Not only do you have to decide whether a statement is true or false, you also have to judge how certain you are that you know, or don’t know, the answer," he said.
Dr Evans believes expert gamblers are very aware of their limitations – so they don’t get cocky.
"Gambling is to decision-making what Galileo’s inclined plane was to physics. It’s a toy world that allows you to uncover fundamental principles."
Yes you can score highly taking that approach but the concept it is trying to measure is whether your knowledge level and your awareness of your knowledge level actually match. If the test is approached as if you didnt know how to get a high score....then I found it an interesting concept. I can think of a few people who grandstand all sorts of opinions and it seems the opinions and their telling are more important than if they are right or not - thats dangerous attitude for a trader thats for sure.
So I presume that in the context of this test "risk intelligence" is avoiding risk at all costs? If answering all 'don't knows' gives 99%. Presumable answering definitely true or definitely false or don't know would give a similar result or better? So high score = no tolerance to risk?
It is an interesting concept but the test isn't measuring even what it is trying to measure.
Seems like it needs to have a preprocessing part with yes/no questions to actually measure what you do know to some degree before asking you on your certainty of what you know.
The Putin question does not have a right or wrong answer because clearly to answer anything other than a coin flip since it depends on the age of the test is a wrong answer.
Fortunately, we already have the best risk intelligence test ever devised that comes when people actually bet and the score is kept track of with money.
Risk Intelligence Quotient (RQ) is a measure of a person's ability to estimate probabilities accurately. People with high risk intelligence tend to make better predictions than those with low RQ.
The test consists of 50 statements which may be true or false. Your task is to say how likely you think it is that each statement is true:
if you are absolutely sure that a statement is true, you should click on the button marked 100%
if you are completely convinced that a statement is false, you should click on the button marked 0%
if you have no idea at all whether it is true or false, you should click on the button marked 50%
if you are fairly sure that it is true, but you aren’t completely sure, you should click on 60%, or 70%, or 80%, or 90%, depending on how sure you are.
if you are fairly sure that it is false, but you aren’t completely sure, you should click on 40%, or 30%, or 20%, or 10%, depending on how sure you are.
Make sure you're sitting comfortably with no distractions. The test will take about five minutes to complete. If you wish to know more about risk intelligence, then continue reading towards the bottom of the page.
This test is rather unusual in that you can score very highly even if you don’t know much. That’s because this test measures self-knowledge rather than factual knowledge.
It rewards you for gauging your own level of uncertainty accurately, rather than for knowing a bunch of facts.
Risk intelligence really comes into its own when you are neither completely certain nor completely uncertain – in other words, when you give estimates from 10% to 40% or between 60% and 90% (assuming that we only allow ten percent increments in the estimates). This is the twilight zone between the stuff you really know and the stuff about which you don’t have a clue.
Think of your mind as a light bulb shining in a dark room. Those objects which are fully illuminated by the light from the bulb are the things you know for sure. The objects which are still shrouded in darkness are the things about which you know nothing. Between the light and the darkness, however, lies a grey area in which the level of illumination gradually shades away. In this “event horizon”, the objects are not fully illuminated, but neither are they completely invisible. These are the things which you don’t know for sure, but which you have an inkling. Gauging exactly how much you know you about these things is the basis of risk intelligence.