Slate article on online poker cheating

[felson]

Here.

Nothing new for 2+2ers, but good PR for the newbies out there.

[Rah]

"A high variance means taking on a lot of risk in exchange for winning more pots, which is what the pros do. But players who incur little risk while winning lots of hands are probably cheating"

Ehmm.. yah ok

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]
"A high variance means taking on a lot of risk in exchange for winning more pots, which is what the pros do. But players who incur little risk while winning lots of hands are probably cheating"

Ehmm.. yah ok

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is an inaccurate statement. It seems to be common sense to me. Those who win a lot (in a statistically significant sense) of hands (i.e. quantity of wins, NOT quantity of money won) and don't show high variance over a relevant sample size should be reviewed.

I understand this to apply to winning a "lot of hands" dealt. I did not take it to apply to those who win a high percentage of hands to which they contribute money. Otherwise, this would suggest that a player with 5% VP$IP would somehow show stats illustrating cheating.

Input or correction welcome.