What Would It Take???

[shadowman]

Gee... if one of you guys finds machines are not truly 100% random, does that make RS correct?
 


My motto has always been ... trust but verify. RS throws out ridiculous claims which have been shown to be wrong in every instance. Even with that evidence he continues to make the same claims. In other words, he discounts the verification. What does that tell you?

[Frank Kneeland]

Gee... if one of you guys finds machines are not truly 100% random, does that make RS correct?I think you are missing not only the spirit of this endeavor, but its origins and intent as well.OriginA few weeks back I met two couples from Canada that kept hyper accurate records and seemed to enjoy it as en embellishment to their play.  At the time I thought nothing of it.The following week in what was an all to common and typical thread on this forum, someone posted that they had played once at a particular casino, had done poorly, and had concluded that this particular casino had obviously tightened their machines recently.Six pages of posts ensued on the subject of how you couldn't draw any conclusions from such a small sample or simply by going off of machine return, and by about page seven I noticed that all the posts were about, "what doesn't work" and none of them were about, "what would work" and how to do proper tests of machine fairness.I put two and two together and thought that a record keeping system like the one I had seen the Canadians enjoy using, and a spread sheet for data processing might be a good mix and at least an attempt to approach the issue of confidence in a slightly better fashion than: walk into a casino, play a few hands, walk out convinced of foul play.On the flip side of the coin people that don't doubt machine fairness often base their belief on equally flimsy second hand information. The goal was to create something people could use themselves for themselves.The utility is never going to prove or disprove someone else's beliefs, because as soon as you share your own test results, other people will doubt your record keeping and ulterior motivations. That's not a problem, because I don't intend the utility for use by people to prove their beliefs to others. IntentThis is about testing one's own beliefs using a method that though far from perfect is infinitely better than a Wild A. Guess.So once again I recommend people use it to check their OWN hypothesis, not other people's. And I recommend they keep their conclusions to themselves.Think of it like a pair of reading glasses for someone with blurry vision. They may use it to read anything they like, it will simply make the text clearer and easier to read. I can't be responsible from their choice of subject matter.I'm committed to making a hammer, bang whatever you like with it.~FK

[moneyla]

Frank wrote: IntentThis is about testing one's own beliefs using a method that though far from perfect is infinitely better than a Wild A. Guess.  Since I already believe the machines are fair and random, I shouldn't bother???  Unless one doubts the machines they play on why bother to verify?

[shadowman]

Unless one doubts the machines they play on why bother to verify?
 

1) Because there's money involved.

2) Because technology is not perfect.
3) Because people screw up.

[faygo]

[QUOTE=moneyla]

IntentThis is about testing one's own beliefs using a method that though far from perfect is infinitely better than a Wild A. Guess.~FK
 With apoligies to Frank, I have always ascribed to the SWAGNER method. Scientific Wild A Guess Not Easily Refuted.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank wrote: IntentThis is about testing one's own beliefs using a method that though far from perfect is infinitely better than a Wild A. Guess.  Since I already believe the machines are fair and random, I shouldn't bother???  Unless one doubts the machines they play on why bother to verify?

I really like this post, because it brings up such a fundamental concept. Why bother?We as humans rarely doubt anything that agrees with what we want to believe or already believe, but that's really not a good policy. Within reason we should doubt all things and if testing is not too labor intensive we should always be mindful of areas where we can check preexisting information and reassess our conclusions.If you had no doubts and were sure, testing would make you more sure.Is being more confident and more sure something that would benefit you? Only you can answer.

[BillyJoe]

[QUOTE=moneyla] Gee... if one of you guys finds machines are not truly 100% random, does that make RS correct?
 


My motto has always been ... trust but verify. RS throws out ridiculous claims which have been shown to be wrong in every instance. Even with that evidence he continues to make the same claims. In other words, he discounts the verification. What does that tell you?[/QUOTE]
Said a little differently, Shadow... "Expect what you inspect"

[Frank Kneeland]

Said a little differently, Shadow... "Expect what you inspect"I like it. And here's the thing, it wouldn't matter and doesn't matter to me which side of the argument I'm on. I'm totally for personal discovery and testing.I have my new radio show host visiting me this week so I'll be busy most of the week, but I'll try to finish the utility next week.

[moneyla]

Frank wrote:  "If you had no doubts and were sure, testing would make you more sure." Yes, this makes sense, and very good.  I agree with this concept. But I wonder if those who believe the machines are not random will trust any kind of survey that you could come up with?  Non-believers won't believe anything, will they? In fact, I think if your own limited survey uncovers some results that don't appear to be random, you might be igniting a new fire. Just how many millions of hands will you be measuring since we know anything can happen in the short run?

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank wrote:  "If you had no doubts and were sure, testing would make you more sure." Yes, this makes sense, and very good.  I agree with this concept. But I wonder if those who believe the machines are not random will trust any kind of survey that you could come up with?  Non-believers won't believe anything, will they? In fact, I think if your own limited survey uncovers some results that don't appear to be random, you might be igniting a new fire. Just how many millions of hands will you be measuring since we know anything can happen in the short run?OK now you've lost me again. I'm not doing a survey nor am I asking anyone to trust me. And in answer to how many millions of hands will I be measuring the answer is none. I'm not going to measure even one hand.I'm making a utility for people to use; to measure, count, and quantify on their own. This is for other people to use, not me.I thought you understood all this, but it still seems like you think I'm doing some kind of test, I'm not. I'm outlining the test steps and saving people time.What they test, how they test and what they do with the test results is up to them, and I only expect people to believe their own personal results...not mine...which is great since I'm not going to be using the utility. I won't have results to share.~FK