Originally Posted by otatop
This is so stupidly easy to prove that you'd have to be a moron to say it without also posting the evidence.
It is stupid to say it is stupidly easy to prove without evidence. Every situation will be different. Specifically in relation to Merge it would not be easy to prove factually in the way that would convince someone who is looking for some type of clear cut math proof because you would need to have access to the RNG itself and to find out the particular way in which the results are being altered to lessen the amount of time it would take to narrow the specifics down.
Proof and detection are not the same thing. I can detect something with a high probability but it would not be provable based on that detection by itself.
What I know at this point is that there is a 90 percent or greater chance that the games on the Merge network are compromised. The final ten percent would go to determine who is responsible for the rigging.
To determine the chance of a place using house players,bots, and other tactics to steal money from players you first have to run a check list of questions to determine if you can eliminate the possibility through their current and previous actions. Their actions can go toward determining the probability that the people involved would ever consider engaging in the activity.
That is how you can determine that a site like Merge is far more likely to engage in such behavior than a site like PokerStars. Once you get through that check list you would actually have to play in the games to see how the players play in them and if your win rates in them make sense in comparison to your previous experiences in games with similar dynamics and skill levels.
If everything seems normal over an extended period of time the probability would be greatly reduced that widespread results tampering was either being allowed or taking place. If the results are abnormal you could then combine 1 and 2 and increase the significance of both in combination. Mathematically speaking as more factors exist for a possible cause of a problem the chance of that cause being correct tend to increase in a non-linear way.
The third thing you would check is to see how they handle their business outside of the suspected activity. That would be in relation to how they handle their cash-outs and customer service. If there are problems there you would try to determine if those problems cost their customers money.
The fourth thing you would do is look for evidence of customer experiences and the validity of those experiences. You would want to find out if people are trying to alter public perception through deceptive practices.
If all categories are true than there is a very high chance that the company has the capability to violate ethical standards and break the law. It is the same standard you would use to determine if you should give some parole or to hire a baby sitter.