Table 2.
A comparison of gamble structures between the Iowa Gambling Task and Soochow Gambling Task
| Iowa Gambling Task | Gain-Loss Frequency (per 10 cards) | EV (per 10 cards) | Choice Prediction Based on Gain-Loss Frequency | Choice Prediction Based on EV |
| A (Bad) | 5 G 5 L | -$250 | ||
| B (Bad) | 9 G 1 L | -$250 | B | |
| C (Good) | 6.25 G 1.25 L 2.5 S | +$250 | C | C |
| D (Good) | 9 G 1 L | +$250 | D | D |
| Soochow Gambling Task * | (per 5 cards) | (per 5 cards) | ||
| A (Bad) | 4 G 1 L | -$250 | A | |
| B (Bad) | 4 G 1 L | -$250 | B | |
| C (Good) | 1 G 4 L | +$250 | C | |
| D (Good) | 1 G 4 L | +$250 | D | |
(G: gain, L: loss, S: standoff).
* The deck structure for the Soochow Gambling Task is as follows: A, four consecutive gains of $200 followed by a loss of $1,050; B, four consecutive gains of $100 followed by a loss of $650; C, four consecutive losses of $200 followed by a gain of $1,050; D, four consecutive losses of $100 followed by a gain of $650. The experiment was using token money denominated in New Taiwan Dollars. For ease of comparison, the amount of money was nearly equated to U.S. currency in IGT.