Controlled throwing device (CTD)
October 27th, 2012 at 9:05:32 PM
permalink
So I am creating a controlled throwing device. I know other people have already created such devices. But I'm having fun with it anyway, and trying to accomplish specific motions of the throw that I currently use. I'm not that great with hardware (I'm a software guy). But I do enjoy this type of thing every now and then.
I have some preliminary picture on my website. I'll post some photos on here when I get further along assuming anyone is interested.
I have some preliminary picture on my website. I'll post some photos on here when I get further along assuming anyone is interested.
aahigh.com
October 27th, 2012 at 9:29:34 PM
permalink
This is something to which I shall be forward looking. (You try writing that sentence without ending it with a preposition)
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
October 27th, 2012 at 9:56:10 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerThis is something to which I shall be forward looking. (You try writing that sentence without ending it with a preposition)
This is something to which I will be looking forward.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
October 28th, 2012 at 4:40:43 AM
permalink
Assuming you have the mechanical skills to build a good machine, I fully expect you will achieve a few precisely controlled throws... However, I think there will be so little controlled throws that you will demonstrate dice control is not possible, OR you will determine it to be inconclusive..
October 28th, 2012 at 4:57:54 AM
permalink
I will no longer hi-jack this thread but forward modifies looking and is therefor a preposition.Quote: RaleighCrapsThis is something to which I will be looking forward.
I would hope that the machine does create statistically significant results, which is why I want to see some results. But what is statistically significant? 15 hardways out of 60 throws? 150 out of 600? I'd like to know the goal before the tossing begins.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
October 28th, 2012 at 5:27:48 AM
permalink
Quote: ewjones080Assuming you have the mechanical skills to build a good machine
There's very little that can't be accomplished with some determination and good collection of Legos.
October 28th, 2012 at 5:46:33 AM
permalink
Precision with "Legos" ? No doubt such a machine will be able to throw dices. The question is: can it throw dices with a significant non-random result in a legit throw (i.e. bouncing back a diamond-shaped craps wall) ?
October 28th, 2012 at 6:11:25 AM
permalink
Dice have edges and points they are cubes. It doesn't matter if you can throw them exactly the same every time. Once they hit the table those edges and points are going to catch on the felt and uncontrollable random bouncing and tumbling begin.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:35:34 AM
permalink
Quote: MangoJPrecision with "Legos" ?
Are you familiar with their Mindstorms NXT 2.0 product?
I'm fairly sure that if I were inclined to engage in such folly I could easily create a CDT with Legos.
October 28th, 2012 at 6:41:40 AM
permalink
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyThere's very little that can't be accomplished with some determination and good collection of Legos.
I'll come over with my duct tape to help!
[Red Green's "handyman's secret weapon"]
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
October 28th, 2012 at 7:58:23 AM
permalink
Quote: ewjones080Assuming you have the mechanical skills to build a good machine, I fully expect you will achieve a few precisely controlled throws... However, I think there will be so little controlled throws that you will demonstrate dice control is not possible, OR you will determine it to be inconclusive..
Here is another interesting possibility that I think most people reject. It may be possible for a human thrower to achieve a biased throw even if there isn't a machine that can duplicate what the human thrower is doing.
Robots and algorithms are great at many things that people can do, but they can't do everything a person can do.
I think it is fascinating how there is a pervasive belief that the (only) way to achieve a bias on the dice is to be more and more like a robot delivering the exact same throw each and every time.
I do think that a robotic throw is as close as you can get to a consistent throw (same trajectory, bounce, outcome, etc). But I'm not rejecting any possibility for how a bias might occur. In fact, it may be possible to obtain an outcome bias with a human throw that is never actually understood for how it occurs. Using an analogy, chess players demonstrated abilities for years using a FINITE state of possibilities that computers could not duplicate. Dice on a craps table are quite a bit more complex than chess moves. Dice on a craps table is worlds apart in complexity of possibilities compared to chess.
Statistics and some math can be used to determine the success of a biased throw, but it's quite possible that a person can have a toss beyond a robot's capabilities that a computer's view into exactly what happened is not possible beyond characterizing the end results.
It's this possibility that has prevented me from spending time on this task previously. I am doing this out of curiosity. I expect to be able to demonstrate bias over a large enough number of throws greater than what is achievable by a person, but if that doesn't happen, I don't see the logical extension that it's not possible for a person to do it just because I can't build a robot to do it.
It helps to show exactly how much bias a robot could achieve assuming that it is possible, but it does not negate the possibility of a human being able to accomplish such a task just because a specific instance of a specific robot cannot achieve the task. There are many tasks that robots cannot achieve that humans can, and robots not achieving them does not mean humans cannot achieve them no matter what the assumptions are of people who think that being robotic is a preferable way to accomplish a task.
