Show tomorrow night at 7:30pm
Quote: nickolay411We will have one with 200 rolls on March 11th. I know its not many. But hopefully soon after this will get the ball rolling for more trails.
Yep, I will be watching! I hope to one day see a challenge with 1000 or 2000 rolls, split up over a few days.
Quote: AcesAndEightsQuote: tuppI have posted links many times in this forum to two notable dice influencing trials, both of which went in favor of the shooters. Both were sanctioned by Wizard. In one of the trials, the shooters more than doubled the agreed upon winning margin.
These two trials are the only ones of which I am aware. As far as I know, the current score is:
Dice Influencing Believers -- 2
Dice Influencing Deniers -- 0
tupp, are both of the events to which you are referring mentioned on this page? If so, while you are technically correct, I believe you are being disingenuous, whether purposefully or not.
The "Beau Parker experiment" had a grand total of 116 rolls. Total rubbish in terms of any kind of conclusion. Good for them - they beat the expected number of 7s by less than one roll!
The Wong challenge is much more interesting, for sure, but still consisted of only 500 rolls. A great challenge, and kudos to Wong and Little Joe for hitting the under - but a random roller could have done it 14% of the time - more often than 1 in 10. These challenges don't "prove" anything. I wish we had a more recent one!
Yeah, this whole thing is going to be an iterative process. I think the live shows is going to go a long way to helping people understand that they are seeing unedited performances. I also think it would be interesting to receive betting strategies and try to taylor any theoretical bias towards various betting strategies to sort of split up the work for how to most effectively demonstrate a theoretical edge applied to a particular low-edge betting strategy.
It's comical to me that so many of these betting strategies (32 across, MP204, etc) are trying to overcome edges per roll in the 1.00% (placing the 5 and 9) and up (iron cross varieties) for some legs of the bets being placed.
I think you want 0.5% edge per roll and below to have a hope to overcoming those hurdles with a sufficient number of events to be meaningful.
Narrowing your intended target to 4's and 10's and keeping $25 for a buy on the 4 or 10, or $50 to buy both of them and add pressure is what I think will end up being the winner. Not even odds bets seems as good to me because you don't want to deal with changing your set and throw for the comeout non-comeout. All that complication does not help at all in my opinion.
That's one reason I will work hardways and six and eight place bets on the comeout: I don't want the casino deciding what I should roll to win money. I want to decide. That's also why I frequently pass the dice after a win. I like to finish on a win! Too bad to whoever doesn't like that!
Quote: AcesAndEightsYep, I will be watching! I hope to one day see a challenge with 1000 or 2000 rolls, split up over a few days.
One cool thing with my setup is that I can actually maintain two independent games concurrently. For example, I can enter roll data for two different shooters each with their own set of bets and points and all that alternating their throws back and forth. In fact, I can support N shooters where N is between 1 and 16 theoretically.
We can have some pretty fast-action live events as things progress. The software can handle as many shooters and graphs as we can fit on the table. And with rapid fire shooting, the video could be pretty damn exciting!
Quote: AhighIt's comical to me that so many of these betting strategies (32 across, MP204, etc) are trying to overcome edges per roll in the 1.00% (placing the 5 and 9) and up (iron cross varieties) for some legs of the bets being placed.
It's also "comical" (albeit unintentionally so) that you think the edge on placing the 5 and 9 is 1.00%.
Do you understand the math at work here, at all?
Quote: MrVIt's also "comical" (albeit unintentionally so) that you think the edge on placing the 5 and 9 is 1.00%.
Do you understand the math at work here, at all?
Tell me then, what *is* the edge per roll on the 5 and 9? I'll admit I remembered it incorrectly, and it's higher, just wondering if you already knew what it was. I wasn't that far off. Not that I would expect you to admit if you thought it was 4%, because PLEASE let's not have another one of these wars. Edge per roll is all that matters if you want to talk about developing a bias to overcome an edge. Any theoretical bias is also going to be per roll not per bet.
I challenge you to respond honestly that you're not trying to tell me you were thinking about the 4% number, though. It should be obvious that I'm being honest, but are you going to be?
That was a decent little craps roll though.
That is my position. So when anybody (Mad Professor, DiceCoach, or ANYBODY) starts telling me they use 1.11% edge per roll or UP, my little warning lights start flashing very brightly.
Even if you CAN do it, why try when you can get a computer to help you figure out how to transform any bias you can muster into a lower edge bet target?
Even my hitting hardways is something I consider a sport and not advantage play. It's fun for sure, but I can't imagine that working for the long haul. LUCK REQUIRED! And if it it wasn't, buy the four and rotate your set and hit the four hard to win the four, and be happy if you accidentally hit the 1-3 or the 3-1! Parlay until you get to your win target and you keep more of the win.
claims 10% of the people who attend become craps
AP's. He wouldn't lie (lol), maybe you will be one of the
lucky 10%..
