Wong and dice control

I've said for years that the only thing that holds me back from calling dice control a total fantasy is Stanford Wong's endorsement of it. Even with that, I still remain highly skeptical, and believe that most so-called precision shooters can't overcome the house edge. However, I won't say that nobody on earth can influence the dice enough to overcome it -- yet.

About a month ago Bob Dancer approached me about debating Wong on his radio show Gambling with an Edge. This is a darn good show. All the archives are available on Bob's site. I've been a guest twice.

After discussing it further, all parties agreed to let Wong have the show to himself. I really didn't want to go against Wong on a topic he has devoted years to. Meanwhile, I spend less than 0.1% of my time thinking or writing about it. Wong knows what the skeptics have to say, and I'm sure he will address those arguments on the show, with or without me.

Fast forward to last week's show and Dancer said that Wong said that he and I are actually now not that far apart on the subject. I have heard and read that the temperature of Wong's enthusiasm for dice setting has been dropping steadily lately.

So, I eagerly await to hear what he has to say tonight. If Wong is going to issue any kind of statement or retraction, this would be the perfect venue for it. The show is 7:00 to 8:00 tonight on AM 1230 in Las Vegas. You can also try to listen live on the KLAV web site. Bob will probably put a podcast of it on his own site the following morning.

I'll provide my comments here after the show.

Looking forward to this, thanks for the heads up Wiz!

I was somewhat surprised that Ferguson, I mean Wong jumped on the dice setting bandwagon as readily as he did, most especially given the fairly flimsy supporting data he seems to have relied on.

Oh well, I guess we can all make mistakes.

Quote: MrV

I was somewhat surprised that Ferguson, I mean Wong jumped on the dice setting bandwagon as readily as he did, most especially given the fairly flimsy supporting data he seems to have relied on.

Oh well, I guess we can all make mistakes.

Me too. It was like Richard Dawkins finding religion.

I think you and Bluejay should call in and issue a challenge. Let's get some solid data.

What i don't understand is, why haven't anyone done an experiment on it ( or had it already been done?). All you need is a table, 2 dice, a shooter, a pen and a piece of paper. Get some statistic and answer that question once and for all.

On the other hand, if it had already been done, what is preventing you from reaching a conclusion?

Quote: andysif

What i don't understand is, why haven't anyone done an experiment on it ( or had it already been done?). All you need is a table, 2 dice, a shooter, a pen and a piece of paper. Get some statistic and answer that question once and for all.

I've issued that challenge for years. However, it would take a sample size of about 10,000 rolls to prove anything. Even the believers admit the degree of influence they have is slight, and it would take a huge sample size to tease it out of the expected randomness.

Thats exactly the point of the experiment. Its not like in BJ where you got a "theoretical" edge. The so called "edge" in dice setting is only so much so when it is OBSERVABLE.

Throw it X times, and if it is still not observable, then FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSE, IT'S NOT THERE.

Quote: Wizard

I've issued that challenge for years. However, it would take a sample size of about 10,000 rolls to prove anything. Even the believers admit the degree of influence they have is slight, and it would take a huge sample size to tease it out of the expected randomness.

Altering the probabilities of rolling a seven from 1 in 6 to 1 in 7, as some seem to claim, is hardly "slight".

What I took from the interview is that Wong is much cooler on dice control than when he wrote his book, but he didn't repudiate it. He did acknowledge that his own results are the table are negative overall. At one point he was asked if he knew any players who were up six figures on the game. He mentioned a few people, but also acknowledged others who were up six figures, and then lost it all back, although he faulted bad money management. Many times Wong compared dice setting to tennis and golf, where both natural ability, correct training, and continuous practice are essential for success. In his book he didn't make it out to be so hard, and he admitted that he would tone down his enthusiasm if he ever did a second printing.

Personally, I heard nothing to alleviate my skepticism. In fact, I'm even more confident in saying that I have yet to see any convincing evidence that dice control is for real. If I said that praying at the craps table made you win, and engendered the kind of faith that dice control has, then I think the gambling community would debate for years the merits of prayer. There would always be some people who prayed, and won simply because they were lucky.

