Is Each Roll Independent Of It's Previous Roll(s)?
Poll
 | 27 votes (87.09%) | ||
| | 4 votes (12.9%) |
31 members have voted
December 26th, 2012 at 1:46:50 PM
permalink
In the game of craps, many people believe that each roll is independent of its previous roll or rolls. This would mean that there are no factors which would contribute to the outcome of the roll... dice off the table, change of dealers / stick person, someone throwing money on the table in the middle of a rythmic roll, bad / good energy, etc. Is there really the same probability of a certain outcome one every roll? Does it change over a series of rolls? Does it change considering the table mojo?
December 26th, 2012 at 1:50:17 PM
permalink
deleted
Last edited by: sodawater on Oct 1, 2018
December 26th, 2012 at 1:58:41 PM
permalink
Well, since you've mentioned things like energy, clearly you already know that, scientifically, all rolls are independent.
From a personal POV? That's up to everyone to decide. I prefer to go with the flow, after all it's craps.
P.S. What I find curious though is how easily craps players realize the independence of results and the possibility of very long streaks each way, while to roulette players this concept remains alien, even when understanding the physics.
From a personal POV? That's up to everyone to decide. I prefer to go with the flow, after all it's craps.
P.S. What I find curious though is how easily craps players realize the independence of results and the possibility of very long streaks each way, while to roulette players this concept remains alien, even when understanding the physics.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
December 26th, 2012 at 2:12:49 PM
permalink
The outcome of the dice are dependent on the shooter's thoughts.
If the previous outcome affects the shooters thoughts, there is arguably dependence on the following outcome based on the previous outcome.
Without a time machine, it is hard to prove that if everything else were the same EXCEPT the outcome of the dice, the outcome of the following roll would be different.
But I believe that this outline I present above is the basis for many superstitions in the game.
There are simpler cases to demonstrate the outcome being dependent on the outcome of the previous roll.
The puck moves depending on the outcome of a roll.
If the puck moves after a roll, the new position of the puck can alter the outcome of the subsequent roll if and when the dice collide with an updated puck placement.
It is therefore proven that the outcome of a previous roll can have an effect on a subsequent roll.
Those who believe that the outcome is random do not have a sufficiently complex enough model to understand how the dice resolve to understand the truth. The outcome of the dice is based on physics and, while chaotic, and exhibiting random properties, the results are merely an approximation of true randomness, and are merely chaotic behavior that is the result of physical bouncing of two cube shapes.
All the votes for the rolls being independent are generally from people regurgitating what they have "learned" without giving due thought to what is being asked. Lots of stuff affects the outcome. Randomness is a model for the outcomes, not a definition for them.
If the previous outcome affects the shooters thoughts, there is arguably dependence on the following outcome based on the previous outcome.
Without a time machine, it is hard to prove that if everything else were the same EXCEPT the outcome of the dice, the outcome of the following roll would be different.
But I believe that this outline I present above is the basis for many superstitions in the game.
There are simpler cases to demonstrate the outcome being dependent on the outcome of the previous roll.
The puck moves depending on the outcome of a roll.
If the puck moves after a roll, the new position of the puck can alter the outcome of the subsequent roll if and when the dice collide with an updated puck placement.
It is therefore proven that the outcome of a previous roll can have an effect on a subsequent roll.
Those who believe that the outcome is random do not have a sufficiently complex enough model to understand how the dice resolve to understand the truth. The outcome of the dice is based on physics and, while chaotic, and exhibiting random properties, the results are merely an approximation of true randomness, and are merely chaotic behavior that is the result of physical bouncing of two cube shapes.
All the votes for the rolls being independent are generally from people regurgitating what they have "learned" without giving due thought to what is being asked. Lots of stuff affects the outcome. Randomness is a model for the outcomes, not a definition for them.
aahigh.com
December 26th, 2012 at 2:16:55 PM
permalink
deleted
Last edited by: sodawater on Oct 1, 2018
December 26th, 2012 at 2:27:32 PM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterOf course the dice are controlled by physics. That doesn't mean they are not random. The definition of random is that you can't predict the outcome.
The difference is this: randomness does not DETERMINE the outcome, it DESCRIBES the outcome.
Physics determine the outcome. It is specifically the property being asked about (independence) that ILLUMINATES the difference. Because we all know that randomness is independent of the previous roll, but the outcome of the dice are affected by the previous roll for the reasons that I described.
Properties of randomness can be used to analyze the randomness of the outcomes, but the outcomes are not determine by a random behavior. They are determined by physics. Physics is something that can be recreated.
