johnnyzee48127 wrote:
>Let's say I think quads are being shorted on a single line machine. My hypothesis is "Quads appear less frequently than expected". I will play 5000 hands of JOB and record my results. If my results are less than 10% likely to occur, I will repeat. If they are less than 10% likely again, I will conclude this machine is non-fair. We can go to chi squared type testing or confidence interval type testing and see what is the chance that I run 2 trials and both trials show a quad frequency in the bottom 10% of possibilities.
I'd still like to see more numbers. Does "conclude" mean that you
believe it has more than a 50% chance of being unfair? I don't see
how the chance of 2 trials being in the bottom 10%, combined with
those being the results, translates to any particular chance of the
machine being gaffed.
>I'm not sure a person's opinion of the game ( what percent chance machine is non-fair) is all that important. If I think a machine has a 50% chance of being non-fair vs having a 30% chance of being non fair, how does that affect my experiment?
I once concluded that a machine I saw was gaffed based on no results,
but entirely on the context. I see no way of eliminating the factor
of an a priori guess about the chance of the machine being gaffed.
The experiment can't be divorced from the theory so much that it
dictates results. If one completely trusts the Gaming Commission to
eliminate all gaffed machines, it's going to take a lot more
experiments to conclude that a machine in Las Vegas is gaffed than if
one finds a machine with a theoretical payback of 120% in Kiev.
