13-01-2013, 10:26 AM
Andy Howie Wrote:Unless the evidence is actually found then all mathematical probability theory will be just that. As long as there is a possibility that it can happen then concrete proof is required.
DNA evidence is used in court to convict people of murder, despite there being a chance (albeit ridiculously unlikely) of it being wrong. It's not used in isolation, but it's one of the many crucial pieces of evidence these days, and will more often than not be seen by the jury as absolute proof. The odds of someone matching Houdini 95% of the time across a whole tournament make it similarly unlikely that it's happening by chance. Coupled with the alleged dip in performance when the live feed stopped, it is strongly indicative of foul play. Keeping in mind as well that the 5% where there wasn't a match was probably opening theory.
So I'm inclined to side with Andy (Burnett); if the evidence above is true then he was certainly cheating. =)