A Random Sampling

You're comparing some aspects of gambling systems, but it looks like you're avoiding a comparison of the likely monetary results.

I'm an investor comparing two businesses. I can examine the company 'culture' or how 'environmentally friendly' they are, but that's all fluff. How can I make a real comparison until I compare the Financial Statements?...Where's the beef?

No I will not be having anyone play video poker, certainly not underage teenagers.

Playing VP is not a requirement (and would actually be a hindrance) for what I'll be testing.

The evaluation will also not be limited to this test. The test will only be one component, specifically for the difficult to judge issues like comprehension and acceptance.

Right or wrong, I would like to know, which system has more public appeal and why. What we see on the forums is people who are extremely pro or extremely con for a particular system. I need to know from a random sampling how representational these view-points are to public opinion in general.

~FK

We could have volunteers play on their home VP trainers. What do you think?

I can't advocate playing for real for obvious reasons.

~FK

Frank,

Don't you think removing the real life risk/reward of gambling with your own money is going to make the outcome of any test only partially applicable to the real world? The key juice of gambling is not knowing what your outcome is going to be and the thrill of winning real money, while risking a loss.

I'm not understanding something here Frank. Either your having your test subjects play VP or not?

Your talking about using a trainer, if so then your going to need to use one with nothing else on the screen except the VP game. You are going to have to find software that will function for each of the VP systems that your testing.

If not, then how do you expect some to make a decision about what's on the wheels and what they are going to do?

In short, without playing a VP game, it's like describing eating a new fangled sandwich, without actually eating one. (like using pate, which most folks have never eaten before)

I'm sorry this is all getting confused. There are multiple tests we are talking about. Some (but not all) will involve a random sampling of people unfamiliar with any VP method.

Someone wanted results during play included. This would be a separate test not connected to the other one.

It is not possible for people with current results to offer theirs, as this would be a biased sampling method.

~FK

From what I can tell this is what your going to end up doing:

Show people this game VP and go through the math, talk about different ways of playing the game ?without actually playing it? It's like talking about this great food without seeing what the food looks like or even smells like. Personally, I'm not going to be able to rate a game just by looking at one picture. Give me a chance to play it and I'll have a more realistic opinion of it.

If the people you have in the study have half a brain, they will just tell you that you they should play the system that gives them best mathematical advantage.

Well, that's sort of the whole point, Snide Man: to prove or disprove that assertion. You're begging the question.

I'm afraid the study will have very limited usefulness, unless there is some way to introduce financial constraints, as already discussed by Random. In other words, I think you will need REAL, MEANINGFUL wins and losses.

Indeed. That really is the question. Do we have any early guesses?

What percentage of people do you think will be most interested in which system has the greatest mathematical advantage?

Keep in mind that you have to account for how many people are aware of such concepts, and then how many of those can do the math correctly.

I'm not very hopeful. I should refrain from guessing myself.

~FK