Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
That's a commonly misunderstood topic on 2+2. Sample size is already incorporated into any proper analysis of data.
If I said, "FullPartyPoker is rigged! I just opened an account there last night and played 95 hands and I can tell you there is no way that's a fair site!!! It's either rigged against me or full of bugs!"
You (and everybody else reading it) would instantly say (or think), "LOLsamplesizeaments."
Seems this is an obvious case of an inadequate sample size. Not sure what your point is, but in this scenario that is why people suggest they need more data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
If I then replied, "Every single hand I got was 32," and I somehow proved it, you might ask me why the hell I kept playing after 4 or 5 hands, but you wouldn't be thinking that my sample size was too small any more. You'd be thinking that my sample size of 95 hands was so astronomically gigantic that it constituted irrefutable proof something was wrong with FullPartyPoker.
Similarly if every day you were walking on a deserted path and flowers covered in skunk juice singing the theme song from "Ghostbusters" randomly landed on your head from nowhere and you somehow proved it, I would say "wow, look at what you actually proved!"
Problem is "somehow I proved it" is not the same as , you know, actually proving something.
So yes, if you somehow proved you could shoot lethal lightning bolts from your ass, I would not need a huge sample size to confirm it.
Thus, if your point is "if I somehow prove something impossible can happen, will you then believe me?" Umm, sure ok. Of course that has nothing to do with actual statistical analysis in the real world sense.
Again, if it is some theoretical discussion you seek, do so in the appropriate forum. The other gambling area even has a ton of threads on whether roulette systems can work with in theory infinite bankrolls. That seems to be the type of discussion you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
Okay, I think I'm gonna give up. It's clear we're not getting past this, and I don't spend enough time here to make it worth the effort.
Would it help if somehow we proved you made your point in an effective manner in the correct forum?