So, I'm afraid the jury is still out. However, I think the scarcity of evidence in favor of dice setting says it all.

Quote: MathExtremist

Altering the probabilities of rolling a seven from 1 in 6 to 1 in 7, as some seem to claim, is hardly "slight".

I don't think anybody is claiming to go 1 in 7 under casino conditions.

Quote: Wizard

So, I'm afraid the jury is still out. However, I think the scarcity of evidence in favor of dice setting says it all.

This is no question for the jury; it can be disposed of on summary judgment.

Almost all of the casinos allow dice setting.

Obviously they are aware of ANY real threat to their bottom line: look what they did when they realized what an adept card counter could do.

Dice setting is superstition, wrapped in hope, enveloped in cupidity.

Quote: MrV

Almost all of the casinos allow dice setting.

I was recently at the Carson Nugget in Carson City. There are placards in front of the base dealers at the crap table, similar to the ones that give min/max bets and odds, but these two say, "No dice setting or lofted throws." I may not have the wording exact, but it is very close to that.

So how is the table run? I set the dice every time I rolled them. While I was shooting, the two dealers running the not-very-busy table discussed a regular who left shortly after I arrived. One of them commented that he always sets the dice.

So much for posted rules. I didn't try sliding the dice, though. ;-)

Quote: MrV

Almost all of the casinos allow dice setting

Dancer asked about a recent incident at the Bellagio where some dice setters were kept from doing it. They didn't get into details about what happened. Does anyone here know?

Not about that, but I was shooting craps at Bellagio a little over a year ago and a well known, local Las Vegas dice setter and his lady were there setting and shooting, without any heat.

He goes by "Dicecoach" and offers private lessons in his home, on his table.

Nice guy, and I have to think the suits were well aware of who he was, and it didn't phase them.

Of course, that was then ...

Quote: MrV

That is Beau Parker. Agreed, very nice guy. Would make a perfect Santa Claus. I wrote about an experience with him here.

There are lots of baseball pitchers, but there was only one Sandy Koufax.
There are lots of golfers but only one Tiger Woods.
There are lots of dice influencers, but I don't think the good ones are very public about what they do.

I know two very successful dice influencers. One is a doctor in the Northwest, another comes from New York City and we never spoke-- I just watched him once, rolling for forty minutes, inside number after inside number. Never saw him again.

These guys aren't selling books or courses.

In theory there are a lot of baseball pitchers who can do great work... a lot of golfers who can do great work... but how many can match a Koufax or a Woods.

I think you get my point.

The issue is not IF there can be dice influencers. There can be. The issue is how many could possibly master the skill and there are very few.

The bottom line is that craps is a random game, so trying to influence the dice can't hurt. It might not help, but it can't hurt.

The graduate students keeping track of the 10,000 throws would make a larger error than the "influence".

The solution is to monetize it ... and offer a Super Duper Prize for proof. Otherwise, those who can influence are already busy doing it and those who can't are busy selling seminars and making claims that they can.

Now if HotBlonde starts offering private lessons in Dice Control techniques I will become a believer but otherwise ... if its not there its not there. Ten Thousand rolls and then the claim that two of them are the result of "special powers". No way.

Quote: AlanMendelson

There are lots of baseball pitchers, but there was only one Sandy Koufax.
There are lots of golfers but only one Tiger Woods.
There are lots of dice influencers, but I don't think the good ones are very public about what they do....
The issue is not IF there can be dice influencers. There can be. The issue is how many could possibly master the skill and there are very few.

I say, the Sandy Koufax/Tiger Woods analogy is apt. For that matter, Tom Seaver (41 complete game SO's) or Roger Clemens (Gazzilion Cy Youngs) also had talent in throwing. Not all that much different.

There are a few "freaks of extreme physical skill and talent" that have almost a super-normal "olympian" skill whom I believe can do it.
I do NOT believe in superstition, but believe in the mathematics, and so I believe that a huge talent that can effect a small difference that will sway it for a TINY HANDFUL of "rhythmic rollers" dice degenerates.

