Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
No, I'm trying to explain why a hypothesis about rigging might be verified in the analysis of one set of data and refuted in the next, no matter whether there was actual rigging or not.
Sheesh. Again, it depends on the sample sizes, and seriously - what you define as a hypothesis of rigging being verified is basically not that. Your models are all hypothetical constructs or they are a single size of data (ie: your buddy) that in and by itself proves nothing, mainly because you build the beliefs based on cherry picking the data for weird outcomes (which are going to happen by chance within any set of data).
You have a completely flawed way of looking at how data analysis works, so it is difficult to answer your questions to your satisfaction because you create a world in your interpretation of stats that simply does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
You're skipping away from that and are now claiming that they would be caught anyway because somebody would tell. Even though I happen to agree that it's extremely likely someone would have told by now, that's irrelevant.
OK, most humans in this thread are working on the premise of "rigged or not?" for the online poker rooms when posting. With that in mind , the above is hardly irrelevant.
I have no idea what your deep thinking, mystical agenda here is any more, I guess it has nothing to actually do with whether online poker is rigged, but it is more of a spiritual journey on your part.
My claim is simple - even if one ignores the complete availability of data, if online poker was rigged, someone "in the know" what have told by now - which you agree with apparently. Thus, realistically online poker is not rigged.
The title of this thread is "The great "Poker is rigged debate." Meaning of Life stuff should probably be in the theology area or maybe BBV4Life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
That's so strange and far removed from anything I've ever said that I really have no response to it.
No, it's only about basic statistical analysis. Human behavior hasn't really entered into this thought experiment. I'm not sure why you think I want it to be a "grand philosophical, mystical debate." Maybe because I didn't use any math to describe statistical concepts? If you prefer equations we can do that, but it's not necessary and it's kind of awkward with ASCII.
Well, when you adjust your "thought experiment" to be about the specific topic then we can probably relate a bit more in this thread.
The topic is whether online poker is rigged or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
And now you've lost the thread completely. You're coming up with arguments that the sites are not rigged and you're utterly missing the fact that I am not arguing that they are.
The topic of this thread is whether online poker is rigged or not. Most people are debating that very simple concept which is probably why they seem to be missing the mark with your "thought experiment," which it seems has nothing to do with the only real topic in this thread.
Construct your thoughts in a more clear way and post it in the stats forum where a bunch of crazed math geeks live that can answer your questions.
Here, we debate whether online poker is rigged, so most will assume when you post that you actually have an opinion on that topic. Is there a flaw in this logic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
My argument is only about the difficulty in statistically proving that they are or are not rigged. It has never been about anything else. All the mystical Orwellian ethereal plane stuff you're talking about is something you conjured up all by yourself.
Fine, then take your thought experiment to the proper forum for it to be discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
Also, you didn't answer the followup question. Here it is again:
Okay, I'm back. I've done as you asked and learned the basics of probability. I also brought a friend who believes he's doomswitched. The problem he's been having has that same low one in ten thousand probability.
You say this sort of thing happens three times a second. For the purpose of this discussion, let's pretend that number is accurate. In that case, I'm sure you'll agree that my finding one person who has had such a bad run is meaningless.
My question, then, is this: given the staggering number of players online and the number of hands dealt every day, about how many one-in-ten-thousand "doomswitched" people would I have to find in order to consider it significant and worthy of a thread on this forum?
Well, how many?
Go to the stats forum and ask specific steps you need to run this analysis.
Most responses you get in this thread will be, shockingly, about whether your question proves the sites are rigged. You know, because the topic of this thread is...
In that regard, as has been said to you many times before, you will need to define the specific conditions you are looking for before analyzing the data, and then test it on an adequate sample size of data.
You can use your friend's database if you like, but you cannot look at it, see a 10,000-1, and then say wow that is strange. That is not how statistical analysis works.
You can list ten 4 digit numbers in a row, any you like and I will easily find a pattern that is very rare. The trick is defining the patterns you are looking for before you look at the data.
If that did not answer your deep thought experiment then again I suggest you actually post your questions in the forums where it actually fits. While proper forum selection for a post is a mundane exercise compared to a thought experiment, it is quite a bit more effective in actually getting results.
All the best.