|
It's extremely important that the figures are not just grouped together from some distant date. I doubt the gaff was in place on January 1st since, as already noted, it'd have been picked up on most likely. Assuming it was in place no earlier than (say) early April, those earlier fair results will dilute the the effect of the cheating results, with the extent dependent on how recently the gaff was put in place.
In order for this not to happen, the results need to be looked at on a daily basis at least.
Even then, there is still risk of diluting the effect, since we don't know how the gaff was set up - overall, individual accounts or whatever.
The Casino Bar experiment was conducted over less hands, if I recall correctly, and the probability was MUCH, much less - I think somewhere in the trillions. As such, I'm curious to know exactly why these results, far worse in terms of probability, are not immediate evidence of rigging, where the Casino Bar experiment results were. The only difference is that the Casino Bar test was set up in the correct manner, whereas here we're selectively looking backwards at data which fits the contention. Other than that, the results here are far, far worse than anything Casino Bar ever did.
|