dice control

Quote: MrV

Why?

I understand some Sasquatch hunters are pretty well-equipped as well.

This is a common misconception. The Sasquatch actually have a peaceful agrarian lifestyle.

Quote: MrV

Why?

I understand some Sasquatch hunters are pretty well-equipped as well.

Great point! I was beginning to wonder why I was so fascinated by the quest for 'dice control', when I of course know there is no such thing. But I also realize I am fascinated by the sasquatch hunters, ghost hunters, and other equally silly things. I guess I enjoy trying to figure out what is in the minds of those people...

So I did a recording session on video last night for 54 minutes. It was less than 200 rolls. I made profits on the three strategies I plotted, but they were modest. The start was pretty horrific with an average number of sevens but all coming as seven-out instead of seven-winner. The strategies I ran were do,3p,10x and do,6p,10x. The first is the strategy that Teddy uses, and the second is the strategy that Mike (Teddys work friend) uses.

I had more hard fours than any other outcome, and the hard way strategy never lost. But the 10x max odds drew down $600 to $1000 on the two strategies before coming back up to about $200 profit.

I added the session to the recorded rolls, but I wasn't all that happy about the results, and none of the rolls seemed super duper great.

The only real interesting thing that happened was when I stopped talking and just rolled the dice, I got better results.

I ran five cameras on the roll, but the one watching me stopped after 20 minutes (max recording time on the D5100). It didn't have a great angle anyway, so I didn't worry about it.

Aside from that I had three slow-mo and one 1080p60 camera watching from a wide angle up top.

I was still exhibiting more hardways and fewer sevens for the duration of the session, but not my best session at all.

It's been a long stretch since I have done any recording, and I will hopefully get time to do some more, and hopefully with more interesting results.

But I will file away these videos and the recorded roll data and keep going.

Quote: Ahigh

So I did a recording session on video last night for 54 minutes. It was less than 200 rolls.

But I will file away these videos and the recorded roll data and keep going.

Why not file them away in your thread
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/11372-another-hardway-video/

That way your dice roll data, that you do post,
will have a home, there is data already there,
and your links can be found in one place for your dice roll vids.

Your Blog, free from the Wizard, would also be a great place to store this info

Continued Good Shots

Ahigh

I must say that you keep any thread you post to very entertaining. Just like the guys that are on that show about hunting for Ghost and yes the Sasquatch hunters, you do have some great equipment, but that doesn’t mean that you’re going to prove anything!

Quote:

Quote: MrV
Why?

I understand some Sasquatch hunters are pretty well-equipped as well.
Quote; Soopoo
Great point! I was beginning to wonder why I was so fascinated by the quest for 'dice control', when I of course know there is no such thing. But I also realize I am fascinated by the sasquatch hunters, ghost hunters, and other equally silly things. I guess I enjoy trying to figure out what is in the minds of those people...

Actually I was just wondering why you just don’t post all that video you shot last night, it just might be what you need to prove if there are real So-Called DI’s that can influence the dice.

Quote:

Ahigh
So I did a recording session on video last night for 54 minutes. It was less than 200 rolls. I made profits on the three strategies I plotted, but they were modest. The start was pretty horrific with an average number of sevens but all coming as seven-out instead of seven-winner. The strategies I ran were do,3p,10x and do,6p,10x. The first is the strategy that Teddy uses, and the second is the strategy that Mike (Teddys work friend) uses.

Quote:

Ahigh
The only real interesting thing that happened was when I stopped talking and just rolled the dice, I got better results.

Well I guess that you’re just one of those guys that can't walk and chew gum at the same time!
Let that be lesson that sinks in, never talk to anybody when you have the dice in you’re hand then maybe you will never have to report back that you blew out you’re bankroll again.

Quote:

Ahigh
I was still exhibiting more hardways and fewer sevens for the duration of the session, but not my best session at all.

Just wondering if this is the same problem you have in a real casino? Personally most of the time I have better session at home then in the casinos, where there is no pressure and all those fake chips I have on the table doesn’t mean a thing!
So now we know that talking distracts you along with the girl friend and kids, damn I have the same problem at home with my dog! They have a bad habit of rubbing up against me when I’m shooting!

