Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="zachvac, post: 643283, member: 26306"] If you understand variance as well as you claim I'm sure you are also familiar with basic statistics. You can figure out the probability as this post did ([url]https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/how-random-a-rng-96709/post-642607.html[/url]) and he found out there was a less than 2% chance. Now if this were a random set of 22 hands, you'd be right, but I doubt you would have posted this if you hadn't received the ridiculous run of cards. Here's your assignment: Play 22 hands right now. Play 1/2 cent for all I care and just check/fold. Hell play the play money tables. Count your pocket pairs. The lower this probability is, the more of a chance it is rigged (although nothing can prove without a doubt that it's rigged, only that if it is perfectly fine, those results would be very rare, so we assume it's not if it's below a certain number). Do it and tell me how many PPs you get. That's how you use a small sample. The bigger the sample, the better though. Just make sure that before you test something you determine how many times you will do it and exactly what you are looking for, instead of making claims post facto. I could look at the fact that I got 37o, KJs, AA, 44, JTs, 39o, 28s and say the odds of that happening is (8/52)(3/51)(8/52)(1/51)(4/52)(3/51)(4/52)(3/51)(8/52)(1/51)(8/52)(3/51)(8/52)(1/51) = a very small number. And that's ignoring the order, if we take order and exact suit into account we can conclude that it's practically impossible. But that's because we did it post facto. If I make the claim beforehand that these cards will come up, and then they do, we can say there's an extremely low chance that this was due to chance, so we assume I am able to see these unfairly. Just some basic statistics that I'm sure you are familiar with if you understand variance as well as you do. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us