Very efficient process. Fairly pleasant people. Feedback is nonsensical. What they praised as my strengths in the first rounds were highlighted as weaknesses in the final round, which was especially galling as I explained my reasoning throughout and they never pointed any flaw in it. “I didn’t maximise the expected value.” Yes, because as I said multiple times, I was considering the risk in my portfolio. No comment on this in the feedback. I had objectively improved from earlier rounds in terms of speed and accuracy, and after those rounds, they had made sure to tell me I did really well. I could’ve easily demonstrated what they wanted, but seems like they only tell you what they were really looking for until after they’ve rejected you. It’s not a bad way to spend your time if you have the numerical and analytical skills. The interviewers are sharp, and the games are fun. It’s not too difficult. But there’s no way to know what they want. Well, unless you cheat, which apparently a lot of people do. Don’t believe the BS that it’s just about having “good reasoning” because it isn’t. They’d rather you were a mind-reader.

Did the online assement, sequences test, Zap N and lastly beat the odds probability type questions. The Zap N was some working memory, reflexing and planning tests and the beat the odds focused on giving good approximations to probabilities in around 1.5 minute for each question. Then did the technical which focused on market making games. Unfortunately, I was rejected after this round so don't much more than this.