A Random Sampling

In order to do a complete and fair evaluation of the RS system and compare it to standard AP play, I've decided I need a Random Sampling of people with no VP experience. I'm currently working with a local college to get my hands on such a group. It may take several months to set up the study and I will attempt to hold to the strictest rules of the scientific method.

Current metrics will include:

1. Mathematical provability
2. Overall acceptance
3. Ease of understanding
4. Ability to effect positive change
5. Reduction of addictive potential

These aren't final. Please chime in if anyone has anything to add.

~FK

lol...How about expected results from a certain amount of coin-in?

Possible, but as that is a purely mathematical calculation it would be hard to do for both systems. I believe this is covered with the mathematical provability stat. It is worth noting that to some mathematical provability is the only criteria by which a gambling system should be judged. However, what I'm discovering is that to a large swath of the population the math is neither important, understood or in fact comprehensible. In a recent 39 country study America ranked 34th for math comprehension.

I am truly sorry to say this, but any system based purely on math and requiring a good understanding of it, will likely rank low here in the USA, based on what I'm seeing. (I am not happy about this! Really!)

I'm setting up this study and providing the results, but I am not participating in the study itself. In other words I will not be a judge. It's the only way I can be objective.

~FK

Frank,

It looks like a good list; the only thing that I would suggest adding is consistency or predictability of results. What I'm getting at here is my understanding of the RS system includes variability in wager amount which adds volatility. It also includes selectively using 1,754 special plays which deviate from optimal strategy, this also adds variance.

There is value for players to know that if they go to the casino to play for x hours or x number of hands that they will likely finish with a win or loss in their financial comfort zone. There are also related bankroll considerations, while it may be more exciting to wager with a large amount on the line such play has downside effects to be taken into account.

Mean Time Before Bankruptcy (MTBB), maybe? One might divide the subjects into two groups, and test MTBB for each group.

You asked how I would be applying the scientific method?

Not without difficulty. I'll have a questioner with a mix of questions and statements. I'll then ask people to rate the statements for relevancy or accuracy, or choose a preference, or to answer a question.

For instance: if after reading an explanation on how to calculate some probability, 6 out of 10 people answered correctly, I would then need to know how many people would have answered correctly anyway, before rating the information on comprehension.

I'll then try to zero out the skew by giving people that already subscribe to a particular system the test, and correlating the results.

This is not an easy task and I will need as much help as I can get to accomplish it. Full open door policy at this point for suggestions.

You should also be aware that this is no longer just about the RS system!!! It is about ALL VP systems and their understandability, acceptance, and ability to effect change in the general public.

By testing a random sampling of people we can learn what concepts do and do not resonate with people in general. This study may have applicability in learning where general education is failing, where it can do better and for gambling addiction treatment and prevention.

I hope you ALL understand how important and serious this is.

~FK

Sample size and sampling bias seem particularly relevant.

Indeed. Here's a direct question. I'm obviously shooting for people with no prior exposure to either system that have not yet gambled. Probably people in the 18-20 year old range.

Should I screen out people with no interest in gambling (that never intend to gamble)?

Or should I go for purely random, with a mix of potential gamblers and non-gamblers?

~FK

Frank,

Can you re-state for me just what you are hoping to learn from this study? The focus seems to have changed significantly. I am also curious as to why you are making this change away from testing the RS system.

I am not making a change away from testing the RS system. I'm additionally testing the more standard AP system for comparison as well...and I'm pointing out how amazingly useful this info can be to other areas of research.

There's no "instead of" going on here. It's "as well as". To judge any system, I need a baseline and comparison.

As far as what I hope to learn? How about I state, "a great many things" and we leave it at that for the moment.

~FK