stating what should be obvious here but if its true that they usually sit as close to each other as possible on tables, their 20bb+ pot frequency vs each other shouldnt be roughly EQUAL to their 20bb+ pot frequency vs other players, it should be LARGER. that sample size looks decent enough to me.

I'm not an expert in statistics, but I'd say it be pretty damning if you could get the number of 20bb wins/losses between the two usernames up into the 100s. Then you can make a realistic comparison between the next nearest opponents.

Regarding the collusion on the tables, it would actually make sense for it to happen on the tables rather than off, especially as there arent many tables running at the higher stakes.

Take for e.g. Littlezen and 40putts sit at the same 6 max table next to each other, Littlezen holds AQ in SB, 40putts holds AK in the BB. If they were not colluding and they both have 20bb stacks, its an obvious shove/call and the hand gets to showdown.

But what benefit for both of these guys? One SSer has doubled up and has to either leave and rathole, or is forced to play a medium stack. Forget about the rake cause its a minimal loss. Their team effort would be greatly reduced in this scenario.

So the only people who can truely verify the collusion will be FT and Stars. They need to look at the ranges of getting it in preflop, more specifically the hands which like I've highlighted above (AQ vs AK, or TT vs 99) where its an obvious get it all in when considering ranges - if they were colluding, these hands would not be observed at the tables.

i thought ppl were sorting for 20bb+ POTS, not 20bb+ wins/losses.

another question tho: if kinetica is in the BB, some random opens, 40putts shoves from the button and gets called by the original raiser, will that show up in the stats as a 20bb+ pot that both kinetica and 40putts was involved in? or is it just pots where both players put in atleast 10bb each?

The serious allegations are being made about you and only you there is no apparent reason you need to confer with Taylor or anyone else.

cliff notes: you look very guilty.

If thats the case, then nevermind. I've never been good at HEM so I'm not sure if 20bb+wins means 40putts profits 20bb+, or that he wins a pot worth 20bb+.

edit: just looked at my HEM and I'm pretty sure that 20bb+wins = pots in which I profited 20bb or more.

Stox:

If there was a huge witch hunt out to get me, I know that I would want to respond to allegations as quickly as possible. I would answer honestly, as I had nothing to hide. I want not need to wait to talk to other people/wait for them to get back into the country, etc. This is not the behavior of innocent people.

Paster: the way to solve this issue is to set effective stacks at >20 BBs. I did this with my data, but I didn't have nearly as much of a data set. I believe we can get this addressed soon with the larger dataset.

Also note that KyleJF plays CAP games almost exclusively, so he's a very good comparison, since it'll be pure ss vs ss action.

But if a decent portion of their hands will be played 11-19bb deep, aren't those hands just as important as the ones 20+?

I'd think that cap games, where everyone is 30bb deep, will almost definitely be completely different WRT getting all in than a game where a 20bb stack is exploiting 100bb stacks.

Every time someone is accused if something on these forums it is normally easy to tell if they are guilty or innocent by their responses (or lack of). If someone is making up huge lies about me to many people in my community I would be so pissed off and come out and immediately state that I did not do those things.

The people that don't get pissed off and defend themselves immediately are almost always guilty. The responses by ST just confirm this. He is now just trying to figure out how to admit to some charges that would be impossible to deny without coming totally clean.

Hopefully this is one of those rare times when that is not the case, but I doubt it.

oh shiiiit, if that source is LA he most likely made that post to damage stoxpoker/CR business? i mean if people leave those training sites (customers and coaches as well) they will join DC/leggo or maybe dragthebar where LA is instructor now.

Nah, it's pretty clear to your circle jerk of five friends who have nothing better to do than nut hug on HSNL. One by one they get exposed as cheaters and you seem to conveniently forget. "No HSNL would ever cheat. Oh wait... ok none but Brian Townsend... and FWF... and stox... and boosted... and prahlad... ok but SOME OF US still wouldn't steal or cheat for any amount of money."

Yeah, you know who wouldn't steal or cheat for any amount of money? The guy grinding out 200NL, studying his ass off but still can't manage to move up stakes. Or the guy who takes a shot at the big games because it looks like a fish, but ends up losing every time somehow. They rationalize it as running bad, when really, they are playing against team krantz or two players are splitting action so they get it in light vs each other, but play tight against others.

HSNL is a joke. For every scandal exposed there are five more that go unnoticed.


Also, if you think every person is going to either cheat or not cheat both times when there is nothing at stake vs a million being at stake - you are a retard.

kyle posts here, and he is reading the thread I believe he posted in it already

perhaps if he has a lot of hands logged with the accounts in question he'd be willing to share his info

OK, I am pretty good at statistics, but somebody's gotta pick up after me because I'm going to class.

Given the info in screenshot posted, there have been 2901 hands of 40putts vs Kinetica. As shown, there are 10785 hands between 40putts and the field minus Kinetica. Of those 10785 hands vs the field, 326 or 3.02% of them had +-20bb pots. In the 2901 hands vs Kinetica, the rate of +-20bb pots is 1.00%, or 29 total.

The expected number of +-20bb pots from 40putts rate vs others of 3.023% would be 87.7 from multiplying 2901*.0302. We can use a t-test to see if this is statistically significantly different from the observed value of 29.

t = sqrt(2901)*(87.7-29)/(0.0302*2901) = 36.05

**** This is a coincidence, but for it not to be confusing, I just want to point out that I also calculated 0.0302 as the stdev of +-20bb hands per hand played.

p=2*Pr(X>=36.05) where X has a t-distribution with n-1 = 2901-1 = 2900 degrees of freedom. X is never going to be that large for that many degrees of freedom, meaning that p is essentially 0, and we can say with ridiculous certainty that the sample of 2901 hands, 40putts is playing +-20bb pots with Kinetica at a rate that is statistically significantly lower than against other opponents.

I'm just an undergraduate so I'd love for someone to go over my work.

**Note, this is under the assumption that we can use the 10,000 hand sample vs others to calculate a true mean for +-20bb pots. It is possible that the stdev of +-20bb pots could be shown to be too high for 10,000 hands to be statistically significant to create the true mean, however, I don't believe that to be the case and will try to disprove it later.

If anyone from Full Tilt, Stars, Party or w/e security is reading this forum, you should all be mindful of whether or not Nick Grudzien is requesting withdrawls from the account in his name (which is damning evidence in my opinion, albeit circumstantial). It also can't really be that hard to look for large withdrawl and transfer requests from the small number of long-term short stacking winners in the high stakes games since these accusations came out.

grtrunner57-

Does your analysis account for the fact that Kinetica's average stack size will be shorter than the rest of the field? (Since Kinetica is a shortstacker.)

Therefore it is presumably more common for Kinetica to have a stack that makes it impossible to have a 20+ BB pot than for the field.