SOOPOO's dice toss challenge
Poll
| No votes (0%) | |||
 | 15 votes (57.69%) | ||
| | 8 votes (30.76%) | ||
| | 3 votes (11.53%) |
26 members have voted
I am saying that there is no human who can do this 5 times in a row, but as someone who rarely rolls them bones, perhaps I am wrong. I will put up $50 against any member, giving the member 20 first rolls. If the member fails he must donate $50 to a charity of the Wiz's choosing. I am hoping if someone takes me up that they can do it! I of course will need access to a table, and someone interested in such things. I am hoping Ahigh will show interest!
I absolutely can't do it easily, and I can tell you that already.
In any case, I can do target practice videos demonstrating the control that I have developed to deliver the dice where and how I desire.
Many people infer that when each shot looks different it is a lack of control that is to explain it.
I rarely try to shoot the exact same way each time. I have parameters I am trying to abide by and I shoot however I feel I can most easily shoot within those parameters.
My general parameters are not where the dice land, but where they hit on the back wall.
But I can land in specific places, absolutely.
Soopoo, this is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Because if you can't hit the same point on the craps table, then dice control has no merit, because the bounce of the dice and the back wall will randomize the dice unless they land at the same place (with the same velocity and spin). The first test would be location.
I think this is difficult, but certainly possible for someone to achieve.
I would consider this Step 1 for any aspiring dice controller. Remaining steps would be much more difficult,
bordering on impossible.
Quote: boymimbo5 times in a row: impossible.
Soopoo, this is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Because if you can't hit the same point on the craps table, then dice control has no merit, because the bounce of the dice and the back wall will randomize the dice unless they land at the same place (with the same velocity and spin). The first test would be location.
I only dream about a world being as simple as the one you live in.
Maybe that is my problem. Maybe drugs are the answer after all!
We've already had this discussion about illegal control. Sliders don't hit the same place, yet they can control the dice, only in a disallowed way.
Therefore it is demonstrated that your assertion, "Because if you can't hit the same point on the craps table, then dice control has no merit" to be false.
It is my opinion that there are far more false assertions regarding the impossibility of dice control than the other way around.
Just claiming you know something to be false, and having a sound set of facts to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt therefore leading to a solid foundation worthy of actual knowledge are two totally separate things.
You guys who don't believe it's possible have some of the weakest flimsiest perspectives of anyone!
I think the five times in a row thing is the hardest part of this challenge. Call misses a roll that follows standard randomization, and dice that hit the dimes a true controlled shot. With that in mind, what percentage of shots need to be scored as control shots to acknowledge the shooter is a control shooter? THAT should be the tarted percentage for the dimes test.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI think throwing a SINGLE die with that sort of accuracy would be hard enough, but two dice, hitting specific dime targets, five times in a row? Wow. Good luck with that.
I think the five times in a row thing is the hardest part of this challenge. Call misses a roll that follows standard randomization, and dice that hit the dimes a true controlled shot. With that in mind, what percentage of shots need to be scored as control shots to acknowledge the shooter is a control shooter? THAT should be the tarted percentage for the dimes test.
It's not just 5 in a row, but 5 in a row with only 20 total tries.
SOOPOO is really good at making near-impossible challenges in terms of him having to actually pay, at least those he intends me to be interested in anyway.
Just an infinite number of tries and get it on video is hard enough.
But here's a guess on my confidence levels in the domain of can I do it given an infinite number of tries:
Once: absolutely
Twice: absolutely
Three times: I'm guessing an 80% chance
Four times: I'm guessing 50% chance
Five times: I'm guessing a 5% chance
This is given an infinite number of tries.
I can already tell you I can't do it only given 20 throws. No amount of practice will give me a 50/50 chance to make that bet. It's absolutely ridiculous!
So I'm not taking the bet because all SOOPOO's bets are designed with the assumption that I want to be a sucker (bad assumption).
But I will do some video to demonstrate my accuracy skills just for those who believe that because they see my throws and they bounce "all over the place" that I have no throwing skills.
