[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- I argue that the reason all of the data is so similar is that he is playing on all of them. Think about this: Take 400k hands and split them up into four 100k chunks. Won't the data for each of these 100k hands be very similar to each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

But VPIP, which should obviously be identical across the board, is statistically different between the 4 accounts listed.

[/ QUOTE ]


DW,

Please don't keep repeating that if you can't address my earlier point that you have to prove that VPIP is alone sufficient to make a determination here for that to matter if true. That is, you have to prove the other stats together can't trump VPIP in making this determination.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your argument is that VPIP is allowed to differ as long as other, less frequent, stats are the same?

The case for botting would not be "majority rules", it's all or nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]


This as I said is the topic for another thread. You have by no means proven that less frequent stats are less telling than VPIP. In fact the opposite *could* be true. I'm not saying you have no point, but that again you haven't proved VPIP alone to be sufficient to make the determination or not.