Latest on the CTD
In other words, the dice are landing side by side but not with the same orientation and spin rate.
I plan to create a mechanism that grabs the dice and then they are released by mechanically letting go when there is almost no forces on the dice at the instant they are let go instead of now how it slides off a tray and any dirt particles or other stuff as it slides off the tray affect the rotation of each die differently.
I'm thinking a spring-loaded grabber that grabs two dice independently will yield the most consistent results.
The grabber will only work with dice that are 3/4" +/- a certain size.
It will probably take several weeks for me to get this done, but in case anybody is curious to help or track progress, I thought I would post up what my plans are.
The amount of spring force being delivered is pretty darn accurate already though and is no longer the problem for consistent results.
The Shutterboss and Nikon D5100 is working great to capture the moment just before touchdown so I can get a photo of what it looks like a centimeter or less before it hits the felt. So I have a way to get feedback on how consistent the CTD is.
The robot is definitely not consistent enough for me to even record rolls yet, so I'm not doing any recording at all.
It takes a while to load up and shoot, too. So if I get consistent results, I will probably also work on a way to load up and shooter faster too.
Although most people dispute the validity of dice control, I don't. I think it's very short sided to dismiss either side at this point. Logically, it would seem if you could consistently make the dice hit the same place on the table, and the same place on the wall, in the same way more times than not, you could at least get rid of a piece of randomness. Now would that be enough to overcome the house edge? I don't know, I don't think we have any of the answers we need at this point, but what you're doing is an interesting read.
I've played a lot of craps in my life, and at this point I'm not taking any sides...
Quote: IkeLogically, it would seem if you could consistently make the dice hit the same place on the table, and the same place on the wall, in the same way more times than not, you could at least get rid of a piece of randomness. Now would that be enough to overcome the house edge? I don't know, I don't think we have any of the answers we need at this point, but what you're doing is an interesting read.
Just for historical context:
Quote: John Arbuthnot, "Of the Laws of Chance", 1692It is impossible for a Die, with such determin'd force and direction, not to fall on such determin'd side, only I don't know the force and direction which makes it fall on such determin'd side, and therefore I call it Chance, which is nothing but the want of art...
Quote: MathExtremistJust for historical context:
What are you getting at with this quote?
Quote: Ahigh
In other words, the dice are landing side by side but not with the same orientation and spin rate.
Are you saying they tend to "stay on axis"? If so, and a player could duplicate it, he would clean up in a casino. For example, keeping the 1 and 6 on the axis means those numbers can not be rolled when it works right, which has implications.
I'm just saying, from my perspective, I would not like to see him run off this forum before he finishes his testing. I'm just wondering how everyone on this board can be so sure dice influencing is impossible?
I'm a fairly logical person, and I just can't shake the thought that dice control may be possible. If the dice could be thrown in the same manner, hit the same part of the table and hit the same part of the wall at the same speed I don't see how that couldn't have some effect on the outcome of the roll. Now, that being said, those are certainly a lot of variables to get "right", or at least similar on a consistent basis.
Do I think any Joe could be taken off the street and trained to do so? No. But do I think any Joe can be taken off the street and trained to shoot the basketball like Larry Bird? Again, no. Get where I'm going? I enjoy what he is doing because he is doing this right. If a machine can be built to accomplish these goals (consistent roll that has an effect on the randomness of the roll), then I have to believe there may be a human out there that may be able to replicate the results.
The dice have to leave the hand with the exact same spin and velocity and initial conditions, every time. I think it's exactly the same as baseball when it comes to accuracy. A good throw's dice at about 4 mph is in the air for about 1 second (to travel 6 feet).
Take a curve ball that bounces before the plate and imagine that the catcher is blind. His job is to crouch at a certain position so he receives the curve ball in the same place every time using a glove. A curve ball is in the air for about 1/2 second. But the trick is to land the baseball in exactly the same place and get the same bounce every time so that the catcher catches in their glove. How many times would the catcher get it? Imagine, on top of that, that the catcher decides to let the ball go by and catch it off the backstop, blind. How many times would the pitcher be able to replicate his throw so that the blind catcher catches the ball off the backstop?
