One tenet of science is that when one has a theory that seems to be supported by evidence, one doesn't simply replicate the experiments that supported the theory. One designs an experiment to disconfirm the theory.
If this seems complex or obtuse, it's not. It in every introductory experimental college class in existence.
So I put the question to our resident "video poker expert", Rob Singer. What experiment would disconfirm your strategies? Are there experiments that would disconfirm your strategies? What experiment or body of data would serve to undermine your hypotheses?
Surely you have considered what would be considered disconfirming results? If you have no way of disconfirming your theories, what you have is a belief system, a kind of religion, not a scientific theory or premise.
So what kind or amount of evidence would disprove Rob Singer's strategies?
Would anyone else like to contribute and suggest ways to disprove Rob's strategies?
Reply With Quote