To make another analogy, if you watched the Giants game, who's the math genius that can explain how Pablo the Panda hits the ball with so much success? The guy looks freaking goofy when he stands at the plate, but that guy can turn more lemon pitches into lemonade than anybody. And what he's doing there is not the kind of thing that is even REMOTELY close to what a robot up to bat would be doing.
I've been developing motor memory for my throw for HOURS a day for YEARS now. I've accomplished many other things as a result of my expert motor memory .. many of them things that only a small fraction of people on the planet can do. It's something that I do for fun.
This move is something I decided I wanted to learn how to do and I practiced hours a day for over a year to be able to pull off moves like this too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BEOvQCWLGI
There was a time in bicycle trials history before anybody could even do a rear wheel hop. Now this is basic trials stuff and nothing that hasn't been seen. But I can tell you it takes a lot of practice to be able to do it and has nothing to do with being robotic and everything to do with being able to improvise on the fly with your motor skills in order to accomplish a specific result.
aahigh.com
October 28th, 2012 at 8:20:26 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighI expect to be able to demonstrate bias over a large enough number of throws
I expect to bet that you cannot.
October 28th, 2012 at 8:29:21 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOI expect to bet that you cannot.
You want to bet that I can't build a machine that demonstrates a bias over a large number of throws?
Now _that_ sounds like a sucker bet. Details?
I think you deleted the context and created an assertion in your mind that I did not make.
aahigh.com
October 28th, 2012 at 8:48:23 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighYou want to bet that I can't build a machine that demonstrates a bias over a large number of throws?
Yes, I want to make that bet. Assuming the machine will need to follow standard casino rules which includes both dice hitting the back wall and no sliding. How much time do you think you need to build this machine? I'm coming back to Vegas in 2 1/2 weeks.
October 28th, 2012 at 9:00:23 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOYes, I want to make that bet. Assuming the machine will need to follow standard casino rules which includes both dice hitting the back wall and no sliding. How much time do you think you need to build this machine? I'm coming back to Vegas in 2 1/2 weeks.
Awesome! Yeah, I am trying to make the machine to throw the dice as similarly to the throw I am doing right now. The timing should work, and it absolutely sounds like a fun bet.
We should come up with a bet in private that makes this as fun as possible then post up the details. Maybe a phone call to work out how the bet should work.
aahigh.com
October 28th, 2012 at 9:03:56 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighAwesome! Yeah, I am trying to make the machine to throw the dice as similarly to the throw I am doing right now. The timing should work, and it absolutely sounds like a fun bet.
We should come up with a bet in private that makes this as fun as possible then post up the details. Maybe a phone call to work out how the bet should work.
You got my number! Looking forward to it! Maybe Alan Mendelson wants to film it!
October 28th, 2012 at 9:41:23 AM
permalink
Good Luck Gentlemen !
October 28th, 2012 at 10:11:33 AM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerThis is something to which I shall be forward looking. (You try writing that sentence without ending it with a preposition)
I think building the machine will be difficult but I hope you try! I am looking forward to it!
Vote for Nobody 2020!
October 28th, 2012 at 2:14:24 PM
permalink
Quote: AhighSo I am creating a controlled throwing device. I know other people have already created such devices. [snip] I have some preliminary picture on my website. I'll post some photos on here when I get further along assuming anyone is interested.
Sounds interesting. Please post links to the photos of your device and to other such devices.
Thanks!
October 28th, 2012 at 2:25:52 PM
permalink
Yeah, preliminary results have been pretty positive. I think I will post a teaser video with a single shot of a short-roll (not allowed in the casino) that demonstrates as close to what appears to be clear bias as possible until I am ready to start the more controversial topics.
Everyone knows that you can bias the dice this way, so it won't prove anything except that I can do the type of bias that everyone already agrees on (or at the very least, the house is afraid of).
I'm beyond reasonable demonstration of the type of bias that the casino would not allow you to continue to make (for not hitting the back wall).
I will probably continue to focus on this area to tune out the most bias possible before moving on.
The initial conditions are very very important, that much I can see. You really have to have everything lined up right.
But I'll make a quick video soon.
Everyone knows that you can bias the dice this way, so it won't prove anything except that I can do the type of bias that everyone already agrees on (or at the very least, the house is afraid of).
I'm beyond reasonable demonstration of the type of bias that the casino would not allow you to continue to make (for not hitting the back wall).
I will probably continue to focus on this area to tune out the most bias possible before moving on.
The initial conditions are very very important, that much I can see. You really have to have everything lined up right.
But I'll make a quick video soon.
aahigh.com
October 28th, 2012 at 2:35:07 PM
permalink
Ahigh, I have a question for you. I don't mean this to be confrontational or anything; it's a completely serious question to be taken at face value.
Do you believe that you can influence the dice in such a way that, long-term, you have an edge over the casino? Your threads and posts kind of suggest that you do, but I haven't seen anything where you've come out and said it, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. You certainly seem to hint at it, though.
