|
Right, all.
Their denial of the doubling bias is very carefully worded and does not preclude that a bias existed in the past:
<<It's important that the frequency distribution of the cards in an adequate sample set are evenly distributed for each position in the doubling game. We have found, taking several sample sets over different and varying lengths of time, that they yield in our opinion, a non biased distribution of the cards.>>
These sample sets could have all been taken after the doubling was fixed (which occurred after it was 'fixed'.)
If the game really were never rigged, they could very easily have included such a statement. I don't accuse them of lying per se, just trying to get away with a very skewed version of the truth.
|