I personally don't think there is any debate.
Anyone who feels that there is, in my opinion, is thinking rather myopically.
People who feel that the physics used to determine the outcome of two dice on a craps table is random, in my opinion, don't know the difference between randomness and chaos. IE: the dice bounce chaotically, not randomly.
aahigh.com
December 26th, 2012 at 2:31:30 PM
permalink
Last week I was at a casino playing craps. We were in the middle of a nice roll (about 2 pts and 7 numbers were rolled). Good flow, no prop bs, and good energy. Along comes a pissed off, fat, miserable, smelly, unshaven man who had been jumping around tables losing and was cursing. He throws out a few hundred bucks in the middle of the roll and stops the stick. He puts all of his money on the hard eight. The entire table sighs simultaneously in disgust. The next roll... Seven out!
Hold on, it gets better. The next roller.. point is established. The pissed off man cashes in again for a few more hundred. He puts it on the hard six. Next roll is a hard eight. He gets more pissed and curses. Next roll.. seven out. Next shooter establishes a point. The disgruntled man cashes in again for a few hundred. He puts it all on the hard 10. Next roll is a hard six. Next roll is a hard eight.. then seven out!
Im partly humored and partly disgusted. I move to another table to get away from the wrath. I find an empty table with just one other person on it. I take the dice and do my thing. Rythm and flow.. made several numbers. Out of the blue, I look up and see the pathetic man coming to my table. I tell the stick man to hurry up and give me the dice because the roll is about to end. I roll one more number and turm my bets off. The angry man jumps in of course cashing in the middle of the roll and places his hard way bs.... next roll .. Seven out! True story. I took my winnings and walked out the door.
This is one of hundreds of similar stories I have expereience. And yes, I remember the flip sided as well. I would venture to say that each roll was not independent.
It cant be scientifically proven... but something is there......
Hold on, it gets better. The next roller.. point is established. The pissed off man cashes in again for a few more hundred. He puts it on the hard six. Next roll is a hard eight. He gets more pissed and curses. Next roll.. seven out. Next shooter establishes a point. The disgruntled man cashes in again for a few hundred. He puts it all on the hard 10. Next roll is a hard six. Next roll is a hard eight.. then seven out!
Im partly humored and partly disgusted. I move to another table to get away from the wrath. I find an empty table with just one other person on it. I take the dice and do my thing. Rythm and flow.. made several numbers. Out of the blue, I look up and see the pathetic man coming to my table. I tell the stick man to hurry up and give me the dice because the roll is about to end. I roll one more number and turm my bets off. The angry man jumps in of course cashing in the middle of the roll and places his hard way bs.... next roll .. Seven out! True story. I took my winnings and walked out the door.
This is one of hundreds of similar stories I have expereience. And yes, I remember the flip sided as well. I would venture to say that each roll was not independent.
It cant be scientifically proven... but something is there......
December 26th, 2012 at 2:32:42 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
December 26th, 2012 at 2:34:01 PM
permalink
Ahigh:
I suppose your nitpick wasn't entirely groundless. But are you sure this is just the right thread for nitpicks?
So yes, the events of a roll are not entirely independent of the events of the previous roll. Its outcome's probability distribution, however, does not have any correlation with any function of the results of the previous roll.
I suppose your nitpick wasn't entirely groundless. But are you sure this is just the right thread for nitpicks?
So yes, the events of a roll are not entirely independent of the events of the previous roll. Its outcome's probability distribution, however, does not have any correlation with any function of the results of the previous roll.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
December 26th, 2012 at 2:36:10 PM
permalink
Quote: thezoneIt cant be scientifically proven... but something is there......
The man had an affect on the outcome of the dice. The only thing that is even debatable is whether he had a positive or negative outcome on the dice. That's where there is disagreement.
But I think it's not even up for debate whether or not, in this situation, the outcome was likely to be different had this man not walked up to the table.
People who think that the outcome would be the same outcome no matter if the man came up to the table or not, explain how the outcome is the same in the two parallel universes independently of what is going on with the shooter.
I think this is an old debate because everyone just uses the model of randomness, which has independence as a feature, and thinks that the outcome is going to be the same exact, although random, result no matter what happens.
The entire debate is the result of oversimplification of the game by people who only understand randomness and don't understand much about physics and chaos.
aahigh.com
December 26th, 2012 at 2:40:07 PM
permalink
Yeah, and this debate about controlling the dice in a favorable way gets even stickier once you add in that the influence generally leads to a generally small advantage or disadvantage to the shooter. And about half the time, the influence is an additional disadvantage combined with the house edge; and the MAJORITY of the time, the person who is throwing the dice consistently has NO IDEA what their bias even IS. Just hopes for what it could be!
