Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ222
If you cannot understand facts or ideas, you cannot reach a valid conclusion.
That is indeed the impression you seem to leave with many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ222
In all aspects of life. Probability / statistics are cut and dry.
People with extreme agendas tend to interpret their numbers in ways that cannot be verified by other sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ222
Interpretations can vary, but if you cannot understand the facts or ideas, you cannot have an opinion. Those people need to be called stupid.
Your theory is one that should be extremely easy to prove in a way that is beyond you shouting a lot. Why not go to the probability forum and propose a project to do this with details as to how the research will be done. The stats freaks there are much nicer anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ222
People assume the software is truely random / legit. Built by gamblers. Red King a tax shelter. Those people need to be called stupid.
Fine, let's pretend it is not random. Why are you a specific target?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ222
If you check online there are stats that show that middle hands win too often on FTP.
Cool, a new riggedology theory - "middle hands."
Lots have said worse hands win too much or big stacks win too much, but now we have "middle hands" win too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ222
Also, it has been shown that the best hand preflop loses significantly more often by the river then statstics would dictate.
I am assuming this is the study that shows that the best hand preflop in games wins x% of the time. You are leaving out the fairly important point that these were not just all in preflop hands. A lot of time the best hand preflop is folded preflop in games.
That study does not show what you believe it does, but if you have a different study in mind link it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ222
Those stats are not up for debate, it is fact. So at least, people have to admit that the RNG is flawed.
Sadly for you declaring things facts and saying it is not subject to debate does not actually mean that is correct, and in fact no true stats guy would ever make a declaration like that.
Hope this helps, all the best.
P.S. Thanks for the cool new middle hand riggedology theory