Here is a list of things that make me seven out when I’m in a real casino and not rolling the dice at home, maybe you can find a few things in my list that you can say made you seven out too!

1. Of course those damn drink girls, hell I can’t take my old eyes off them when they walk up to the tables!
2. That damn redhead that just bought in, didn’t you know that redheads are bad luck?
3. That drunk that the damn boxman got to buy in right next to me when there was no room for him, I often wonder if the guy isn’t a plant to get me to seven out, damn I for some odd reason I never smell booze on them!
4. That damn stick change it gets me every time.
5. That buy-in right when I’m shooting.
6. The guy that just stacked his chips right where I’ve been landing my dice.
7. That damn guy that just stuck his hand down on the felt right when the dice were leaving my hand.
8. The damn box person that is now telling me that they are going to take the dice off me if I miss the back wall one time.
9. That damn dealer that just gave me the wrong pay-out!
10. Come to think about it just about every thing that happens in a casino, I think I can blame my lack of luck on!

Every time I have a bad day at the casinos, I can always go home and have a big win on my table to make myself feel better, just so I can trick my mind into thinking I’m the best DI in the world!
Gee now I forget which book I read that you have to have positive thinking in, if you want to win at craps, but if I find it again, I will let you read it, that way maybe you can avoid all of the above problems that make me seven out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's cut Ahigh a little slack here because of this statement that he made:

"I simply go for throwing consistently as I can."

If it is possible that you can consistently throw two dice the same way, and can repeat that with some consistency, and the result of that throw is a "good number" then yes you have some level of "dice influencing" or "dice control."

You are correct, Ahigh, that the dice need not be on axis to show dice control. It's just that the researchers and technicians of dice control say that keeping the dice on axis improves the chances of hitting certain results. If you have a particular controlled throw that is off axis, but can repeat the same "good numbers" consistently then it is only fair to say that your dice control also works.

So here is what we would now need and isn't it wonderful that you have all of this gear to show us what we need:

We need you to show us that indeed you can consistently throw two dice the same way and that by throwing the two dice YOUR SAME WAY that you consistently get the "good numbers" you seek.

To accomplish this we need to see your entire throw including grip and action of the dice in the air and on the table -- over and over again -- to see that you do throw the two dice consistently and the result is a constant stream of "good numbers."

If you can do that, even without the dice staying on axis, then yes you have demonstrated dice control.

But alas, all of the videos we have seen show the dice hitting the table differently and in different locations. So how can we believe that you can have any factor of dice influencing or dice control? And hitting the table is only one part of the dice control/dice influencing equation. We still need to see your grip, your toss, the dice in the air, the path they took, a measurement of speed, etc.

We would all like to believe. But give us something to believe in.

the very best argument against dice control (as boasted about on a forum) is that if it were actually possible to do you can be sure the practitioner would never tell anyone.

Quote: AlanMendelson

If it is possible that you can consistently throw two dice the same way, and can repeat that with some consistency, and the result of that throw is a "good number" then yes you have some level of "dice influencing" or "dice control."

This is the acorn from which Scoblete developed his cast of characters.

Always got a chuckle over him describing "The Arm:" a "rhythmic roller" lady who was the precursor for today's DI's; she threw the dice well without really knowing how or why, it just sort of happened.

Unconscious dice control.

Funny stuff.

Alan

As always you bring up some good points!

Quote:

Quote: Alan
To accomplish this we need to see your entire throw including grip and action of the dice in the air and on the table -- over and over again -- to see that you do throw the two dice consistently and the result is a constant stream of "good numbers."

I think your next Quote would tell it all, you would have to hit the same spot just about every time to get the same results, but if you dice were landing all over the place and were cherry picking the videos that you were showing the world, you would be just like all the others that are writing the great fiction we get to read about being a DI.

Quote:

Quote: Alan
But alas, all of the videos we have seen show the dice hitting the table differently and in different locations. So how can we believe that you can have any factor of dice influencing or dice control? And hitting the table is only one part of the dice control/dice influencing equation. We still need to see your grip, your toss, the dice in the air, the path they took, a measurement of speed, etc.