Then you throw in performance of betting SYSTEMS being mistaken as performance of dice control, and a few preachers who profit from teaching this stuff in spite of any evidence, and there is plenty of misinformation and bad information
Then you throw in performance of betting SYSTEMS being mistaken as performance of dice control, and a few preachers who profit from teaching this stuff in spite of any evidence, and there is plenty of misinformation and bad information
aahigh.com
December 26th, 2012 at 2:43:16 PM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterOf course the dice are controlled by physics.
The elastic properties of solid objects, i.e. the change of energy due to applied pressure, is very well understood on microscopic scale. The resistance you feel when you press the dice between your fingers are not the forces of the massive atoms, but the overlap of electron orbits. More physically, electrons try to repell each other not only because of the same charge (which is screened in the solid anyway), but because of their quantum mechanical (fermionic) nature.
So the bouncing of the dice on the table is completely dominated by quantum mechanics - which in turn is experimentally proven to be *intrinsically* random. Meaning that even if you know everyhing about your dice (or table) you cannot predict it's precide outcome after a simple bounce, let alone a legal throw.
December 26th, 2012 at 2:43:28 PM
permalink
If I'm the shooter, the result is absolutely determined by the fact that I threw the dice and by every aspect of my past and the past of the dice and everyone else in the universe. Of course, in spite of this, the pattern of the results is either random or so nearly random that no one could ever establish otherwise. Same for every other shooter.
But then I enjoy placing pseudo-random bets on random numbers.
But then I enjoy placing pseudo-random bets on random numbers.
December 26th, 2012 at 2:47:25 PM
permalink
You guys who think you have it all figured out are a source of great humor for me.
In general, if you think it's simple, I think you're wrong.
If you think it's "just random" I think you're wrong.
If you think quantum mechanics affects the outcome, you are right. But only a very small fraction of the time does the randomness of quantum mechanics affect the outcome in a random way. A small enough fraction that, in general, I think you're wrong too, and not an atom wrong, a world of wrong.
Although it is MUCH simpler, much of what I think people are ignorant of in relation to the difference between physics and randomness has been covered in the simpler case of "DYNAMICAL BIAS IN THE COIN TOSS."
http://comptop.stanford.edu/u/preprints/heads.pdf
If you are truly curious, study that, and get back to me.
If you just like thinking you know a lot of stuff and want to show off, keep on telling us how smart you are as I am enjoying the comments.
In general, if you think it's simple, I think you're wrong.
If you think it's "just random" I think you're wrong.
If you think quantum mechanics affects the outcome, you are right. But only a very small fraction of the time does the randomness of quantum mechanics affect the outcome in a random way. A small enough fraction that, in general, I think you're wrong too, and not an atom wrong, a world of wrong.
Although it is MUCH simpler, much of what I think people are ignorant of in relation to the difference between physics and randomness has been covered in the simpler case of "DYNAMICAL BIAS IN THE COIN TOSS."
http://comptop.stanford.edu/u/preprints/heads.pdf
If you are truly curious, study that, and get back to me.
If you just like thinking you know a lot of stuff and want to show off, keep on telling us how smart you are as I am enjoying the comments.
aahigh.com
December 26th, 2012 at 2:50:07 PM
permalink
deleted
Last edited by: sodawater on Oct 1, 2018
December 26th, 2012 at 2:55:07 PM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterQuote: thezoneLast week I was at a casino playing craps. We were in the middle of a nice roll (about 2 pts and 7 numbers were rolled). Good flow, no prop bs, and good energy. Along comes a pissed off, fat, miserable, smelly, unshaven man who had been jumping around tables losing and was cursing. He throws out a few hundred bucks in the middle of the roll and stops the stick. He puts all of his money on the hard eight. The entire table sighs simultaneously in disgust. The next roll... Seven out!
[...]
It cant be scientifically proven... but something is there......
Every time the dice are rolled, there is a 1 in 6 chance of a seven. So... what's your theory here? That the dice themselves did not LIKE the unpleasant man? And they arranged themselves into a losing 7 because of it? Or are you saying there is an all-powerful god above who uses His time to follow a smelly man around a casino to ensure he loses his bets?
Think about what you are implying and tell me how it makes sense.
