What Would It Take???

[backsider]

For once I read through all of Franks and new2vps posts to see how this experiment was going, and it looks like it is going very well. As usual however, New is making sly references to that special someone who must reside inside his head. But also as usual, his reference is incorrect. If you go back somewhere on the wizzards forum you will see that when RS tested the machine for that flipover you guys are nuts about, it was not a 40% affair but something like 12%. I remember that number because he said it was just about 2 times what was expected after several billion hands. Frank would now be proud of me, I did the math and came up with 6% as being normal. So New, why, if you dont want to believe the guy, do you need to exagerrate to the tune of 40%? Why not tell the truth about it? Im glad no arguments are allowed here. Besides, Im a lover, not an arguer. Ive got a week off coming up and Ill explain it to you when I get back from my visit home.

[ko king]

First sample taken on the "four to the flush off the deal" based on small sample of hands, I would have done a little more but it slowed my play down a considerable amount, here are the results: 250 hands played, recieved 16-four to the flush off the draw, converted 2 to a flush, dealt 2 flushes.

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe I would doubt your story about IGT giving the Indian casino a special machine because Nevada Gaming Rules require that any manufacturer selling machines in Nevada must follow Nevada's rules for any machines sold outside of Nevada.
 
This would prevent these "other out of state machines" from finding their way back to Nevada through the resale market or secondary trading.
 
As I said, I am not sure if the story was just folklore, or fact. It was a LONG time ago, back when Native American casinos were a novelty, not on every street corner like today. It was not in Nevada, and having worked for a large corporation for 35 years, I would say that IGT would not care about a secondary market for these machines if they were paid enough for the original purchase.

[WildTurkey]

OK, I was just wondering if their sample size was in the thousands, millions or billions.  That would give me an idea of what it would take for 95% accuracy.

[Tomcat1569]

Frank, I would be happy to help this noble project. I plan on playing many thousands of hands over the next month, so if you want me to take a certain set of observations just let me know via PM. I think tasking several people with different types of hands (4 to flushes or straights, converting 2 pair to boat, etc.) might be the way to go here.

[Frank Kneeland]

For once I read through all of Franks and new2vps posts to see how this experiment was going, and it looks like it is going very well. As usual however, New is making sly references to that special someone who must reside inside his head. But also as usual, his reference is incorrect. If you go back somewhere on the wizzards forum you will see that when RS tested the machine for that flipover you guys are nuts about, it was not a 40% affair but something like 12%. I remember that number because he said it was just about 2 times what was expected after several billion hands. Frank would now be proud of me, I did the math and came up with 6% as being normal. So New, why, if you dont want to believe the guy, do you need to exagerrate to the tune of 40%? Why not tell the truth about it? Im glad no arguments are allowed here. Besides, Im a lover, not an arguer. Ive got a week off coming up and Ill explain it to you when I get back from my visit home.Just got home. I don't know what this flip over thing you are talking about is, nor do I know how to test for it. It's irrelevant to this thread whether or not it's true or what's been done on it in the past.If it's something we can test for then I'm for adding it.Can someone please explain it and suggest a reasonable test? Please just define it here and argue over it in a different thread. Thanks.Assume I know nothing. ~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

[QUOTE=moneyla] BillyJoe I would doubt your story about IGT giving the Indian casino a special machine because Nevada Gaming Rules require that any manufacturer selling machines in Nevada must follow Nevada's rules for any machines sold outside of Nevada.
 
This would prevent these "other out of state machines" from finding their way back to Nevada through the resale market or secondary trading.
 
As I said, I am not sure if the story was just folklore, or fact. It was a LONG time ago, back when Native American casinos were a novelty, not on every street corner like today. It was not in Nevada, and having worked for a large corporation for 35 years, I would say that IGT would not care about a secondary market for these machines if they were paid enough for the original purchase. [/QUOTE]It sounds to me like this would be something that would take millions of hands to test for, I'm sorry but it won't make the cut. This utility isn't going to be perfect and test for everything, if we try to do everything we'll end up doing nothing.If I succeed what will have is something infinitively better than walking into a casino, playing a few hands and walking out convinced that you've been cheated. It's never going to prove anything or make someone "sure", but it may prove that one can't prove anything and shouldn't be sure.It should also be able to detect gross inconsistencies and strong gaffs.Anything has to be better than nothing. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, I would be happy to help this noble project. I plan on playing many thousands of hands over the next month, so if you want me to take a certain set of observations just let me know via PM. I think tasking several people with different types of hands (4 to flushes or straights, converting 2 pair to boat, etc.) might be the way to go here.That's stellar, thank you, though I'm intending this to be for personal use only.  If you are worried about something, you can use it yourself and test for whatever it is you are worried about.It was not my plan to accumulate people's results and tabulate anything. Personally, I don't really care. What I do care about is that other people care.I'm of the opinion that people will only believe their own results, but most of them lack the knowledge of randomness test math, or know about it, but can't be bothered to implement it.This will be designed as a time saver.I expect to have a beta version in about a month. If you'd like to be a beta tester email me. Note: the program/utility will be free even when it's done, so I can't give you a discount on something that already free to be a tester.~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

I only saw one question that required an answer from me in the long post.  If I missed something else, please re-ask.I agree that the confidence level can be identified based on the sample size used in the test.  Any utility should have that because people would want to use it for their own sample regardless if they have gathered "enough" data.What would also be nice for truer scientists would be the ability to calculate the sample size necessary to obtain a given level of confidence prior to running the experiment.  Then they could decide for themselves how they would resolve the conflict between using a smaller sample size and requiring a higher level of confidence.Once you have a set of finite measures of what you want to test, I can likely help you with such formulae (or confirm what you find elsewhere or suggest modifications).

For the raw dealt and drawn card analysis, I was planning on using 10 sets of 104 samples. 104 because it would give an exact mode of 2 occurrences in 104 hands for each individual card.What level of confidence would this yield, and do you like the idea of 104, rather than 100 or some other number.I know that 10 samples of 104 hands is "better" than a single sample of 1040 hands. I do not know how much better, or if this is optimal. Perhaps 20 samples of 52 hands would be better yet.Can you answer this?

[Tomcat1569]

[QUOTE=Tomcat1569]

Frank, I would be happy to help this noble project. I plan on playing many thousands of hands over the next month, so if you want me to take a certain set of observations just let me know via PM. I think tasking several people with different types of hands (4 to flushes or straights, converting 2 pair to boat, etc.) might be the way to go here.That's stellar, thank you, though I'm intending this to be for personal use only.  If you are worried about something, you can use it yourself and test for whatever it is you are worried about.It was not my plan to accumulate people's results and tabulate anything. Personally, I don't really care. What I do care about is that other people care.I'm of the opinion that people will only believe their own results, but most of them lack the knowledge of randomness test math, or know about it, but can't be bothered to implement it.This will be designed as a time saver.I expect to have a beta version in about a month. If you'd like to be a beta tester email me. Note: the program/utility will be free even when it's done, so I can't give you a discount on something that already free to be a tester.~FK[/QUOTE] Sounds good, Frank. Will do.