My advice is to put a X on the felt with tape and show everybody in the world how you can hit that spot every time and come up with the same results, if you can’t even come close to doing that you are just getting lucky, like I say I do when I’m shooting.

Ahigh is just like the researcher that published his research paper, before he had proving anything, and by doing that we all have the right to question what he is writing as he writes it, trying to point him in the right direction. If we see something that might be wrong with what he is writing, why would we as a group let what he wrote fly right bye everybody on the board, so we don’t hurt his feelings!

When I had a business and was trying to come up with a new product or we were doing copywriting for advertisements we had a group meeting, where we talked about everything we were trying to do, as the owner of the business I didn’t always like what I was hearing but knew if I wanted to move ahead I had to sit there and listen to what everybody had to say, like it or not!

Quote: sodawater

the very best argument against dice control (as boasted about on a forum) is that if it were actually possible to do you can be sure the practitioner would never tell anyone.

Wouldn't that be an argument for dice control?

Quote: Ike

Wouldn't that be an argument for dice control?

It's no argument at all. :)

Blackjack was counted before Thorpe pulled away the covers. It's possible dice control exists and AHigh is pulling away the covers. I don't think that is true though.

If you read what I actually wrote, I said "as boasted about on a forum." Point being, ahigh and others definitely cannot control dice at all, otherwise they wouldn't post about it.

Quote: sodawater

If you read what I actually wrote, I said "as boasted about on a forum." Point being, ahigh and others definitely cannot control dice at all, otherwise they wouldn't post about it.

I disagree. Thorp could count cards *and* he wrote about it: for some, rational inquiry trumps financial gain. Thorp could have kept his "secret" to himself for at least a few more years and made a killing at the tables while the ignorant casino operators had no idea what was going on. Someone else would have published the details on card counting but Thorp would have been rich by then. Instead, Thorp forwent that near-certain financial gain, published his findings, and became famous at least in gaming circles. I get the sense that Aaron is publicly, rather than secretly, pursuing his dice control experiments for exactly the same reasons.

And these days, it's far more likely to find the first publications on how to beat a given game on the Internet rather than in printed form. Eliot's and Stephen's sites are two prime examples of this. So it makes sense that an Internet forum devoted to gambling would be the place for this material.

p.s. I used "forwent" in a sentence. :)

*sigh*

You know what, all this stuff I'm doing is hard work. It took me about 45 minutes just to set up all those cameras last night, and I filmed for 54 minutes.

Just publishing all the video and editing the video is probably another couple of hours.

For all you



guys at home who are helping me SO much with your idle suggestions. Thanks!!!

Quote: MathExtremist

I disagree. Thorp could count cards *and* he wrote about it: for some, rational inquiry trumps financial gain.
Thorp could have kept his "secret" to himself for at least a few more years and made a killing at the tables while the ignorant casino operators had no idea what was going on.
Someone else would have published the details on card counting but Thorp would have been rich by then.
Instead, Thorp forwent that near-certain financial gain, published his findings, and became famous at least in gaming circles.

I was too young, but did not John Scarne challenge Thorp to a Blackjack match, and after many No, No, No
they finally did play one weekend and Scarne said Thorp was totally lost.

Maybe Thorp had the book smarts but not the table smarts.
But who really was there to know??

Thorp I think had his eyes set on a bigger game, the stock market.
I have seen his place in Newport Beach. Looks like he did just fine leaving the casinos behind
and probably had no heat to contend with, just investors.

I think Ahigh wants the fame and the fortune.
And not just 15 minutes of it.

Problem is FrankS at goldentouch already has been doing super slow motion video on throws
and for his students for awhile according to his website.
He seems to stay in his own little world telling stories that are probably close to 95.5% factual.

I was 21 when Scarne's book on gambling came out in 1961. Thorpe 's Beat the Dealer was 1962. I remember the challenge, but it never came off, mainly because Scarne insisted on dealing. Scarne is still one of my heroes, but he was wrong about BJ. Later on he
claimed to have discovering basic strategy and counting before Thorpe did. A sad ending !

http://blackjackgym.com/template.asp?NamePage=The%20John%20Scarne%20Challenge

Plenty of know-it-alls out there.