Also, I'm sure you can counter-claim for SooPoo and make a alternative wager. Those negotiations are always intersting.
Personally, I could care less for another dice throwing video and edit. I think your wasting your time editing up videos, when you could be creating a testing a viable hypothesis on your accuracy of throwing.
Quote: AhighBut here's a guess on my confidence levels in the domain of can I do it given an infinite number of tries:
Once: absolutely
Twice: absolutely
Three times: I'm guessing an 80% chance
Four times: I'm guessing 50% chance
Five times: I'm guessing a 5% chance
This is given an infinite number of tries.
This doesn't make any sense. If you can do it with probability > 0 (ie, if you can ever do it) then you can do it 5 times in a row with probability = 1 given infinitely many tries.
For example, say you can do it once every 100 rolls. Then you can do it 5 times in a row with probability 1 / 10^10, ie, 1 in 10 billion. So, if you have 100 billion throws, you are very likely to hit 5 in a row. If you have 1 trillion throws, you are almost sure to do it.
If course, you can't throw that many times in your lifetime, but, given infinitely many throws, you could certainly do it.
Quote: thecesspitGiven an infinite number of tries, and the statement you can do it at least twice in a row, your chance of doing it 5 times must be 100%, not 5%. Unless previous throws have some effect on the immediate following throws.
Even if previous throws do affect future throws, your probability of doing it given infinitely many throws is not 5%. It's either 0 or 1.
Quote: Ahigh
But here's a guess on my confidence levels in the domain of can I do it given an infinite number of tries:
Once: absolutely
Twice: absolutely
Three times: I'm guessing an 80% chance
Four times: I'm guessing 50% chance
Five times: I'm guessing a 5% chance
This is given an infinite number of tries.
Please see me after math class.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis doesn't make any sense. If you can do it with probability > 0 (ie, if you can ever do it) then you can do it 5 times in a row with probability = 1 given infinitely many tries.
For example, say you can do it once every 100 rolls. Then you can do it 5 times in a row with probability 1 / 10^10, ie, 1 in 10 billion. So, if you have 100 billion throws, you are very likely to hit 5 in a row. If you have 1 trillion throws, you are almost sure to do it.
If course, you can't throw that many times in your lifetime, but, given infinitely many throws, you could certainly do it.
I could be given an infinite number of tries. However I could not nor would I take all of them.
That's where you have gone wrong.
You need to take off your math hat for a second and realize I'm this dude, not a subroutine in a simulator.
Quote: sodawaterPlease see me after math class.
Dude, your snide comments that indicate that you think you're smarter than me don't do you any favors. Some people see things for how they are rather than how your imagination paints them in your head.
My question is who here thinks that those two dice in the air have any better chance, and I quote, to not "bounce all over the place" than anything I am doing.
Keep in mind, this is the video where they DEMONSTRATE .. HERE IS HOW YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO THROW THE DICE.
I'm not saying they suck, I'm just saying, these are SUPPOSED to be the EXPERTS.
It almost looks like he's giving himself a thumbs down for his own throw and Frank is thinking "wow, that sucks!" as he looks over at it.
Quote: AhighAnother image for followers of "Golden Touch" where DOM demonstrates his high precision throw. This is a still frame from the you tube video:
My question is who here thinks that those two dice in the air have any better chance, and I quote, to not "bounce all over the place" than anything I am doing.
Keep in mind, this is the video where they DEMONSTRATE .. HERE IS HOW YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO THROW THE DICE.
I'm not saying they suck, I'm just saying, these are SUPPOSED to be the EXPERTS.
It almost looks like he's giving himself a thumbs down for his own throw and Frank is thinking "wow, that sucks!" as he looks over at it.
Funny you mention this, I just recently ripped a copy of this video before selling the book (please don't tell Franks, thanks!).
I hadn't watched the video in a couple years probably, and knowing what I know now about dice control, I was shocked that they didn't show the dice actually landing on the table more than ONCE. That's like, only the most important part if you want to demonstrate that YOU actually know what you're doing. Of course the whole process (set, grip, throw, release, etc.) is important to get right, but if you're trying to convince someone that you are capable, you should really show multiple landings...