The initial variables are the same in baseball as it is in dice. You release the ball (dice) from a certain point with a certain spin and velocity. At that point in time, the physics are known and you should be able to take all of the parameters to calculate the result. The problem is that humans are not perfect.
I just think that there are very few people in this world who are capable of having that skill.
Possibly because IT IS !
Am I dubious about Ahigh's claim that he was/is able to throw more hardways than random probability states. Yes, but I'm not going to make fun of him over it. But, in the same vein, no one should be offended if other's call him out on that claim. If you make a claim on this board that goes against science or math, you better have thick skin, or be prepared to defend, because it will not go unchallenged.
Quote: BuzzardThat's what the flat earthers used to say .
That's ironic for you to say, especially considering the flat earthers were the short sighted ones, who said it was impossible for anything else to be true. Does that sound familiar? You swear it's impossible to influence dice, or have a controlled throw, despite a lack of proof either way.
I'm not saying dice control is possible, but at this stage I'm not about to say it's impossible.
Are there any dice controllers out there right now? Possibly. Would they admit it if they could? Probably not, they would hide in the shadows and rake in the profits. Do I believe I could ever influence dice? Fat chance, I'm way too uncoordinated.
I am very curious to see if a machine could even be built to accomplish the task.
Quote: IkeI'm a fairly logical person, and I just can't shake the thought that dice control may be possible. If the dice could be thrown in the same manner, hit the same part of the table and hit the same part of the wall at the same speed I don't see how that couldn't have some effect on the outcome of the roll.
The effect needs to be predictable and repeatable to be useful. If the result of dice bouncing off the table and the rubber pyramids is sensitive to initial conditions, as I expect it is, then nothing you can do within those constraints (bouncing off the table and the pyramids) will lead to predictable results. You could always try another technique, and there are several which are known to work, but those are commonly against house rules. Sliding is one form of dice control which is absolutely known to work.
So I doubt that the results of a finely-tuned machine which uses an off-the-pyramids throw will produce repeatable results. But I look forward to the empirical results.
Quote: RaleighCraps
Am I dubious about Ahigh's claim that he was/is able to throw more hardways than random probability states. Yes, but I'm not going to make fun of him over it. But, in the same vein, no one should be offended if other's call him out on that claim. If you make a claim on this board that goes against science or math, you better have thick skin, or be prepared to defend, because it will not go unchallenged.
I agree with this, and Ahigh deserves the grief he gets for the numerous unsupported claims he makes, but when you look past those claims I really like the way he is approaching everything else. I'm of the belief Ahigh has had some very lucky rolls while trying to control the dice, and at this point, he doesn't even know what's happening. He is trying to dig a little deeper to support his hypotheses...
Quote: MathExtremistThe effect needs to be predictable and repeatable to be useful. If the result of dice bouncing off the table and the rubber pyramids is sensitive to initial conditions, as I expect it is, then nothing you can do within those constraints (bouncing off the table and the pyramids) will lead to predictable results. You could always try another technique, and there are several which are known to work, but those are commonly against house rules. Sliding is one form of dice control which is absolutely known to work.
So I doubt that the results of a finely-tuned machine which uses an off-the-pyramids throw will produce repeatable results. But I look forward to the empirical results.
I'm skeptical as well, but at any given table, those variables do not change. That's why I continue to wonder if it would be possible. The table remains the same throughout your session and subsequent trips, as do the pyramids at the end of the table, as do the dice, etc, etc, etc. The dice would not have to be tossed the same every time, just enough to make a difference and eliminate the house edge.
The human body is an amazing machine, capable of accomplishing amazing things. If a machine is built that can influence/control the dice, I would have to believe it is also possible for the human machine to do the same with proper training and predetermined physical attributes.
I just get annoyed with the posters that flat out say this is impossible. That is extremely short sighted.
