Hi, thanks for replying. I have no complaints about your analysis, and agree that your results strongly support the D-H-M model (that there is a slight bias in coin-flipping over all and that it is caused by precession). However, it looks like about a third of your volunteers had little or no bias, presumably due to flipping end-over-end with no precession, and about a third had a lot of precession and a lot of bias.

Your paper draws the conclusion that coin-flipping inherently has a small-but-significant bias, but looking at table 2 it seems like an equally valid conclusion would be that some people flip a coin with no bias and others don't. Did you investigate this at all? In particular, I'd expect that if you took the biggest outliers, explained what precession is and asked them to intentionally minimize it, that the bias would shrink or disappear.

Yes, there is indeed a lot of heterogeneity in the bias between flippers and we are going to put more emphasis on it in an upcoming revision. However, it's hard to tell whether there are two groups or a continuous scale of increasing bias. From our examination of the data, and continuum seem to be the more likely case, but we would need many many more people flipping a lot of coins to test this properly.

Yes, training the most wobbly flippers sounds like a very interesting idea. It might indeed answer additional questions but it's not really something I wanna run more studies on :)