dice control
Quote: SOOPOOThe over under would be 16.67%
If it were a regular sportsbook you would have to lay $110 to win $100, regardless if you selected over or under.
careful, median is not the same as mean. over/under should be based on median
To repeat for clarity, I am betting $100 with a 1:1 payoff that nickolay411 (the shooter) will roll 15% or fewer sevens.
So, for instance, if nickolay411 throws 200 times and rolls 31 or more sevens, Buzzard wins $100. By the same token, if he throws 200 times and rolls 30 or fewer sevens, I win $100. Likewise, if he throws 100 times and rolls 15 or fewer sevens, I win $100 -- 16 or more sevens and Buzzard wins $100.
If nickolay411 doesn't go through with the trial for some reason, then the bet is off, unless we agree on a new shooter.
I don't have Paypal, but I might be in Vegas next week. If Ahigh would be so kind as to accept my $100 in-person and hold it for the trial, I will post the receipt in this thread for verification.
Now, I hope that we have at least established the fact that those of us who believe in the possibility of dice influencing do not hesitate to "put our money where our mouths are."
Quote: tuppOkay. Buzzard and I have a bet.
To repeat for clarity, I am betting $100 with a 1:1 payoff that nickolay411 (the shooter) will roll 15% or fewer sevens.
I just want to say this again, even if no one else takes notice. I feel as though I have to put this on the record:
Even if any of these bets are won or lost -- not one of these bets nor all of them combined will help to prove or disprove dice influencing or dice control. These tests of making or avoiding certain numbers of hard ways, or hitting spots on a table, don't address dice control or dice influencing at all. They are actually just "side bets" about particular events.
But I do wish those on either side of these bets good luck. And I really mean "good luck" because they won't be a measure of dice control. LOL
Quote: sodawatercareful, median is not the same as mean. over/under should be based on median
No care needed, sodawater. The over under on any number divisible by 6 would be 1/6 of that number. If I am incorrect give me an example...
Quote: SOOPOONo care needed, sodawater. The over under on any number divisible by 6 would be 1/6 of that number. If I am incorrect give me an example...
ok, well, take 6 rolls.
the expected number of 7s is 1.
But if you offer over/under on number of 7s in 6 rolls I am gonna crush you by taking over 1 for even money.
Quote: SOOPOONo care needed, sodawater. The over under on any number divisible by 6 would be 1/6 of that number. If I am incorrect give me an example...
also.. in your example, 16.67 out of 100. 100 is not evenly divisible by 6. So in that case making the over/under 16.67 is the equivalent of making it 16.5
Just like in one roll, the mean 7s is 0.167 but if you make that the over/under, under is going to dominate.
Quote: BuzzardCan I assume that before the first roll, there will be an agreement whether he will roll 100 or 200 times ?
my bet with him is already down for 200 rolls so i assume it will be 200
" Likewise, if he throws 100 times and rolls 15 or fewer sevens, I win $100 -- 16 or more sevens and Buzzard wins $100. "
I am fine with either number of rolls, just need to know the number !
And I am still rolling 200X.
Get em bets in!
Quote: nickolay411Oh do not worry. I'm getting a thai massage with a concentration in the hands the night before.
Is that the one where they slap you in the face for $350?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/face-slapping-treatments-_n_2003848.html
Quote: sodawaterok, well, take 6 rolls.
the expected number of 7s is 1.
But if you offer over/under on number of 7s in 6 rolls I am gonna crush you by taking over 1 for even money.
Isnt the under 1 about 34%, exactly 1 about 40% and over one 26%? Wouldnt I prefer to be on the under?
Quote: thecesspitIsnt the under 1 about 34%, exactly 1 about 40% and over one 26%? Wouldnt I prefer to be on the under?
Yes, here I was assuming it was "one or more." But you are correct.
Even if the o/u here is exactly one, it wouldn't be fair
Hopefully with the nickolay411 challenge we can move forward with some testable hypotheses. I only hope that if there are further challenges after this one, the number of rolls is increased. No need to do them all at once, 10 100-roll sessions spaced out over a few days would be a good test. I would probably put up some money on that one.
Quote: sodawaterYes, here I was assuming it was "one or more." But you are correct.
Even if the o/u here is exactly one, it wouldn't be fair
Indeed.
For 200 rolls the over/under 33 wouldn't be fair either :
Under 33 -> 44.5%
Over 33 -> 48.0%
Exactly 33 -> 7.5%
It's a good point you make.
Quote: BuzzardCan I assume that before the first roll, there will be an agreement whether he will roll 100 or 200 times ?
200
Quote: sodawateralso.. in your example, 16.67 out of 100. 100 is not evenly divisible by 6. So in that case making the over/under 16.67 is the equivalent of making it 16.5
Just like in one roll, the mean 7s is 0.167 but if you make that the over/under, under is going to dominate.
That is why i SPECIFICALLY said for any number divisible by 6, so 100 is not in play.
