Controlled throwing device (CTD)
I did not finish in my hurry to finish...Quote: AhighVery clever that response,
Many people can't wrap their heads around a random throw that appears controlled, by the results that are produced.
Now Trick or Treat
When I rolled my 104-roll/1:56 minute hand....everyone said my throws looked absolutely consistent and my landings were all in the same exact place...
It was also a table with ZERO heat...and actually after the one hour mark, the pitboss (who was sitting box) was actually curious just to see how long I could go for....
Like I said Aaron, when I come in December, lets hit up some tables...
To test for independent results, you would do a cross-correlation test.
Quote: MangoJChi-Square test is only valid for independent samples. If you get this streaky result as shown, it will only prove that your method will not provide independent samples for some reason. The result of thr Chi-Square test is then irrelevant, because the test does not apply. So no mystery there.
To test for independent results, you would do a cross-correlation test.
Well, a strong bias is different than serially-correlated results. We both know that streaks are naturally occurring in independent results, and I can't imagine what the mechanism would be whereby one roll could possibly affect the distribution of a subsequent one.
Quote: AhighBut bias in the outcome and a consistent throw are two different things.
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.
When you are talking about "control" you are talking about control, not bias or any variation. Either you control the dice to do the same exact thing each and every time or you are not "controlling them." Maybe you are "influencing" the dice? Is that what you mean?
Influencing is more realistic for a human than controlling. Influencing allows for variations that may or may not help you with the end result. But to "control" something means that you really "control."
But even when it comes to "influencing" the dice, I am yet to see any shooter who can do it "on demand." And I've read the various "sevens to rolls ratio reports" that the DI/DC crowd has published. And frankly, if anyone of them really could do what they say, there wouldn't be any variations in anyone's results. But that's all you see -- variations. One day they do great, another day not so great. One day its point-sevens and another day they hold the dice for 35 numbers.
I very much would like to see someone control the dice or even influence them enough to justify the title of "dice influencer." And while I have seen some shooters who appear to have influenced the dice well (not one of them CONTROLLED anything) these feats have not been repeated with any reliability.
You, for example, don't control or influence anything. All you have is some luck that you have hit the numbers you wanted to hit.
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.
That is indeed the definition of a "legal throw" by the Nevada Gaming Commission enforcement division: fly in the air, hit the table surface and the back wall. If steps two and three are simultaneous (lodging in the wedge) it's okay.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI'm sorry Ahigh but I reject all of these comments of yours:
When you are talking about "control" you are talking about control, not bias or any variation. Either you control the dice to do the same exact thing each and every time or you are not "controlling them." Maybe you are "influencing" the dice? Is that what you mean?
Influencing is more realistic for a human than controlling. Influencing allows for variations that may or may not help you with the end result. But to "control" something means that you really "control."
But even when it comes to "influencing" the dice, I am yet to see any shooter who can do it "on demand." And I've read the various "sevens to rolls ratio reports" that the DI/DC crowd has published. And frankly, if anyone of them really could do what they say, there wouldn't be any variations in anyone's results. But that's all you see -- variations. One day they do great, another day not so great. One day its point-sevens and another day they hold the dice for 35 numbers.
I very much would like to see someone control the dice or even influence them enough to justify the title of "dice influencer." And while I have seen some shooters who appear to have influenced the dice well (not one of them CONTROLLED anything) these feats have not been repeated with any reliability.
You, for example, don't control or influence anything. All you have is some luck that you have hit the numbers you wanted to hit.
Thanks for being polite about it, Alan but I'm not convinced that you understand the assertions that I am making. Your discussion about various terms used to describe your understanding of possible ways of obtaining desirable outcomes of the dice doesn't demonstrate to me that you understand my assertions.
If you want to reject my "comments" .. which I would refer to as assertions rather than comments, make a better effort at understanding what I am asserting.
All of your comments seem to indicate that you're still missing what I'm saying.