I phrase it like that because if you spend six or eight hours a day, four days a week, throwing casino-regulation dice against a mock-up crap table in your garage to obtain this "Sandy Koufax/Tom Seaver" level skill in of all things crap-shooting, you're a moron. Not a career casino skill to have.

Because I believe it CAN be done as an Olympian level skill, and there are a handful who can do it: skim the house profits in dice by pure skill alone. We had one guy at Fiesta ("Stan") who turned a $200 buy-in up into $14,000 in black (over seven hours) - with black chips running along the chip rack of his position, last month. He then Lost "his touch" and LOST $10,000 BACK to the house after he got tired. He was betting $50 hard six/hard eight and $100 hard four/hard ten and hit a groove on on a surprisingly quiet table (players were standing back and being quiet for his consideration and concentration, as was us dealers. It was a show!) He also calculated his press bets and hardways bets vis-a-vis bankroll, did everything, all legal, especailly to a casino cop like me. The dice flew stationary in tandem eight inches over the felt, straight over the center of the opposite base's COME box, landing on the apron by the "wall crotch" on the other side, and always touching the wall. No way to call a no-roll, not that we wanted to. EVERY roll was valid, and almost none were sevens. The dice were always passed back to him, and the FIRE bet was a REALLY GOOD bet at this time. Stan completed a six point fire bet that night, along with four and five baggers. Half of the even numbers were thrown hardways, it seemed. The whole thing awoke my inner-child dice degenerate when I was dealing it.

I think he lost the $10,000 back (but still up ~$4,000) because he "decided to pitch into the 11th, 12th, and 13th inning" when blown out. He chased an ENORMOUS amount of money back into the crap table - like a narcotic that doesn't work anymore for you, but you gotta still keep taking it.

Just being lucky in this way is mentally exhausting, and in this way you will not know when to leave when any skills lose its precision. Trying to set a V-4/V-6 set or a hardways set before a throw, manage your bankroll - then aim into the sweet zone, and all that.....a Cy Young pitcher can't do it after 7 innings, so forget about a 70 year old man playing and concentrating for so long...Christ, I was thinking "RUN to the Cage!!! Pay off your Lincoln! Or Two weeks in Pattaya, Thailand! Sheesh, LIVE with that cash for two weeks - you're 70, Stan!..."

There are a few crap players who have this "Tom Seaver Delivery", but so many factors drag it down when control is lost:
- losing sight of being WAY the hell ahead, only to chase it back while in a "greedy and exhausted state."
- NOT seeing you dice presicion getting getting WAY off scale: both sevens and crap number popping up again? Losing the "numbers run?" - Hello!...
- not seeing your OWN mental and physical exhaustion.
- more players coming into the table - creating "chip ricochet" obstacles on your "throw landing side" for the next seven-out?
- dealers or cocktail waitresses or other players creating "artificial delays" to disturb your rhythm, flow, or concentration against your "in the zone" shoot.

Anything that disturbs your state of mind - to dislodge you from that "in the zone state of mind" - will cause a shooter to throw more balls than strikes - if and when skill is involved. It is very easy to be knocked off from the upper echelons of precision skill that require total concentration.

I don't "say" this as a dice dealer. Instead, I simply "notice" this as a dice dealer...

Thanks for that, Dan. My feelings exactly.

I was doing some math. Suppose a test had to be set up where both the believer and the skeptic had to believe their chance of winning was 99%. In other words, a number of throws t, and sevens s, would be determined such that the probability a skilled shooter would throw more than s sevens would be 1%, and a random shooter would throw less than s would be 1%.

If the allegedly skilled shooter claims an RSR (rolls to sevens ratio) of 7 then 5,000 rolls would be needed. However, at an RSR of 6.5, then 18,000 rolls would be needed. At one throw per minute that would take 83 and 300 hours of shooting.

So, I don't think both sides are ever going to agree to a challenge that puts the issue to rest with 99% confidence. However, I'm open to doing another Wong-type challenge, where at least both sides at least perceive an advantage.

