Chances of getting accepted into a conference with conflicting reviews I submitted my paper for publication in a very good computer science conference. When I got feedback for rebuttal:

I had one review that said my work wasn't relavant to computer networking in any way, and that they couldn't understand some abbreviations in the abstract like RIPE. 

Then I had another who said that my work is very useful to the research community and even asked for a copy of the library I wrote. 

Last, I had a reviewer that just told me to make my images larger and to include a better literature review. 

I tried to rebut as best as I could, especially against the first review, but knowing that this is a high profile conference, what are my chances of being accepted? It really didn't seem like the first reviwer understood much of my work.
It's important to understand that conference acceptance decisions are not just a matter of adding up review scores.

There will be a discussion amongst the program committee members to weigh up the points raised by the reviews. The goal is for the PC members to reach a consensus.

If the PC decide that the negative review is not good (e.g., it seems like the reviewer doesn't understand the paper, or it raises silly objections), then that will be ignored and the paper is likely to get in.

On the other hand, it may be that the negative review makes a compelling argument or identifies a flaw that the other reviews missed. In that situation, one negative review can sink a submission.

The key thing for a selective conference is that you need someone to champion the submission and make an argument for acceptance.

In short, it's hard to tell.