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!
Quote: AhighIt'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!
Okay, I'm starting to understand the disconnect between you and SOOPOO now. So for any bet, you really want the over-under to be the exact (or close to exact) 1/6 number, and for your winning conditions to be under that number of sevens. Is that correct? The reason that I (or anyone) would be less inclined to take that bet is that it is far more likely to happen randomly, of course! I understand you are willing to give up more on your side of the action to compensate. We may yet be able to compromise, given that additional variable.
But let me make clarify something: ideally, the bet would not be a 50/50 proposition for you (i.e. a "free bet"). Ideally we would calibrate it such that you would have a > 50% chance of winning given your influence. I suggested the 15% number since that's what you cited from your past roll data, but that's not set in stone. 15.5% would still be a bias, as would even 16% (I'm not sure what bias is required to beat the house edge, I just sold my 2 dice control books). I'm not trying to waste your time, I promise. I'm trying to test a claim of dice bias. Depending on where we set the line, it could be under the exact 1/6 amount, and still give you a >50% chance of winning assuming some tiny amount of bias.
Say you have a shooter who claims 16% sevens (a very small bias). In a sample of 1008 throws, set the over-under at 164.5 sevens. The shooter (again, assuming the bias to be true), would have a 61.24% chance of hitting the under (164 or fewer sevens). The challenger (again, assuming no bias) would have a 61.30% chance of hitting the over (165 or more sevens). That's about the best you can get as far as giving each party a similar perceived probability of winning a straight bet.
To get the percentages higher, you either need more claimed bias or a longer trial. Here are a few more examples
For the same shooter with a 16% claimed 7 percentage but a 2016 throw trial, set the over-under at 329.5. This gives the shooter a 66.54% chance and the challenger a 64.9% chance. Still pretty good.
Instead, go back to the 1008 trial but take a shooter with 15.5% claimed 7s. Now move the over-under down to 162.5. Harder to line it up exactly now, but this gives the challenger a 67.63% shot, and the shooter a 70.94% shot. Move it to 161.5 and they nearly flip, giving the challenger a 70.63% shot, and the shooter a 67.93% shot.
Anyway, just brainstorming. People who are way better at stats than me, please poke holes in my methodology :)
Quote: BuzzardI will take 5 to 1 that whatever you want, 7's, hardways, whatever, that I can beat you . Even with my total inexperience. Just how good a dice setter do you think you are ?
Careful Buzz..... Choose your words carefully! I'l bet you cannot BEAT me (not tie me) in a one roll contest for who can roll the most boxcars......
Quote: AhighI rolled boxcars back-to-back three times in a row two days ago at Fiesta.
If PaigowDan was there, he would have back-roomed you.
LibreOffice works just as well in Windows and Mac OSX. I prefer it over its proprietary counterparts.Quote: AcesAndEightsOkay, fooling around in LibreOffice Calc (i.e. Excel for Linux nerds :p)
Quote: MakingBookIf PaigowDan was there, he would have back-roomed you.
The first boxcar, I had $6 coming. The next one I had $25 coming. The next one I had $50 coming.
I ended up making $25 on the entire roll, but those boxcars didn't help.
It's not like I am a horn better!!!
Quote: BuzzardSo you will lay me the 5 to 1 odds then. We have a bet sir. I expect you not to weasel out.
If that is me you are referring to, Buzz, then either your reading skills are weak, or your math skills are weak, or you just want to give me money! The odds of you BEATING me in a one roll match to see who gets the most boxcars, which is the number 12, is 1/36 x 35/36, or 2.7%. So tell me how much you want to bet, with me giving you 5 to 1 odds.... I hope the answer is zero....
Quote: BuzzardI will take 5 to 1 that whatever you want, 7's, hardways, whatever, that I can beat you . Even with my total inexperience. Just how good a dice setter do you think you are ?
I'm calling bullshit on you, Buzz!!! Now you are trying to say you meant a single die.... but read what YOU wrote...... "whatever you want, 7's hardways, whatever, I can beat you." If you are mentioning hardways and 7's you CERTAINLY were not referring to a single die. So did you mean what you wrote here, or not?
I think I see a weasel running out of the room!
PLayed last night in Michigan casino.... 14 ' table which is a little long, but it had a very nice bounce.... cashed out four times
my by in...... longest roll was a 44 with 19 6or 8 and only 1 seven for the entire roll.... 3 of last for trips i enjoyed a 49, 44, 38 with
many pass line winners..... gosh since there is no thing as dice control i must have been very lucky!!!!!!!
dicesitter
It usually takes me a week to get 10x my starting point.
But I see other who get 10x on a single one of my rolls and it makes me jealous I don't bet so agressively.
I am a wuss at betting!!!
Gee seems this fella is the guy who tried to slide a one roll contest into my challenge, not me. Perhaps you should put the gas mask on the patient and not indulge yourself.
