View Single Post
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 29th April 2006, 11:17 PM
thelawnet thelawnet is offline
Knave of Hearts
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 673
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 16
Thanked 124 Times in 61 Posts
Reputation Points: 813
Rep Power: 21
thelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmo!
From what I've seen so far, the "proof" is looking like it may have some cause for further investigation, but I think you need to move away from the argument about what is/isn't constituting proof and get more results in.
As Andreas says, proof can easily be obtained with a small sample if the cheating is as blatant as it is here.

So far we have

18 wins
27 losses
25 wins
65 losses
40 wins
55 losses
and
84 wins
151 losses

Taken together, that is
167 wins, 298 losses

The chances of that happening from a fair game is 1.5 billion to one

There is not even one sample where wins are close to losses

1.5 billion to one is enough to convince anyone.
The Following User Says Thank You to thelawnet For This Useful Post:
nektar4d (30th April 2006)