All you are experiencing is the very common and very human confirmation bias. Humans have evolved to seek out patterns RELENTLESSLY. Pattern seeking works very well when you're trying to spot dinner in the jungle but it's just not suited to random probability at all.
A simpler environment leads to less random results in general.
Randomness is an accurate description of a large enough sample of dice results.
For a smaller sample, the environment is what creates the outcome and the outcome is DETERMINED by a large .. vast .. array of external factors .. chaotically.
Limiting the factors affecting the outcome is the general goal of anyone who hopes to have a more favorable outcome. At least that is my perspective from my experience playing the game with those who seek to control the factors that they believe influence the outcome.
There's no scientific way that I know anybody approaches getting a specific result.
But most of the superstition is based on the outcome being seven or not. Seven versus no seven and how you set and throw the dice is the extent of most of these people who believe these things that are being debated.
aahigh.com
December 26th, 2012 at 2:56:47 PM
permalink
It CAN change.... that is why they carefully inspect the dice after one or both of them go overboard. Edges get nicked and sometimes the dice even change color! Other than that sort of stuff,,,, only one's hopes linger from one roll to another.
December 26th, 2012 at 2:59:17 PM
permalink
Quote: AhighAlthough it is MUCH simpler, much of what I think people are ignorant of in relation to the difference between physics and randomness has been covered in the simpler case of "DYNAMICAL BIAS IN THE COIN TOSS."
http://comptop.stanford.edu/u/preprints/heads.pdf
If you are truly curious, study that, and get back to me.
I've read that work before. If you think that the "experiments" they conducted are relevant to the flip of a coin before a football game, you're wrong. Read the papers again.
December 26th, 2012 at 3:04:50 PM
permalink
Quote: DocI've read that work before. If you think that the "experiments" they conducted are relevant to the flip of a coin before a football game, you're wrong. Read the papers again.
I don't watch football. Why must everything come back to sports for some people?
The interesting conclusions they make do have relevance for dice. If you read the article, maybe I should challenge you to come up with what I am thinking instead of accusing me of what I am not.
aahigh.com
December 26th, 2012 at 4:22:13 PM
permalink
Ahigh... are you in vegas? If so, Ill be there in a few weeks if you want to play some craps.
December 26th, 2012 at 5:27:38 PM
permalink
How's that dice tossing machine coming along? I'm still interested to find out if you can take some of the randomness out of a dice throw.Quote: AhighPhysics determine the outcome..They are determined by physics. Physics is something that can be recreated.
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
December 26th, 2012 at 6:27:41 PM
permalink
Quote: thezone..we were in the middle of a nice roll (about 2 pts and 7 numbers were rolled). Good flow, no prop bs, and good energy. Along comes a pissed off, fat, miserable, smelly, unshaven man..
TheZone, (and all the others) when you guys refer to "good or bad energy" in regards to gambling, do you actually mean that you rely on some Feng Shui technics in order to make your wins ? - Or should I better ask, do you believe in Feng Shui art ?
-- If so, there are casinos or tables, which was "always" cold or hot to you ? (optional question: - do you believe in superstitions?)
-- The only thing I believe to be true, is that is never a good idea to play when you are in a bad mood, (or when you get in one) but not because your wining chances would be altered as long as your concentration to the game is not lowered, but because it does not feel so nice anymore when you win, but it certainly leaves a bad taste (much worse than normal) when you lose.
**If I keep wining in a good mood, but a bad smelling person came next to me, shortly I will leave, because this change my mood.
December 26th, 2012 at 6:37:39 PM
permalink
" If I keep wining in a good mood, but a bad smelling person came next to me, shortly I will leave, because this change my mood. "
actually, that old fat smelly drunk guy in my Uncle Ed. He works as a cooler for several casinos in vegas.
actually, that old fat smelly drunk guy in my Uncle Ed. He works as a cooler for several casinos in vegas.
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
December 26th, 2012 at 7:12:36 PM
permalink
Quote: PlayHunterTheZone, (and all the others) when you guys refer to "good or bad energy" in regards to gambling, do you actually mean that you rely on some Feng Shui technics in order to make your wins ? - Or should I better ask, do you believe in Feng Shui art ?
-- If so, there are casinos or tables, which was "always" cold or hot to you ? (optional question: - do you believe in superstitions?)
-- The only thing I believe to be true, is that is never a good idea to play when you are in a bad mood, (or when you get in one) but not because your wining chances would be altered as long as your concentration to the game is not lowered, but because it does not feel so nice anymore when you win, but it certainly leaves a bad taste (much worse than normal) when you lose.
