Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound
What I find interesting is how simple you have to make your examples so people will understand and they still don't get. 3 groups as a see it:
1. They do understand but have an interest in making sure people dont understand. (Like employed by the online poker industry). These are the people that want UIGEA repealed but voted for Bush and continue to vote republican.
2. They truely dont understand.
3. They do understand.
Group 1 you waste your time replying to their posts. They are probably the ones most likely to hurl insults in their posts as well.
Group 2 usally they dont even know they dont understand but continue to post as if the do.
Group 3 read and respond intelligently as well as make points that give u pause for reflection and help to sharpen your presentation.
Ok, so which group are you in? 2?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound
Great job with the smoke and mirrors argument sir! Some deviation does not mean things are rigged. Cheating can be disquised and the best cheaters know this. If I got cheated 1 hand out of 100,000 - could I prove it to anyones satisfaction by statistical evidence alone. Obvioulsy not. The greater the sample size the easier to dilute the easier to decieve.
Hypothetical : I cheat you in live game by dealing off the bottom of the deck and win a $5000 pot off you. You dont see it and I only do it once. You win the rest of the hands. You end up down only $1000.00. Walk away never suspecting a thing. Just got unlucky.
But what if I deal off the bottom of the deck every hand and every hand u lose. So u start watching how I deal and u see Im dealing off the bottom. Im busted. You shoot me or never play with me again.
Now if i spread that dealing off the bottom over a much larger number of hands (sample) u are less likely to notice and I am more likely to make more money off you. I let u win sometimes and tell u see you just have to play 100,000 hands to see if I'm cheating.
Your arrogance aside, (and yes thinking that you must be right because you say so makes you arrogant) here are a couple things for you to consider...
1. Thank you for pointing out that the facts I brought to this arguement are smoke and mirrors. If you do not want the arguement to go beyond playground tactics, then hey, you win. But Im rubber and you're glue and what ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you..unless you say something nice about me.
2. When making chosing a hypothetical comparisson, you should really try to stick closer to the topic at hand. Your "If I were to cheat you in a live game" arguement is flawed because:
if you were the type of player to cheat at poker it would not be just once because human nature would require you to do it more often. you know that whole greed thing. now, you can argue this point as much as you want, but you will never be able to find any solid proof.
if you were cheating, there would be enough of a question in the 'losers' mind, assuming they had one, to realize something was funny. they would then, more than likely, look for proof. Now, I am not talking 'gee my aces got cracked both times i had them in the last 50 hands' type of proof, im talking 'oh gee, look at that, hes bottom dealing' proof. at which point it ends.
3. Your original arguement, which is based on the premise that 100K hands is too large of a sample to get really analytics, is faulty because your premise is faulty.
As I stated originally, there are 8.06 x 10^67 (80.6 thousand vigintillion) possible combinations for a 52 card deck to be dealt in. To take a sample, even as small as 100K is not enough to make a proper analysis. If it were, companies like Cigital, Inc. and Rational Entertainment Enterprises Limited would not have needed 103 million hands to resolve 'Is poker a game of skill'
But hey, what could those data analysis companies possibly know about stats and analysis and standard deviation.
When you respond, as I am sure you will, please try to actually have some facts or a proper basis for your arguement other than 'I think its too big even though I have never studied statistics'. Assuming you can do that I will happily continue to show you the holes in your logic, if not..."Im rubber and you're glue and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you...unless it is something nice."