I have read Stanford Wongs Book and I did not get the impression that the ability to influence the dice is easy. I also got the impression that the amount of work involved in obtaining the slight gain in edge would not be commensurate with the time spent practicing. I had emailed Mr Wong or his group and asked what his current position is on dice control is. His response was he still believes it to be possible by a very few under the proper conditions (don't ask me what they are) but that the potential profit is not worth the time spent. I have read almost all the books available on dice control including The Mad Professor, Stanford Wong, Yuri Knoneneko, Sharp Shooter and of course Scoblete and Dominator. None of them paint a picture of it being easy or profitable every session. I get the impression it is not profitable most sessions. I think the reason Scoblete and Dominator do so well is, # 1 they are skilled at this but they also play in a group with 3 or 4 other guys and if you read his articles you will see when one, two or three of them suck at rolling anything but a seven, one or two of them get hot and the rest ride along. I have a practice station in my basement and have practiced for about a year and a half. I do not consider myself a craps degenerate. I find it no different than practicing card counting or playing one of the Wizards games on line. Bottom line after all this time is I am still a random shooter like everyone else. I feel I have made an improvement in my come out roll as I do throw more sevens and 11's than I use to but we have more chances to win there any way so that is not that surprising. I did how ever throw enough of them to get heat at the Paris. I have used bone tracker which you can download for free to track your SSR ( or RSR as the Wiz says) I bought most of my books used on Ebay or Amazon and have since re sold them so the investment for the knowledge gained was very small. The bottom line for me is I think it has helped my come out rolls. I have had some rolls that appear I am influencing the dice but I have way more that do not. I have also met Beau Parker and he is a great guy, his class is very inexpensive and very informative and it did help short term while he was standing there helping you. My first session after the class at the Bellagio I got no heat (and never have there for that matter) and won my class money back plus, but it I had difficulty in duplicating those results in succeeding sessions. I am of the mind set now that there are probably skilled people who can tweak the edge to their side but they are few and far between and it will not happen every time. When it does you should take the money and run ,then pour yourself a glass of your favorite vice and savor the moment because you do not know when it will come again I too would love to see a test with some one who really feels they can influence the dice. It cannot be someone who just sets the dice it would have to be someone who really has (not someone who thinks they have) a controlled throw. After all the difference we are looking for is actually very small.

Quote: Wizard

So, I don't think both sides are ever going to agree to a challenge that puts the issue to rest with 99% confidence. However, I'm open to doing another Wong-type challenge, where at least both sides at least perceive an advantage.

That's why I keep proposing a long term experiment carried out under ideal conditions. No question about shooting for hours on end, but a couple of hours a day two or three days a week seems reasonable. In a quiet room, with a regulation table empty of obstacles and lots of new dice. That should settle the plausibility question.

I stop paying serious attention when the conclusion is "You have to have faith."

Dice Setting ... is it now akin to a cult religion?

Is it scientology, but with dice?

Spare me "It can't be proved, but it can't be disproved, either ... so there!"

The superstitious among us will always find a way to invent the god they need.

thanks, Michael, you've given me some radio to listen to while in cyberspace! I like to have some talk radio to listen to, as background, while doing this and that. Up till now that has been with a different hobby. With this show a little tricky to zip past the ads, but it is do-able. The sound engineer sucked, at least the way it got transferred on mp3 in the first show on the list.

Your apparent first appearance: you are very good on the radio! interesting how you got started with your website.

Quote: AlanMendelson

The bottom line is that craps is a random game, so trying to influence the dice can't hurt. It might not help, but it can't hurt.

This is a common misconception. Of course it can't hurt if you fail, but if you succeed in influencing the dice and bet improperly based on a flawed understanding of how the dice have been influenced, it can absolutely hurt.

Quote: MrV

Dice Setting ... is it now akin to a cult religion?

Yep.

And the 'Hail Mary' prayer is "Baby needs a new pair of shoes..."

I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in......I Think dice influence is a total crock and BS....But everyone is entitlement to their opinion....What I'm tired of, are the "Tiger Woods" references.....It getting old that "only a few very talented can do it"!...What do you base this on?...the few that have made money of "dice setting"?