Quote: EvenBobDoes Scoblete still have his dice setting seminars
Absolutely, you bet he does.
Only $1495.
Who knows when and where the next "Captain" will emerge?
He'll be in Las Vegas for a seminar in late June.
where they're all hiding..
that the majority of craps players, even controlled throwers that dont know their edge or make bets that have a edge
higher than their skill level to over come.
There are many players in the country that have an Srr large enough to give themselves an edge over the 6 & 8
and may even have an edge over buying a 4 or 10 if the vig is paid on a hit. But for everyone of those, there is a
100 so called dice experts that think they have an edge over the table and that means every bet on it.
The thing is, and there is no way around it, if you cant obtain the skill to extend your rolls and have more repeat
numbers than normal percentages dictate, there is no bet on the table, no series of bets, that will make you a
winner... over time.
I understand i am new to this forum so my opinion means nothing to anyone, however there is only 1 way to
win at craps.... and that is to get skilled at the toss, and play only on tables that fit your toss, and make bets
that fit your edge.....
You can use these pages to help players get better, or fill their heads with nonsense....
Dicesitter
win at craps.... and that is to get skilled at the toss, and play only on tables that fit your toss, and make bets
that fit your edge.....
ROFLMAO
Well, certainly, one of us is convinced that "he knows his stuff."Quote: EvenBobThis is from a member called 7Winner thats no longer with us. This is an interesting thread that SooPoo started in 2010 about dice setting being a hoax. Read all of 7Winner's posts, he knows his stuff.
You think that he is an authority just because he was a dealer?
We might be parroting a "parroter" here, but perhaps not, since the passage is in quotes. By the way, it is very easy to use the WOV formatting codes to properly quote a poster.Quote: EvenBob"You have convinced yourself wrongly that you have a "skill". At a Craps table in a casino you have to follow their rules. Dice hit table and back wall. A chimp throwing the dice (hitting the table and the back wall....those are casino rules) would still show the same results that you can have setting the dice...You do not understand random fluctuation at all. Sad."
Regardless, is this passage (and his others in the linked thread) supposed to convince us that this guy is some kind of dice guru and that his word comes from the mountaintop? He merely seems to be repeating the same trite, meaningless and condescending BS that we have repeatedly endured countless times on this forum. I don't see anything new nor the slightest hint of inspired thought in any of his posts.
Now, these tiresome fallacies have been covered here several times over, but if you wish to discuss them again, please paraphrase in your own words the points that you think are important, and I will be happy to respond to each one.
If I have anything to offer in terms of something useful to a newcomer it's that AP play doesn't matter much at all for normal folks (for ANY game).
Make smart bets, get lucky, and go home is pretty much what I would recommend a novice to try to do.
Craps is absolutely the easiest game for a novice to learn and have a chance to win at.
The subject of how to throw the dice is of little relevance to almost everyone who plays the game if you goal is simply to win money.
If you want to get into the game and have more fun trying to beat it, you want to learn this stuff.
And I think learning to throw the dice and do the computer stuff is fun myself.
But for Joe Six-Pack? Who are we kidding here! Drink up buddy! Bet the freaking hi-lo for Christ's Sake and get it over with!! Who knows?!?!
Again, is this passage supposed to bowl us over?Quote: EvenBob"I KNEW I rolled more fields than any one else and could hit 4s and 10s as points way better than any one else. I would have bet the farm that I could prove it. But after being shown how to track my rolls, do the math.... I was just like every one else. I was random. Some days more RANDOM than others. "Damn It" I remember saying. "I roll MORE 4s and 10s than anyone!" But I was just random as we all are. It would be nice to "not be random" but we are all just random."
I hate to mention this, but perhaps 7winner just didn't have what it takes to be an effective dice influencer. From his statements, it seems that he did not have a decent understanding of the method/math.
[Edit 2/1/13: Wrote wrong name for poster (sorry 7craps).]
Quote: Ahigh
Craps is absolutely the easiest game for a novice to learn ....
Slots are easier, as are carnival games.
that built them.
Get lucky and go home a winner....... now there is the advice all novice players should take. Ofcourse
there is not much help for you if you dont get lucky the first time or the second or the third, i wonder
how many homes have been lost to foreclosure in the past 10 years by people that went to casino
hoping to get lucky...
Maybe we need to have a new book or video on that.
Dicesitter.
Given that the consensus here seems to be that it is almost impossible to emerge from the casinos as a long term winner, I just have to ask: Why bother then?
Quote: dicesitterWell one thing is sure, you dont have to worry about casino's banning Ahigh as he is the type of player
that built them.
Get lucky and go home a winner....... now there is the advice all novice players should take. Ofcourse
there is not much help for you if you dont get lucky the first time or the second or the third, i wonder
how many homes have been lost to foreclosure in the past 10 years by people that went to casino
hoping to get lucky...
Maybe we need to have a new book or video on that.
