Was the experimental protocol the same as this?

I chose anything above $100, but there's a bit of a fudge factor: I wouldn't take a just barely above even bet today today--we just moved, and money is tight enough that losing $100 would be quite unpleasant. But I'd take it two weeks when my next paycheck comes along.

I chose less than $110 because of two reasons:

1.) Anything above $100 gives a positive expected value.
The expected value of the game is:

0.5 * (-100) + 0.5 * (X)

So if I want an expected value > 0, then this needs to be true:

-50 + 0.5x > 0 --> 0.5x > 50 --> x > 100

Expected value can only be really counted on in the limit, of course, which leads me to the second reason.

2.) I am not hurting for money.

Since I am not hurting for money, and since the value of the game is positive for me for over $100, it's a good idea for me to take the bet IMO. Chances are I will profit when X is greater than 100.

I have not read your hypothesis, yet, but in my opinion, the poll needs to take into account the person's financial situation (unless by, "stronger than 10k", you meant that the person has more than $10k ). Some people can easily afford to play a $100 game where they will likely profit, whereas other people don't have that kind of free money to spend.

For example, if the wager was $1 million instead of $100, there's no way that I could afford the bet, so I would not play the game.

So the risk aversion really, really depends on the amount of risk a loss would bring to your situation...