Quote: AcesAndEightsif you're trying to convince someone that you are capable, you should really show multiple landings...
Precisely. If all of my work fails to demonstrate that I cannot prove dice control to be possible, I have still enjoyed my journey.
But even for these two guys, who are supposed to be at the top of their game, you would think that they would at least not leave any video evidence that they actually suck and are just making crap up to sell books to the feeble minded.
I've been using their grip and throw for years just assuming they aren't full of crap, but who the hell knows? Neither one of these guys has contacted me to demonstrate to me what a REAL craps player can do. And I have played in Vegas long enough I should have run into one of them by now. Especially if they play more than 3x4x5x odds.
I have never actually played with Beau Parker, but at least he allows people to watch him play the game.
I am hiding absolutely nothing and I play almost every single day. If I am full of shit, come and watch me play and tell me I am full of shit. But I am absolutely not hiding anything.
Sliders do hit the same place on the craps table - with a high probability because the point that they are hitting is directly in front of them.
Dice controllers don't need to hit the same place 5 times in a row. If they were capable of doing so, they'd be having ridiculous SRRs well above 9:1, maybe even 20:1.
So yeah, I will maintain that if you can't make a legal throw hit in the same place, then you have no dice control abilities. And that's just the first test. If the dice hit anywhere else *but* the target and the following throw is not replicable, then by definition, the result will only be the same by chance, not through control.
It becomes an even easier challenge if the dimes are close together similar to keeping the dice close together.
Yeah, I think I could do it. But it wouldn't prove anything about dice control or dice influencing.
Bad test.
Quote: AhighDude, your snide comments that indicate that you think you're smarter than me don't do you any favors. Some people see things for how they are rather than how your imagination paints them in your head.
I never said I was smarter than you. That might be your own insecurity.
Quote: SOOPOOI am challenging any forum member who wishes to participate. Here is the challenge. The challenger will place two dimes on a craps table, at least 6 feet from his release point. ... The dice must contact the dimes before hitting the felt.
Okay, I choose to put one dime in the C circle closest to the stick, and the other inside the "D" in "Don't Come". I'd guess nobody can hit this, ever. (No, I'm not betting on it.)
Or did you mean the dimes need to be touching each other?
Quote: MathExtremistOkay, I choose to put one dime in the C circle closest to the stick, and the other inside the "D" in "Don't Come". I'd guess nobody can hit this, ever. (No, I'm not betting on it.)
Or did you mean the dimes need to be touching each other?
I think soopoo meant that the person who bet he can hit the dimes can place them wherever he wants.
Quote: sodawaterI think soopoo meant that the person who bet he can hit the dimes can place them wherever he wants.
Ah, I misread his post. I took "challenger" and "tosser" to be two different people...
Imagine if in this challenge the thrower missed those two dimes by an inch or two on every throw but could consistently throw 20 in a row without rolling a 7. Wouldn't that be a better indication of influence?
I'm not saying that anyone can do this but it is more important to collect information on the results of the outcome of the throw as regards the numbers thrown rather than the landing spot.
I think a good and simple test would be to have someone attempt to throw just one die and have it land on one particular number more often than another. If you knew that you could have one die stop on the number 6 more than 16.66% of the time, that in itself would be enough to retire comfortably. At that point you just have the second die go along for the ride.
Aaron, would you like to try this? take your shooting apparatus and have it throw only one die at a time. Have exactly the same release point and force and record the die landing and rolling. My opinion is that if you can't even control one die then there's no point in attempting to control two. If a machine can't reproduce some kind of consistency with one die then I submit that no human can do it with two.
Quote: MathExtremistOkay, I choose to put one dime in the C circle closest to the stick, and the other inside the "D" in "Don't Come". I'd guess nobody can hit this, ever. (No, I'm not betting on it.)
Or did you mean the dimes need to be touching each other?
The challenger places them, not the setter of the bet.
