[Josem]

in answer to my own question in bold, i think the following analogy is fair and reasonable. i've been thinking about this, and I am increasingly confident that if the cheater had a VPIP of 90%, then there is a 99.99890581% chance that he is cheating.


Let's say, hypothetically speaking, someone had a secret way to win the lottery (a 1 in 100,000 chance in this particular lottery). You say to this person, "prove it."

So, this person goes away, picks their numbers, and wins the 1 in 100,000 lottery.

Thus, either they won the lottery randomly (ie, it really was a 1 in 100,000 chance) or they cheated. 99.99890581% of the time they will have cheated.


I think the same thing applies here - because the cheater was accused before the data became available.

Obviously, it is not reasonable to accuse someone of winning the lottery of being a cheater after they have won the suspicious - at that time, the lottery win is in the past, and thus has a 100% chance of having occurred (it already did).

However, because the cheater was accused before the data became available - and we then tested the data on our existing hypothesis, I'm now confident, with a 99.99890581% certainty, that the accused cheater was actually cheating