If you do, and you are right, then you are wasting your time trying to convince other people of it. In fact, convincing other people is the last thing that you want to do. Even a 1% edge is enough to destroy the casinos in a few years. Just get some sort of a bankroll together, and use Kelly Betting (bet B * E / V each bet, where B = bankroll, E = edge, and V = variance). Be patient. Your bankroll will grow exponentially (ie, proportional to its size). So, it will start out slow, but it will ramp up. The nice thing is, you can easily play craps at a very high limit, so it's not like you will bump up against max bets until you are incredibly wealthy. Eventually you will just be reserving your own private tables (no waiting for other shooters!!!) and betting 10s of thousands per roll. I would suspect that you will have no problem finding casinos to accept up to $100k / bet action (in fact, aren't those the published table maximums at Caesars? I'd assume that you could go higher in a high-limit room or private table)
Nothing says "I told you so" like 100s of millions of dollars... just be sure to invite me to your private island.
Do you believe that you can influence the dice in such a way that, long-term, you have an edge over the casino? Your threads and posts kind of suggest that you do, but I haven't seen anything where you've come out and said it, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. You certainly seem to hint at it, though.
If you do, and you are right, then you are wasting your time trying to convince other people of it. In fact, convincing other people is the last thing that you want to do. Even a 1% edge is enough to destroy the casinos in a few years. Just get some sort of a bankroll together, and use Kelly Betting (bet B * E / V each bet, where B = bankroll, E = edge, and V = variance). Be patient. Your bankroll will grow exponentially (ie, proportional to its size). So, it will start out slow, but it will ramp up. The nice thing is, you can easily play craps at a very high limit, so it's not like you will bump up against max bets until you are incredibly wealthy. Eventually you will just be reserving your own private tables (no waiting for other shooters!!!) and betting 10s of thousands per roll. I would suspect that you will have no problem finding casinos to accept up to $100k / bet action (in fact, aren't those the published table maximums at Caesars? I'd assume that you could go higher in a high-limit room or private table)
Nothing says "I told you so" like 100s of millions of dollars... just be sure to invite me to your private island.
October 28th, 2012 at 10:22:03 PM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAhigh, I have a question for you. I don't mean this to be confrontational or anything; it's a completely serious question to be taken at face value.
Do you believe that you can influence the dice in such a way that, long-term, you have an edge over the casino? Your threads and posts kind of suggest that you do, but I haven't seen anything where you've come out and said it, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. You certainly seem to hint at it, though.
If you do, and you are right, then you are wasting your time trying to convince other people of it. In fact, convincing other people is the last thing that you want to do. Even a 1% edge is enough to destroy the casinos in a few years. Just get some sort of a bankroll together, and use Kelly Betting (bet B * E / V each bet, where B = bankroll, E = edge, and V = variance). Be patient. Your bankroll will grow exponentially (ie, proportional to its size). So, it will start out slow, but it will ramp up. The nice thing is, you can easily play craps at a very high limit, so it's not like you will bump up against max bets until you are incredibly wealthy. Eventually you will just be reserving your own private tables (no waiting for other shooters!!!) and betting 10s of thousands per roll. I would suspect that you will have no problem finding casinos to accept up to $100k / bet action (in fact, aren't those the published table maximums at Caesars? I'd assume that you could go higher in a high-limit room or private table)
Nothing says "I told you so" like 100s of millions of dollars... just be sure to invite me to your private island.
I'm absolutely no stranger to big money. But I'm not ready to approach those questions just yet.
I will say that I do wish to win a lot of money, but I'm not ready to do it yet.
I have a true passion for the game that I know will endure no matter what the outcome is with my wins and/or losses in the long run. I will get to answering those questions soon though, and I appreciate your paying enough attention to know better than most where I am right now.
If you want to help figure out how to safely exploit my throw, just give me a PM and let's hook up. I've met in real life with several people and I'm open to meeting just about anyone who has an interest in learning more about what I'm doing.
aahigh.com
October 29th, 2012 at 11:53:23 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighIf you want to help figure out how to safely exploit my throw, just give me a PM and let's hook up. I've met in real life with several people and I'm open to meeting just about anyone who has an interest in learning more about what I'm doing.
I am filming in Vegas next week and might have some free time.
Will send a pm.
October 29th, 2012 at 8:28:45 PM
permalink
Ahigh I think it is absolutely possible to build a machine that can duplicate a controlled throw. All it takes is some money and some work. The question becomes how do you prove that in theory dice control can exist?
The issue really isnt if the corners of the dice will catch on the table felt, or if the dice will hit a chip. The issue is can you deliver two dice the same way each and every time to a particular point on the table with the same arc, speed, bounce, etc. And to that I say of course it can be done -- by a machine.
So the next question is, can a human do it?