Quote: IkeThe human body is an amazing machine, capable of accomplishing amazing things. If a machine is built that can influence/control the dice, I would have to believe it is also possible for the human machine to do the same with proper training and predetermined physical attributes.
That's not true at all. When it comes to things which require incredible precision, machines are much, much better than humans. Humans are better at things that require judgement, but, when it comes to exact repetition, machines win hands down.
Another big problem still for the DI is Kinetic Energy.Quote: IkeI'm skeptical as well, but at any given table, those variables do not change.
That's why I continue to wonder if it would be possible.
The table remains the same throughout your session and subsequent trips, as do the pyramids at the end of the table, as do the dice, etc, etc, etc. The dice would not have to be tossed the same every time, just enough to make a difference and eliminate the house edge.
Look it up.
There are at least 2 kinds at work against the DI.
One is the forward motion and the other is the spin. There could be more
Both ADD to the problem.
Stop the spin and slow the forward motion to minimize the effects of KE.
Otherwise that is a big part of what makes the dice go all over the table after a toss.
That energy has to go somewhere, and NO DI can put it in their pocket and make it sleep.
If my memory is correct,
Frank S says you need about 5,000 dice rolls in the SmartCraps software to see how well you are DIing your tosses.
From there the bets and sets can only be determined to see how much you really can overcome any craps HE.
Sounds like FrankS is the leader of the DI pack.
The rest are just trailers or Wannabes
Except Ahigh.
2TUP
He wants to video the complete dice roll.
Well at least the landing and the finish.
He should also be concerned with the total flight and what the dice are really doing at every point.
I am sure he will and the videos will be the proof
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThat's not true at all. When it comes to things which require incredible precision, machines are much, much better than humans. Humans are better at things that require judgement, but, when it comes to exact repetition, machines win hands down.
I don't disagree with anything you said, except to ask what part of what I said is "not true at all?" On average, you're right, a machine is much more capable of repetition than a human can, but you would be crazy to dismiss the notion that the human body can accomplish some amazing things in the right circumstances. Michael Jordan could "fly." Annie Oakley could shoot a gnat off a fly's pecker from 100 yards. Check out some of the wacky things humans have accomplished in the Guinness Book of World Records.
I guess I choose to believe something is possible until proven impossible, where I guess others choose to believe it to be impossible until proven possible.
My only problem in all of this is how both sides argue, swearing they are right for various reasons, when at this point no one really knows the truth. The venom spewed from both sides of the matter really detracts from quite an interesting topic.
Quote: 7crapsAnother big problem still for the DI is Kinetic Energy.
Look it up.
There are at least 2 kinds at work against the DI.
One is the forward motion and the other is the spin. There could be more
Both ADD to the problem.
Stop the spin and slow the forward motion to minimize the effects of KE.
Otherwise that is a big part of what makes the dice go all over the table after a toss.
That energy has to go somewhere, and NO DI can put it in their pocket and make it sleep.
If my memory is correct,
Frank S says you need about 5,000 dice rolls in the SmartCraps software to see how well you are DIing your tosses.
From there the bets and sets can only be determined to see how much you really can overcome any craps HE.
Sounds like FrankS is the leader of the DI pack.
The rest are just trailers or Wannabes
Except Ahigh.
2TUP
He wants to video the complete dice roll.
Well at least the landing and the finish.
He should also be concerned with the total flight and what the dice are really doing at every point.
I am sure he will and the videos will be the proof
Yes, another variable. I've said all along I believe dice control to be unlikely, but at the same time theoretically possible. Once Ahigh builds his machine, if he can get it to make the throw he wants, I'm sure he will video tape it from any angle we want. That would be my guess.
There are some wacky characters in the DI world, but beyond Ahigh's outlandish statements at times he seems to be approaching this in the right way.
Quote: sodawaterI can't stop following Ahigh's threads, but part of me wishes he would devote this much effort and creativity and money to a pursuit that has a nonzero chance of being remotely productive in any way.