I'd suggest that the "on axis, same place on felt, soft bounce touching the wall" throw that some of the DI salesmen suggest is a true DI throw should be able to do this. maybe try with quarters first...
Bowlers in 1920's cricket were challenged to fast bowl (like a pitch, but bounced of the ground) to hit a shilling coin on the ground and hit it while bowling at over 90mph. They could regularly do it. I suspect today's bowlers can as well. Not with every bowl, but close enough.
I'd be curious what rate of success a good dice thrower reckons they could have for hitting these coins? 1 in 100? If it was low enough, maybe you could devise a throw based test rather than string of five based test (if you claim 1 in 4, then 5 out of 20).
I don't claim this means any sort of DI is possible, but it does seem like a starting point for those that claim to be able to hit the same place on the table with a soft, on axis throw (not a claim AHigh seems to have made, but I'm still at a loss to understand what testable claims he makes).
Quote: boymimboSo yeah, I will maintain that if you can't make a legal throw hit in the same place, then you have no dice control abilities. And that's just the first test. If the dice hit anywhere else *but* the target and the following throw is not replicable, then by definition, the result will only be the same by chance, not through control.
I can ALREADY tell you that a well-tuned machine can perform dice control without hitting the same place on the felt. Your logic, if you want to call it that, is flawed.
The truth is that you are using faith and pure association to come to a conclusion.
If it doesn't LOOK like control then it can't possibly BE control is the logic.
But I can assure you that this is not a foundation for proving anything at all. ESPECIALLY if you take the diamonds off the back wall.
The MAIN REASON I even WANT to hit in the same place is to dodge the rubber diamonds.
Where I have to land depends on the specific table I am shooting on.
I shot all day long on the Palms table just to figure out how to bounce up over the rubber diamonds one day when SOOPOO and I went to the Palms.
I wasn't picking a landing spot and always landing there. I was trying lots of landing spots seeing what combination of spin and spot bounced the dice where I wanted them.
Your comments just demonstrate how simple minded your perspectives are, but they absolutely don't prove anything.
I wish, like I said, my world were so simple.
Resetting the dimes after each pitch will challenge the test conditions, as they will certainly bound away when they are struck.
Perhaps a better test would be to get 20 of those sticky Rat traps, and 20 pairs of dice. The sticky trap will catch the dice where they initially hit, and can easily be replaced in the same spot each time.
Quote: thecesspitSurely once you did find that spot and spin, you'd keep hitting it time and again, though?
Wow. Surely once you learn to do a free throw in basketball, you will always only make your shots too, right?
Really sound logic there, genius.
No I do in fact fuck up. I do in fact get nervous. My hands physically shake sometimes. It does in fact affect my performance.
I know you didn't think about that, though, right. Because I would have to be inhuman to have any bias? It's like 100% or 0% to you, huh?
Quote: AhighWow. Surely once you learn to do a free throw in basketball, you will always only make your shots too, right?
Hold it right there. I played basketball in school, and the muscle memory needed to hit free throws repeatedly is absolutely attainable. It is, however, a poor comparison to dice control.
Look, I am sure someone out there can do it. My surgeon friend could do it to a certain degree. I think however, that while it is possible, only God gives the ability and no Vegas school can teach it.
Quote: AhighWow. Surely once you learn to do a free throw in basketball, you will always only make your shots too, right?
Really sound logic there, genius.
No I do in fact fuck up. I do in fact get nervous. My hands physically shake sometimes. It does in fact affect my performance.
I know you didn't think about that, though, right. Because I would have to be inhuman to have any bias? It's like 100% or 0% to you, huh?
Calm down, I should have said "once you did find that spot and spin you'd TRY to keep hitting it time and again"?
I don't expect you to be 100% perfect, but if you found the place that worked, surely you'd be -aiming- for it every time? I understand why you'd be moving around the target to find the place that works for your throw, but once zoned to the desired spot and desired spin... it's -try- to repeat it?
Surely you understand my point? Once you've got what looks like a reliable throw, you'll try to repeat it, and work at home to try and repeat a decent throw (just like the free-thrower will train themselves, and the make throws from around the court). Thus surely you can claim some -testable- level of accuracy.