Also, please consider that I am not a student or follower of anyone else's classes, teaching, publishing or other work. I follow much of what is here on Wizard of Vegas as it relates to math, but I'm am not a student of any DI, teacher, coach, or other cult of how to throw dice.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThat is indeed the definition of a "legal throw" by the Nevada Gaming Commission enforcement division: fly in the air, hit the table surface and the back wall. If steps two and three are simultaneous (lodging in the wedge) it's okay.
Not repeatedly. Do you actually think that a casino would let you keep shooting if you could do that consistently? If, say, 9 out of 10 of your rolls stuck at the corner of the felt and rubber, wouldn't you expect the stick to start requiring you to bounce off the back wall a few inches? It is clear that the dice will have non-uniform face probabilities if they can be thrown so precisely and accurately so as to stick in the corner nearly every time. The table would be absolutely dumping, and it's the crew's job to prevent that from happening. You'd never get away with it for more than a few rolls. There is nothing in the regulations that say a casino *must allow* a shooter to keep shooting if he hits the surface and back wall, even simultaneously. The crew can call no-roll for any reason, and demonstrating a high level of skill in controlling the dice is a good one. "For you, the dice must bounce back two feet when you throw" is a perfectly legitimate (and effective) countermeasure against this sort of shooting. So why is anyone paying money to learn how to do it?
But if you win even $2000 or $3000 and they are giving you a hard time about hitting the back wall, it doesn't necessarily mean they have a problem paying you. That might be your wishing they had an issue with paying you when in fact they are just doing their job.
Of course it is true that if you roll those suspicious looking rolls and you lose as a result of them, they are more likely to snicker than they are to tell you to hit the back wall or some other advice or warning. It really just depends on how often your roll is not qualifying.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThat is indeed the definition of a "legal throw" by the Nevada Gaming Commission enforcement division: fly in the air, hit the table surface and the back wall. If steps two and three are simultaneous (lodging in the wedge) it's okay.
Quote: MathExtremistNot repeatedly. Do you actually think that a casino would let you keep shooting if you could do that consistently? If, say, 9 out of 10 of your rolls stuck at the corner of the felt and rubber, wouldn't you expect the stick to start requiring you to bounce off the back wall a few inches?
To overcome the house edge, the dice do not have to "wedge" in the corner. I just used that scenario as an example, because that is considered a "perfect" toss by some in the "dice influencing" realm.
The house edge on 10x-odds line/come bet is only 0.184%, so if you could "wedge" the dice as described, say, one out of every 5 rolls, that would do very well to give a significant edge.
Furthermore, "wedging" the dice is not necessary to substantially change a dice outcome. From what I gather, the notion in most dice influencing circles is that a really great shooter is one who fairly consistently lands the dice between 2" to 1/2" from the wall, well aligned with minimal rotation, and with the dice bouncing back 1/4 to 3/4 turns. Of course, anybody who can perform such throws regularly would be the "Tiger Woods" of the dice influencing realm. And just like Tiger Woods' golf swing, such an excellent performance level would come and go. Nonetheless, I don't doubt that such a performance is possible.
However, even that great of a feat is not necessary to overcome a house edge as small as 0.184%! If one could toss the dice as described above and prevent a seven in one out of every four rolls, that would be a significant advantage.
Quote: MathExtremistThe crew can call no-roll for any reason, and demonstrating a high level of skill in controlling the dice is a good one. "For you, the dice must bounce back two feet when you throw" is a perfectly legitimate (and effective) countermeasure against this sort of shooting.
I have never seen a pit manager call "no dice" when the dice have clearly touched the back wall -- even if it is only a 1/4-turn bounce, and I have never ever heard of a casino telling a shooter that he/she has to bounce the dice off of the wall a certain distance.
Quote: MathExtremistSo why is anyone paying money to learn how to do it?
I doubt that any member of this forum is paying money to a dice coach.
Quote: AhighCasinos are well known to be MORE superstitious than the players! They do all kinds of things to bring out the red when big money is involved.
I didn't know that? What exactly do the casinos do when the table is filled with darkside players? Do they turn the magic switch to "pass" for the dice?
