Overconfidence in tournaments: evidence from the field [Book Review]

Theory and Decision 69 (1):143-166 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper uses a field survey to investigate the quality of individuals’ beliefs of relative performance in tournaments. We consider two field settings, poker and chess, which differ in the degree to which luck is a factor and also in the information that players have about the ability of the competition. We find that poker players’ forecasts of relative performance are random guesses with an overestimation bias. Chess players also overestimate their relative performance but make informed guesses. We find support for the “unskilled and unaware hypothesis” in chess: high-skilled chess players make better forecasts than low-skilled chess players. Finally, we find that chess players’ forecasts of relative performance are not efficient

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How intellectual is chess? -- a reply to Howard.Merim Bilalić & Peter Mcleod - 2006 - Journal of Biosocial Science 38 (3):419-421.
Chess, Imagination, and Perceptual Understanding.Paul Coates - 2013 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 73:211-242.
Finitely constrained classes of homogeneous directed graphs.Brenda J. Latka - 1994 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (1):124-139.
The reviled art.Stuart Rachels - 2008 - In Benjamin Hale (ed.), Philosophy Looks at Chess. Open Court Press.
Performance, promotion and information.Zajac Jaroslav - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 50 (2):187-198.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-01

Downloads
28 (#490,139)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references