I'm just trying to really understand what you are doing that is testable. Apart from trying to prove dice control can work, I'm at a loss to see a testable hypothesis at all. Maybe you are keeping that secret for now.
soopoo's challenge is smart in that it will demonstrate that no one can even control where the dice land five times in a row.
Quote: thecesspitCalm down, I should have said "once you did find that spot and spin you'd TRY to keep hitting it time and again"?
I don't expect you to be 100% perfect, but if you found the place that worked, surely you'd be -aiming- for it every time? I understand why you'd be moving around the target to find the place that works for your throw, but once zoned to the desired spot and desired spin... it's -try- to repeat it?
Surely you understand my point? Once you've got what looks like a reliable throw, you'll try to repeat it, and work at home to try and repeat a decent throw (just like the free-thrower will train themselves, and the make throws from around the court). Thus surely you can claim some -testable- level of accuracy.
I'm just trying to really understand what you are doing that is testable. Apart from trying to prove dice control can work, I'm at a loss to see a testable hypothesis at all. Maybe you are keeping that secret for now.
In general, yes, I want repeaters. But I don't freak about about 100% consistency if I'm hitting above the diamonds and the dice look to be correlated in a way that I can identify, and I dodge the red, I'm generally happy.
I look for timing similarities, for example. If each die has the same number of bounces and each sound of the bounce happens simultaneously, that is a big plus.
Whatever I can do to get this feedback is what I try to do again. I use my ears as much as my eyes to know how I'm doing.
Quote: sodawatereven if you could control exactly where dice land every time, small differences in initial conditions will make the roll results utterly random.
soopoo's challenge is smart in that it will demonstrate that no one can even control where the dice land five times in a row.
Correction, not utterly random, but chaotic based on the properties of physics and the details of how the die lands and with what velocity and angular velocity.
I'm a physics programmer too. Alright? I know how dice bounce, and it's not random. It's chaotic.
The results have properties that are random. But they do not bounce randomly.
We've gone over this at least three times now, yet so many people don't understand the difference between Chaotic and random.
Quote: SOOPOOThanks all for the comments. My point was to make a challenge that would be EASIER than actual dice control. I didn't ask for the shooter to land each die within a millimeter of a target, I gave them a whole freaken dime! I didn't ask them to say which face or point of the die would have to hit the dime. I didn't ask them what speed the die would need to travel at. I didn't ask what rotation would be occurring. I made my challenge a gazillion times EASIER than 'controlling the dice'. Considering that all the factors I mentioned would play a part in which number appears face up, I would like to see if someone can successfully come close to controlling ONE of those factors. Most of the comments lead me to believe that is no.
Your goal is more similar to playing basketball than craps.
And if you don't mind my suggestion, you are no expert at the game of craps when it comes to the dice and how they resolve.
This is a fun experiment, but it is somewhat tangential.
I want to do something where I can demonstrate control of where I land the dice, but it would be entirely for entertainment purposes and not to prove anything.
I bet you a dollar you can't come up with a bet fair enough for me to take!
How is that for a bet!!!
Quote: AhighCorrection, not utterly random, but chaotic based on the properties of physics and the details of how the die lands and with what velocity and angular velocity.
I'm a physics programmer too. Alright? I know how dice bounce, and it's not random. It's chaotic.
The results have properties that are random. But they do not bounce randomly.
We've gone over this at least three times now, yet so many people don't understand the difference between Chaotic and random.
You'd better hope it's not chaotic. If it is, as I suspect it is, then you can't control things. You should be hoping that the behavior of the dice is *not* sensitively dependent on initial conditions, and further hoping that there is a meaningful correlation between a particular range of impact angles/velocities/angular velocities and a given die face, for a given start condition. Only then will you be able to influence the dice if you achieve a level of precision sufficient to hit that particular range.
If the dice are chaotic, even a small difference in impact angle/velocity/angular velocity will completely change the outcome. That's what you *don't* want.
Is this what you intend your machine to test?