The issue really isnt if the corners of the dice will catch on the table felt, or if the dice will hit a chip. The issue is can you deliver two dice the same way each and every time to a particular point on the table with the same arc, speed, bounce, etc. And to that I say of course it can be done -- by a machine.
So the next question is, can a human do it?
October 29th, 2012 at 10:25:13 PM
permalink
Quote: AlanMendelsonAhigh I think it is absolutely possible to build a machine that can duplicate a controlled throw. All it takes is some money and some work. The question becomes how do you prove that in theory dice control can exist?
The issue really isnt if the corners of the dice will catch on the table felt, or if the dice will hit a chip. The issue is can you deliver two dice the same way each and every time to a particular point on the table with the same arc, speed, bounce, etc. And to that I say of course it can be done -- by a machine.
So the next question is, can a human do it?
I already know that a machine can do a more controlled throw than I can. Because I've seen it. But bias in the outcome and a consistent throw are two different things.
Proving the theory exists isn't necessary. People already believe in the theory regardless of whether it's proven or not.
It's a possibility that the dice cannot be delivered the same way each and every time, yet bias continues to exist in the outcome. If you don't understand how, consider that the relative physics of the left and right dice being similar can create a biased result.
It is also possible that a human can obtain bias in the outcome of throwing two dice while a robotic throwing machine cannot. This is a little less obvious, but it's absolutely a possible condition. Not likely, but possible. It will never be proven that robots cannot control the dice, however, as you could only consider the case that a person can achieve a demonstrable bias, yet a robot has yet to be created that could demonstrate bias. I'm not outlining this possibility because I think it's likely. I'm outlining it to be exhaustive of the possible conclusions, each of which should not be excluded based on guesses. Which is what I think most people are doing to make up their mind at this point.
aahigh.com
October 29th, 2012 at 11:26:39 PM
permalink
Let's watch the greed factor kick in shall we?
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
October 30th, 2012 at 5:34:55 AM
permalink
" People already believe in the theory regardless of whether it's proven or not." People believe in the Easter Bunny too.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
October 30th, 2012 at 8:14:53 AM
permalink
I know it was just a wording thing.
But "how do you prove that in theory dice control can exist."
We already know that in theory dice control can exist. You don't need to prove that in theory that it can exist. It does exist in theory.
But I do know what he was really saying is how do you prove that the outcome of dice can be skewed enough to overcome the house edge by using a throwing technique.
There are so many weak wordings and misused terms that confuse people. A lot of time is spent arguing over terms. Just the terms "DICE INFLUENCER" .. that pretty much describes anyone who even touches a dice IMO. Dice are influenced by lots of stuff. I don't particularly like that term nor the acronym "DI" nor the negative association of the terms "community of DI's" etc.
I can assure you that at least one person who is a "self-proclaimed DI" is actually a bonafide believer of non-truths. I think there's no point in arguing that, and even the best among those who proclaim to be "DI's" also must admit the truth of how ridiculously weak the belief systems of some of these DI's actually are.
Half the problem is that many people are just confused as a result of all these weak concepts and terms are being thrown around, many of which are obviously false in my view.
But anyways, let's stay off the tangents of easter bunnies and mis-worded statements when I knew what he was saying. I apologize for that.
But "how do you prove that in theory dice control can exist."
We already know that in theory dice control can exist. You don't need to prove that in theory that it can exist. It does exist in theory.
But I do know what he was really saying is how do you prove that the outcome of dice can be skewed enough to overcome the house edge by using a throwing technique.
There are so many weak wordings and misused terms that confuse people. A lot of time is spent arguing over terms. Just the terms "DICE INFLUENCER" .. that pretty much describes anyone who even touches a dice IMO. Dice are influenced by lots of stuff. I don't particularly like that term nor the acronym "DI" nor the negative association of the terms "community of DI's" etc.
I can assure you that at least one person who is a "self-proclaimed DI" is actually a bonafide believer of non-truths. I think there's no point in arguing that, and even the best among those who proclaim to be "DI's" also must admit the truth of how ridiculously weak the belief systems of some of these DI's actually are.
Half the problem is that many people are just confused as a result of all these weak concepts and terms are being thrown around, many of which are obviously false in my view.
But anyways, let's stay off the tangents of easter bunnies and mis-worded statements when I knew what he was saying. I apologize for that.
aahigh.com
October 30th, 2012 at 8:50:56 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighIt is also possible that a human can obtain bias in the outcome of throwing two dice while a robotic throwing machine cannot. This is a little less obvious, but it's absolutely a possible condition. Not likely, but possible.
How?
Are you assuming some inherent flaw in machine fabrication, perhaps based on current technology levels, which would prevent a robot from exactly mimicking a human? Because if not, and if a perfect replica of a human arm can be built, how could that replica fail to reproduce the same results as a naturally-grown human arm?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 30th, 2012 at 10:24:00 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistHow?
