Quote:
Originally Posted by svindaloo
Lol that's not how science works. No one says "I hypothesize X is true, try and disprove it." If what you say was right, tons of pseudoscience would be considered true, since it can't be proven to be false. If you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove that it's likely true, not on other people to prove it's falsehood.
I never said anything about who the burden of proof is on. You're attacking a strawman.
There are TONS of ways to support the model of a flat earth (seriously, look them up). It doesn't make it true. What does make it
not true is that it just takes a single thing to ruin it: Ships going over the horizon, for example.
Hypothesis testing never says the hypothesis (whichever one you're running) is true, the results always only reach "We reject the alternative hypothesis"
All that said, an aggregate of a lot of testing strengthens ones theory (in this case: Mike playing hands amazingly), but it would still basically be better to have just one showing the opposite (Mike punting off a stack he didn't have to). The complete lack of "punting" hands" (punting results wise) are in my opinion an even stronger proof than all the hands he played "great"
Like, how does he always call and then outplay postflop when he has AK vs AK or QQ vs QQ? Ridiculous