Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BrandonJoseph47, why is this thread so important to you? I haven't had the time to read this entire thread that has grown gargantuan in size in no time flat. But even then, I find it strange that you have never posted in 2+2 before in anything else at all, and yet your post count has already reached 26 with all posts in this one singular thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then go back and read the thread. It will make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the time I post something, the answer's already appeared. This thread is nuts. It's the fastest growing thread, I've ever tried to read. By the time, I post this, there'll probably be 10 new posts. Ughhh...

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

Listen folks. I've said before, we are not CRUSHING 1/2. But with money from tables and rake back, we are doing quite well. Better than when we started. We are learning, adapting, and adjusting our play at our own pace. For those of you who say we have no desire to improve, that's just plain wrong. You can criticize all you want, but the fact is, it's a fun stress free environment. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

donktastic,

the fact that you think i should be removed as mod just because i'm defending chuck's actions (which are within the t&c) is so LOL.

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

So, so shady.

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

One thing those "involved" in this situation need to realize is this...

Not everyone on this board is stupid.

In fact quite the opposite. There are lots of VERY intelligent, very logical, very street smart people on this board.

Basically, you aren't dealing with a bunch of drooling, ignorant fools, and people here have very sophisticated BS filters

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

Let me preface this by saying that I want to learn more about statistics testing, so please point out any mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]
First, I said it fell outside the 95% hypothesis. But I think my results are a bit better than cherrypicking the two most dissimilar results and comparing just those--the issue is with all four of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm picking the two results that have almost equal sample sizes and so whatever strategy the guy made to the playbook would have equally influenced both of them.

First I used a Goodness of Fit test to test the hypothesis that the VPIPs of the 4 players were different:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

That was almost 99% confident. Then somebody said that their strategy could change and therefore make the VPIPs of the two accounts with least played hands differ from the other two. So, I chose the two that had very similar hand samples. Since Trebek datamined randomly and he claimed the players played at almost the same times, we can assume whatever strategy change they made half-way through the game (or quarter through, or w/e) would affect both equally.

That's how I did my two sample population proportion test.

Also, like I said, you're rejecting something with 95% confidence based solely on "feel" and looking at them, you don't have any objective way. It seems like the only way you'd reject botting would be if all 4 differed from the mean by more than 3SDs...which to me seems impossible. I really think the flaw is in your test.


[ QUOTE ]
And I've dealt with enough tests to know that 2.5SD while according to the 'book' is enough to reject, especially with other issues going on. It reminds me of a quote from a physics prof here (about physics results): "half of all three sigma results are wrong".

What I'm saying is that 'rejecting' a 2.5 SD result while technically correct is a little quick. A slight tweak or human intervention a little bit could cause this difference, and thus just isn't convincing in my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a point that stats tests aren't 100% accurate, and you probably have a ton more experience with stats testing than I do. However, my test was over 2.9SDs away, and one of yours was 2.6, which is more than 2.5.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and I think you have an extra 0 in there? 3SD is 99%, so shouldn't that be 0.03, not 0.003?

[/ QUOTE ]

Surprisingly, no. I think the rule is 68-95-99.5, so 3SDs is approximately 99.5.

I was also surprised to see that it was .003, but you can verify it for yourself on a calc (I actually used the table in the back of my stats book and rounded Z to 2 decimal places).

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experim...sis/zCalc.html

Enter Z as -2.675179739, and you'll see it's 0.003734.

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

[ QUOTE ]
donktastic,

the fact that you think i should be removed as mod just because i'm defending chuck's actions (which are within the t&c) is so LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't just defending their actions - you have alluded to being much more involved than that, including playing there and almost taking a stake in it.

I'm sorry but the whole thing is completely rotten and the fact that you don't think its a big deal makes the case even stronger imo.

Nothing personal...

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

[ QUOTE ]


Bet River:

2497/575 = 0.230276332
961/216 = 0.224765869
2403/538 = 0.223886808
1836/411 = 0.223856209


[/ QUOTE ]

Quoting myself here, but I don't care. Look at the friggin numbers here! Look at the last two! This is NOT possible for river bets by two different humans. Hell, this is not possible by the same human on two different accounts.

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

[ QUOTE ]
The whole thing is SHADY AS [censored]

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

Can some mod check BrandonJoseph's ip address and verify he's posting from Pennsylvania and not some 12 year old kid in California?