Quote: tupp
I have never seen a pit manager call "no dice" when the dice have clearly touched the back wall -- even if it is only a 1/4-turn bounce, and I have never ever heard of a casino telling a shooter that he/she has to bounce the dice off of the wall a certain distance.
I guess you never read or heard my story about the Bellagio when my dice came to rest leaning against the back wall showing 5-4 and I was "no rolled" because the dice did not bounce off a minimum of six inches?
Quote: tuppThe house edge on 10x-odds line/come bet is only 0.184%, so if you could "wedge" the dice as described, say, one out of every 5 rolls, that would do very well to give a significant edge.
I have been checking some things out with Wincraps. You can change the probability that a die rolls its numbers there to simulate the effect of dice influence.
So you can make assumptions. If you could hit the back wall with no bounce 1 time in 5, and 1 time in 10 there was perfect result as far as staying on axis and staying on correlation [assume all other rolls are random] then it shows a 0.22% player edge overall with 10x odds. edit: will explain more later, out of time.
Running out of time, so may not get all pics up till later.
Please critique how I altered the dice [all done in the lower part]:
Quote: odiousgambitI have been checking some things out with Wincraps. You can change the probability that a die rolls its numbers there to simulate the effect of dice influence.
Thank you very much for running this simulation!
Quote:If you could hit the back wall with no bounce 1 time in 5, and 1 time in 10 there was perfect result as far as staying on axis and staying on correlation...
My notion behind that particular scenario was that one out of every five rolls would be a "non-loss" (a push or a win).
Actually, it would be interesting to know the lowest frequency of "non-loss" rolls required to counter the house edge on a come bet with 10x odds.
Thanks again!
Quote: AlanMendelsonI guess you never read or heard my story about the Bellagio when my dice came to rest leaning against the back wall showing 5-4 and I was "no rolled" because the dice did not bounce off a minimum of six inches?
I've seen some peculiar reactions from the pit, but this is the first time that I've heard of a "no dice" called when dice were actually touching the back wall.
My experience has been that a "wall-leaning" die is called according to the same guidelines as a "chip-leaning" die.
Quote: tuppI've seen some peculiar reactions from the pit, but this is the first time that I've heard of a "no dice" called when dice were actually touching the back wall.
My experience has been that a "wall-leaning" die is called according to the same guidelines as a "chip-leaning" die.
Alan, you of all people should be familiar with the quote,
"A statistical sample of one is meaningless."
But more importantly, that is way off topic. Let's not diverge.
As far as casinos being superstitious, I'm right, trust me. If you want to argue about it, let's take it offline as it has nothing to do with the topic. I can introduce you to dealers and members of the pit who will confirm what I'm saying.
Wincraps is an awesome piece of software. I've been using my own software, but that thing is pretty powerful for modelling bias. And thanks for bringing that into the conversation. It's good to know what kind of bias is enough to compete with the house edge.
Here's a graph output from my software:
I started using the hard 8 set on roll #1186. This charts out hard 8 strategies and shows the results of using my software that advises me how to alter my set for desirable results.
Although I don't use WinCraps myself, it's pretty powerful. The main thing that I wanted though was software that I could change to include any kind of analysis. So I wrote my stuff in Perl and I have it working on both windows and OSX right now. This was generated from Windows (this is the first graph I've uploaded from it running under windows).
I've got all my roll data and software checked in to an svn server on my Synology disk station. I still have a lot of stuff to do, but I have been having tons of fun just with the technical aspects of all this stuff.
I haven't talked a lot about it, but the part that figures out what set for me to use actually goes through all the possible ways to set the dice and simulates every strategy on my list of strategies to figure out which set works the best, and reports back.
One of the more interesting things that occurred with this was that when I first started writing this, I was at about 300 rolls. My first few rolls looked fantastic on max odds. When I searched for the best set, of all the possible sets, there was no better set to use. At first I thought that I had a bug!
