Forwarded from vpFREE
···
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] What Would It Take???
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
A question that seems to be on a lot of people's minds is,
"Are VP machine fair and random?"
I answered this particular question to my own satisfaction
in the mid 90's when I had access to the enormous sample of
hands that being a team manager afforded me. I do not expect
anyone to believe me or take it on faith, and I'm a strong
supporter of skepticism and personal discovery, so...
It seems like every time someone, anyone, makes a comment
about machines not being random or merely shares their
beliefs and observations in forum, someone else (myself
included) chimes in and points out that their math is
flawed, their sample is too small, or their conclusion are
wrong. What almost never seems to get discussed is what
would be correct math, a large enough sample and a proper
method for reaching a good conclusion.
No one is going to be able to do it the way I did, so how
then???
I'd like to start this thread specifically for the purposes
of discussing what it would take to prove that machines are
not fair and random or visa versa as the case may be:
1. What should one record and how?
2. What is a large enough sample? (And how to parse the
sample.)
3. What math should they use to dismiss chance as the cause
of their results?
4. And perhaps most importantly how do they make the
information meet the standard of the scientific method, with
peer review and replication of results???
If #4 is not met any study done will only succeed in
convincing the person doing the study.
What's been offered so far hasn't convinced anyone that
wasn't already convinced and isn't likely to start
convincing people anytime soon. What we need is a simple
detailed template of the steps required that anyone can
follow and prove it to themselves, one way or the other.
I can think of no better way to spend our time on a VP forum
than working on this problem and resolving it once and for
all.
And please note: There should be no need for argument in
this thread about whether or not VP machines are fair and
random. That would be a conclusion. This thread is not about
conclusions, it's about how to formulate them.
---------------------
I've always found Bayesian Inference goes best with a nice
Chianti or Barbera...of course I'm always adjusting that
based on new information. ~FK