Dicesitter.
You know, I will tell you what, too. I absolutely do NOT look out for other players around me. ESPECIALLY players that I don't know.
If anything, I want them to lose and go away to give me better access to the table.
The only reason I would ever want perfect strangers to win a bunch of money on my roll would be to make a point to someone in the pit.
And/or to spell it out, I *am* more friends with the folks in the pit than the hop-betters walking up to lose their money no matter what the hop-better is thinking!!!
If he starts tipping or being friendly to me and having fun challenging me to do stuff for kicks, everything changes. But do I have a problem with casinos intentionally making money off guys who don't understand what they are doing?
NOPE!!!
Quote: MrVLOL
Given that the consensus here seems to be that it is almost impossible to emerge from the casinos as a long term winner, I just have to ask: Why bother then?
Not at ALL!!!
The easiest way to emerge a winner is to keep your edge down and keep your bet levels high enough to prevent rounding down on the pay (small place bets on the 4 and 10 for example) and bad edges on bets that require vig up front (rounding up).
With 100% computer generated random data, I have very simple strategies that have VERY good chances to come out with a profit after 100,000 rolls. Plenty of guys know how to write sims to show that strategies alone with a bankroll behind them can easily endure a lifetime a play with a great chance to come out ahead.
I even went over it on my show demonstrating how the buy-the-10 with agressive pressure lasted over 100,000 rolls on the first set of 100,000 randomly generated samples I came up with.
advise you are.
I fully understand for some people getting better is not worth the effort, and for them
they are right. Getting good and having an edge is reserved for very few people.
I agree with you 100%
99% of the people lose at the casino , 99% dont have the will power to get good enough,
and you should not feel badly about being one of those.
Dicesitter
Yes.Quote: AcesAndEightstupp, are both of the events to which you are referring mentioned on this page?
I disagree (on the disingenuous part).Quote:If so, while you are technically correct, I believe you are being disingenuous, whether purposefully or not.
Actually, when they were trying to avoid sevens, it appears that they rolled one more seven than expected (I count 14 sevens in 79 non-comeout rolls). However, they ended up beating the expected outcome for the entire trial when they got 11 comeout wins over an expected 8.22.Quote:The "Beau Parker experiment" had a grand total of 116 rolls. Total rubbish in terms of any kind of conclusion. Good for them - they beat the expected number of 7s by less than one roll!
You can say that 116 rolls is not enough to draw a conclusion. Nevertheless, the goals were agreed upon prior to the contest and the results favored the shooters.
A monkey throwing backwards could have done much better. No doubt.Quote:The Wong challenge is much more interesting, for sure, but still consisted of only 500 rolls. A great challenge, and kudos to Wong and Little Joe for hitting the under - but a random roller could have done it 14% of the time - more often than 1 in 10.
The point is that most dice influencers are merely hoping to overcome the tiny house edge. A dramatic win from a favorable variance is always welcome, but grinding a small edge is the primary focus.
They prove that, so far, the dice influencers have won the only two contests sanctioned and monitored by both sides!Quote:These challenges don't "prove" anything.
Furthermore, if the naysayers dismiss the only two dice trials that have been sanctioned and monitored by both sides, where is their proof that dice influencing is absolutely impossible?
Not sure if conditions are that different than they were ten years ago. However, as nickolay411 reminded us, there will be another trial on March 11th.Quote:I wish we had a more recent one!
The hive mind is always correct!Quote: MrVLOL Given that the consensus here seems to be that it is almost impossible to emerge from the casinos as a long term winner, I just have to ask: Why bother then?
Quote: IbeatyouracesThe other 1% are card counters, hole carders, 100%+ return VP players, bonus chasers and the like. They aren't craps players.
True dat.
Sign at the craps table: "Brainiacs and Mensa members strictly prohibited."
Quote: tuppThey prove that, so far, the dice influencers have won the only two contests sanctioned and monitored by both sides!
Furthermore, if the naysayers dismiss the only two dice trials that have been sanctioned and monitored by both sides, where is their proof that dice influencing is absolutely impossible?
Sure, I agree with this. But when bringing up these two events, I think it's only fair to link to the description of said events, so everyone knows the sample sizes involved.
Quote:Not sure if conditions are that different than they were ten years ago. However, as nickolay411 reminded us, there will be another trial on March 11th.
I won't be there in person, but hopefully I'll be watching the webcast. 200 rolls is, again, not that many. But better than nothing.
Sorry. I've linked the page many times before. I figured everyone here was already familiar with it.Quote: AcesAndEightsSure, I agree with this. But when bringing up these two events, I think it's only fair to link to the description of said events, so everyone knows the sample sizes involved.
Quote: tuppSorry. I've linked the page many times before. I figured everyone here was already familiar with it.
That is understandable. Sorry for calling you disingenuous...just wanted to make sure anyone joining the conversation late was aware of the details!