Here's a graph of my first 357 rolls recorded. For these rolls, I use the 6262 set, and my software says I could have made an extra $200 or so if I had used a 2323 set instead. But the interesting thing about my software is that it verifies for a group of rolls and a list of strategies that the set that I am using is ideal, and if not ideal, how far off in dollars the ideal set for those set of rolls would be and what that ideal set would be.
If the controlled throwing device can get a more desirable result than I can get in a more consistent way, the software is going to tell me exactly how to set the dice into the throwing device to maximize the effect for any particular strategy that I code up.
From that point, demonstrating the bias using a known strategy (which is what I am doing to get the results I have shown so far on film) is hopefully going to be more extreme than what I can accomplish.
Yeah, Tiger always hit the area he was aiming for. Well, within 20 or 30 yards! What a piss poor analogy.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/11820-controlled-throwing-device-ctd/7/#post193504
The dice set I had in mind was what the Wizard calls set #1
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/
In this set the 1 is on the thumb, making the 1 and 6 the axis [so actually the 6 can be on the thumb instead]; the rotating numbers correlate so that they are paired up with this set, but see below. Both dice set the same of course with that set. If staying on axis, a 1 or 6 cannot be rolled face-up result on a die. I tried to show 2% incidence of this; note the correlation for pairs can fail and it won't matter. I incorrectly indicated in the previous post it mattered.
The below shows results of 100 million rolls. The Player Advantage shows in bottom right.
You are welcome, Tupp! Ahigh, will have to look at your post more carefully. Pretty cool your software tells you the best set.
Quote: odiousgambit
If I'm reading that right, the actual win under simulation was $6.07/hour and the expected win was $4.96/hour, from making $10 line bets with $100 odds under the assumption of your stated level of control (stick the landing 1 in 5 times, 1 in 10 of those landings everything stays on-axis). I grant that +EV of $5/hour is better than the -$42/hour expected from random rolling, but it doesn't seem like it's worth chasing given the extreme variances involved. Certainly you can risk far less, and invest less time, to earn $5/hour. How many people can stick the landing 20% of the time?
Quote: MathExtremistIf I'm reading that right, the actual win under simulation was $6.07/hour and the expected win was $4.96/hour, from making $10 line bets with $100 odds under the assumption of your stated level of control (stick the landing 1 in 5 times, 1 in 10 of those landings everything stays on-axis). I grant that +EV of $5/hour is better than the -$42/hour expected from random rolling, but it doesn't seem like it's worth chasing given the extreme variances involved. Certainly you can risk far less, and invest less time, to earn $5/hour. How many people can stick the landing 20% of the time?
I haven't made a case for whether it is worth a person's time, not a concern for me. But it is flat betting, a player could Kelly this instead.
I also haven't made a case that this is possible! [g]
But lately I have been interested in just keeping the dice on axis a small percent of the time.
Quote: Buzzard" If staying on axis, a 1 or 6 cannot be rolled face-up result on a die" ROFLMAO
A mighty big IF, ya know, Buzz!
Quote: odiousgambitcontinuation of: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/11820-controlled-throwing-device-ctd/7/#post193504
These simulations are very helpful!
Quote: odiousgambitThe dice set I had in mind was what the Wizard calls set #1 https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/
In this set the 1 is on the thumb, making the 1 and 6 the axis [so actually the 6 can be on the thumb instead]; the rotating numbers correlate so that they are paired up with this set, but see below.
In regards to non-come-out rolls, I believe that it is widely held that any "crossed pair" set is superior to the "full hardway" set (Wizard's "Set #1"). The reason for this notion is that, if the dice remain on-axis, there are only two ways to roll a seven with a crossed pair, while there are four ways to roll a seven with the full hardway set.
By the way, on the come out roll, I usually set what Wizard calls "Sevens Set #2":
I generally set "crossed sixes" after the point is established. One could just as easily set the other two crossed sets: "Flying V" with 3s; or the "Flying V" with 2s.
Quote: odiousgambitIf staying on axis, a 1 or 6 cannot be rolled face-up result on a die. I tried to show 2% incidence of this; note the correlation for pairs can fail and it won't matter.
