Gary Carson wrote: >>try and give it some more >>thought. All I honestly know is that my intuition tells me that the >>fact this player got caught should be (it sems to me) a stong >>indication that he probably cheated before.(The question was motivated >>by a real-world experience).
> I would think that the relevant question is more What's the probablility he'll > cheat again? This would a the relevant question from a statistical point of view. But I don't think that's the point of view that the original question had. I get the strong impression that the original question is based on the fact that he caught someone cheating once, and now he wants to call into question a large amount of previous hands of cards that were played. I could speculate on the motive, but why bother? It's more of a human nature type of question. > And that's more of a criminological question about recidivsm of card cheats > than a statistics question. In my resopnse to the original question, I felt this had nothing to do with statistics. -- Paige Miller Eastman Kodak Company paige dot miller at kodak dot com http://www.kodak.com "It's nothing until I call it!" -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire "When you get the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance" -- Lee Ann Womack . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
