Poll

27 votes (87.09%)
4 votes (12.9%)

31 members have voted

AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson 
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 146
  • Posts: 4804
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.
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
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.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
December 27th, 2012 at 7:29:15 AM permalink
Quote: sodawater

Call 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!
midwestgb
midwestgb
Joined: Dec 8, 2009
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 465
December 27th, 2012 at 8:09:41 AM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

My 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. ;-)
Buzzard
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
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
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 5167
December 27th, 2012 at 9:21:48 PM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

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.



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.
http://dumbass.website
Buzzard
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
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.
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
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 5167
December 27th, 2012 at 9:34:06 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

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.



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.
http://dumbass.website
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 5167
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.
http://dumbass.website
Buzzard
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
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

  • Jump to: