Is Each Roll Independent Of It's Previous Roll(s)?

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

Quote: sodawater

Of 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.

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.

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.

deleted

Quote: sodawater

Quote: thezone

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!
[...]
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.

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.

Quote: Ahigh

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.

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.

Quote: Doc

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.

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.

Ahigh... are you in vegas? If so, Ill be there in a few weeks if you want to play some craps.