> Just saying something is extremely unlikely to happen by itself does not constitute proof sure it does. statistics are a measurement of something in the rea

> Just saying something is extremely unlikely to happen by itself does not constitute proof sure it does. statistics are a measurement of something in the real world. in the poker example you are measuring the possibility of a series of hands succeeding in a given episode of play. In court you are measuring the possibility of a given DNA sequence occurring by chance. What distinction are you drawing between the statistical certainty in poker vs. the statistical certainty in court (or in medicine)? There doesn't need to be anything else, if you have a sufficient statistical level of certainty. In most cases there is corroborative evidence, but nobody thinks it's necessary when the DNA matches.