Even in the tests shown, conversion rate was higher for the MABA algorithms than simple A/B testing. "Oh but you get higher statistical significance!" thanks, but that doesn't pay my bills, conversion pays.
Those tables are showing the conversion rate during the test, up to the time when statistical significance is achieved. You generally then stop the test and go with the winning option for all your traffic.
In the two-way test where the two paths have real conversion rates of 10% and 20%, all of the MAB variations did win. Here is how many conversions there would be after 10000 visitors for that test, and how they compare to the A/B test:
RAND 1988
MAB-10 1997 +9
MAB-24 2001 +13
MAB-50 1996 +8
MAB-90 1994 +6
RAND 1987
MAB-10 1969 -18
MAB-50 1987 +0
MAB-77 1988 +1
(The third column in the above two tables remains the same if you change 10000 to something else, as long as that something else. MAB-10 beats RAND in the first test by 9 conversions, and loses by 18 conversions in the second test).
Just a note, don't literally do this:
http://conversionxl.com/statistical-significance-does-not-eq...
I want an A/B testing tool that won't let you see results until it's done.
This suggest to me that, similarly to a lot of algorithms you might want to change your parameters during training
So start with MAB-100 (RAND) and then decrease that % over time
I find it funny when some people think A/B (or MAB) testing will solve major usability problems
You can definitely try Genetic Programming your website to conversion, it's probably going to be fun to watch