![]() More complex questions should come later in the game, so that beginners are able to get a feel for it.website, research org, etc) and context (e.g. The questions, or verbal notes read out to accompany the question, should mention the source (e.g.The questions should be spread across different aspects of EA or cause areas.The units the answer is expressed in should be noted in the question (although not necessarily at the correct order of magnitude/SI-prefix if you wish to anchor answers in the wrong direction).Īdditionally, in an EA context, I try to apply the following:.The answers should be at a level of precision such that multiple teams are unlikely to estimate the same answer (the spreadsheet will cope with this, but it makes the betting part slightly less interesting).The answers should be broadly estimable based on general knowledge of the topic (i.e.The answers shouldn’t be things that anyone present will explicitly know.The answers need to be on a continuous scale.įor good questions I think the following also apply:.The basic requirements for questions that make the game work are: This makes it more relevant and engaging, but does take some effort to prepare. I’d recommend writing custom EA-related questions for the game. Another useful additional step to make this a fair process is to start with a different team each time you go around the room to gather answers. Although I’d recommend still asking the teams to write down and commit to their answer in advance, as there is some incentive to modify both answers and bets once you know how other teams are answering/betting. The game rules suggest that all answers and bets should be written down and handed in before being made public, however this can be difficult in a large venue and I find it easier to just ask around the teams and type them into the spreadsheet live. This means that a seven question game typically takes around 90 minutes to complete, once you account for gathering answers and stepping between questions. I’d suggest allowing closer to 5 minutes for robust team discussion on each of these steps. With EA-type mindset teams and good questions each of these stages can take substantially longer than the one minute suggested in the rules. Each question consists of two stages, estimating the answer, and then betting on answers. ![]() It allows up to seven teams, and I would suggest aiming for close to this number, with teams as small as two people if necessary. It functions exactly the same way as the board version but is best displayed on a large screen so that all teams can see it. MechanicsĪlthough the game was originally developed as a board game, with each participant playing individually, there is a version developed as an Excel spreadsheet to allow large groups to play. By writing custom EA relevant questions it also allows participants to flex some of their knowledge and others to connect with useful EA metrics. ![]() In an EA context, the game offers an opportunity to practise creating quick Fermi estimates and to work on judgement calibration. Wits & Wagers is a trivia-based game that involves both answering questions, and betting on the other player's answers, with points awarded for being correct in either or both. I’ll lay out why I believe the game is relevant in an EA context, the mechanics of playing the game in a large group, how to write good custom EA questions, and some reflections on playing the game at recent retreats. They have consistently gone down well, with several people noting them as a highlight of the retreat. We have played the game at every yearly retreat for the past five years, with me writing questions and hosting for three of them, and playing as part of a team in the other two. I'd like to share my experience in both running and playing the game Wits & Wagers at EA retreats in New Zealand.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |