Traditional game theory has long been used as the standard by which to solve a problem with a quantifiable pain to model and to predict human behavior. The purpose of this thesis is to determine if Chemical Game Theory or CGT is more effective at solving and obtaining the actual human strategy in an asymmetric rock, paper, scissors (aRPS) game than a traditional game theory or TGT model. Asymmetric RPS is a type of rock, paper, scissors game where the pains of winning or losing are not evenly distributed. Additionally, this thesis will compare experimental data with the predictions of both CGT and TGT. TGT indicates that as the pain/payoff associated with rock increases, paper should be played the most while CGT indicates that rock should be played the most. Players seem to follow the general trend that CGT predicts of playing Rock with a higher probability the more the pain/payoff of rock increases, followed by Paper, and finally Scissors.