It's dickish comments like this that should stay out of this thread. What was the point of that comment? I've never met Ahigh - never even talked to him, but judging from the guys that have, he seems like a decent guy. What is with your hatred of him?
Did you pay money to someone to teach you how to throw dice, only to crash and burn losing your savings and retirement? What happened to you to make you hate the notion of DI so much?
Quote: IkeI don't disagree with anything you said, except to ask what part of what I said is "not true at all?"
The part where you said this:
Quote:If a machine is built that can influence/control the dice, I would have to believe it is also possible for the human machine to do the same with proper training and predetermined physical attributes.
Machine can precisely print circuits onto tiny chips, perfectly, exactly the same way each time. Everything is so small and so close together that the main reason that we can't go any smaller is quantum tunnelling. Does it surprise you that a human can't manually create a chip so small and precise, given the right materials?
When it comes to precision and repetition, there are things that machines can do that humans will never, ever be able to do.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe part where you said this:
Machine can precisely print circuits onto tiny chips, perfectly, exactly the same way each time. Everything is so small and so close together that the main reason that we can't go any smaller is quantum tunnelling. Does it surprise you that a human can't manually create a chip so small and precise, given the right materials?
When it comes to precision and repetition, there are things that machines can do that humans will never, ever be able to do.
One problem. I wasn't talking about building microchips. I wasn't talking about micro tasks. I was talking about throwing dice. I never said a human could do anything a machine could do. That is where you're getting confused reading my statement. I only said that if a machine can be built to take the randomness out of a legal throw, I think a human may be able to do the same.
In 1996, Ted St. Martin set the consecutive free-throw record by making 5,221 free throws in a row. For the human machine, this is quite an amazing feat. Shaquille O'Neal says, "WOW!"
Quote: sodawateri don't hate him at all.
the point of my comment is that he seems like a nice guy, and he has devoted enormous amounts of time, effort, money, and hope to this pursuit which has literally a 0 percent chance of being productive. he is setting himself up for a huge disappointment and i hope he can realize that before he wastes more time and money and hope.
Why are you so concerned about his finances? He has already stated this is a hobby, and he makes a living in other more successful endeavors. Hell, I "waste" thousands of dollars a year playing golf. I will never get any more out of that money than the enjoyment I got playing. It seems quite the same.
Quote: sodawateri don't hate him at all.
the point of my comment is that he seems like a nice guy, and he has devoted enormous amounts of time, effort, money, and hope to this pursuit which has literally a 0 percent chance of being productive. he is setting himself up for a huge disappointment and i hope he can realize that before he wastes more time and money and hope.
I will say this:
Everyone can have their own opinion when it comes to DI, and I have mine, which tends to be in line with yours, but:
If he enjoys what he is doing, and he believes that he can succeed, if he wants to be able to look himself in the mirror, then in his heart, he knows it is superior to try and fail than it is to not try at all.
Further, if it weren't for individuals who were told they were wasting, "More time and money and hope," I seriously doubt that we would be having this conversation on the medium of the Internet.
"So, you're telling me...wait a minute...give me a chance to stop laughing.......Okay, that's better. Okay, so you're telling me that you can make a record of something that someone does, and transport that record to a box with a glass screen in it to someone hundreds of miles away!? That's absurd."
Add a couple of zeros to any machine total. Probably a slew of zero's with a good design.
Everyone should understand that I am not doing this for a financial goal. I think I have stated that before. I am pursuing this out of passion for the game and a true love of the game and the people who enjoy playing the game.
Tonight, I picked up George Gomez from the airport and drove him to his hotel.
We talked about the balance of gameplay and randomness that goes into pinball design during the drive.
He made the comment that the balance of randomness and skill is a tricky business.
This is a big part of the type of thing that I specialize in.
I am a game creator.
I am a programmer.
I am an artist.
I am a designer.
I am an inventor.
But I no longer am in production. Therefore, I am, by definition, not required to be productive. I produce no products.
This is just the sort of thing that I enjoy.
Hopefully that helps explain things.
Quote: Ikewasn't talking about micro tasks. I was talking about throwing dice.
