[apefish]

The problem with an in depth math approach is this: who are you trying to explain it to?

The idea behind leaving the math/variance debate out of the cliffsnotes this time was to put what we know out in public view and not let yet another thread get bogged down in one particular spot.
Examples from the previous threads that come immediately to mind...

1)"This is how I think the cheater did it" "zomg no you're a tard it has to be THIS way." "stfu you obviously know nothing about hax."

2)"I've run hot like this before I don't see anything wrong." "okay provide any 200 hand stretch where you replicate something like these numbers" "zomg I know I have I just can't find it right now".

3)(insert random debate about math here)


This episode of suspected cheating doesn't pass the sniff test for many winning/expert poker players.

Undoubtedly you could explain a good portion of it away with some variance issues much like monkeys eventually typing works of shakespeare.
The problem is these particular monkeys all started typing shakespeare at the same time in the same manner.

Don't forget that despite Absolute Poker saying they've investigated and in some communications "found no wrongdoing" these accounts have yet to make another appearance at Absolute.

There is certainly some good to come out of a math discussion on this. It just bogs the thread down.