Dogma doesn't help you win the game.

What most craps players call knowledge is nothing more than superstition.

The fact that all the guys who know everything aren't curious what I'm doing leads me to believe there are more frauds out there than I previously thought.

Even the Golden Touch guys, who I think have a more believable story than many, don't really sell me on anything besides using a technique and getting lucky.

I don't have much evidence I am doing anything special according to feedback from guys on here about my evidence.

I have watched a TON of live play, and I have never seen anyone that I think has any better a shot than I have myself.

But I have had NO SHORTAGE of idiots trying to tell ME how to play the game as if they know more about it.

Just my two cents.

Quote: MathExtremist

I disagree. Thorp could count cards *and* he wrote about it: for some, rational inquiry trumps financial gain. Thorp could have kept his "secret" to himself for at least a few more years and made a killing at the tables while the ignorant casino operators had no idea what was going on. Someone else would have published the details on card counting but Thorp would have been rich by then. Instead, Thorp forwent that near-certain financial gain, published his findings, and became famous at least in gaming circles. I get the sense that Aaron is publicly, rather than secretly, pursuing his dice control experiments for exactly the same reasons.

And these days, it's far more likely to find the first publications on how to beat a given game on the Internet rather than in printed form. Eliot's and Stephen's sites are two prime examples of this. So it makes sense that an Internet forum devoted to gambling would be the place for this material.

p.s. I used "forwent" in a sentence. :)

Thorp was a mathematician and a university professor. Publishing mathematical research is what he did. It's nothing like the craps situation where you just get "some guy" who thinks he is gonna beat craps with a home layout and a camera.

Edit: also, counting in BJ is part of the game mathematically. It's there for anyone to analyze. Controlling the dice in craps is more akin to magic. It's not like anyone would be able to derive it and it would almost never be spotted amidst all the losing shooters.

Quote: Buzzard

I was 21 when Scarne's book on gambling came out in 1961. Thorpe 's Beat the Dealer was 1962. I remember the challenge, but it never came off, mainly because Scarne insisted on dealing. Scarne is still one of my heroes, but he was wrong about BJ. Later on he
claimed to have discovering basic strategy and counting before Thorpe did. A sad ending !

http://blackjackgym.com/template.asp?NamePage=The%20John%20Scarne%20Challenge

I do not have this book
As a matter of fact, John Scarne challenged Edward O. Thorp to a real blackjack game in a casino.
I quote from Scarne’s New Complete Guide to Gambling (p.361):
"In 1964, in an effort to test Professor Thorp’s “winning Black Jack” statements I challenged him to a $100,000 contest to be staged in Las Vegas. Thorp’s reply was a big “No”.
This excerpt is from page 348:
If he [Thorp] would like to team up with me and my partner to beat the Nevada Black Jack tables by making use of his unbeatable system. Thorp agreed and after the first three days of play in Reno, Nevada, we realized that Thorp knew nothing about the science of Black Jack play, and his countdown system never seemed to work . . . Thorp later admitted to us that he never really gambled."

I do happen to know a true dice controller. He's a surgeon. But even he is not flawless and cannot deliver numbers on demand. I would just say he has a higher level of ability than the other so called dice controllers.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I do happen to know a true dice controller. He's a surgeon. But even he is not flawless and cannot deliver numbers on demand. I would just say he has a higher level of ability than the other so called dice controllers.

is it that surgeon from the midwest who invented a pai gow tiles strategy?

Quote: megapixels

Yes, you can control the fact that the dice either do, or do not, hit the back wall. That's about it.

I think you're giving me too much credit.

I'll chime in here: I have dice go off the table, and into the rail.

In some cases when this happens (specifically into the rail) it's a more favorable result than bouncing back on the felt. And something to think about when considering control.

When you do mess up, a no roll condition is not a bad thing.

I have had dice go into the rail 5 or 6 times in a row and I wasn't upset about it.

I absolutely was glad they were going into the rail because I had no interest in seeing what that would resolve to.

I don't know what percentage of my rolls are those that I consider as good as I can deliver, but it's less than half.

Anytime I have a roll that isn't that great, going into the rail is a wonderful result.