Are you assuming some inherent flaw in machine fabrication, perhaps based on current technology levels, which would prevent a robot from exactly mimicking a human? Because if not, and if a perfect replica of a human arm can be built, how could that replica fail to reproduce the same results as a naturally-grown human arm?
It's the lack of assumptions that lead to my assertion of possibility. I thought I explained this in detail, but machines and computers are only good at certain things. It is possible (although as I said not likely IMO) that a person could achieve a bias with a throw that a machine could not duplicate.
For example, I don't believe in such things, but there are people who believe in telekinesis. If that were proven to be possible for humans and impossible for machines, that would lead to this possibility. There are more complex conditions which could also lead to this possibility as well, but for the purposes of explanation, it is just a possibility, not a likely outcome.
And again, I want to stress that outlining possible conclusions is not a reflection on my beliefs, just a set of possible outcomes.
My point in bringing up these possibilities is to point out how many things people have ruled out due to conventional thinking without any facts to back them up.
Now let's please not diverge on the discussion of whether telekinesis is possible. I think (HOPE) we all agree it's not. But the brain and human motor system is MUCH more complex than any robot and can absolutely perform many things that aren't possible with automation.
aahigh.com
October 30th, 2012 at 10:27:49 AM
permalink
" Now let's please not diverge on the discussion of whether telekinesis is possible. " Yes, let's get back to a more reasonable existence, such as Easter Bunny.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
October 30th, 2012 at 11:02:30 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighBut the brain and human motor system is MUCH more complex than any robot and can absolutely perform many things that aren't possible with automation.
Yet.
But I think you're getting caught up in present-day details. There is no theoretical reason why a robotic arm couldn't be built to precisely the same tolerances and capabilities as a human one. If the physical characteristics are the same, the end result has to be the same too. No?
More to the point, remote surgery devices are already ample demonstration of the sufficiency of robotics in mimicking the human hand for special-purpose tasks. Dice throwing is also a special-purpose task: it is described by a relatively small set of motions that must be precisely performed. A dice-throwing robot doesn't need to be able to juggle, throw a curve ball, play the saxophone, or mix a martini. I grant that building a robot that could do *all* of those things automatically would be a gargantuan task, but that's not the task here. All you need to do is build an arm that moves roughly 12 inches in the appropriate trajectory, and attach a hand to grasp and release the dice according to your chosen technique. That doesn't require any AI, just an unwavering set of steps to perform. Indeed, that's the whole point: if a robotic arm following an unwavering set of steps can throw dice in a non-uniform distribution then you have empirically demonstrated dice influence.
Edit: if you can build a robot that can juggle, throw a curve ball, play the saxophone, and mix a martini, let me know and I'll line up VC money. :)
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 30th, 2012 at 11:12:55 AM
permalink
This is diverging rapidly. Look, I think we agree on much of this. I don't want to have the conversation on state of the art of robots or other topics. Just making the point that I am not excluding the possibility that the best robot built could still be inferior to the best shooter out there.
It would be super duper if the great minds could cooperate rather than diverge onto topics such as the Easter Bunny and how robots could be as good as people at something. Okay, great and interesting conversation, but quite tangential.
It would be super duper if the great minds could cooperate rather than diverge onto topics such as the Easter Bunny and how robots could be as good as people at something. Okay, great and interesting conversation, but quite tangential.
aahigh.com
October 30th, 2012 at 11:26:47 AM
permalink
Ahigh I am looking forward to seeing your video of this arm in action.
October 30th, 2012 at 11:55:32 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighThis is diverging rapidly. Look, I think we agree on much of this. I don't want to have the conversation on state of the art of robots or other topics. Just making the point that I am not excluding the possibility that the best robot built could still be inferior to the best shooter out there.
It would be super duper if the great minds could cooperate rather than diverge onto topics such as the Easter Bunny and how robots could be as good as people at something. Okay, great and interesting conversation, but quite tangential.
Fair enough. What kind of cooperation did you have in mind? Is it worth discussing what kind of launch motion, dice grip, and release you're going to be using?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 30th, 2012 at 1:13:58 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerThis is something to which I shall be forward looking. (You try writing that sentence without ending it with a preposition)
Is that even still a grammar rule?
October 30th, 2012 at 1:44:51 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistFair enough. What kind of cooperation did you have in mind? Is it worth discussing what kind of launch motion, dice grip, and release you're going to be using?
The details for the launcher to be able to tune the spin and launch velocity direction are what I'm working on right now, actually. I've got pretty good results for some backspin that isn't really adjustable, but it looks good. But what I have now does a good job at sending the dice through the path, just don't have the wrist motion simulated and final touch to accomplish the backspin in the best possible way and allow for adjustments to be made in an ultra-precise way.