Earlier this year I decided to have more 'positive energy' about me when I go to a casino. I am not playing a game with 'negative expectations', since I expect to win. I took a page from the sports psychologists and for a week before the trip I visualize having a big roll. I also visualize a scenario where I press my bets up to the $1000 range. If I detect negative energy, ie. someone who is losing, bouncing from table to table, I will take a breather if they show up at my table.
Does it work? Well, I was down 1800 in my first session on my last trip at the 7 hour mark, but crawled out of the hole and booked a nice profit for the next 3 hours. Four and three years ago I won a lot of my craps sessions, but the last 2 years were a lot of losing sessions. Now this year, I am back to winning. Is it just normal cycling, or is it my new attitude?
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!
December 26th, 2012 at 7:29:30 PM
permalink
deleted
Last edited by: sodawater on Oct 1, 2018
December 26th, 2012 at 8:12:07 PM
permalink
Quote: AhighIf you think quantum mechanics affects the outcome, you are right. But only a very small fraction of the time does the randomness of quantum mechanics affect the outcome in a random way.
This is a good point. The scale of a typical die is astronomical compared to that of quantum events, so the quantum effects on a dice roll are very minimal.
If one could land a die exactly the same on every roll, then the result should be the same in every instance. Unless there is a moment of extremely delicate "teetering" with the die, Quantum variations will have very little influence on the outcome.
December 26th, 2012 at 10:28:41 PM
permalink
Ahigh has it pretty much right on.
The dice are not random. If you had all of the parameters of the throw, you could quite easily predict the outcome. The problem is that the initial conditions can't be duplicated: the coordinates of the release point relative to the table, the spin of the dice, the velocity of the throw, the moisture on the dice which affects drag and friction upon impact, and so on and so forth. The pyramids on the back wall serve as a randomizer as the bounce of the dice off of the pyramid severely affects the bounce of the dice and because the pyramids are so small, a difference as little as 1mm from the position intended would affect the die substantially.
Dice influncers like to believe that they can throw their dice from the same position and velocity every time. They believe that they can minimize influences such as spin, try to avoid the back pyramids (but not the wall beneath), in order to minimize its effects. With this comes the claim that as a result of their "influencing" the dice, they can affect the outcome of the dice.
Of course this is true. When you release the dice from your hand, physics determines what the outcome of your throw is. (provided there is not a strong air current or an errant hand or chip in the way). Every thrower therefore is a dice influencer.
From my perspective, dice influencing of course is possible. You can reasonable control your release points, spin, and velocity such that the dice will land with the same numbers up on the same axis more often than other times. However, I think that variations in those initial factors along with the bounce and hit off the back wall are more than large enough infuences to create a mostly random distribution of outcomes.
The dice are not random. If you had all of the parameters of the throw, you could quite easily predict the outcome. The problem is that the initial conditions can't be duplicated: the coordinates of the release point relative to the table, the spin of the dice, the velocity of the throw, the moisture on the dice which affects drag and friction upon impact, and so on and so forth. The pyramids on the back wall serve as a randomizer as the bounce of the dice off of the pyramid severely affects the bounce of the dice and because the pyramids are so small, a difference as little as 1mm from the position intended would affect the die substantially.
Dice influncers like to believe that they can throw their dice from the same position and velocity every time. They believe that they can minimize influences such as spin, try to avoid the back pyramids (but not the wall beneath), in order to minimize its effects. With this comes the claim that as a result of their "influencing" the dice, they can affect the outcome of the dice.
Of course this is true. When you release the dice from your hand, physics determines what the outcome of your throw is. (provided there is not a strong air current or an errant hand or chip in the way). Every thrower therefore is a dice influencer.
From my perspective, dice influencing of course is possible. You can reasonable control your release points, spin, and velocity such that the dice will land with the same numbers up on the same axis more often than other times. However, I think that variations in those initial factors along with the bounce and hit off the back wall are more than large enough infuences to create a mostly random distribution of outcomes.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 26th, 2012 at 10:29:24 PM
permalink
Quote: tuppThis is a good point. The scale of a typical die is astronomical compared to that of quantum events, so the quantum effects on a dice roll are very minimal.
If one could land a die exactly the same on every roll, then the result should be the same in every instance. Unless there is a moment of extremely delicate "teetering" with the die, Quantum variations will have very little influence on the outcome.
Tupp is right. Everything in the throw and the outcome is purely Newtonian.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 27th, 2012 at 12:36:58 AM
permalink
Quote: Ahigh
If you think quantum mechanics affects the outcome, you are right. But only a very small fraction of the time does the randomness of quantum mechanics affect the outcome in a random way.
