[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if I say how much statistics I've studied in my life (none or some or much), you will still say the same thing.

I don't think it's sensational for several people to play a simple strategy and get that close numbers.

Adde

[/ QUOTE ]

It absolutely does matter, because we can test for statistically significant difference based on the data given and sample size. It's not like I just looked at the numbers and said "oh boy those look close enough, I guess they must be bots!" Apparently your judgment, however, was doing just that, looking at the numbers and coming to a conclusion that has absolutely no support behind it.

The chances 4 people could play on their own and get numbers that close, over that large of a sample is close to impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

just a silly though that came to me -- IF, in the sweatshop there was NOT 1 account uniquely assigned to each individual sweatshopper...e.g. sometimes player #1 played on account #1, but not always and sometimes he played on #2 and #3, and all 3 sweatshoppers did this (let's say just hypothetically it was random who played on which account so that at the end of the day, after 100K hands played on each account, each of the 3 users was responsible for approx 1/3 of that), then might that not be one way that we would expect to see alarming conformity between the 3 accounts' statistics? e.g. it would theoretically be possible for the 3 sweatshoppers to use "the system" in markedly different ways (yes, making different decisions given the same scenario), but as long as they were randomly assigned an account to play on, over the long run, the statistics would approach uniformity.
(This relies on the assumption that the same individual never deviated from his OWN use of "The System"...see >> if each of the 3 people applied "The System" slightly differently, but never deviated from HIS OWN application thereof, then statistics for the 3 accounts would gradually approach uniformity)

p.s. i still think something shadier was going on here...just thinking about hypothetical explanations.