Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
This post was from earlier in that thread. It eventually led to the thought experiment that is getting reproduced here. Back when this exchange took place, in March, it was very common to see claims about how easy it would be to prove rigging by a site. The usual accusation was that "rigtards" never brought any proof.
The did not and still have not and indeed most of their beliefs would be very easy to test, which has always been one of my main complaints about their theories. If the sites were indeed pulling off a massive conspiracy they would at least do it in a way that would not be that easy to catch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
My position was, and is, that it might be extremely difficult to prove rigging, depending on how the rigging was accomplished. This is especially true if all someone has to go on is his own hand histories. Nothing at all can be proved by this unless the site is as dumb as potripper was.
But it is not a population in isolation. You test your hand histories, I test mine, others test theirs, and if a pattern emerges that is incorrect it will be detected. I am not the expert like spade, but he has made it very clear that basically anything can be tested, and given that one has to assume that nearly everything is tested by the playing public. Basic checks and balances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
And this is the problem. No one is going to invent a hypothesis for testing without having observed it already. If this were a natural phenomenon, we wouldn't mind that the hypothesis came only after they experienced and observed the data, because if the hypothesis is true, the result will be repeatable. In real life, this is how most hypotheses are born, anyway.
You have a very odd sense of how things work at times. Spade is working on a massive hand history analysis that will analyze all sorts of scenarios. I am sure others have as well.
Even if it is natural, one would still need to to some study to determine if it is an accurate observation. My left arm got bitten more by bugs then my right arm. Does that prove anything? Well, no unless we see that through a decent sample size that trend continues.
You are doing the thinking version of fancy play syndrome in complexifying some rather simple processes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
But this isn't a natural phenomenon. It's a man-made activity that can be changed on a whim by human beings. What happened last month or year might have nothing to do with what happens this week or today. In other words, the experiment might not be repeatable even if the hypothesis is true. This isn't something that is following the laws of physics or chemistry or biology and will continue to follow those laws tomorrow and the next day.
You are ignoring a key component of humans, namely that with all of the humans changing the rigging on a whim with their coffee, one of them would have told by now. That is simple human behavior.
Your odd mix of 90s trance and Orwellian controlled humans doing what they are told without no one ever finding out for years over hundreds of sites fails the real world common sense test even if you ignore all of the math.
Your theoretical world simply cannot exist based on the current limitations of humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
You can't point to the fact someone's horrible run with KK running into AA wasn't repeated and say, "See, that's proof it was just a bad run." That's no more proof that it was a bad run than the bad run is proof that it was rigged.
It is not proof of anything. To prove it is rigged you need to use unbiased data of an adequate size to statistically prove your theory. Many do that every day, and many here have explained how to do it.
You seem to think it all ends with a mystery after a random guy says his luck is impossible. It does not if he chooses to properly study it. Most riggedologisats do not because they have no real data other then what they think they remember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
I'm snipping that here because it's starting to get tiresome seeing the same trivial illustrations of simple probability and statistics. Please, just leap to the conclusion that I have somehow managed to wrest a horribly primitive yet sufficient understanding of math from some source or other. We can save a lot of time that way. If you get too deep for me, I'll let you know.
You are the one trying to make this into some grand philosophical, mystical debate when it really is only about basic human behavior and basic statistical analysis.
Massive conspiracies involving hundreds or thousands of people over the years for hundreds of poker rooms (many of which are now defunct) which has never been discovered either by a whistle blower or the immense amount of statistical studies and data available simply fails basic common sense. Come back from the ethereal plane for a minute and try to explain how this would not have happened yet if all of the sites were indeed rigged.
Your thinking exercise may seem significant to you, but you could form the exact same deep thoughts about whether people can teleport. Reality is simpler - when I see someone teleport I will believe someone can teleport.
Or as the cliche goes - if pigs had wings they could fly.