I was just responding to the opinion "if someone would know all the variables, he could calculate the dice throw". He can't, because of the quantum mechanical nature of the very source of randomness.
The throw itself is an example of a deterministic chaotic system, meaning if you know all the variables exactly, you can calculate the result. However the result is incredible sensitive to these variables, the smallest deviation will give a different result.
So if you don't know all variables exactly (i.e. you can only give a probability density of all variables involved) you can only get a probability density of the dice result.
These are two very distinct regimes. The throw can be calculated deterministically, but will depend chaotical on the initial condition (all the variables). But all (or most) of the variables are of quantum mechanical nature, they can never be known exactly.
Of course if the throw procedure is simple (i.e. just let the dice drop to the felt from small height), the dice dynamics have attractors (continuous regions which will all yield the same result). Then quantum mechanical effects do not scale to the macroscopic world.
So the question remains: Does a legal casino throw have attractors ? If it doesn't, all randomness comes from quantum mechanic. If it does, it could in principle be influenced by choosing "all the variables".
December 27th, 2012 at 12:55:36 AM
permalink
I am not an expert in chaos theory, but I will be learning more. It would be fun to have others learn along with me.
Thanks for the interest, but I must reiterate I think chaos theory is more relevant to the discussion tha quantum mechanics.
Anyone that is a chaos expert, now would be a good time to differentiate how the results might be characterized as different from random for a consistent throw using the theory.
Thanks for the interest, but I must reiterate I think chaos theory is more relevant to the discussion tha quantum mechanics.
Anyone that is a chaos expert, now would be a good time to differentiate how the results might be characterized as different from random for a consistent throw using the theory.
aahigh.com
December 27th, 2012 at 1:58:58 AM
permalink
Let's not go off on tangents and stick to the question. Here's how I look at it:
Is each roll independent of it's previous roll(s)? The answer is yes. To believe otherwise is voodoo, witchcraft, science fiction, hysteria, zombieism, etc.
Now, that doesn't mean that for one reason or another the next throw must be a totally random throw, or that the shooter doesn't have some ability to influence the dice even to a tiny degree. The ability or inability of a shooter to influence or control the dice is not part of the original question or answer.
The original question is does the first throw affect the second throw -- and the answer is no.
Now, under what circumstances could a first throw affect a second throw? Well, if instead of a craps table such as we all know, let's say the dice were rolled on a table with an even bed of powder covering the surface. If the first roll of the dice cut a path through the powder, and the second roll of the dice followed that same path through the powder, you could make the argument that the first throw had some influence on the second throw.
Is each roll independent of it's previous roll(s)? The answer is yes. To believe otherwise is voodoo, witchcraft, science fiction, hysteria, zombieism, etc.
Now, that doesn't mean that for one reason or another the next throw must be a totally random throw, or that the shooter doesn't have some ability to influence the dice even to a tiny degree. The ability or inability of a shooter to influence or control the dice is not part of the original question or answer.
The original question is does the first throw affect the second throw -- and the answer is no.
Now, under what circumstances could a first throw affect a second throw? Well, if instead of a craps table such as we all know, let's say the dice were rolled on a table with an even bed of powder covering the surface. If the first roll of the dice cut a path through the powder, and the second roll of the dice followed that same path through the powder, you could make the argument that the first throw had some influence on the second throw.
December 27th, 2012 at 6:14:50 AM
permalink
Alan is correct.
To be clear, quantum mechanics apply to atoms, not to dice. I also don't think chaos theory applies to throwing dice. It is very easy to create a dice throwing model in a computer simulator that will give you predictable results based on initial conditions. I believe that the only the first condition applies: sensitivity to initial conditions. Otherwise, there is no mixing with other systems. Dice throwing is a closed experiement. Once the initial conditions are known, the outcome of the dice thrown is known. You can also probably get away with a little bit of error (not much!) and get the same distribution of results. That's what makes dice influencers hopeful.
I think in the end, someone needs to develop a dice throwing program that will input all the parameters and produce a result based on initial conditions. Then, to prove or disprove dice control, start to introduce errors into the throw to show that a deviation of x - y - z mm from the position of the throw will result in a certain set that shows a seemingly random result. Then show that it is physically impossible (or possible) to release your throw within the margin of error required to get a determined result. Of course, you also have to take the initial spin into account.
That's why I like A-High's experiment. If he can get his robotic arm to release the dice in the same place with the same spin and initial velocities every time, we may be able to prove or disprove dice influence once and for all.