I bounce my dice high to get up above the pyramids. It's not hard to understand that a bad bounce or throwing a bit too far will cause them to go into the rail.

..........

Sodawater: No and I played with him twice about ten years ago, and haven't seen him since. He really had the form and style and I played with him twice on $100 tables and he had great hands, but even he would NEVER claim that he could control the dice to any degree.

He literally had the hands and the touch and the feel for handling the cubes. But even he knew his limits.

There are plenty of people who think that I am amazing who have only seen me roll well. The last time I went out with Teddy, the crowd of people at the Joker's Wild were roaring so loudly the entire casino could hear them. I rolled seven points and made more money than every else at the table COMBINED for my roll. I lost money betting on other shooters before getting the dice and still ended up losing the session at the end of my roll.

Those guys who were cheering, it was a table full of people. And the biggest winner probably only won $100 even after I rolled seven points.

And those guys are probably telling stories about how I was the most amazing shooter they ever saw. I put on a real show.

But them believing that doesn't make it true.

Teddy was just there shaking his head because he and I both lost and he gave up. I told him "I haven't even touched the dice yet, I want to roll."

I still didn't bet enough to get back all the money I bet on the losers of the Joker's Wild casino, though.

Truly pathetic! But WHAT A GREAT SHOOTER I AM -- especially to those who never saw me before, and will never see me again.

Even though I won more money than everybody on the table COMBINED on my roll, I still didn't make up for the losses betting on all the other random shooters before me.

My point is that if you don't see someone shoot at least a couple thousand times, you have no idea if you just caught some lucky streak or not. You can easily have lucky streaks of 300 rolls.

Having winning streaks of 10,000 rolls is where it defines how good you are. And even then, randomness and plain-old max odds on 10x produces wins over 10,000 rolls PLENTY of the time!!

Quote: Ahigh

Plenty of know-it-alls out there. Dogma doesn't help you win the game. ... I don't have much evidence I am doing anything special according to feedback from guys on here about my evidence.

I suggest that if in fact you are as serious about this nonsense as you seem to be that you involve Wong.

See if you can convince him that it works.

Once bitten, shy of fire ...

Quote: Ahigh

Having winning streaks of 10,000 rolls is where it defines how good you are. And even then, randomness and plain-old max odds on 10x produces wins over 10,000 rolls PLENTY of the time!!

That's true, so how do you plan to determine whether your winning sessions in a casino are due to luck or whether you are, in fact, influencing the dice?

Quote: MathExtremist

That's true, so how do you plan to determine whether your winning sessions in a casino are due to luck or whether you are, in fact, influencing the dice?

I missed the post where I said that I am winning so much money that I must have an edge.

In case anybody missed this point, I am not a lifetime winner at the game of craps. My lifetime losses are in the small single thousand dollars, and have been for a couple of years now.

And just as I don't BLAME my LACK of ability to shoot the dice for my losses, I would not ATTRIBUTE my ability to WIN to my shooting either.

It is plain BORING to grind an edge, EVEN IF YOU CAN GET IT.

I play to have fun, and you can TRUST AND KNOW THAT I HAVE FUN WHEN I PLAY.

The way I plan to determine if bias on the dice is possible has nothing at all to do with gambling and winning in the casino except that I find that a fun way to practice my throw.

I can still gamble and win, but it means nothing to prove dice control. That's why I film and do research.

I may become a lifetime winner at some point, but that wouldn't further my quest to prove dice control is possible.

I could take a couple of bets today and become a lifetime winner pretty easily if that were all it took. I have been known to walk up to the table with $20,000 in cash, and I could easily walk up with multiples of that amount if there were a reason to, and I could EASILY become a lifetime winner, but that proves absolutely nothing.

Quote: MrV

I suggest that if in fact you are as serious about this nonsense as you seem to be that you involve Wong.

I don't know of a single person that I have told "no, sorry but you can't come by my house."

I'm not seeking out anybody right now as I have no shortage of things to do without any help.

If Wong is already pre-disposed towards the notion that it's not possible, I have no interest in contacting him.

It doesn't sound like fun.