It took me nine tries before I was able to hit the two dimes spaced about an inch apart. After I was able to do it the first time, I was able to do it three out of tbe next eight tries. Then my wife told me to get the heck out of the room because I was bothering her.
I think if I practiced this for a half hour, I could raise my "hit rate" substantially.
Again, I don't think it means anything.
Quote: MathExtremistYou'd better hope it's not chaotic. If it is, as I suspect it is, then you can't control things. You should be hoping that the behavior of the dice is *not* sensitively dependent on initial conditions, and further hoping that there is a meaningful correlation between a particular range of impact angles/velocities/angular velocities and a given die face, for a given start condition. Only then will you be able to influence the dice if you achieve a level of precision sufficient to hit that particular range.
If the dice are chaotic, even a small difference in impact angle/velocity/angular velocity will completely change the outcome. That's what you *don't* want.
Is this what you intend your machine to test?
The outcome of the dice is sensitively dependent on initial conditions. I don't know ANYONE who argues this, and it is a given for everything that I am doing.
The machine is not precise enough to create the exact same outcome on every throw, if this is what you are curious about.
To me I never expected to accomplish this.
In order for enough bias to be recognized necessary to grind against the house's combined edge on a max odds strategy, especially in the initial stages, a computer and statistical analysis are necessary. It's not big enough to see with your brain and basic observation.
The broad statements with statements like "you can't control things" I think have a shallow view on how much bias is needed to obtain an edge against the low house edge of the game of craps.
It really isn't going to take that much bias when you add in 10x odds to overcome the house's edge on the pass line.
I hope this helps, but I had previously assumed that with a name like "MathExtremist" you would already know that the amount of bias that would be significant to create an edge is small.
Quote: MathExtremistYou'd better hope it's not chaotic. If it is, as I suspect it is, then you can't control things. You should be hoping that the behavior of the dice is *not* sensitively dependent on initial conditions
Yes, exactly. This is the point I have been trying to make ever since AHigh brought it up. If it is sensitive to tiny variations in initial conditions, that pretty much proves that the dice can't be controlled, because a human can simply never be that precise.
How small do those variations have to be to induce chaos into the outputs of a system?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYes, exactly. This is the point I have been trying to make ever since AHigh brought it up. If it is sensitive to tiny variations in initial conditions, that pretty much proves that the dice can't be controlled, because a human can simply never be that precise.
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
---Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
--Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
--More witches.
--Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
--...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
--Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
--Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
--No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
--Bread.
--Apples.
--Very small rocks.
--Cider.
--Gravy.
--Cherries.
--Mud.
--Churches.
--Lead! Lead!
--A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
--If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
...A witch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
When I stand SL1 and throw down the Pass Line, I generally aim for one of the Fire Bet spots as my target.
And I hit that target quite frequently. However, I am never worried about what both dice are doing, and while I know one die hits the target, I'm not sure where the other one hits. I'm also not sure that the fire bet circle I hit is the stipulated 6' away. I suspect it is probably only 4' away.
I certainly have something to try in Biloxi for my next trip in March.
I am NOT a DI, and do not believe I ever could be. However, SOOPOO's challenge is not about being a DI. It is a skills and physical ability contest, and thus I think it is possible.
Quote: AhighThe outcome of the dice is sensitively dependent on initial conditions. I don't know ANYONE who argues this, and it is a given for everything that I am doing.
...
The broad statements with statements like "you can't control things" I think have a shallow view on how much bias is needed to obtain an edge against the low house edge of the game of craps.
It really isn't going to take that much bias when you add in 10x odds to overcome the house's edge on the pass line.
I hope this helps, but I had previously assumed that with a name like "MathExtremist" you would already know that the amount of bias that would be significant to create an edge is small.
It's not a question of how much bias is required, but whether you can achieve any repeatable dice bias *at all* in a chaotic system. Repeatability is important because without it, you may as well assume the dice are uniform -- there is no point in tossing 10,000 times only to observe, after the fact, what you might consider a bias and then watch it vanish over the next 10,000 tosses despite your best efforts to maintain a repeatable influence.
