Latest cliffsnotes on Absolute soulreading.

[knappis]

[ QUOTE ]
My suggestion would be to emphasize the number of correct river decisions in a row in a limit game. For example, say there is a 75% chance that a player is ahead if you're betting on the river. Then, if he makes, for example, 50 out of 55 correct decisions in a row, then he's several standard deviations away from the norm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just tried your idea. Since I couldn't come up with a way to calculate the standard deviaion I used a bootstrap technique drawing 10.000 samples. The mean is ofc 41.25 and the standard deviation was estimated at 3.22.

The odds of 50 out of 55 correct descisions was estimated at 288 to 1

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence should be overwhelming in favour of this cheating

[/ QUOTE ].

These kind of assumptions are very common in this thread. I guess to few people bother to check the validity of these claims. The evidence is far from overwhelming.

However, I do think the model is too simple. All descisions don't have the same probability of beeing correct (how hard is it when you have the nut flush? or 23o that missed?). One thing to keep in mind also is that if this guy wasn't cheating he was running hot and part of running hot is having easy decisions.