Presumably you think that the people running the study didn't think of this?
Here's a quote from a New York Times article about the project -
> In the second year of the tournament, Tetlock and collaborators skimmed off the top 2 percent of forecasters across experimental conditions, identifying 60 top performers and randomly assigning them into five teams of 12 each. These “super forecasters” also delivered a far-above-average performance in Year 2. Apparently, forecasting skill cannot only be taught, it can be replicated.
So the answer to the question "What is the probability any one member of the group correctly guesses the result of the next coin toss?" appears to be "reasonably high".
Here's a quote from a New York Times article about the project -
> In the second year of the tournament, Tetlock and collaborators skimmed off the top 2 percent of forecasters across experimental conditions, identifying 60 top performers and randomly assigning them into five teams of 12 each. These “super forecasters” also delivered a far-above-average performance in Year 2. Apparently, forecasting skill cannot only be taught, it can be replicated.
So the answer to the question "What is the probability any one member of the group correctly guesses the result of the next coin toss?" appears to be "reasonably high".