A Random Sampling

Frank,

To answer your question then, given the metrics you enumerated I would think that a random sample with a mix of gamblers, potential gamblers and non-gamblers would be more interesting. If the participants can be categorized into groups, that would provide some additional information on what impact formerly learned concepts about gambling have on the study results.

I've never played AP before,i was going to upcoming trip,but have changed my mind about it. However,knowing me,i will probably run a few bucks thru. Will that help in anyway?If so,i will keep track.

JOHN

I greatly thank you for your offer of help, but no one that is already a member of an on-line gambling forum would constitute anything close to a random sampling. Everyone here will be the beneficiaries of the study, but their participation as well as mine will have to be restricted to analysis and set up.

~FK

"5. Reduction of addictive potential"

Seems like this would be difficult to assess with newbies only.

Otherwise this effort seems kind of strange to me. It appears you are looking for perception rather than anything based on facts. While that might be interesting to you, I'm not sure it's going to provide much in the way of meaningful information.

When you deal with things like perception you normally need a very large sample size. Otherwise it's easy to get led astray.

I guess it's all about perception. If people perceive Singer's system to have value...


Either that or Frank has me confused again.

I'd throw in a metric to assign an entertainment value to the system. Some systems are fun to play than others.

For 5. reduction of addictive potential, I'm deferring to the opinions of licensed therapists.

Yes perception will be a factor. Perception is always a factor. It will not be the only one.

You seem to be arguing that people's perceptions are not based on facts. That may indeed be...likely even.

But what people consider as facts is based on their perceptions.

I know you'd like this to be simple...so would I. I'm a hard math guy, you know that. The sad truth is that there are so few of us, we have to consider everyone else.

I'd considered this, but as I will be testing 18-20 year olds, it's impossible to let them try it out. And fun rating would require actual play or experience. Can you think of a way to include "fun" in a scientific manner?

~FK

Uh Frank, gambling in the US is restricted to those 21 years of age and older.

"I greatly thank you for your offer of help, but no one that is already a member of an on-line gambling forum would constitute anything close to a random sampling. Everyone here will be the beneficiaries of the study, but their participation as well as mine will have to be restricted to analysis and set up."

- Depending upon the person on this board, you may want to rethink it a touch. There are a few of us (very small group) who don't play VP. I happen to be one of them.

Yes I know, that's exactly why I should get the least biased results for things like "ease of understanding"?

You can't test understanding of new ideas in people that already have opinions on the subject.

~FK

And your going to test this out how? On what type of machine, where? If your testing out the different VP systems, then are you going to actually have these folks play?