I wonder if the games you played had resembled the expected Aumann process, which is akin to random walk, or did they look more like slow convergence of opinions? If it’s the latter, then the game has little to do with Aumann agreement.
I think the relationship to Aumann’s theorem is direct and strong. It’s the same old question of how Aumann-like reasoning plays out in practice, for only partially rational agents, that was much discussed back in the Overcoming Bias days.
I wonder if the games you played had resembled the expected Aumann process, which is akin to random walk, or did they look more like slow convergence of opinions? If it’s the latter, then the game has little to do with Aumann agreement.
Regardless of how well it follows the random walk, it already violates the assumption of rational agents.
Then why take Aumann’s name in vain?
I think the relationship to Aumann’s theorem is direct and strong. It’s the same old question of how Aumann-like reasoning plays out in practice, for only partially rational agents, that was much discussed back in the Overcoming Bias days.
Probably the most relevant post:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/01/we_cant_foresee.html
Another game proposed to shed light on this:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/01/the_coin_guessi.html