Tom, I think you are getting bogged down on the "never sure" aspect of probability. While it's true one can never be absolutely sure, one can be a lot more sure than mere guessing. There are currently people out there with no knowledge of probability math that have convinced themselves of whatever they wanted to believe with no systematic process behind that belief whatsoever.
Anything, no matter how flawed has to be better than that.
Additionally, I'm primarily creating this utility as an extra FUN thing people can add to their play.
It doesn't need to prove or disprove anything to be fun.
Some people really like tracking their play and now they'll have a better tool to do that.
~FK
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
>
> greeklandjohnny wrote:
>
> >Here's a quickie outline of what the process should be:
> >
> >1) figure out what you want to prove. This can be due to previous play, rumors, second hand stories or whatever. Note that the previous play cannot be used to confirm or refute the hypothesis.
> > You need to make this very specific
> >
> >2) Set up your experiment.
> >
> >3) decide on your acceptance criteria
> >
> >4) Post the info and let the stats guys go at it.
> >
> >For example, Miss Craps recently posted about going 0 for 35 on dealt trips on 10 play ( converting to quads). This is step 1. Miss Craps believes that the machines she was playing have a quad distibution outside the normal range. So, her hypothesis is that On machine xxx, the distribution of quads is much less can be expected.
> >
> >For step 2, you need to choose sample size and parameters. I will play 2000 dealt hands of triple play and record the number of times I am dealt trips and the number of times I convert them. I will also keep track of the total number of quads in the sample as an additional measure
> >
> >For step 3, I can pick 90% sure, 95% sure, 99% sure or whatever number I want. I will need to adjust the number of samples based on the frequency of the event and the confidence level
> >
> >Post the information and see what the group thinks.
> >
> >Is this a major pain? Sure it is. But is the only way to really know if there is an issue or not.
>
> I don't see how this is adequate. What number are you trying to
> determine? If the sample is x standard deviations from expected, what
> chance of a gaffed machine does that translate to? A variable is
> missing, but I'm not sure how to describe it. I've gone through the
> kind of process you described and made conclusions based on it, but I
> never ended up with a number which enabled me to say "I'm x% sure
> what's being tested is gaffed." I still had to guess. At what point
> is the probability that the machine is gaffed, say, 50%? Besides not
> liking the idea of there being a significant possibility of going
> years without winning even if the machines are fair, that I despair of
> empirically proving they are fair is another reason I don't like
> playing with a small theoretical advantage. Ultimately, it involves
> trusting government.
>
