I own mike mautsow

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
a good post is a rarity on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP. And thanks.

[TheWorstPlayer]

It's still 1K. The 100 was just if it had to be decided by poll because we all know polls are retarded and that would have just been for fun, basically. Now that we have a panel and some more data mining evidence we're sticking with the 1k obviously. And of course someone will get paid if the panel rules that one of us has satisfied the burden of proof necessary to win the bet.

[El Diablo]

All,

nath is the third member of the panel.

We are currently evaluating two questions:

1: is the data provided effectively equivalent to two independent data sets as they agreed

and

2: is the data believable taking all counter data into account

We will make a final ruling after jcg has provided more info or says he doesn't have any. If we haven't heard from jcg, we will make a ruling by Monday using the evidence currently available.

[iAmAddicted]

El D,
i have jcg2005 on Aim...i'll talk to him and tell him to post in this thread.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

nath is the third member of the panel.

We are currently evaluating two questions:

1: is the data provided effectively equivalent to two independent data sets as they agreed

and

2: is the data believable taking all counter data into account

We will make a final ruling after jcg has provided more info or says he doesn't have any. If we haven't heard from jcg, we will make a ruling by Monday using the evidence currently available.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, maybe it's paranoia, but I have seen these problems several times before so I just want to clarify. It is two identical data sets. (Not two 'close' independent data sets.) What I am worried about is that one set will have a few extra hands and a few dollars different or whatever and people will say 'close enough'. But then it will turn out that it was actually just a coincidence and was actually based on the wrong session, or missing big hands up and other equally big hands down, and will basically be completely unreliable. Identical, I will of course agree is not possible to be a coincidence. But if there are no results which are identical, then I am telling you right now I'm not going to agree that the burden has been met.

[El Diablo]

TWP,

"a) is data functionally equiv to two corroborated data sets"

is how I put it to the panel.

[TheWorstPlayer]

LOL. Why would you change the language instead of copying and pasting? But ok. As long as there is no reasonable room for doubt, obviously I'm fine with it. I'm just saying that 'close' does not mean there is no room for doubt (which is WHY we agreed on identical in the first place).

[markum9]

[ QUOTE ]
TWP, Rolen:

I did a quick review of everything and I don't think I have any questions for either of you.

I'm going to give some time to see if some add'l data comes up via jcg or g2c, but otherwise I think we have everything we need from both sides to judge.

[/ QUOTE ]

New evidence has just surfaced. May I submit exhibit A:

[El Diablo]

TWP,

"Why would you change the language instead of copying and pasting?"

BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY TYPED IT IN RETARD, PLEASE STOP TRYING TO BIAS ME AGAINST YOU!!!!!

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
TWP,

"Why would you change the language instead of copying and pasting?"

BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY TYPED IT IN RETARD, PLEASE STOP TRYING TO BIAS ME AGAINST YOU!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Haha. OK, I've gotta run anyways, so good luck in your deliberations.