[stuff]
So... you're against empirical A/B testing, you just wanna go with your gut? Cool, whatever. My suggestion was simple and motivated by a desire to help out. Your monologue was detractive and only tangentially related, although I'm sure your intent was not
entirely self aggrandizing. But thanks for the insight, I'm sure it will be useful
after empirical tests. Or, hell, come up with slogany things that take more than two seconds to come up with (like my off-the-cuff suggestion of "99% player odds", which you took the time to base an argument on, but I already suggested was only a shot in the dark), and test those, too - after all, it's evidence of success versus known alternatives that matters.
That is, if anyone wants to actually test results. Which is all I suggested in the first place.
As someone who works in the field of marketing and deals which market research frequently, what radiumsoup is suggesting is the logical option and will get the most accurate results. Depending on the sample size, of course. Fuggedit is basing his advice off of his personal opinions and feelings and applying a sample size of one to the entire population. We tend to find in market research that this generally is not an accurate way to find out a consumer/markets general preference. This is a subjective matter, people's opinion of what sounds better or what connotations each phrase has will vary widely. To get a good sense of what the true sentiment is overall, you do need empirical testing.