Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo_Boy
Yet there are many that disagree, who have as much as evidence for their theories as you do
We know there are known knowns: there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns: that is to say we know there are things we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.
So in conclusion, what exactly are the known unknowns to you, which are unknown unknowns to everybody else.
Bingo_Boy, here's a dilemma for you. A program called SECT measures your Expected winnings at showdown for all showdown hands in your HEM database versus your actual winnings in all showdown hands. However, most statisticians argue that it is meaningless because without knowing whether you were ahead in non-showdown hands when they ended makes this measurement biased and statistically not significant.
But according to Monteroy, showdown hands are sufficient data to detect any patterns caused by rigging by a poker site. But that view conflicts with the view that the data provided by showdown hands is too biased for statistical analysis. So which is it?
If Monteroy is right, then the fact that according to my SECT stats, I won only about 95% of my expected showdown winnings in my showdown hands over about 1.1 million hands may be evidence that something is not right with the poker sites (mostly AP and PS) where I played these hands.
But if Monteroy is not right, then I am right that players do not have the data and evidence to detect rigging in non all in hands.
You "no way any site is rigged" cannot have it both ways. Either data provided by showdown hands means something or it doesn't. If it does, then my stats are evidence of possible rigging. If it doesn't, then it is not possible for players to detect all potential rigging by poker sites.