I have to admit, it could've been a "glitch" until this response.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thelawnet
The worst possible choice for them. It's proof that they were cheating deliberately - they could have claimed a software error accidentaly added, but no they deny that the game was unfair and add some bullshit about the distrinution converging on 50% over time
|
Exactly. If it were a genuine "glitch" they would know about it, been able to explain it and then take the necessary remedial action. What they've done is denied it. This was a terrible mistake because the denial is pointless. These results could never, NEVER result from a fair game. They have failed to grasp this here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Casinomeister
In theory, the number of Wins versus the number of losses and (excluding ties) will converge to 50% over a sample set that is large enough. Should small sample sets be used to measure this metric, then results will vary as seems to be the case tracing through this thread.
|
Incorrect. You do not need a large sample to prove this. The size required is dependent on the conjecture being tested. Ten hands is enough to prove cheating / non-randomness if those ten hands are, for example, ten consecutive blackjacks, or ten fully blank draws on 10-line video poker.
English Harbour simply do not understand this, and think they can wing on the limited sample size.
Regarding "crooks" and "cheaters": I suppose it's down to your interpretation. I sell you a Ferrari, at a Ferrari price, without telling you it has a Skoda engine. Does that make me a cheat / crook?
'Fraid it does.