TOC champion

[BillyJoe]

Geez, Edog...

[edog743]

What, Billyjoe care to expound on your GEEZ.
I stand by everything I said if anything I said offended you I am truly sorry.

[Tedlark]

edog I am wondering why YOU tried to steer the forum toward a racial issue when it hadn't been mentioned at all here. You always get offended when someone brings up Native Americans and casinos in a negative light but you tried to get the ball rolling here by reverse baiting the forum members.
 
I, too, would like to see an answer from you on webman's question.

[edog743]

It was answered Ted I think you missed it.
I looked the post over again. I believe I answered all of his question's. If I missed one please point it out.

[edog743]

As far as the racial thing, Ted I was making a comparison betwixt what I said about this site. Compared to almost daily grousing about casino's tribal and non tribal. People can say what they want here about casino's but god forbid do not question anything you find strange or unusual here. If you do you find yourself public enemy #1.

[Webman]

god forbid do not question anything you find strange or
unusual here. If you do you find yourself public enemy #1.Actually, we appreciate when discrepancies are pointed out. If there is credible
evidence that something has gone wrong or is not
consistent with what should actually be expected, we always take a good look at
it to make sure there is not a problem, and if there is, to resolve it. I
have no problem with people pointing out problems and when issues are
found, the site is made better by fixing them. But your accusations are
more in line with things being "fixed" for a variety of reasons, and
ultimately boil down to either a lack of understanding of what should be
expected, or simply being unhappy about who won. The problem is that
your accusations lack credibility, made abundantly clear with your
expectations of winning outlined previously in this topic and likening
"winning" in a casino (making a profit) to winning (getting first place)
in a contest against 5,000 players. The latter, in a perfectly fair
game, is to be expected FAR less frequently, as in THOUSANDS of times
less frequently, yet you infer that this is somehow evidence that the deck is
stacked against you and other players when you only get second place a couple times and win a random entry into the TOC.You are constantly
suspicious of events that occur, and I have no problem with suspicion.
But when you vocalize things as evidence of a conspiracy, yet they are
perfectly normal occurrences that should be expected in a fair game (if
you have an understanding of it), then it becomes a nuisance after a
while because it has been explained many times over. Pointing out
players whose names have appeared more than once when it is so difficult
to reach the top ten is not evidence of a problem when you understand
randomness. Some players this will happen to, because each day, everyone
has the same chance... including the player who won yesterday or the
day before. This is true of a fair game and expected, and if it never happened, it would be a potential problem. The same is true of those great
hands we all see come out on top. We see the "unlikely" every day in
some form or another, and this is to be expected. Video poker is not a game of equal results and average scores day in and day out. That's not to
say that you shouldn't keep your eye out for problems, but you need to
make an attempt to understand the explanations for these things so that
you can better judge what is a genuine problem and what is genuine luck
within reasonable analysis.Some people understand this already,
and that is why your opinion is unpopular... not because it "rocks the
boat" but because it is based on a lack of understanding. So I'm trying
to be continually patient and help you better understand.You say
none of these things are directed at me, but that's pretty much
impossible so I do take it a little personally. I have looked at the
code for the games that handles the dealing of cards, I built large portions of the contests myself, and I
have told you that each and every card is selected at random for all
players, and the winners are selected in a fair manner based on the
cards they receive and their decisions of what to hold, in a fair game.
If you dispute this, you are calling me a liar. That doesn't mean we don't have bugs from time to time, but that is different than your accusations.If you simply asked questions about how an event could happen or why something is the way it is, it would be more
productive and "popular" because it would show that you want to learn
and understand. But when every "question" comes along with an
inferred accusation, that's different.As an example, saying "So
which one was it Webman. I also find it interesting you can not see
the winner's hand's like in the daily contest's. Just lend's creedence
we are all wasting our time here playing these contest's" you are making
accusations and implying that things are not on the up and up. If you
had simply asked why there was a time discrepancy in the leader's score
(which I explained) and if it's possible to see the leader's hands
(which is a perfectly fair request, and something we should add next year automatically) then nobody would have scoffed at those questions. Instead you decided to cite these things as evidence of a
problem along with your many other accusations, and play the victim of holding an unpopular belief. And when
presented with everything you asked for, it doesn't seem to have made a
bit of difference.

[vpwillis]

Now I could be wrong but I think edog just enjoys yanking Webmans chain!

[edog743]

Yes it is my nature to be suspicious Webman that is quite evident. So to that end what would be the threshold to calling something out of line? When a person get's three or four or even five combination's of dealt royal's and AWAK in a row? When a person get's more than three entries into the TOC. Where exactly would that line in the sand be drawn? No VP I am not doing this to yank Webman's chain.

[edog743]

As far as thing's not pertaining to you WM. The shunned and pariah comment's have nothing to do with you. You have answered all my question's and accusation's fairly. I thank you for that.

[Webman]

So to that end what would be the threshold to calling something out of line? I would start with some math, and go from there.Figure out the actual odds of something happening. Then calculate how many hands are played (if it's a card issue) and determine if it's a reasonable result. Same with TOC qualifications. What are the odds of making it into the TOC? What are the odds of making it twice in a year? Before you throw out the accusation that a result is suspect, make sure it actually is.If we say there is a 2/5000 chance at getting into the TOC each contest (top score and random), then there is about a 12% chance that if you play every day, you will make it. About a 1% chance of someone getting in twice in the same year.Low chance, 1%.But we have hundreds of qualifiers. If there are 700 qualifiers, we could see close to 7 people get in twice.Not suspicious.3 entries? Less likely, still possible. Shouldn't happen more than once every few years probably, on average. But certainly possible.At 4 in a single year I would start to get suspicious. That's based on the mathematical odds of it happening, not the emotional response. When we see something suspicious, we look into it.