The ideal shot for a short roll has absolutely zero bounce. It just stops dead on the land. Downward velocity and backspin angular momentum cancel each other out. I absolutely want to be able to accomplish this as consistently as possible just because it will be damn cool. But I need fine tuning for the amount of back spin on the release at the precise moment and so that the exact state of the physics of each dice is very near perfect on the release. So I need precision and the ability to make adjustments.
aahigh.com
October 30th, 2012 at 3:43:26 PM
permalink
Quote: AhighThe ideal shot for a short roll has absolutely zero bounce. It just stops dead on the land. Downward velocity and backspin angular momentum cancel each other out. I absolutely want to be able to accomplish this as consistently as possible just because it will be damn cool.
It will, but it will also be a no-roll on a dice table if you approach anything close to consistency. Is the goal to demonstrate simply that dice can be influenced via machine, or that dice can be influenced via machine such that the casino won't take them away from you?
I'd think the ideal shot would be one that actually bounced off the back wall and met all other typical shooting requirements. Isn't that really what you want to test?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 30th, 2012 at 4:08:06 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistI'd think the ideal shot would be one that actually bounced off the back wall and met all other typical shooting requirements.
Generally, the dice do not have to "bounce" off of the back wall -- they just have to touch the wall. If one makes a perfect throw in which the dice fly through the air and come to an instant stop, "lodging" themselves in the "wedge" between the wall and the felt, the toss is usually allowed.
October 30th, 2012 at 4:51:15 PM
permalink
I am approaching the simpler goals first. But if I can roll a consistent short roll, adjusting the throw velocity to bounce off the back wall from there is the next step.
But it just makes sense to focus on the type of rolls that everyone generally agrees are possible to bias first.
Tupp's point is valid. I have rolled a roll like this to hit a $10 hard 8 .. where hard 8 was on top of my set. Even though it was only a $90 payday, that was the only thing I was trying to do, and I had that bet and a $5 passline with an eight point when I hit it.
It was a sort of "nirvana" feeling of accomplishment for my toss.
I told Wayne (the pit boss at the time) that I did it. He said, "how much." I told him $100 and down, and he made that pffft sound and rolled his eyes.
LOL.
But it just makes sense to focus on the type of rolls that everyone generally agrees are possible to bias first.
Tupp's point is valid. I have rolled a roll like this to hit a $10 hard 8 .. where hard 8 was on top of my set. Even though it was only a $90 payday, that was the only thing I was trying to do, and I had that bet and a $5 passline with an eight point when I hit it.
It was a sort of "nirvana" feeling of accomplishment for my toss.
I told Wayne (the pit boss at the time) that I did it. He said, "how much." I told him $100 and down, and he made that pffft sound and rolled his eyes.
LOL.
aahigh.com
October 30th, 2012 at 6:22:11 PM
permalink
Ahigh
You crack me up, you’re a really smart guy, I would think that you could have seen the hand writing on the wall by now. You got the videos that show the dice bouncing all over the craps table when you throw them. In your videos you show that you can’t hit the same spot on the table every time, yes I know that you can ride a bike and play a video game and beat it because you have played the same game thousands of times. The game responds the same way every time, when you do a certain move. It will do that every time you do that move, dice being dropped or rolled will not respond the same way every time as you believe.
A human is not capable of making a shot with the dice that will land every time in the same spot with the same amount of energy on the dice. Every throw you make will be different, sure the dice may end up on the points that you want to see some of the times, but not all of the times! Even without the dice hitting the back wall once the dice or die hits the table it is bouncing all over the place.
Now I know that you are going to say that the video I shot doesn’t prove a thing, as I would like to point out it’s not a very scientific way of trying to prove something like dice control , but as everybody can see in this video the dice do not land the same way every time. I only used one die so you can’t say that the dice hit or something like that happened. The drop to the table was only six inches, with the same speed every time on the dice.
In this short video you will see clumping of numbers, the same thing happens of real craps tables, where you may see three hard eights in a series of roll. When you have, let’s say 1511 rolls of the dice, in those rolls you might see one two or three hard ways come before you roll a soft one. At the same time you will see one number clumping for a while then go away. Then you might see one more number start to do the same thing.
If you only look a one little snippet of those 1511 roll any thing that look good to you may trigger your brain to think that you are doing something special when all it is is the numbers clumping.
The rolls in this little video shows that numbers do come in clump.
http://youtu.be/g5F4HHoVZcM
The one thing to remember with this video is the dice never hit the back wall, just think what would have happened if they did, would you see more randomness or do you think you would see less? You can try to build the perfect machine to do what your dream says you can do or will you go down in flames, when you fin out that it can’t be done. Now I didn’t mean that you couldn’t build a machine that would throw the dice the same way every time, all I’m saying is even if you could, you would still be facing the one thing that bets everybody on a craps table and that is the house edge!
What most players don’t understand is that when they casinos are losing they are still winning on every bet you place, unless you are taking the so called free odds, even then you are still paying a vig, because you have to make a pass line bet!
