Hypothetical: Value of proof major site has flawed/biased hand results

[Spaggy]

Interesting input so far.

Brewmanchu - Given the hypothetical nature of this scenario, blackmail can not be dropped as a possible action when quantifying the worth of the data. I would think that blackmail (or something similar to it) would be the riskiest but most profitable use of the info. I also know little to nothing about selling stories to newspapers and such, but I imagine there could be outlets that would pick it up (or going back to blackmail, outlets that would pay to make sure it didn't get picked up).


CSC - my argument (that the data has value) assumes that A. you haven't told the site (at least not yet), and B. that the data is extensive, multi-player, and statistically unlikely enough to be ruled out as "variance" by the site. While the goal of a site "cheating" would almost definitely be to increase rake, I decided to include the possibility of favored players and rigged hands because it comes up at least twice a week, if not more.

Imagine the scenario like this: you just figured out that the odds of the hand results you looked at are 1 in 10 billion/trillion/whatever, and you've found the pattern/logic that ties all the different players together. So you have what is essentially concrete proof of voluntary hand manipulation (for whatever reason), and it's organized and presentable.

Obviously in order to have anything like this, you'd need a system that categorizes certain types of hands where money gets all in and the favorite is ahead by X% and loses, or something like that). I'm not a math wizard by any means, but I'm sure there is a certain point (even with smaller sample sizes) where the outcomes were so unlikely that it's as statistically close to impossible as it could get unless the site was manipulating the cards in some fashion. How the results were obtained is not a key point, as long as the evidence is conclusive.