Prob. Test Question

[Richard Tanner]

I don't post on this forum usually (in fact this is my first time) so please forgive me if this has already been mentioned here. That said I got into a lively debate with someone in an online sit-and-go last night.
We were arguing the merits of testing probablity and sample size. More specifically, he was attempting to say that Pokerstars software is designed to pay off the underdog in pre-flop all-ins 75% of the time. To support this he showed two test groups of 200 pre-flop all-ins that showed this percentage.
I said that I believed his sample group to be to small, and that to eliminate varience (i.e. there is no rule that prohibts 100 coin flips from landing heads, it's just unlikely) he need a much larger test group.
I brought up theorys like "Gambler's Ruin" and the like but he insisted that "the Fix was in" and that this proved somthing was amiss.
Did I miss something or is this wrong.
Thank you for any replies

Cody