I just think it's a difference of opinion between 2 people with strong beliefs.

Quote:teddysBuzz! Never thought I would hear you quoting Ronald Reagen quoting Mikhail Gorbachev...

Hey I used to be in the Trust but verify business in the 60's. Patting down players so no heat was carried into the card game above

the 2 O'Clock club. Well, except for Crazy Joe Cohen. Just held the door open for him.

Anyone see Goodfella's ? This scene was not in the book or movie. Joe Pesci talked the director into it. Joe had known a guy like

this in his hometown. I think any big city has a few Crazy Joe Cohens in it.

The scene was a total adlib, but totally believable. Trust me !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d2LAs-WL_4

Quote:SOOPOOThat is why i SPECIFICALLY said for any number divisible by 6, so 100 is not in play.

Even with a multiple of 6 you'll find that the over under is not exactly 50 at the mean value:

120 rolls - 20 expected : Above 20 = 44%

Under 20 = 46%

Exactly 20 = 10%

It -tends- towards even, but won't ever get there.

Quote:SOOPOOThat is why i SPECIFICALLY said for any number divisible by 6, so 100 is not in play.

Ok, so did you see my first post, where I said that for 6 rolls, 1 is an over/under that can be easily beaten?

Quote:sodawaterOk, so did you see my first post, where I said that for 6 rolls, 1 is an over/under that can be easily beaten?

First of all, my statements were in opposition to someone saying they can do BETTER than expected. With 7's, better is defined as fewer for 'right side' bettors. So I stand by my initial comment. There is no dice setter that can do better than the expected amount. So to translate simply, if you are saying six rolls, then the 'influencer' would have to do BETTER than 1 out of six, which is zero. If you want that bet, let me know. If it is 12 rolls, then they would have to do better than 2, etc....

YOU made an incorrect assumption, that hitting the exact number did not count as a loss.

For me, I think it would be really awesome to see if someone is willing to put up $1000 or more (more would be better, I've got more if some bigger better wants to say it ain't possible and wants to risk it on what he believes is a free bet and I believe is a chance to take the sucker's money) that I can't do fewer than 28 7's in 1008 rolls.

So what is the MOST money someone would offer straight up against me saying I can't do fewer than 168 sevens in 1008 rolls? Anybody?

If somebody wants a 5% edge on the bet, I'll pay $1025 or take $975. That's about as high of an edge as I think is fair for one bet, but a real man would take a free bet if they REALLY BELIEVE it's all just random!!!

Quote:AhighI may have just gotten lucky, but I'm still in the low 15% sevens for 2000 plus rolls that I've recorded.

For me, I think it would be really awesome to see if someone is willing to put up $1000 or more (more would be better, I've got more if some bigger better wants to say it ain't possible and wants to risk it on what he believes is a free bet and I believe is a chance to take the sucker's money) that I can't do fewer than 28 7's in 1008 rolls.

So what is the MOST money someone would offer straight up against me saying I can't do fewer than 28 sevens in 1008 rolls? Anybody?

If somebody wants a 5% edge on the bet, I'll pay $1025 or take $975. That's about as high of an edge as I think is fair for one bet, but a real man would take a free bet if they REALLY BELIEVE it's all just random!!!

First of all, I think you've got your math wrong, the expected number of 7s in 1008 rolls for a random shooter would be 168, so the number for the bet should be somewhat south of that, but not 28.

Anyway, I might put up $1000 or $1500 against you for such a bet, but for that amount of money, there would need to be some more conditions. Probably in a real casino, although I would allow you to choose. And I would have to see your throw first. Having never seen you throw the dice, after observation I may decide you can actually do it :).

But there's enough of a chance that I can do it again, I think, that I'm ready to put $1010 saying I can do it! And both pays can be at four figures which is enough to say "wow."

If I had 50,000 samples, I would probably be willing to bet more, but with this few samples, it could still be luck. Even without being a math genius (who can't divide 1008 by 6 instead of 36 for example), I am a little bit scared to bet that much! But yeah, I will do $1050 against $1000.

Quote:AhighI'll pay $1050 against your $1000 to give you a tiny edge. I think getting to four figures is a big enough bet, and I will back down a bit and say it could just be luck.

But there's enough of a chance that I can do it again, I think, that I'm ready to put $1010 saying I can do it! And both pays can be at four figures which is enough to say "wow."

If I had 50,000 samples, I would probably be willing to bet more, but with this few samples, it could still be luck. Even without being a math genius (who can't divide 1008 by 6 instead of 36 for example), I am a little bit scared to bet that much! But yeah, I will do $1050 against $1000.

Cool. I would rather change the line than wager $1050 vs. $1000. We would of course have to agree on the exact over/under number. Ideally it would be a number that would satisfy the conditions that

A) I had X chance of winning the bet assuming a random roller

B) A controlled shooter with your assumed bias had X chance of winning the bet

And of course X = X. I'm attempting to run the math right now with an assumed bias that produces 15% sevens, but I'm lame with statistics.

I would also want to witness the throws in person. As I don't know the next time I'll be in Vegas (but likely in the next 4 months), we would have to wait on this challenge! But there is the 200 throw challenge from nickolay411 to look forward to in March.

Quote:AcesAndEightsCool. I would rather change the line than wager $1050 vs. $1000. We would of course have to agree on the exact over/under number. Ideally it would be a number that would satisfy the conditions that

A) I had X chance of winning the bet assuming a random roller

B) A controlled shooter with your assumed bias had X chance of winning the bet

And of course X = X. I'm attempting to run the math right now with an assumed bias that produces 15% sevens, but I'm lame with statistics.

I would also want to witness the throws in person. As I don't know the next time I'll be in Vegas (but likely in the next 4 months), we would have to wait on this challenge! But there is the 200 throw challenge from nickolay411 to look forward to in March.

It's probably a no-go then because I really only want free bets.

It's not that I am scared of losing, just that I already take free bets with the casino.

In other words, just betting odds over and over and over is effectively the same way to profit from rolling fewer sevens, and I already have a way to do that, and yet I don't actually take odds that often.

We can hold off until there's a better understanding that we are in agreement for the terms, but it sounds like you're thinking I am willing to say I have a 50/50 chance to roll 15% or fewer sevens.

What I'm saying is I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that I can roll less than 16.67% sevens, and I'll pay a little bit more if I lose that you have to pay if I win.

In general, the reason I am not willing to do anything besides betting I can do better than random is because I already have those bets available here in Vegas since I'm a local, and I don't have much incentive to bet that bet except to take an unnecessary risk that I don't perform as well as I have performed in the past.

I hope it all makes sense. If I come across as sounding less than confident that I can continue to roll 15% sevens, then that's okay, because I'm _not_ confident it will continue!