It is paradoxical to suggest that a system that generates one of six die faces is simultaneously sensitively dependent on the initial conditions of the throw AND such a system, when presented with slightly different initial conditions on two different trials, will repeatably and consistently generate the same result. Either the dice throws are chaotic or they aren't. Which is it?
Quote: thecesspitIf my knowledge of chaos is correct, which it might not be, there's a measure of the sensitivity to small variations.
How small do those variations have to be to induce chaos into the outputs of a system?
The question is whether the dice behave chaotically at the level of variation typically present in whatever's throwing them. I think it's a given that a sufficiently-engineered machine will exhibit less variance between trials than a human. If such a machine throws the dice 360000 times, each time with snake-eyes up and 2s forward, with as similar angular velocity and trajectory as is possible for that machine, and the results are indistinguishable from a uniform dice model, then it's fair to say that no human can do better. I could probably design the functionality of such a machine though I couldn't build it. I applaud Ahigh's efforts to do so. I'm just not sure he's thinking about the testing in the right way.
1) It's in quicktime format to allow you to drag the timeline and "scrub" to see what is happening.
2) If you scrub the video and look at the parts and pieces you will see
. a) There is a hard 4 showing on initial touchdown
. b) Both dice hit above the rubber diamonds
. c) Both dice hit above the rubber diamonds at similar orientations to one another
. d) The dice don't bounce randomly, the bounce according to the laws of Newtonian physics
3) It is plausible (to me) that the outcome of a the dice is more likely to be the faces on the up-side of the initial touchdown (although this is not part of my current theory, it's something suggested by another researcher)
4) I threw much more hard fours for the first 100 rolls than would be expected. It is therefore plausible that one or more of those outcomes is a biased outcome. It is possible that this video I am showing is biased and not completely random.
http://goodshooter.com/ahigh/hard4.mov
This is all theory and not conclusion, but hopefully it helps illuminate the way that I am proceeding.
On the negative side, you can see the dice touch each other shortly after touching the back wall, and you can also see that the relative angular inertia is not 1:1 throughout the resolution of the throw between the two dice.
It take a long time to do all this video editing, and this was just the first hard four that I looked at. I will put together more stuff, but just to get a visual for the theory behind how I am attempting to get a bias, it might help to look at what I am doing.
I am doing some post-hoc analysis for sure. I am looking to see what outcome is happening significantly more than any other outcome and then examining the video of those outcomes for anything that looks less than random. Since I am at the beginning stages, looking for patterns in what should be random data, as fraught with peril as it may seem, it in fact what I am doing at this early stage. I am postulating that what is visible on the top of the dice on initial touchdown (and transitively what is on the top of my set when I get my spin right) is more likely to occur. Similarly, I am postulating that what is on the axis of my throw is less likely to occur as an outcome as it will never be on the top on initial touchdown of any successful throw.
Quote: Ahigh
. d) The dice don't bounce randomly, the bounce according to the laws of Newtonian physics
With generating you ire once more, don't the dice -always- bounce according to the laws of Newtonian physics?
Quote: thecesspitWith generating you ire once more, don't the dice -always- bounce according to the laws of Newtonian physics?
I thought this was a given too, but someone said quantum mechanics was imparting a "randomness" to the bounce.
Since so many people seem to think randomness is what CAUSES the outcome, I think it's important to state what some of us feel is obvious because others think the bouncing is caused by randomness. We all know a bounce without any angular inertia throughout the bounce is not random and always lands with the same face as the initial touchdown. So it is possible for precise bounces from a sufficiently small drop distance are not random. However, everyone has a different opinion on how many bounces are required for a bounce to be considered random. There is similar research for card shuffling .. how many shuffles are needed for randomness. But in general, the less the dice bounce, the less likely the results are going to be random. That is also part of my postulation.
I believe for most tosses (even mine), randomness DESCRIBES the outcome. But it never has any EFFECT on the outcome. Randomness is a model to describe the expected results, not a mechanism to determine the results themselves.
