Thanks for this post from:
I have no idea where this topic has gotten to in my absence, but let me reiterate my positions related to this subject quickly.
1) Dice control is possible -- this is a fact. Those arguing this fact simply don't realize that the only argument is what the parameters have to be in order for dice control to be possible. For example, if I drop a die from a robot one millimeter to the surface, I can completely control the dice. The argument is about what the parameters are for achieving dice control
2) Machines throwing dice more precisely is a red herring IMO. Even if you prove that it can be controlled over a long distance compared to a single person, you have not proven that the best robot can beat the best person. Certainly the best person can beat the worst robot, because I've built some shitty robots. But generally, they are ALL competitors, and there is no way to know if humans will be better than robots. Some people assume that robots are better because they haven't tried to build a robot that is better than they are. I believe that I have a better chance of performing DI than any robot that I have ever created. Still doesn't mean someone else can't build a better robot. And even if they did, that doesn't mean that a better person can't do better than that particular robot.
In order to make progress, you have to move on from the discussion of possible/impossible and begin the discussion on the effects of entropy at the release on entropy of the bounce. Until you get into that discussion, you're spinning your wheels. The correct way to proceed is by using natural intelligence and machine learning and computer vision along with 3d captures of dice bouncing and doing a ton of reverse CNN network learning with massive loads of data.
But the things that I have said in the past still apply. This is too much work for too little return because one thing remains a constant: any casino getting hit will change the rules to reduce their exposure. And that's the end.
ANYONE would be better off just taking chances at the Cromwell. Plus it's more fun.
If you want to man up bet bigger odds and spend less time arguing about stupid crap.
I understand wanting to know more about how the dice roll. I liken it to any other sport I play where I have to be precise in my delivery to achieve the best "Average". When I bowl, I "TRY" to deliver the ball to the same spot on the lane with the same velocity every time. Same with my golf swing or throwing darts and same thing with my dice throwing. When I'm playing craps I try to throw the dice in a particular set, with the same velocity and trying to land them on the same part of the table, hitting the same part of the back wall as little as I can every time. I understand this is less about craps and more about dice control in general, but when you take out the central component of the equation, which is the way a particular person throws the dice, I'm not sure the data can be used in real environment. I try to throw the dice with minimal rotation. Others put backspin on the dice like they are shooting a foul shot (between the legs) and some throw them so hard they bounce all the way back across the table.