I own mike mautsow

[El Diablo]

TWP,

Yes just post in this thread. I have still not read the posts of the last day or so, but will do so prior to my discussions w/ the panel.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
Cliff notes:
Good2cu was doing well in some high stakes cash games. People started sweating him and after a while he lot a couple of big pots and people were speculating that he was down money. He posted in this thread that he did not lose money and was, in fact, up 10k. Posters The Worst Player and Rolen decided to make a bet on whether he was truely up 10k or not. The data they have recieved from dataminers has been inconistant and not satisfactory to award either poster the bet.

A 3rd party unbiased panel (headed by El D) is now being set up in order to determine who is the winner of the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

TY Al. Very concise and informative cliff notes.

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Rolen]

ElD, it'll take me 20 mins or so, my argument rests on a bunch of calculations.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
TWP,

The panel will decide based on this statement: "If the panel thinks that the evidence is not strong enough to conclusively award one side the win, I have no problem calling it a tie." and acceptance: "I agree."

We understand that both of you will have different opinions regarding what is a satisfactory level of proof. Please feel free to elaborate on that in your argument posts and it will be taken into account in the decision-making.

The panel will decide whether or not there is enough evidence to make a decision about the core element of the bet - whether or not g2c won that amount.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait. I do not accept the panel under this condition. Just because I agreed to have it called a tie if the panel does not think the evidence is strong enough to conclusively award it to one side does not say anything about the standard for conclusively awarding it. That standard was already established as two identical PT data sets. Nothing can change that.

[El Diablo]

TWP,

Please summarize as part of your arguments what you believe the bet to be.

I think it is too late for you to not accept the panel's decision, but of course, you can always just choose not to pay if you disagree.

[Rolen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TWP,

The panel will decide based on this statement: "If the panel thinks that the evidence is not strong enough to conclusively award one side the win, I have no problem calling it a tie." and acceptance: "I agree."

We understand that both of you will have different opinions regarding what is a satisfactory level of proof. Please feel free to elaborate on that in your argument posts and it will be taken into account in the decision-making.

The panel will decide whether or not there is enough evidence to make a decision about the core element of the bet - whether or not g2c won that amount.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait. I do not accept the panel under this condition. Just because I agreed to have it called a tie if the panel does not think the evidence is strong enough to conclusively award it to one side does not say anything about the standard for conclusively awarding it. That standard was already established as two identical PT data sets. Nothing can change that.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[jcg2005]

[ QUOTE ]
ElD, it'll take me 20 mins or so, my argument rests on a bunch of calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off let me say i am not 100% up to date on this thread, so please correct me if i have something wrong. that said. ...

I have a friend who datamines good2cu's games more than i do. I think he may have some of the incomplete info(the 7 missing 50-100 hands, and the 25-50). I am unable to reach him right now but am confident i will by tonight. If i have anything new to add i will post again later. If not bla bla meow chow

edited to see if this is even necessary given the current state of the bet....??

[NajdorfDefense]

I'm sure if that measuring-stick was the standard for the decision, then an unbiased panel will easily spot that in this thread and your arguments, and act accordingly, TWP. Don't you think?

It would be foolish of them to make up random decision-criteria that you both didn't agree on, no?

[Rolen]

Ok, here's my argument. If we add highstakes.nu's 50/100+ numbers to G2CU's 25/50 numbers, G2CU comes up way short of the +$9750 mark, the total is actually -$1562. All 200/400 data we have is identical (G2CU losing $53725), the differences are in the 50/100 data. So, which set of 50/100 data is accurate, highstakes.nu's (which shows G2CU winning $25959 in 495 minutes of play and 849 hands), or G2CU's. It's important to clarify where I got this number of hands from : If you subtract the total number of hands in highstakes's data by the number of hands that EVERY data source agrees was played at 200/400, you arrive at that number.

Now, G2CU's data shows a different story, a total of +$36617 in 842 hands. 7 hands difference (and anyone who has been following the thread knows about the mysterious 7 missing hands). Now, since highstakes has more data it would stand to reason that it is more complete. Automated dataminers don't suddenly make up hands, it's much more plausible that G2CU deleted some he didn't like. But this is not the crux of my argument.

Now, we only have one source of 25/50 data, G2CU's, but I am willing to accept it as fact as there is no reason he would doctor his PT stats against TWP and his own claim. If we add G2CU's 50/100+ data to his 25/50 data, he comes up as +$10494. However, if we add highstakes.nu's 50/100+ data to the 25/50 numbers, G2CU's day ended at -$1562.

So, who's 50/100 stats do you believe? Let's first establish a difference between 50/100 HU play and 50/100 6max. Highstakes' data and G2CU's data show identical numbers for HU play, -$4050. So the difference has to be in the 6max numbers..Indeed, G2CU's data has him winning +$40667 (with 7 less hands) while highstakes's data shows him winning $30009 in 477 minutes of playing time (obtained by adding the time from each 6max session in highstakes' data.. the importance of the playing time will become apparent later.)

So, which set of data is accurate? Instict probably tells you that the automated dataminer that runs a datamining website and is impartial as to who wins the bet has probably provided more accurate data than the guy who's been called out..Nevermind that fact that highstakes data is more complete. But that's not proof.

This is: The second dataminer's stats are IDENTICAL to highstakes'. (Our criteria for winning the bet, remember, is two identical sources pointing in the same direction.) The second dataminers stats have G2CU winning +$30009 in 7.95 hours. Familiar? Well, 7.95 hours = 477 minutes. The second dataminers stats are indentical, to the nearest dollar won and the nearest minute played, to highstakes.nu's. These independant, unbiased dataminers have produced identical results for 50/100 6max and 200/400, (everything in highstakes.nu's stats correlates exactly with the second dataminers if you account for the lack of HU results) both of which conflict with G2CU's data by 7 hands and more than $10K. This confirms highstakes's accuracy and G2CU's lack thereof.

Add highstakes' 50/100+ data to G2CU's 25/50 data, and the result is -$1562. I have also been able to produce two identical, independant sources that agree with my point of view.

Questions?

-Max.

EDIT : small change to first paragraph

[TheWorstPlayer]

Well I just want to have confirmation that the panel understands and acknowledges the standards by which it has been agreed that they will judge. I don't want there to be any confusion. Is there any reason why El Diablo and the other panel members are not willing to acknowledge that the only standard for them to use is the one which was agreed upon prior to the bet and which has now been confirmed by both participants in the bet? That standard is two identical PT data sets.