At this point, it might be better to remove any bias/weighting for on-axis rolls, and, instead, just assume that the shooter can hit "non-loss" rolls at a certain frequency. Again, a non-loss roll could be any one of the possible win or push combinations, with no axis bias.
If we can determine the frequency of guaranteed non-loss rolls that will nullify the given house edge (0.184% for 10x odds come bet), then we will have established a baseline goal, both for the dice throwing device and its human counterparts.
The on-axis bias can be added to varying degrees, after this mathematical baseline is determined.
Thanks!
Quote: tuppIn regards to non-come-out rolls, I believe that it is widely held that any "crossed pair" set is superior to the "full hardway" set (Wizard's "Set #1"). The reason for this notion is that, if the dice remain on-axis, there are only two ways to roll a seven with a crossed pair, while there are four ways to roll a seven with the full hardway set.
For crossed pairs, can you give examples? Like what the axis is, what is on the thumb? I assume it is not a Wizard-shown set.
Regarding this, and your other points, for me trying to figure out how to change the probabilities in Wincraps would kick my ass. Perhaps someone else can do it? Kinda glad though no one yet seems to think I made a mistake with what I was doing so far.
Quote: tuppBy the way, on the come out roll, I usually set what Wizard calls "Sevens Set #2"
That's my choice as well. I have found myself utterly unable to hit the back wall without bouncing the dice, for the record, so there is no reason to think it helps [g].
Quote: odiousgambitFor crossed pairs, can you give examples? Like what the axis is, what is on the thumb? I assume it is not a Wizard-shown set.
Not shown on Wizard Of Odds site. Gotta run. Will post response tonight or tomorrow.
Thanks!
PS. Try to avoid MGM, Bellagio and NYNY where I was asked to leave because I was deemed to be a controlled shooter who was costing the casinos too much money.
Quote: odiousgambitFor crossed pairs, can you give examples?
Here is "crossed sixes":
Here is the "Flying V with 3s":
Here is the "Flying V with 2s":
"Crossed sixes" is the same set as "crossed aces" -- merely flop the crossed sixes set upside-down. Likewise, the "Flying V with 3s" is the same as "crossed 4s," and the "Flying V with 2s" is the same as "crossed fives."
By the way, there are two ways to "cross" each of these sets . For instance, if one sets "crossed sixes" and spins either "six" 180 degrees, one will see both "side" faces alternate between sets of 2-3/4-5 and 2-4/3-5. However, either way should give the same expected come bet results, if we assume that the dice stay on-axis with a random number of turns for each die after the wall bounce.
The differing possible outcomes between these three crossed sets is shown on this page. Depending on the established point (or on one's single-roll bet or hardway bet), one crossed set can be more ideal than the others. For instance, if the point is 6 or 8 , the "Flying V with 3s" is best, because (assuming the dice remain on-axis) there are three ways it can roll a 6 or 8, while the two other sets only allow two ways to roll a 6 or 8. Also, the crossed sixes is the only crossed set that allows a hard 6 or hard 8 (with the dice remaining on-axis).
Quote:Regarding this, and your other points, for me trying to figure out how to change the probabilities in Wincraps would kick my ass. Perhaps someone else can do it?
The baseline that I mentioned can be determined with either an equation or a simulation, and I think that it actually would be simpler challenge than your simulation. It would simply be a given that each "guaranteed" roll would yield any one of the "non-loss" outcomes, with the dice allowed to roll both off-axis and on-axis.
However, after reviewing the differences in possible outcomes of the three crossed sets, it would be great to see each of those sets entered into the equation, with the assumption that the dice remain on-axis on the "guaranteed" roll.
Quote:Kinda glad though no one yet seems to think I made a mistake with what I was doing so far.
Looks great!
Quote:I have found myself utterly unable to hit the back wall without bouncing the dice, for the record, so there is no reason to think it helps [g].