Plus, I still want to know why some white dude wants to be called Wong. I read his name for months thinking he was some Asian dude before reading whatever story for why he wanted to be known as "Wong," and I can't remember the story, but it didn't make me think, "wow I want to be like THAT guy."

Here is Dr. Wong from Stanford:



That is the image this guy wants for himself to people who never heard of him?

Why? To sell more books because he sounds like a smart guy? What is the real reason again?

Do you think that this guy KNEW that there's a Dr. Wong at Stanford University in California?

Whatever.

David Wong, author of "John Dies at the End" used Wong as a surname for similar reasons as Stanford Wong did. Except he amused me with his tale of it in his book (a work of fiction, and very well done if you like that sort of thing).

So he doesn't have a degree, though right? Just wants you to think that he does.

For anybody that having a degree matters to, I have a BS in Computer Science from Texas A&M 1991, graduated with honors (Cum Laude), minoring in Electrical Engineering. I got a 4.0 in my minor and a 3.9 in my major. I got a B in my final semester that prevented me from being Summa Cum Laude.

I'm not the smartest guy in the Universe, and I am comfortable with not being a PhD .. OR a MAJOR freaking Dork.

But I don't need a name change to pretend that I am smart. And I don't need to insult people to make myself feel smart either.

I can be myself, and it works for me. I like that fact.

Anybody who wants to see my transcript, let me know. But I think pretending to be smart is a clue about something. Not sure, just a thought.

Because when you can legitimately beat casinos at their own games (instead of in your own mind), it's advantageous for them to think you are asian when in fact you are a white guy with blonde hair.

Quote: Ahigh

So he doesn't have a degree, though right?

Uh .... no.

Stanford Wong (real name: John Ferguson) has a Ph D. in Finance from Stanford.

In his world, your Aggie B.S. is just so much B.S.

Quote: MrV

Uh .... no.

Stanford Wong (real name: John Ferguson) has a Ph D. in Finance from Stanford.

In his world, your Aggie B.S. is just so much B.S.

It was common in the 90s for APs to hide their identities. Abdul Jalib, anyone?

Quote: MathExtremist

It was common in the 90s for APs to hide their identities. Abdul Jalib, anyone?

Who was that guy?

Wow talking about Stanford's Wong really put this topic into a limp mode. <rim shot>

Quote: sodawater

Because when you can legitimately beat casinos at their own games (instead of in your own mind), it's advantageous for them to think you are asian when in fact you are a white guy with blonde hair.

But only us "real Asians" get the good perks, because the Gweilo think we are made of money :p

Quote: odiousgambit

Of the best points that have been made, I would pick these:


*that momentum is factored by velocity squared means the task is greater than might be assumed. Little changes in velocity are actually huge changes.

I must correct this statement. Momentum is not proportional to the square of velocity. momentum and velocity are linearly related.

momentum = mass x velocity

The kinetic energy of a mass in motion is proportional to the square of its velocity. That is probably what you were remembering. Whether this sheds any light on the veracity of dice control, I have no idea. I just can't bear imprecision when scientific principles are referenced.

Wait till I check that out with, Angel. Ok, Jim ?

Quote: Buzzard

Wait till I check that out with, Angel. Ok, Jim ?

You can't trust Angel. Dennis Becker will back me up on the physics.

Rocky says Becker will sell you out for a promotion !

Quote: JimRockford

I must correct this statement

Damn. I didn't think I needed to double-check it. I stand corrected. Energy it is, then, and somebody wrote a paper about it when it comes to dice, I'd have some trouble finding it but it was referenced in a post in this forum somewhere.

You guys. There's some velocity squared in drag.

Quote: Wiki

drag will vary as the square of velocity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

All jokes aside, though, tangents are we pursuing? Comedy? What were we talking about anyway? I already forgot now. Oh yeah, someone said I should get that guy with the fake name to tell me that controlling the dice is impossible so I can not have to worry about it. Right.

Back to the original question, I am trying to prove that it's possible to control the dice. There is currently no conclusive evidence that anyone has provided that it is indeed possible. The game has low enough edges that you can play it for hundreds of thousands of throws and still have a profit because of the low house edge.

That leads many to believe that their lifetime wins are more than just lucky.

So there are people who are lucky who think they are good.