They win on every bet do you? The answer would be no, because unlike the casinos, they even win on the winning points that you get paid on, you don’t! They take out their vig on every bet on the table, so they grind down you bankroll over time.
Well I don’t know where you are playing at, but where I play they would take the dice off you for making a shot that just touched the back wall without bouncing back off the wall, every time you made a shot! Casinos are not in business to be your personal ATM.
_________________
Note, all my post start with this is just my opinion...!
You do good brada ..!
superrick
Winning comes from knowledge and skill when your betting and not reading fiction!
You crack me up, you’re a really smart guy, I would think that you could have seen the hand writing on the wall by now. You got the videos that show the dice bouncing all over the craps table when you throw them. In your videos you show that you can’t hit the same spot on the table every time, yes I know that you can ride a bike and play a video game and beat it because you have played the same game thousands of times. The game responds the same way every time, when you do a certain move. It will do that every time you do that move, dice being dropped or rolled will not respond the same way every time as you believe.
A human is not capable of making a shot with the dice that will land every time in the same spot with the same amount of energy on the dice. Every throw you make will be different, sure the dice may end up on the points that you want to see some of the times, but not all of the times! Even without the dice hitting the back wall once the dice or die hits the table it is bouncing all over the place.
Now I know that you are going to say that the video I shot doesn’t prove a thing, as I would like to point out it’s not a very scientific way of trying to prove something like dice control , but as everybody can see in this video the dice do not land the same way every time. I only used one die so you can’t say that the dice hit or something like that happened. The drop to the table was only six inches, with the same speed every time on the dice.
In this short video you will see clumping of numbers, the same thing happens of real craps tables, where you may see three hard eights in a series of roll. When you have, let’s say 1511 rolls of the dice, in those rolls you might see one two or three hard ways come before you roll a soft one. At the same time you will see one number clumping for a while then go away. Then you might see one more number start to do the same thing.
If you only look a one little snippet of those 1511 roll any thing that look good to you may trigger your brain to think that you are doing something special when all it is is the numbers clumping.
The rolls in this little video shows that numbers do come in clump.
http://youtu.be/g5F4HHoVZcM
The one thing to remember with this video is the dice never hit the back wall, just think what would have happened if they did, would you see more randomness or do you think you would see less? You can try to build the perfect machine to do what your dream says you can do or will you go down in flames, when you fin out that it can’t be done. Now I didn’t mean that you couldn’t build a machine that would throw the dice the same way every time, all I’m saying is even if you could, you would still be facing the one thing that bets everybody on a craps table and that is the house edge!
What most players don’t understand is that when they casinos are losing they are still winning on every bet you place, unless you are taking the so called free odds, even then you are still paying a vig, because you have to make a pass line bet!
They win on every bet do you? The answer would be no, because unlike the casinos, they even win on the winning points that you get paid on, you don’t! They take out their vig on every bet on the table, so they grind down you bankroll over time.
Quote:
tupp
Generally, the dice do not have to "bounce" off of the back wall -- they just have to touch the wall. If one makes a perfect throw in which the dice fly through the air and come to an instant stop, "lodging" themselves in the "wedge" between the wall and the felt, the toss is usually allowed.
Well I don’t know where you are playing at, but where I play they would take the dice off you for making a shot that just touched the back wall without bouncing back off the wall, every time you made a shot! Casinos are not in business to be your personal ATM.
_________________
Note, all my post start with this is just my opinion...!
You do good brada ..!
superrick
Winning comes from knowledge and skill when your betting and not reading fiction!
Note, all my post start with this is just my opinion...!
You do good brada ..!
superrick
Winning comes from knowledge and skill when your betting and not reading fiction
http://procraps4u2.myfanforum.org/index.php
...
October 30th, 2012 at 6:41:11 PM
permalink
Thanks, Rick. Awesome stuff.
aahigh.com
October 30th, 2012 at 6:47:45 PM
permalink
FWIW you crack me up even more, Rick.
aahigh.com
October 30th, 2012 at 10:34:10 PM
permalink
Well, I finally figured out how to get a simple mechanism to allow me to consistently control the amount of backspin. It took a couple of days. I will post up some photos soon. That was awesome to see more of Super Rick's setup and his video. Rick has given me a lot of constructive criticism. But the relationship between him and me is something akin to the relationship that I think Steve Weibe had with Roy Schildt.
That Roy is quite a character too. I got to meet both of these guys at the first time while they where filming King of Kong. Roy took Steve under his wing much like Super Rick took me under his wing when I got shot down years ago talking about rolling more than a random amount of hardways way back when on Wizard of Vegas.