If I took a couple hundred non dice setters(random shooters)...and 5 of them over a year of shooting daily made money....we would all just except that as variance and think nothing of it. But if out of a couple hundred dice setters....5 make money over a years period. The people who are pro dice influence say "see its hard to do but with talent and practice it can be done"....its BS. How can you prove its just not variance?

And the "I saw a dice setter shoot for 40 min once" stuff is getting old too....Guess what just a few nights ago I was playing craps at my local tribal casino and I saw an old lady who could barely reach the table shoot for 50 min.....whats that prove? short old lady's are better at craps than the rest of us?

With 5x odds and playing the passline only with full odds, I think over 10% of shooters would be lifetime winners at 30 hours a year shooting for 50 years.

I did these sums once, and put them somewhere on here... so might have some mistakes. But in the end, what you say is correct. Despite of the house edge, you can end up being on the plus side of craps over a long period due to simple variance and not being a God of Dice.

Quote: Nareed

That's why I keep proposing a long term experiment carried out under ideal conditions. No question about shooting for hours on end, but a couple of hours a day two or three days a week seems reasonable. In a quiet room, with a regulation table empty of obstacles and lots of new dice. That should settle the plausibility question.

What will we need for a real craps table? 10-15k? Might be cheaper to run it at a casino bet the Pass and DP, the 1 dollar on midnight every toss would be the cost for the test. Maybe statman could get a grant to identify biased craps tables?

For the benefit of others, here is a direct link to the Wong interview.

Quote: vert1276

If I took a couple hundred non dice setters(random shooters)...and 5 of them over a year of shooting daily made money....we would all just except that as variance and think nothing of it. But if out of a couple hundred dice setters....5 make money over a years period. The people who are pro dice influence say "see its hard to do but with talent and practice it can be done"....its BS. How can you prove its just not variance?

¡Exactamente! I might also compare it to any given betting system. If enough people use it there will likely be some showing a profit at it.

Since Wong specifically mentioned The Mad Professor as a success story, let me put it out there that I would be happy to meet him and observe him shoot some dice. I would go with an open mind and fairly report on whatever happened. Since I have no idea how to contact him, should anyone else know how to reach him, please extend this invitation.

Quote: AlanMendelson

There are lots of baseball pitchers, but there was only one Sandy Koufax.
There are lots of golfers but only one Tiger Woods.
There are lots of dice influencers, but I don't think the good ones are very public about what they do.

I know two very successful dice influencers. One is a doctor in the Northwest, another comes from New York City and we never spoke-- I just watched him once, rolling for forty minutes, inside number after inside number. Never saw him again.

These guys aren't selling books or courses.

In theory there are a lot of baseball pitchers who can do great work... a lot of golfers who can do great work... but how many can match a Koufax or a Woods.

I think you get my point.

The issue is not IF there can be dice influencers. There can be. The issue is how many could possibly master the skill and there are very few.

The bottom line is that craps is a random game, so trying to influence the dice can't hurt. It might not help, but it can't hurt.

Your last statement brings up an interesting question. What if you were influencing the dice to your disadvantage? If you wanted to roll a 7, how would you know how or what to set?

Quote: Wizard

Suppose a test had to be set up where both the believer and the skeptic had to believe their chance of winning was 99%.

Impossible. Either one side is factual and the other side an ignorant believer or its no go.

Quote: dm

Your last statement brings up an interesting question. What if you were influencing the dice to your disadvantage? If you wanted to roll a 7, how would you know how or what to set?

Not intended as such, possibly, but Wizard's appendix 6 works as a primer for setting dice, taking some study of the pictures.

Quote: dm

Your last statement brings up an interesting question. What if you were influencing the dice to your disadvantage? If you wanted to roll a 7, how would you know how or what to set?

I think Wong tells such a story in his book. He was double-pitching more than a random shooter, causing him to do worse than random. So he rotated one of the dice 180 degrees to make the double pitch work in his favor. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I read the book years ago.

Quote: Wizard

I think Wong tells such a story in his book. He was double-pitching more than a random shooter, causing him to do worse than random. So he rotated one of the dice 180 degrees to make the double pitch work in his favor. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I read the book years ago.

