The article says at the very end: > This is due to the boundary at zero wealth which, we imagine, people don’t consider when they think about the problem quick

The article says at the very end: > This is due to the boundary at zero wealth which, we imagine, people don’t consider when they think about the problem quickly. So I wanted to see if this is true. (I ran 5000 ticks, 45 people, 45 initial dollars each). I used my own program. I removed the condition that you must have at least $1 to redistribute it (in other words I allowed negative wealth) and ended up with this distribution: http://i.imgur.com/SctNJWi.png http://i.imgur.com/SctNJWi.png vs with the >$0 redistribution condition: http://i.imgur.com/wRVZxlO.png http://i.imgur.com/wRVZxlO.png While it affects the shape, it is far from the case that it looks like some brownian motion near the starting wealth. When sorted, it still has a basically unequally distributed shape.