On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 01:30:27 +1100, "David Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Presently the Gaming Industry of Australia is attempting to define various > new 'definitions of Standard Deviation'...in a concept to define infield > metrics for the analysis of machines in terms which imply whether a machine Google - does not find "infield metrics" or ""infield observable" (below) and I find the terms baffling. That is part of what makes the question baffling to me. The "standard deviation" is also a poser. I think someone will have to cite the proposed law. I do see where regulated gambling and "probability" raise some problems. If slot machines are supposed to return a certain percentage by law, is there a control on each machine to assure that each machine, separately performs within certain limits? Does this mean that the "winning" has to be monitored, so that it can periodically be adjusted? - that would make the old-style sucker potentially correct, the one who insisted on keeping with their machine because it was 'coming due.' But if the odds are more realistic and independent, then some machine, out of a million sequences for all machines, will have a long, losing sequence that is a-million-to-one. > is being operated with respect to its defined percentage or in fact outside > its defined region - i.e.. Illegally manipulated. > > My understanding of the Standard Deviation metric does not fit the mixed > (confused) proposals of the industry. Therefore I ask if a suitable > mathematician may be available to examine the problem. > > The gaming industry seems to want the metric used in terms of a periodic > infield observable, my feeling is that it is inappropriate and another > method must be provided if possible. The first part is to confer the > inappropriate aspect of STDDEV to periodic observations. After which > appropriate methods are required! > > Here is the problem: > > Imagine a game with two components, the base game and a feature. During the > base game prizes from say 20 units to 5000 are awarded (the standard > deviation being well defined). During the base games at > statistically 1 in say 120 occurrence, a feature game occurs which uses the > same base game prizes though all are multiplied by 3 i.e. 60 to 15000 unit > prizes. > > What method should be used to define the standard deviation? > > For anyone able to provide a provable solution a monetary prize of at least > $250US is available. 3 times the payoff == 9 times the sum of squares. So if you know what the "standard deviation" is for 119 out of 120 occurrences, and you call that *variance* 1.0; and you replace variance #120 with 9.0; then you can see how the standard deviation is increased. But this is a silly problem to me because I don't make any sense out of 'standard deviation.' -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