That's the thing. Throwing dice IS a micro task. Tiny differences will have large effects on the outcome. Throwing them almost exactly the same way each time will give you results that are indistinguishable from random.
Ah, for the good old days. Pinball machine up on the toes of my steel shoes. Hate the gut who invented " TILT "
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThat's the thing. Throwing dice IS a micro task. Tiny differences will have large effects on the outcome. Throwing them almost exactly the same way each time will give you results that are indistinguishable from random.
It's not nearly as complex as building a microchip. Don't kid yourself.
Quote: IkeIt's not nearly as complex as building a microchip. Don't kid yourself.
That's not really the point. The point is that the statement "if a machine can do it, a human can do it too" doesn't really make much sense. Machines are much better at this sort of thing than humans.
Quote: IkeI'm skeptical as well, but at any given table, those variables do not change. That's why I continue to wonder if it would be possible. The table remains the same throughout your session and subsequent trips, as do the pyramids at the end of the table, as do the dice, etc, etc, etc. The dice would not have to be tossed the same every time, just enough to make a difference and eliminate the house edge.
First, the dice absolutely do change. So does the table felt, and so do the pyramids. Compare a new stick of dice vs. dice at the end of a shift: the edges of used casino dice are worn. Compare a new felt vs. one after 2 months of play; most new felts are dye-sub printed on synthetic material which shows noticeable divots after a few weeks. You can feel them if you run your finger over the felt, and chances are your casino's dice layout looks like it has a rash at either end where the dice land. And compare newly-installed rubber pyramids with pyramids which are a few months old and have been repeatedly worn away by the corners of the dice.
There is no question that the dice can be controlled or influenced by a skilled shooter using any number of usually-disallowed techniques like sliding or the whip shot. But I doubt that anything -- man or machine -- can do so when the dice are required to bounce off the table and then the pyramids.
Quote: Ike
My only problem in all of this is how both sides argue, swearing they are right for various reasons, when at this point no one really knows the truth. The venom spewed from both sides of the matter really detracts from quite an interesting topic.
That is just your opinion, that no one knows the truth. It is my opinion that I know the truth.... that given real casino conditions, and real casino rules (dice must be tossed in air, hit the table, then back wall), that influencing the outcome of the roll is in a way that will lower the house edge is not achievable. So I am telling you I 'really know the truth'. I spew no venom. I am willing to bet anyone who says they can, that they cannot. I have gone to Aaron's house to look at his machine, and i am fascinated by it. However, having seen it, I am more convinced, not less convinced, in the impossibility of 'DI'. I have gone to a casino, and played with Aaron. He showed me a remarkable tossing ability that avoided the pyramids well over half the time. I still saw the dice carom wildly, with no 'influence' apparent. I do support Aaron in chasing his dream, and will definitely see the newest iteration of the machine when I can get to Vegas, and if he is able to invent a 'DI" machine, I will be happy to eat crow.
Quote: SOOPOOThat is just your opinion, that no one knows the truth. It is my opinion that I know the truth.... that given real casino conditions, and real casino rules (dice must be tossed in air, hit the table, then back wall), that influencing the outcome of the roll is in a way that will lower the house edge is not achievable. So I am telling you I 'really know the truth'. I spew no venom. I am willing to bet anyone who says they can, that they cannot. I have gone to Aaron's house to look at his machine, and i am fascinated by it. However, having seen it, I am more convinced, not less convinced, in the impossibility of 'DI'. I have gone to a casino, and played with Aaron. He showed me a remarkable tossing ability that avoided the pyramids well over half the time. I still saw the dice carom wildly, with no 'influence' apparent. I do support Aaron in chasing his dream, and will definitely see the newest iteration of the machine when I can get to Vegas, and if he is able to invent a 'DI" machine, I will be happy to eat crow.