For those who don't remember two years ago, this was the post when Super Rick read my story and introduced himself as someone who was more accepting of the possibility of being able to influence the dice on his forum.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/big-wins/3665-another-big-craps-win/#post42388
Nevertheless, I'm having to go it alone (without Rick's support) these days. I appreciate Rick's continued interest in what I'm doing but hopefully it's understood that I've moved on and need to go and do things on my own. It's really been about 18 months since I left Rick's forum to start up GoodShooter.com now really. But like I said, I do appreciate the continued interest on Rick's part.
That Roy is quite a character too. I got to meet both of these guys at the first time while they where filming King of Kong. Roy took Steve under his wing much like Super Rick took me under his wing when I got shot down years ago talking about rolling more than a random amount of hardways way back when on Wizard of Vegas.
For those who don't remember two years ago, this was the post when Super Rick read my story and introduced himself as someone who was more accepting of the possibility of being able to influence the dice on his forum.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/big-wins/3665-another-big-craps-win/#post42388
Nevertheless, I'm having to go it alone (without Rick's support) these days. I appreciate Rick's continued interest in what I'm doing but hopefully it's understood that I've moved on and need to go and do things on my own. It's really been about 18 months since I left Rick's forum to start up GoodShooter.com now really. But like I said, I do appreciate the continued interest on Rick's part.
aahigh.com
October 30th, 2012 at 11:51:15 PM
permalink
More on Mr. Awesome
http://www.royawesome.com/
http://www.shockandawesome.com/
Wow, that guy really _is_ awesome.
http://www.royawesome.com/
http://www.shockandawesome.com/
Wow, that guy really _is_ awesome.
aahigh.com
October 31st, 2012 at 9:16:02 AM
permalink
Quote: tuppGenerally, the dice do not have to "bounce" off of the back wall -- they just have to touch the wall. If one makes a perfect throw in which the dice fly through the air and come to an instant stop, "lodging" themselves in the "wedge" between the wall and the felt, the toss is usually allowed.
I think if a shooter were able to do this consistently, the house would quickly implement the "bounce back six inches" rule, or "bounce back two feet" rule. In every regulated jurisdiction I know of, the house can call "no roll" for whatever reason they want. It even says so specifically in the New Jersey regs. I just think it's a waste of time attempting to practice (or mechanically test) a throwing technique that, when perfected, is so consistent that the house notices and makes you stop using it. I think the real test would be to make the dice results look uniformly random, but not *act* uniformly random.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 31st, 2012 at 12:42:59 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistI think if a shooter were able to do this consistently, the house would quickly implement the "bounce back six inches" rule, or "bounce back two feet" rule. In every regulated jurisdiction I know of, the house can call "no roll" for whatever reason they want. It even says so specifically in the New Jersey regs. I just think it's a waste of time attempting to practice (or mechanically test) a throwing technique that, when perfected, is so consistent that the house notices and makes you stop using it. I think the real test would be to make the dice results look uniformly random, but not *act* uniformly random.
I agree with this generalization. Many people can't wrap their heads around a controlled throw that appears random, and that's a big reason I want to demonstrate a controlled throw that looks controlled. Just a milestone in the journey really.
Demonstrating a controlled throw that looks random is further down the path if I can make the first milestone. The I think the first milestone is simpler as a sanity check along the way.
aahigh.com
October 31st, 2012 at 2:54:06 PM
permalink
Nice video.Quote: superrickIf you only look a one little snippet of those 1511 roll any thing that look good to you may trigger your brain to think that you are doing something special when all it is is the numbers clumping.
The rolls in this little video shows that numbers do come in clump.
The one thing to remember with this video is the dice never hit the back wall, just think what would have happened if they did, would you see more randomness or do you think you would see less?
In a dice roll multinomial distribution, clumping can easily be seen
to not be random or return a distribution that looks not to be random or can look to be random. How can one tell??
It really depends on the expected number of clumps (runs) to be expected in N rolls.
The 60 rolls in the above vid produced this time series, one can easily see runs and the lengths.
In Excel one can also quickly see the distribution and do a chi-squared test for randomness
face Freq Freq% EV% EV
1 9 15.00% 16.67% 10
2 9 15.00% 16.67% 10
3 15 25.00% 16.67% 10
4 10 16.67% 16.67% 10
5 5 8.33% 16.67% 10
6 12 20.00% 16.67% 10
CHITEST(B2:B7,E2:E7)
0.347105084
The result is happy for random results
But what about the same distribution but a different time series.
Now the chi-squared test still shows the same result
Is this still random??? Can a DI produce this??
or this one... less random??
same chi-squared test result for randomness
Can a DI produce this one??
what IS more impressive?
producing a distribution that has acceptable results by values or
by acceptable streaks or runs or clumps.
how about a multinomial runs test,
later... Candy Time
Trick or Treat!
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
October 31st, 2012 at 2:55:08 PM
permalink
Many people can't wrap their heads around a random throw that appears controlled,Quote: AhighMany people can't wrap their heads around a controlled throw that appears random,
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
