Thread by @PopCultureMath

Key TPIR Observations, Thread 3.

You are probably thinking – Let’s Dig in to the Conclusions Already! Here are some interesting takeaways as it relates to contestant shortfalls and biases. The next threads will address the right strategies 🧵👇

1. Contestant’s Row: underbidding was very pronounced. The highest bid won 53% of bidding rounds, and the last bidder, who has the benefit of being able to bid $1 over the highest bid or bid $1, won 64% of the time with the highest bid.

2. Contestant Rows: bidders seemed to anchor their bids based on the 1st bid made, whether the 1st bid made sense or not. This amplified the underbidding, in as much as the 1st bidder underbid for a variety of reasons, and then latter bidders followed his/her lead.

3. Showcase: The bidder bidding on the 2nd showcase bid too tight, maybe due to his/her anxiety following a bid on the 1st showcase (whether or not that bid was good). As a result, the 2nd Showcase led to a high number of overbids and was victorious less than the 1st Showcase.

4: Showcase Showdown: Contestants had a good innate sense as to when their odds were maximized by choosing not to spin again, and when their odds were maximized by spinning again.

5. Out of the Box Pricing Games, namely Cover Up and Grocery Game. Contestants failed miserably to detect the optimal strategy to improve their odds

6. Overbidding in Pricing Games: Many pricing games gave contestant’s reference prices, for example Double Prices. Instead of underbidding, contestants opted for higher priced options too much of the time.

7. Patience my Friend: In a few pricing games, like Range Game, Card Game, and That’s Too Much, contestants seemed to stop too early, likely due to anxiety.

Next Thread: Contestant's Row Bidding (Thread 4)

If you liked this thread, give me a follow @PopCultureMath. Let me know your thoughts below!

A more user friendly way to read my TPIR tweetathon Thread 3.

@threadreaderapp unroll