View Single Post
  #145 (permalink)  
Old 3rd May 2006, 09:28 PM
soflat soflat is offline
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 968
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 121
Thanked 266 Times in 159 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 1484
Rep Power: 25
soflat has much to be proud ofsoflat has much to be proud ofsoflat has much to be proud ofsoflat has much to be proud ofsoflat has much to be proud ofsoflat has much to be proud ofsoflat has much to be proud ofsoflat has much to be proud ofsoflat has much to be proud ofsoflat has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremiahsjohnso
Right, all.

Their denial of the doubling bias is very carefully worded and does not preclude that a bias existed in the past...
Well, yes it does.

because they say:

Quote:
Should small sample sets be used to measure this metric, then results will vary as seems to be the case tracing through this thread.
...
We trust, that we have responded adequately and any doubt in peoples' mind are put to rest.
In other words, they are claiming we did not have an adequate sample size to prove anything.

I'm not too surprised, but I am still disappointed we can get cheated so easily by online casinos. I mean, their reputation doesn't seem to even matter to them.