Comments on: Getting All Juiced Up

By: sam

sam — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:31:20 +0000

For some humorous takes on all these issues and more check out Emile Frendo’s hilarious blogs at toromagazine.com

just discovered this and it’s very funny . . .

http://www.toromagazine.com/?q=taxonomy/term/31

By: shark

shark — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:59:05 +0000

I think just a part of online gaming. It’s not “rigged”, it’s minor decisions that were made for integrity…

By: Haley Hintze

Haley Hintze — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:24:19 +0000

Yeah, that’s why I put “proof” in quotes. I was trying to draw extra attention to that word as a way of saying it ain’t necessarily so. I also used “juicing” without causality. Whether the game is microscopically juiced under the rules adjustment (it is), it does not mean that the rules adjustment was made with that in mind. I’d think the opposite was more likely to be true, and that this was an unintended by-product of a different sort of decision.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:54:28 +0000

Haley,

I think I misread the meaning of the quote below because you used the phrase “is rigged” rather than “could be rigged”

But even if it’s an unnoticeable juicing, it’s still a juicing that exists in the mathematical sense, and can therefore be used as a mathematical “proof” that the game is rigged to increase rake or whatever. It’s the wrong tool to hand to the wrong crowd.

My apologies if that was not your meaning.

Bill

By: Haley Hintze

Haley Hintze — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:20:17 +0000

Hi, Bill.

No, Stars is -not- rigging the game. What they’ve done is made a rules adjustment that opens them up to misguided (but mathematically supportable, in the strictest sense) accusations that this change is a form of proof that the online game is or can be rigged.

That’s a whole lot different than saying that this is “rigging the game.” I reread my first comment and I just don’t see where I said that.