Since he's on a twitch stream he knows people are watching him play, so for example he would not do something like instantly fold KK preflop when an opponent has AA (the only possible better hand) - if he did that it would be extremely obvious he magically knew another player had AA. Instead he'll make a small raise as expected, then when the player with AA raises he'll act like its a really difficult decision for him then throw his cards away.
The problem is that you need to be fairly competent at poker
The problem is that you need to be fairly competent at poker to understand he's cheating
No you don't. All you need to do is look at situations where the odds are against him doing the right thing but yet he does do the right thing and then calculate those odds for the jury (that part is just a maths problem). If you have enough of these then you should have odds so vanishingly small it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you do the complex probability calculation for the jury the results should be easy to explain.
The other argument you will have to overcome is that poker players always argu
It gets worse for him. If he gets into court, it's not a criminal case, but a civil one (people trying to get back his illegitimate winnings). There the standard is not 'beyond reasonable doubt, but 'preponderance of the evidence'. Ouch.
Not saying he did or didn't cheat but 1. There isn't any evidence of a method he would have employed to cheat 2. There are no witnesses of actual cheating.
However he could say he is just extremely good at figuring out each persons tells, and in the cases where he won he was on to them. I think there would have to be some evidence of a method.
Read the part about "consistently defying the laws of statistics over and over" slowly and out loud.
If you are, in fact, defying the laws of statistics, something is wrong. Anyone can get lucky, but if you're consistently "lucky" to the point where you're basically inhabiting an alternate reality, then something is wrong.
Yes, you could play poker and get a royal flush. You could get two in a row, maybe even three. But if you get 100 royal flushes in a row no one with a brain is going to go, "Oh well, t
I recall this argument when we played RPGs as children, "my character has all 18s, yes, its statistically possible!". And then we kill their character and make them roll a new one in front of us because even children didn't buy that one.
Simply: no. There is no law of math preventing me winning 50 times in a row the lottery.
And yet those very same laws, applied to statistics, say you won't. You could, but you won't.
There is no law of math preventing people from spontaneously lining up at my door to each give me $100....but they won't. It's so statistically unlikely that, as AC mentioned above, you can say with confidence that it's not going to happen.
It's basically a certianty that he's cheating (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that you need to be fairly competent at poker
How certain? (Score:2)
The problem is that you need to be fairly competent at poker to understand he's cheating
No you don't. All you need to do is look at situations where the odds are against him doing the right thing but yet he does do the right thing and then calculate those odds for the jury (that part is just a maths problem). If you have enough of these then you should have odds so vanishingly small it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you do the complex probability calculation for the jury the results should be easy to explain.
The other argument you will have to overcome is that poker players always argu
Re: (Score:2)
It gets worse for him. If he gets into court, it's not a criminal case, but a civil one (people trying to get back his illegitimate winnings). There the standard is not 'beyond reasonable doubt, but 'preponderance of the evidence'. Ouch.
Hope I never get you on a jury (Score:2)
Not saying he did or didn't cheat but
1. There isn't any evidence of a method he would have employed to cheat
2. There are no witnesses of actual cheating.
The only argument is he got really lucky.
By that logic everyone who wins a lottery cheats.
Re:Hope I never get you on a jury (Score:2)
By that logic everyone who wins a lottery cheats.
No, because anyone can win a lottery once.
But if over the course of a year if you won the weekly lottery 50 out of 52 weeks, you wouldn't be lucky, you'd be cheating.
How you're cheating would need to be determined, but consistently defying the laws of statistics over and over again is sure sign of cheating.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude the "LAWS OF STATISTICS" not only allow for things like this, they require them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude,
Read the part about "consistently defying the laws of statistics over and over" slowly and out loud.
If you are, in fact, defying the laws of statistics, something is wrong. Anyone can get lucky, but if you're consistently "lucky" to the point where you're basically inhabiting an alternate reality, then something is wrong.
Yes, you could play poker and get a royal flush. You could get two in a row, maybe even three. But if you get 100 royal flushes in a row no one with a brain is going to go, "Oh well, t
Re: (Score:2)
Simply: no.
There is no law of math preventing me winning 50 times in a row the lottery. And missing the 2 weeks where I forgot to make a tip.
Re: Hope I never get you on a jury (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Simply: no.
There is no law of math preventing me winning 50 times in a row the lottery.
And yet those very same laws, applied to statistics, say you won't. You could, but you won't.
There is no law of math preventing people from spontaneously lining up at my door to each give me $100....but they won't. It's so statistically unlikely that, as AC mentioned above, you can say with confidence that it's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, unlikely does not mean impossible.
If you roll a dice long enough you get every thinkable subsequence in the sequence.
If I play lottery a million years every week, I most likely have a 50 wins strike in it, or lets say: I play till the end of the universe.