Talk:Guess 2/3 of the average

message: In a {0, 1, ..., 100}
Level-0 is not defined as 67, as in the article, but 50, as Level-0 in the K-level literature means a completely naive agent, whose choice is an uniform random draw over the support. 67 would be Level-1, if we follow the convention. Please see the cited article, for example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.38.92 (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It should be changed 31.161.145.185 (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Level 0 is 50

message: This is purely an article structure note and not about the actual content or the game, but the introduction here is lacking. For starters, the actual game isn't defined, which might seems like it's implied in the title, but it seems careless to jump straight into the crowd theory without even mentioning that the game depends works on answers from multiple people. 125.253.100.84 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor article introduction

message: Say, one assumes that the acceptance of a distribution of rationality is, in itself, rational. Wouldn't the most rational decision itself be located in 22.2 then, at first iteration? Only the most rational people would choose this answer, of course, and less rational choices made would be distributed towards 67 and 0. Iteration of this will move the result around a bit. But I guess the main problem of the assumption is that X% rational person would also choose a result that is X% of the  optimal value. More likely is that an unrational person would choose a random value between 0 and 67, and the randomness of the value with respect to the optimal value of ~22 would decrease with increasing rationality. Then, this should be iterated until it converges (if it does converge) to the optimal answer, or a distribution of answers. -- Mipmip 10:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most rational answer

message: James Montier conducted a practical experiment by emailing over 1000 economists.  The winning result was also around 21.  Some of his responses were interesting: "100 - I am irrational".  He also concluded that the best approach was to assign a distribution percentage to each order of thinking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.40.223 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other experiments 

message: Maybe not on the page anymore. I tried the link today but got redirected to the main page -- Mipmip 11:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherkash (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Politiken link broken

message: There is a flaw with this section's explanation. The least rational person should be starting with 33.33 as his bid (as 33.33 is 2/3 of 50, which in turn is an average expected value for symmetric distributions from 0 to 100). So the whole scaling is off by a factor of 2, and the person who is rational but expects others to be irrational should choose 11.11. -- cherkash 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The least rational person would choose 100, I think.  Certainly that choice is less rational than the one you suggest. :)  Either way, I have removed the section in question.  I am worried that it is original research.  If the original author would like it reinserted, she should provide a citation for the material.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationality versus common knowledge of rationality 

message: There is a blatant lack of references, beginning with John Maynard Keynes who coined the notion "beauty contest", under which this game is known in economics over the classic studies by Bosch-Domenech and others to the theoretical accounts for out-of-equilibrium play like noisy introspection, quantal response equilibrium and the cognitive hierarchy model.
Right now if you look at the notes section, you get the impression that this game is a Danish invention.
: They're not the same game, though they are closely related.  I've added a see also to the Keynesian beauty contest, but it could do with being mentioned in the main body of the article. EdC (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: Inconceivable!!! S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Princess Bride?