At least you state that it's your opinion. Stating that proves you don't factually know which side is right, but have a strong belief which falls heavily on one side. And for what it's worth, I wasn't really talking about you. You're one of the few out there willing to put their money where their mouth is when you believe something, I respect that.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThat's not really the point. The point is that the statement "if a machine can do it, a human can do it too" doesn't really make much sense. Machines are much better at this sort of thing than humans.
Are you trolling? Address my entire post, or don't address it at all.
Quote: MathExtremistFirst, the dice absolutely do change. So does the table felt, and so do the pyramids. Compare a new stick of dice vs. dice at the end of a shift: the edges of used casino dice are worn. Compare a new felt vs. one after 2 months of play; most new felts are dye-sub printed on synthetic material which shows noticeable divots after a few weeks. You can feel them if you run your finger over the felt, and chances are your casino's dice layout looks like it has a rash at either end where the dice land. And compare newly-installed rubber pyramids with pyramids which are a few months old and have been repeatedly worn away by the corners of the dice.
There is no question that the dice can be controlled or influenced by a skilled shooter using any number of usually-disallowed techniques like sliding or the whip shot. But I doubt that anything -- man or machine -- can do so when the dice are required to bounce off the table and then the pyramids.
I understand those conditions change over time, that is why I said those conditions remain the same throughout your session, not over a lifetime. (I'm sorry my wording of subsequent trips was a bit misleading, I meant in the short term) Let's for a minute say someone was skilled enough to make a controlled throw on one type of felt, one type of table, with one type of new pyramids, with one type of new dice. If that was possible (which of course we are assuming at this point), then I would think someone with that level of precision could adapt to the new conditions after a few rolls, much like a bowler does with oil patterns on lanes, or a golfer does on new greens, etc. If a precision shooter could adapt to new conditions, those conditions would theoretically remain the same long enough for them to do some damage.
For the record, I lean towards dice influencing being improbable, but at the same time, still possible however small the chance. I just refuse to say one side is right, when in reality I have no idea if that is true. One side here is going to have some serious egg on their face at the end of all of this, but at this point I'm just not sure which side that is going to me.
Quote: IkeAre you trolling? Address my entire post, or don't address it at all.
I'm not trolling. You made a ridiculous statement, and I'm disagreeing with it.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI'm not trolling. You made a ridiculous statement, and I'm disagreeing with it.
The thing is, I didn't make the statement you "quoted" me to have made in two of your posts. Either address my post, or don't. Don't manipulate my words to fit your argument.
Quote:If a machine is built that can influence/control the dice, I would have to believe it is also possible for the human machine to do the same with proper training and predetermined physical attributes.
And this is a ridiculous statement.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou wrote:
And this is a ridiculous statement.
You're doing an excellent job of trolling, because you're actually annoying me while bringing absolutely nothing to the conversation. I've been had. Continue on your way, because I've learned my lesson and I'm done.
"
Promises, promises, promises.
Quote: IkeYou're doing an excellent job of trolling, because you're actually annoying me while bringing absolutely nothing to the conversation. I've been had. Continue on your way, because I've learned my lesson and I'm done.
What are you talking about? The discussion is about whether it's possible for humans to control the dice under casino conditions. You made a statement that said that, if a machine can be built to do it, then a human can do it. I pointed out that it's absolutely possible, feasible, even likely that a machine can do it but a human can't.
I feel that this adds to the conversation, and is not trolling. The fact that very tiny differences in the release point, angle, spin, etc lead to large differences in the outcome rolled is a key reason that dice control is probably not feasible. It's nothing like a free throw in basketball, where tiny differences lead to tiny differences in outcome. A machine could probably be built that could control these variables down to the thousandth of a degree, but a human can't do it.
Any tiniest variation in the starting conditions of the throw are going to change the outcome drastically. Things like the humidity of the air, whether anyone is walking by the table creating a slight breeze, smoke in the air, people shouting, wear on the dice, wear on the table, people shaking the table slightly, and slight differences in the positioning of the dice as they are collected and loaded onto the machine -- all of this will make the results just random.
maybe it could be done in a sterile lab inside a cleanroom or a vacuum but in casino conditions -- no way.