To be clear, quantum mechanics apply to atoms, not to dice. I also don't think chaos theory applies to throwing dice. It is very easy to create a dice throwing model in a computer simulator that will give you predictable results based on initial conditions. I believe that the only the first condition applies: sensitivity to initial conditions. Otherwise, there is no mixing with other systems. Dice throwing is a closed experiement. Once the initial conditions are known, the outcome of the dice thrown is known. You can also probably get away with a little bit of error (not much!) and get the same distribution of results. That's what makes dice influencers hopeful.
I think in the end, someone needs to develop a dice throwing program that will input all the parameters and produce a result based on initial conditions. Then, to prove or disprove dice control, start to introduce errors into the throw to show that a deviation of x - y - z mm from the position of the throw will result in a certain set that shows a seemingly random result. Then show that it is physically impossible (or possible) to release your throw within the margin of error required to get a determined result. Of course, you also have to take the initial spin into account.
That's why I like A-High's experiment. If he can get his robotic arm to release the dice in the same place with the same spin and initial velocities every time, we may be able to prove or disprove dice influence once and for all.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
December 27th, 2012 at 7:29:15 AM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterCall it what you want, RaleighCraps, but craps is a negative-expectation game. That's just a mathematical term that means that the game's probabilities combined with its payouts make it a losing game in the long run. It has to be, or else the casino couldn't offer it.
Oh, make no mistake abut it, I understand the house has the edge on the game. I also understand the origination of the term. I have just decided to keep my references to my game of choice as upbeat as possible. Therefore, I always have positive expectations about the game of craps. The house has the edge, and should win, but "I expect to win". ;-)
It is hard to convey the tongue-in-cheek delivery that I was using........
As for the visualization, I agree for the most part that this technique is for people with control over a situation. However, I have two counters. I have used visualization a couple of times on a green when I really needed to make a putt. And it worked! But I am not a highly skilled athlete, and the other 250 times I have tried it, it did not work. So would you say visualization is effective for me at golf?
My second counter is going to be more difficult to discuss. IF there is such a factor as a positive energy, or aura, or whatever you want to call it, it is unseen, and certainly not quantifiable or measurable. You will either believe it exists, or it doesn't. There will never be any real proof.
I'm not sure I believe it exists, but we all know people who are 'lucky' as all get out. They always seem to be winning something, or getting a good deal. And most of the time, they are happy as heck. Of course, who wouldn't be if you were carrying around a luck horseshoe like that? My question became, are they poitive and upbeat because they are lucky, or are they lucky because they are positive and upbeat?
In the end though, you are correct. We are paying a price to play the game. And we might as well enjoy the game when we play it.
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!
December 27th, 2012 at 8:09:41 AM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsMy question became, are they poitive and upbeat because they are lucky, or are they lucky because they are positive and upbeat?
Yes. And Yes.
I accept the fact that Karma exists. We are all, ultimately, vibrating gatherings of energy. I believe the term I like the most is 'frozen light.' It is completely acceptable to me that some beings of our species have intentionally or otherwise managed to direct their energy in more organized ways that somehow, some way, serve to influence the events around them 'differently.'
But I just cannot prove this theory. ;-)
December 27th, 2012 at 9:17:41 AM
permalink
.......
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
December 27th, 2012 at 9:21:48 PM
permalink
Quote: AlanMendelsonNow, under what circumstances could a first throw affect a second throw? Well, if instead of a craps table such as we all know, let's say the dice were rolled on a table with an even bed of powder covering the surface. If the first roll of the dice cut a path through the powder, and the second roll of the dice followed that same path through the powder, you could make the argument that the first throw had some influence on the second throw.
Or if the first throw caused a person working for the casino, let's just call that person a dealer, moved a circular puck showing the words "off" on it to a number that was just thrown and flip it over to the side that says "on." And the second throw landed on the puck instead of where there was previously a blank spot on the felt.
So the answer is not yes, it is no. And you are wrong that it is voodoo. It is fact that is easily proven and should be accepted by anyone willing to use their brain to understand that lots of things affect the subsequent outcome that are not random, but rather chaotic.
I think the tangents that people are going down are to ridicule people that don't believe the same things as people who say that randomness defines the outcome and randomness has results that are independent of previous results and can't think for themselves beyond just believing what they were taught by others.
I had a similar issue with people on this forum who were taught that the edge of the 4 and 10 was 6.66% and couldn't believe that you could get a 0.33% edge per roll by betting it for $25. No amount of discussion would change their beliefs because they trusted the person that taught them what they thought they knew more than they trusted me, and went on ridiculing me.
