Empirical design in reinforcement learning is no small task. Running good experiments requires attention to detail and at times significant computational resources. While compute resources available per dollar have continued to grow rapidly, so have the scale of typical experiments in reinforcement learning. It is now common to benchmark agents with millions of parameters against dozens of tasks, each using the equivalent of 30 days of experience. The scale of these experiments often conflict with the need for proper statistical evidence, especially when comparing algorithms. Recent studies have highlighted how popular algorithms are sensitive to hyper-parameter settings and implementation details, and that common empirical practice leads to weak statistical evidence (Machado et al., 2018; Henderson et al., 2018). Here we take this one step further. This manuscript represents both a call to action, and a comprehensive resource for how to do good experiments in reinforcement learning. In particular, we cover: the statistical assumptions underlying common performance measures, how to properly characterize performance variation and stability, hypothesis testing, special considerations for comparing multiple agents, baseline and illustrative example construction, and how to deal with hyper-parameters and experimenter bias. Throughout we highlight common mistakes found in the literature and the statistical consequences of those in example experiments. The objective of this document is to provide answers on how we can use our unprecedented compute to do good science in reinforcement learning, as well as stay alert to potential pitfalls in our empirical design.