A7s To A Push

[TeeSludge 0]

This thread has been raped by crazy people.TTHBRBCP if you will.

[Actuary 3]

No...it is not.

you should try to not look so silly.Copernicus would be ashamedWhy do some people always have trouble admitting when others know more about something than they do?In fact, if you wrote down 25,000 flops turns and rivers "randomly" a trained Stats guy could tell whether or not they were randomly generated to a high level of confidence. Nothing to do with motive.

[shpaget 0]

you should try to not look so silly.Copernicus would be ashamedIn fact, if you wrote down 25,000 flops turns and rivers "randomly" a trained Stats guy could tell whether or not they were randomly generated to a high level of confidence. Nothing to do with motive.

Are you a lawyer...or do you have ANY experience whatsoever with a court of law, burden of proof, preponderance of the evidence, admissability of evidence, conflicting expert testimony, or the intelligence of a garden-variety jury (or judge for that matter)?If so, you should be ashamed of yourself.But, based on your statements, I'm going to assume you are not.Since you talked about "suing" the web sites, and you talked about "proof", I made the incredible leap that you were talking about proving this IN A COURT OF LAW.You will never get a jury or judge to understand the statistical side of it enough to make a decision "beyond a reasonable doubt" or that the "preponderance of the evidence" shows manipulation - they will fall back on the defendant's (web site) statistical expert who claims everything falls within a reasonable margin of error and/or the sample size (no matter how big one is provided) is too small to eliminate all anomalies.The manipulation would have to be incredibly blatant to "prove" this, in court, based solely on probabilities. You would have to put it in layman's terms for a jury/judge where they can relate. For example, the defendant will say somehting like "flip a coin, you should get heads once tails once...but you don't always do that...sometimes you flip 4,5,6,7,8 times in a row...all heads...and then some time later, you may flip tails 8 times in a row...that's all we have here folks....it's just a run that will eventually even out over a larger number of hands." The plaintiff would have to demonstrate that "yes, that's true...but, have you ever flipped heads 50 times in a row? 75? Well, folks, imagine flipping heads 150 times in a row, because that, members of of the jury, is how likely it is for these poker hands to come up as often as they do."Without an internal memo, or an unimpeachable employee witness, showing up at court, the web site will win both a criminal case and a civil case. And that's why I wouldn't even bother, myself.

Why do some people always have trouble admitting when others know more about something than they do?

I don't know Actuary, you tell me.

[Actuary 3]

shpaget.yes,I was speaking of mathematically proving.Not in a court.I have no idea what it would take to convince a jury.THat would take too much speculation.Point stands: It can be proven to the satisfaction of any half-way intelligent person by common business sense if not statistical analysis. That is to say, if one cannot understand the analysis.And sites risk way to much to screw with the RNG.

[shpaget 0]

shpaget.yes,I was speaking of mathematically proving.Not in a court.I have no idea what it would take to convince a jury.THat would take too much speculation.Point stands: It can be proven to the satisfaction of any half-way intelligent person by common business sense if not statistical analysis. That is to say, if one cannot understand the analysis.And sites risk way to much to screw with the RNG.

Then, I agree mathematically...I would like to see the analysis - I would understand it and concur with it. I have somewhat of a statistical analysis background (standard deviation is my friend).And, frankly, I hope I'm wrong.As far as the business reasons...I have already pointed out how some businesses may approach this and make it work for THEIR goals.

[tskillz187 0]

BUMPSuckiest thread ever.Get in general now. I wish mods could move crappy threads to general so I don't have to be ashamed of contributing to tourney strat. Kwob's call was horrible. Horrible. AINEC. Online poker is not rigged.Actuary not posting in other threads is a huge bummer, I just learned of that in this thread. Oh and I don't know why you guys all are hating on him, I'm a fan.

[Actuary 3]

BUMPSuckiest thread ever.Actuary not posting in other threads is a huge bummer, I just learned of that in this thread. Oh and I don't know why you guys all are hating on him, I'm a fan.

I like the irony of bumping the suckiest thread ever!I did appear in another tourney thread, unable to hold my tongue! It's really about my need to focus on getting another job and not spend all day at work on here. Even though posting doesn't take that much time, it's more the mind set for now. and, hey, I feel the love, the haters aren't all that serious.

[shpaget 0]

This thread has been raped by crazy people.TTHBRBCP if you will.

'Rape' is such a harsh word.I prefer 'surprise sex.'

[TeeSludge 0]

'Rape' is such a harsh word.I prefer 'surprise sex.'

haha i like that.