There's only one way to get to Carnagie Hall!
the cross sixes doesn't need the "expert control" that the mini wedge uses.
the hardways set, with ace and six on the sides is the most forgiving of the sets, and is used by "beginning dice controllers"as it allows for more rotations than the others for still avoiding a seven.
the all 7s set, and the flying wedge or big wedge with the 3s in the form of a V is designed for come out rolls and to target inside numbers.
Oh yeah, I know all the jargon and all the talk and all the hype. been there, done that, and know all the players. but NONE OF THEM ever did it the way they talked it.
But if you put me in front of a class, I could talk a "good game" too.
actually, there is another type of controlled shooter that practice can make perfect: dice stackers who trap the lower die in the corner with the top dice slamming the bottom die into the felt, limiting the bounce by delivering the stack in the corner of the table. very difficult but after a lot of practice it is very effective. ONCE I did it at Rio hitting five numbers on the fire bet and multiple repeaters. Never did it again, or even tried it again, fearing big problems.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI don't want to get anyone's hopes up but you use the cross sixes with 5/4 when you target outside numbers. the mini-wedge or what you call the V with 2s is specifically targeting the hard four, hard ten and is for "expert" controllers.
the cross sixes doesn't need the "expert control" that the mini wedge uses.
the hardways set, with ace and six on the sides is the most forgiving of the sets, and is used by "beginning dice controllers"as it allows for more rotations than the others for still avoiding a seven.
the all 7s set, and the flying wedge or big wedge with the 3s in the form of a V is designed for come out rolls and to target inside numbers.
I generally agree. However, most of these assertions assume that both die have a controlled number of on-axis rotations after the wall bounce.
Also, in regards to all possible on-axis outcomes, the "hardways" set is identical to the "all sevens" set (with the aces and 6s on the sides). Each of these sets allows four 7s, while each crossed set allows only two 7s. So, a crossed set is actually better for avoiding a seven.
Quote:Oh yeah, I know all the jargon and all the talk and all the hype. been there, done that, and know all the players. but NONE OF THEM ever did it the way they talked it.
No one is talking any particular way right now. Currently, we are discussing the minimum frequency of controlled, "non-loss" rolls required to nullify (not overcome) the house edge. Once that mathematical baseline is established, then we can begin to predict the feasibility of getting an edge with the proposed dice throwing device (and with human shooters).
Quote:actually, there is another type of controlled shooter that practice can make perfect: dice stackers who trap the lower die in the corner with the top dice slamming the bottom die into the felt, limiting the bounce by delivering the stack in the corner of the table. very difficult but after a lot of practice it is very effective. ONCE I did it at Rio hitting five numbers on the fire bet and multiple repeaters. Never did it again, or even tried it again, fearing big problems.
Must have been great to witness that!
Quote: AlanMendelsonactually, there is another type of controlled shooter that practice can make perfect: dice stackers who trap the lower die in the corner with the top dice slamming the bottom die into the felt, limiting the bounce by delivering the stack in the corner of the table. very difficult but after a lot of practice it is very effective. ONCE I did it at Rio hitting five numbers on the fire bet and multiple repeaters. Never did it again, or even tried it again, fearing big problems.
This sounds like the top die bounces off, which would be OK. If you could get just one die to stay on axis a small percent of the time, you'd have a nice advantage. The technique would work for that, right? ... if you could be consistent.
Kinda glad though no one yet seems to think I made a mistake with what I was doing so far.
But then Charles manson had his followers too.
Quote: odiousgambitThis sounds like the top die bounces off, which would be OK. If you could get just one die to stay on axis a small percent of the time, you'd have a nice advantage. The technique would work for that, right? ... if you could be consistent.
Yes; this is the Greek shot and is mathematically equivalent to a slide. You kill one of the faces and the other die bounces randomly. You have a huge +2/3 edge on the 2x/3x field by killing a 6. If you can pull this off even one time in 20 you've got a slight edge (66.6% * 0.05 + -2.78% * 0.95 = +0.69%). If you can do it every 10 rolls your edge is 4.17%. I wonder how frequently Alan is able to make this shot?
Quote: odiousgambitWell, guys, I still havent gotten the 'cross sixes' in description. Is it so complicated it doesnt have an axis?