Yes ,you are correct he actually set for the seven when double pitching or on a table where you cannot hear the dice hit. He also stated for this to work you must have axis control as well. I first heard of Beau Parker in Wong's book and I asked Beau if He knew the Mad Professor and he thought he might as Tino Gambino is his pen name only. I know you know Beau and you might ask him if he has a way to approach him on that. His book goes way beyond any of the others on practice techniques, grips, sets and table conditions.

At this point, is anyone else asking if this is even worth discussion? No 2 dice are exactly alike, they are not even symmetrical. The die
itself has different weighted faces depending on number of dimples. Isn't it likely that a die rolled a million times would show some bias? But so what! Would that bias still exist, or even be constant during the trial, with wear and tear affecting every single roll to the die, the felt, the wall? If Wong could pull off a successful "proof" of dice control, would that even be expected to translate to the next pair of dice, the next table...................??????????????????

Quote: dm

At this point, is anyone else asking if this is even worth discussion?

plenty of people are asking that. For my part, I find it fun to try to do, is all.

Quote: dm

At this point, is anyone else asking if this is even worth discussion? No 2 dice are exactly alike, they are not even symmetrical. The die
itself has different weighted faces depending on number of dimples.

Casino dice are made with divits, which are filled in with plastic of another color, but the same density as the rest of the die. So each side is equally weighted. The dice are replaced frequently, so old worn out dice are not an issue. Any bias in the dice I think is negligible. What does vary are the tables. The setters are very picky about the felt, pyramids, height of the table, etc., which all vary from table to table.

I obviously didn't know much about the actual dice because I do not go to the carnival any more. Surely you admit that a manufacturing process does not produce exact output. Everything is in constant, minute change. And would a successful result be transferable? Might the setting only work on 1 table out of 10? And only with 1 pair of dice out of ten? Or would it be like a biased roulette wheel, where by the time you identified a bias, it might not still exist?

Quote: odiousgambit

plenty of people are asking that. For my part, I find it fun to try to do, is all.

No, I'm not saying it might not be fun for you to try. But I meant is it worth seriously trying to master as an advantage play.

Quote: dm

is it worth seriously trying to master as an advantage play.

Unless it finally can be shown to be real, and something more than a marginal effect, so that some craps bets are no longer negative expectation, then I would have to say, no, not worth trying to master.

PS: havent listened to the Wong interview yet

Quote: dm

Your last statement brings up an interesting question. What if you were influencing the dice to your disadvantage? If you wanted to roll a 7, how would you know how or what to set?

Good question, and those who are the "sellers" of the dice influencing systems do have "sets" for throwing more 7s.

One of the strategies of DI is this:

Practice your particular set and see what the results are. For example, you use a cross-6s set which is supposed to result in a lot of outside numbers. But for you, if keeps giving 7s. Well then, bet comes and bet the don't. Go with the flow.

On Wall Street they say the trend is your friend.

One time I rolled 6 come out 7s in a row and I was trying to roll outside numbers. When I finally rolled a number for a point (it was a 6) the dealer asked me for my usual bets for the place numbers, and for odds. I looked at him and said "Im just rolling 7s today. No other bets." And sure enough on the next roll... 7 out.

Given the choice of betting on a shooter who is attempting to influence the dice vs a shooter who is a random thrower, I'd rather bet on the guy trying to influence. It's probably not logical, but I'd rather bet on someone who is "trying" to win rather than someone who may not "care" about what he's doing.

Maybe that comes from my business experience. I'd rather work with someone who "cares" about what he's doing, than work with someone who just does his job without caring about what he's doing. Does that make any sense to anybody?

Quote: dm

At this point, is anyone else asking if this is even worth discussion? No 2 dice are exactly alike, they are not even symmetrical. The die
itself has different weighted faces depending on number of dimples. Isn't it likely that a die rolled a million times would show some bias? But so what! Would that bias still exist, or even be constant during the trial, with wear and tear affecting every single roll to the die, the felt, the wall? If Wong could pull off a successful "proof" of dice control, would that even be expected to translate to the next pair of dice, the next table...................??????????????????