But keep believing what you're believing. And keep accusing people who don't think like you of being involved in voodoo, witchcraft, science fiction, hysteria, zombieism, etc. if if it makes you feel more intelligent.
I think it's clear that you're wrong. And I think it's clear that you want things to be simpler and defined in a way that makes things easier: randomness determines the outcome is what you believe, and you believe that all properties of randomness apply to what determines the outcome. It's absolutely a simple minded approach that is a close enough model for most people to understand the game. Just don't ridicule people who have a more complex model as being involved in voodoo because it's not the model that you subscribe to.
aahigh.com
December 27th, 2012 at 9:28:49 PM
permalink
" I think the tangents that people are going down are to ridicule people "
Big difference between "ridicule" and trying to prove you are wrong.
Big difference between "ridicule" and trying to prove you are wrong.
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
December 27th, 2012 at 9:34:06 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboThat's why I like A-High's experiment. If he can get his robotic arm to release the dice in the same place with the same spin and initial velocities every time, we may be able to prove or disprove dice influence once and for all.
I will get back to this. I just have a lot going on right now.
Like other things I have invested heavily into to demonstrate the truth, there's not as much value for me personally as there is for other people.
When I made the die balance I learned that even though people are interested in the outcome, when it just confirms what I already knew, it helps others who are less than thankful for my hard work.
There are so many people who spend so much time fighting me, it reduced my enthusiasm for spending my time and money just to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about when I could simply use what I already know to do more productive things and ignore those people.
I've proven to myself more things than have been discussed on this forum about how dice are resolved.
I don't need anyone else's approval to change my own belief systems. And just because they are incompatible with others' systems who believe themselves to be intellectually superior to me doesn't mean that I am wrong.
I appreciate everyone's support, but I get, honestly, tired of spinning my wheels doing work to convince people who really may never be convinced anyway what the actual truth is.
aahigh.com
December 27th, 2012 at 9:35:19 PM
permalink
Buzz: On that particular topic, it's easy to show that a puck being in the way of where the dice are to land changes the outcome.
Case closed.
Case closed.
aahigh.com
December 27th, 2012 at 9:56:00 PM
permalink
You mean the 7 will not come up 1 in 6 times if it hits a puck ?
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
December 27th, 2012 at 10:44:35 PM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardYou mean the 7 will not come up 1 in 6 times if it hits a puck ?
The question wasn't whether the outcome was BIASED based on the previous roll. The question was whether the outcome depended on the previous roll.
Maybe the discussion could be about how people think one thing and write another wondering why nobody can understand what they are thinking.
aahigh.com
December 28th, 2012 at 3:45:48 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboThat's why I like A-High's experiment. If he can get his robotic arm to release the dice in the same place with the same spin and initial velocities every time, we may be able to prove or disprove dice influence once and for all.
I'm sure what I am about to say will be controversial, but I think if Ahigh or anyone else can create a device that will throw two dice in the same particular way to the same spot on a table each and every time then it will prove that dice influencing/control works. It's just basic physics. For each action there is a reaction. Throw two dice the same exact way to the same spot on the table so that they bounce the same exact way and hit the pyramids the same exact way and each and every time the dice will bounce back and come to rest the same exact way.
I have no doubt that a highly engineered machine could do this. I am damn positive that no human could, however.
December 28th, 2012 at 3:58:17 AM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps
As for the visualization, I agree for the most part that this technique is for people with control over a situation. However, I have two counters. I have used visualization a couple of times on a green when I really needed to make a putt. And it worked! But I am not a highly skilled athlete, and the other 250 times I have tried it, it did not work. So would you say visualization is effective for me at golf?
Visualization is key in many sports. I played basketball in school and our coaches spent hours with us practicing free throws because free throws were free points and we spent hours drilling not to give up free points. And one thing that was drilled into our heads was to visualize what we were doing with our arms, hands, eyes and ball to sink the basket.
I have also used visualization in target shooting, in archery, and in shooting craps.
In craps in particular I have visualized the dice leaving my fingers close together, hitting a particular point on the table with a certain velocity and arc. And it works. But that's as far as it goes.
Now, if I was a robot and I could accurately control the dice to the Nth degree then I might have something that works at a craps table.
But I think it is easier to sink a free throw target from 15 feet with a ball that needn't face a certain way or spin a certain way or enter the hoop showing a certain spot, than to throw two dice from six feet that must come to rest in a particular way.