If you get a bias on the dice, you are just as likely to have that bias hurt yourself or someone else.

So you have to do two things:

#1) Bias the dice
#2) Know how the dice are biased and bet accordingly

It takes a lot and I firmly believe that the MAJORITY of people who believe they can bias the dice can't in fact do it.

I don't actually know if I can do it or not, but I at least have some evidence that it might be possible, just nothing conclusive.

So I am still working on it.

Alright then. That's my answer.

That's a fine enough answer. But I think the experiment of landing two dice in the same spot more than once is a good indicator. In a legal throw, the dice are going to bounce and be influenced (overwhelmingly) by the landing velocity, pitch, and spin. If you can't even get dice to land in the same spot, then the rest of the experiment is moot, I think.

Quote: boymimbo

That's a fine enough answer. But I think the experiment of landing two dice in the same spot more than once is a good indicator. In a legal throw, the dice are going to bounce and be influenced (overwhelmingly) by the landing velocity, pitch, and spin. If you can't even get dice to land in the same spot, then the rest of the experiment is moot, I think.

There are probably more people that think the way that you think than there are people who think they can influence the dice when they can't.

But just thinking that doesn't mean anything, in either case.

By the way, does that mean you watched my video before you made this comment? Or is it possible that you're just giving your two cents with two seconds of thought while I spent four hours on it yesterday and didn't even check to see the latest on that thread?

Here's what I think: if you don't spend time doing your homework, you're more likely to have the wrong answer, or something that doesn't even qualify as an answer. Yet you could still believe you might be right! After all, you just went real quick over it.

Quote: Ahigh

There are probably more people that think the way that you think than there are people who think they can influence the dice when they can't.

But just thinking that doesn't mean anything, in either case.

By the way, does that mean you watched my video before you made this comment? Or is it possible that you're just giving your two cents with two seconds of thought while I spent four hours on it yesterday and didn't even check to see the latest on that thread?

Here's what I think: if you don't spend time doing your homework, you're more likely to have the wrong answer, or something that doesn't even qualify as an answer. Yet you could still believe you might be right! After all, you just went real quick over it.

Be careful that you don't fall into the trap of correlating time spent with effectiveness. One does not imply the other. Case in point: there was a poster here once who proclaimed his roulette expertise and said he had a system/method/technique to win consistently by varying his bets. When it was pointed out that's mathematically impossible he dismissed the criticism because it came from those who hadn't spent enough time "studying" or "practicing" roulette. Don't be that guy.

I'm not convinced that failure to consistently hit a given spot on the table (SOOPOO's challenge) is necessarily preclusive of imparting bias to the dice for all possible methods. It may be for certain methods, however I don't know whether your chosen technique is one.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm not convinced that failure to consistently hit a given spot on the table (SOOPOO's challenge) is necessarily preclusive of imparting bias to the dice for all possible methods. It may be for certain methods, however I don't know whether your chosen technique is one.

I watched the video; It seems Ahigh found the "secret" to dice control.

Just wear a short sleeve shirt.

I'm thinking the casinos will now keep a long sleeve shirt under the craps table in case he shows up.
If he wants to shoot he will be required to wear the long sleeve shirt; otherwise get out.

A can imply B without not(A) implying not(B)

Here A is don't spend enough time and B is you are more likely to be wrong.

I'm not thinking I'm more likely to be wrong or right just from spending time.

I'm thinking about people who think they know a lot without having really done their homework.

And it does annoy me when I do mine and NOBODY LOOKS.

Quote: MakingBook

I watched the video; It seems Ahigh found the "secret" to dice control.

Just wear a short sleeve shirt.

I'm thinking the casinos will now keep a long sleeve shirt under the craps table in case he shows up.
If he wants to shoot he will be required to wear the long sleeve shirt; otherwise get out.

All you guys using association and backwards logic amuse me.

Wearing a long sleeve shirt can negatively affect your ability to throw, was the theory you COMICAL GENIUS.

But where do you get the other way around.

Both of you guys, seriously.

Are you just TRYING to make me upset?

At least I know you read the thread and possibly watched the video before I deleted the link and post.

I'm tired of all this abuse.