I posted a photo here: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/11820-controlled-throwing-device-ctd/8/#post193776
It in a sense, it has two axes, depending on which way you cross the sixes.
Quote: MathExtremistYes; this is the Greek shot and is mathematically equivalent to a slide. You kill one of the faces and the other die bounces randomly. You have a huge +2/3 edge on the 2x/3x field by killing a 6. If you can pull this off even one time in 20 you've got a slight edge (66.6% * 0.05 + -2.78% * 0.95 = +0.69%). If you can do it every 10 rolls your edge is 4.17%. I wonder how frequently Alan is able to make this shot?
So, if we were to apply this metric to a line/come bet, what would be the minimum frequency of controlled rolls required to exactly nullify the house edge with 10x odds applied after the come-out roll?
Quote: tuppI posted a photo here: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/11820-controlled-throwing-device-ctd/8/#post193776
It in a sense, it has two axes, depending on which way you cross the sixes.
Thanks, goes to show sometimes you miss a post, but how I missed that one I don't know!
Quote: MathExtremistI wonder how frequently Alan is able to make this shot?
I want to be perfectly honest about this. I read about this shot some time ago... years ago in fact... and practiced it at home. I got to the point where, at HOME I was pretty darn good at it. So I thought I would give it a try at the Rio, when I was standing stick right... and damn I had a great roll.
The "set" I used was with the "six" on the bottom face of the bottom die, and the "one" on the top face of the top die. My "hope" and trust me guys, this was only a hope, was that I could freeze the six on the felt of the bottom die and avoid the 1 showing on the top die.
I did not keep track of the rolls, so in all honesty, I could not tell you if ANYTHING worked except that I had a monster of a roll. In other words, I can't even veryify that the bottom die kept the 6 on the bottom. I didn't care... I just wanted to make numbers and passes.
So, in the end, I can only say I GOT LUCKY.
I NEVER tried it again.
http://youtu.be/tZWlhDn24Wo
I actually broke a pipe so no more video tonight!
Quote: AhighJust a teaser. I'm going to be working more on this tomorrow. http://youtu.be/tZWlhDn24Wo I actually broke a pipe so no more video tonight!
Nice!
I realize that this is the very first test of a rough prototype, but are you using a spring (or a counter weight)? That could introduce chaos. It looks like your base is loosely anchored and unstable. If the device is imparting a spin (backwards or forwards) that could be adding even more chaos. Also, it is possible that the release could be better "finessed."
If we meet up next week, I might be able to help with the design. There is a way to make this device solid, with a longer, gentler, more controlled (and adjustable) stroke.
Quote: tuppThe baseline that I mentioned can be determined with either an equation or a simulation, and I think that it actually would be simpler challenge than your simulation. It would simply be a given that each "guaranteed" roll would yield any one of the "non-loss" outcomes, with the dice allowed to roll both off-axis and on-axis.
I'll try to work on that. The simplicity of altering how many times on average a die might roll a certain number in Wincraps struck me as something I could do; I suppose I could try to expand on that.
Quote: tuppThere's only one way to get to Carnagie Hall!
Yep, but I think I need a sponsor! If a player wants to get serious about playing with 10x odds, even if a slight edge is possible, well, 10s of thousands of dollars in bankroll needed.
So, actually, I can't be too serious. Intriguing, though.
Quote: AhighJust a teaser. I'm going to be working more on this tomorrow.
http://youtu.be/tZWlhDn24Wo
I actually broke a pipe so no more video tonight!
The link won't open for me. The suspense is killing me!
Quote: tuppNice!
I realize that this is the very first test of a rough prototype, but are you using a spring (or a counter weight)? That could introduce chaos. It looks like your base is loosely anchored and unstable. If the device is imparting a spin (backwards or forwards) that could be adding even more chaos. Also, it is possible that the release could be better "finessed."
If we meet up next week, I might be able to help with the design. There is a way to make this device solid, with a longer, gentler, more controlled (and adjustable) stroke.