Dm, there is no such thing as dice CONTROL.

but first, let me tell you another false presumption of the dice influencing industry -- about the entire concept of practicing dice on "practice rigs" and practicing on "home tables."

No two CASINO tables are alike. The bounce of one table at Bellagio is not like the bounce on another table at Bellagio. How can you expect your practice rig at home to be the same as any table at Bellagio or any craps table anywhere? You can't.

Practice rigs are a waste of money.

want to practice your throw? stand by your bed. want to see if your dice hit on the corners or on their edges? put down a piece of aluminum foil and see the marks after your dice hit.

You can have the most perfect toss, with perfect control, but since no two tables bounce the same way, you can't promise any CONTROL. Can you influence the dice? Perhaps. But you can't CONTROL dice.

What can we determine from available evidence? Let's see:

1) Most casinos don't ban dice setting. when they do it's often more a matter of slowing down the game.
2) Several prominent dice setters ostentatiously use aliases
3) Several prominent dice setters sell books, DVDs, seminars and gear to teach and practice dice control
4) Few dice setters, prominent or not, have a greed to a challnege of their abilities.

So, what can we infer from all this?

1) If dice setting or controlling works, it's likely not very profitable. Otherwise those who practice it would keep it secret and make money of the practice. Also casinos, especially the big ones, would all ban dice setting.

2) The use of aliases in such a manner suggets a marketing tool ("They don't want you to know!" "I have to disguise my identity to stay safe!") This suggests the sale of books and DVDs, and probably the seminars, are a lot more proftiabnle than setting/controlling the dice at a casino.

3) The refusal to undergo rigorous testing suggests any influence on the dice to be of small consequence. Or that it plain doesn't work. On the toher ahnd it also reinforces the marketing tool noted above. Or it could be a genuine defense measure, so as not to elt the casinos know it does work. Of course, the casinos could test the matter for themselves

This is all hypothetical, however, and will remain so in the absence of the really important evidence: a trial of several dice controllers for however many thousands of throws are required.

I wonder, though, if dice setters keep a log of their at-home practice, and whether that could be obtained. Of course that proves nothing, but it might be suggestive of something. What exactly depends on the results recorded.

It's unfair to blame dice setters for slowing down the game. How about the random rollers who have their girlfriend kiss the dice before each roll, or have to drink a couple of mouthfulls before the next roll, or who have to argue with the dealer about the payoff.

Do you really play at rat-atat-tat tables where the rolls come as quick as pulls on a slot handle?

If they already have the pretty girl with them, blowing on them won't take long. Same with rubbing a bald-headed dwarf. If one is already at the table fine. Its the delay that matters. On the Florida day boats, those dice stay moving but fast!!

I would agree that all these seminar sellers and dice setting believers insist that the effect is subtle, therefore its quite possible to have a subtle positive as well as a subtle negative effect since there is no way to correct the action until after some umpteen zillion tosses go by.

I imagine the casino feels "set the dice" versus "don't set the dice" is about the same as "red" or "black" on the roulette table. The casino never cares which you bet on, just put the darned chips down. Its the same: set or don't set, but roll them fast! And make them hit that darned back wall.

Quote: AlanMendelson

How about the random rollers who have their girlfriend kiss the dice before each roll,

As long as the dealers short-stick her, I don't mind.

I don't know what that means, but it sounds funny.

Quote: Wizard

As long as the dealers short-stick her, I don't mind.

Quote: dm

I don't know what that means, but it sounds funny.

Short-sticking is the gimmick of not pushing the dice quite far enough toward the (female) shooter, requiring her to lean far over the rail to pick them up.


Edit: I once played on a crap table that was equipped with a very long stick, apparently one intended for a longer table. The stick man had a lot of trouble maneuvering the dice with it, since the handle end kept getting in his way. He complained a bit about it. A female base dealer commented that he obviously had no experience handling a long stick and shouldn't draw attention to such a deficiency.

(Just had to slant the humor in the other direction, too.)