There is going to be a lot of experimentation to get the most precise result. The way that things are right now, I can throw more control with respect to relative dice movements. But absolute landing position from one roll to the next I can't beat this device's consistency.
It's the relative dice movements that I am most curious about though, so I want to really tune it out quite a bit.
I have plenty of my own ideas and no shortage of them. I'll be at the hardware store this morning and afternoon (the really good hardware store McFaddendale's has very limited weekend hours).
I'm using a counterweight and not a spring. But I may get a spring today. My feeling was that I would get more consistent results with a counterweight, but consistent rapid deceleration is my problem right now. I really want a device that can deliver a controlled spin and let go of the dice instead of using rapid deceleration to launch. Even then you have to be careful of sticky stuff. A consistency of launching the dice smoothly is not a simple problem for a software guy like me.
Quote: AhighBut absolute landing position from one roll to the next I can't beat this device's consistency.
I suspect that precise landing locations will be a big advantage. My first inclination would be to land the dice on the felt, within one inch of the back wall.
Quote:I'm using a counterweight and not a spring. But I may get a spring today. My feeling was that I would get more consistent results with a counterweight, but consistent rapid deceleration is my problem right now. I really want a device that can deliver a controlled spin and let go of the dice instead of using rapid deceleration to launch. Even then you have to be careful of sticky stuff.
A spring would probably introduce more chaos.
The "rapid deceleration" method of the arm is possibly making matters worse. There could be designs that allow a more gentle release.
It may be best to avoid imparting a spin -- what might be ideal at this point is for the device to throw slow "knuckle balls," instead of "fast balls."
A "minimal contact" dice holding stage should counter most of the stickiness.
Quote: SOOPOOThe link won't open for me. The suspense is killing me!
First, make sure that your web browser has javascript enabled (not java).
If that doesn't work, also make sure that your browser's Flash plug-in is enabled.
Quote: tuppFirst, make sure that your web browser has javascript enabled (not java).
If that doesn't work, also make sure that your browser's Flash plug-in is enabled.
It has nothing to do with my computer. At a minimum, the link has a period between the 'u' and 'b' of youtube. I tried it without the period and it still doesn't work.
Quote: SOOPOOIt has nothing to do with my computer. At a minimum, the link has a period between the 'u' and 'b' of youtube. I tried it without the period and it still doesn't work.
Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZWlhDn24Wo
Quote: tupp
Thanks! i watched it. The one throw had the left die bouncing wildly to the right, the right die bouncing wildly to the left. I will be happy to wager that this machine, or any iteration of it, has ZERO dice influencing ability, assuming casino rules are followed. That being said, how cool is it that Ahigh is trying this!
Quote: odiousgambitI'll try to work on that. The simplicity of altering how many times on average a die might roll a certain number in Wincraps struck me as something I could do; I suppose I could try to expand on that.
Actually, it is not a single, certain number at a given regularity that should be considered -- it is any "non-loss" number.
For example, a non-loss, "controlled" roll on the comeout would be any natural or any point number, but not any craps number. So, a controlled roll on the comeout would offer 8 possible wins and 24 possible pushes.
Likewise, if the point were established as a six, a non-loss roll would be the six (5 possible wins), or any other point number or horn number (25 possible pushes).
For our current purpose, we can assume that each of these controlled rolls randomly hits any non-loss number (win or push), with no bias for the "off-axis" die faces.
Any roll that is not a controlled roll is given to be utterly random.
Of course, if every roll were a controlled, non-loss roll, the player would have a 100% edge and never lose. If one out of every two rolls was a non-loss roll, I would guess that the player would still have a huge edge over the house.
So, the question is: What is the minimum regularity of these controlled, non-loss rolls required to merely nullify the house edge?
Quote:Yep, but I think I need a sponsor! If a player wants to get serious about playing with 10x odds, even if a slight edge is possible, well, 10s of thousands of dollars in bankroll needed.
I'd like a sponsor, too! We'll budget for play at the Wynn, but actually run the trials at the $1 tables at Joker's Wild and the Fortune!
