A Random roller has a RSR of 6. Thus 1/6 of their rolls are a 7, so on 100 trials, you expect 16.6 rolls... In fact 16 7's 10.7% of the time, 17, 10.5%.
A DI with a RSR of 6.5 would expect 15.3 Sevens (15 - 11% of the time, 16 - 10.7%). I worked out the number of rolls each person would get on average, multiplied them for each result, and added up the wins, losses and ties.
So... Chance of the 6.5 Roller winning a bet:
Win - 56.0%
Tie - 7.5%
Loss - 36.5%
DI wins 60% of the time (ignore pushes)
Chance of 7 RSR roller (only one 14.14 7's per hundred):
Win - 64.4%
Tie - 7.0%
Loss - 28.6%
DI wins 69.2% of the time (ignore pushes)
7.5 RSR roller :
Win - 71.3%
Tie - 6.4%
Loss - 22.3%
DI wins 76.2% of the time (ignore pushes)
A dice influencer would therefore need to be rolling less than 13 7's per hundred for the bet to something they considered fair. I haven't seen a DI claim a RSR of 7.5 consistently (more like 6.1-6.5, but memory is hazy).
Conclusion : Laying 3:1 for this bet would not be a good bet for the average DI, based on what I've seen them claim.
(If I've made an error, please feel free to point it out...)
Quote: tuppGreat work! Thanks!
Thanks
I can tweak my work for anything where the middle is around 5-25 events out of any number of trials.
To prove that the roller has a SRR of 7 or better, you have to develop enough trials to make it so and not be lucky.
So, for example, let's say a shooter claims that his / her SRR is 7 (throws a 7 1/7th of the time or with a frequency of .1428571)
So, after 140 trials, you would expect 20 sevens.
The odds of a random shooter throwing 20 sevens or less is 26.52% in 140 trials. A fair bet would be 2:1 odds on 140 trials and 20 sevens or less.
In 280 trials, the odds of a random shooter throwing 40 sevens or less is 16.13%... so I would consider 3:1 odds for 280 trials with someone with a SRR of 7:1.
At 434 trials, the odds of a random shooter throwing 62 sevens or less is 10%, but the person with the true SRR of 7 is 50%. Therefore, I would consider 5:1 odds for 434 trials.
At 686 trials, the odds of a random shooter throwing 98 sevens or less is 5%
And finally, at 1,323 trials, the odds of a random shooter throwing 189 sevens or less is 1%.
The more trials you put in, the more certain you get and the more odds should be offered to the claimant.
If you get to an SRR of 6.5, the bet becomes more difficult:
At 468 trials, the odds of a random shooter throwing 72 sevens or less is 25%. A fair bet would be 2:1 for someone claiming SRR of 6.5:1
At 884 trials, the odds of a random shooter throwing 136 sevens or less is 16.41%. A fair bet would be 3:1 for someone claiming SRR of 6.5:1
And at 1,456 trials, the odds of a random shooter throwing 224 sevens or less is 10%. A fair bet would be 5:1 for someone claiming SRR of 6.5:1
I think a RSR of 6.5 is fair to be considered a DI. The player advantage on a table with all other numbers being equal is 3.62% on a Place 6 or 8, 1.54 on a Place 5 or 9 and 0.13% on the PL.
Very nice.Quote: boymimboIf you get to an SRR of 6.5, the bet becomes more difficult:
And at 1,456 trials, the odds of a random shooter throwing 224 sevens or less is 10%. A fair bet would be 5:1 for someone claiming SRR of 6.5:1
Ahigh for example on his forum posts his actual dice roll data.
It is currently at 2,212 rolls with 336 7s rolled. (ev of 368.7)
That is a 6.58 SRR
A DI wants less 7s but also wants to keep the dice on axis and the single/double pitches to a minimum.
Ahigh's numbers look great but random rollers can do 336 or less 7s about 1 in 32
So on average, out of 1 million shooters, chicken-feeder randies, over 32,000 would be equal to him or or even better.
Better is better with more rolls under your belt
Quote: boymimboYeah, and I'm not really sure whether the numbers being put up are real...
I am. But if I wasn't the one recording them, I'd be right there with ya!
I finished the Ahigh show doing 200 rolls, and I had a 30 roll that lasted from the 168th roll to the 198th roll. The last two rolls? I set and made an eight point!
Quote: boymimboI wouldn't use this approach.
To prove that the roller has a SRR of 7 or better, you have to develop enough trials to make it so and not be lucky.
My aim wasn't to prove or disprove a roller has a RSR of 7 or not. Just that if we assumed a roller did have that ration, and knew it, what would they consider good odds for a 100 roll competition against a random roller.
The most common result in such a match up would be 16-14. Which shows how close the 100-roll competition would be. Buzz made a big deal of wanting 3:1 odds for the skilled roller, but a skilled roller to take 3:1 over 100 rolls would need a massive RSR, and if they threw that well would be better off down the pit, rather than beating Buzz for $100 an hour (80% of the time).
If I took one of these bets, I would want the bet to equate more towards if I can accomplish what it would take to be an advantage play craps player and I would want to bet more money on it than I would feel comfortable stealing from someone as nice as SOOPOO or Buzzard.
I feel like they are both well-meaning, but making a small bet that I am likely to lose as a random roller just isn't anything I want to do. Even if I win the bet as someone who can do what they think I can't do doesn't mean anything unless it has enough rolls behind it to be very statistically unlikely.
I would rather spend my money doing what I am doing (buying crap to do live broadcasts and stuff like that) than lose it to someone who thinks they have proven I fit in their categorical way of thinking about things without any expertise in the game in question at all.
I grow increasingly tired of people who know less about the game of craps than I do trying to "teach" me what they think I don't understand about it.
Quote: AhighYou know what? I don't have time to dissect the details of what you guys are looking at, but I will tell you that I prefer to take bets against my rolls with the casino.
Great, go do that.
Quote: thecesspitGreat, go do that.
Look, I'm not complaining about your analysis. I just think these bets from Buzzard and SOOPOO alike are not good bets for anybody to take.
I think when people like Buzzard point out that there are no people taking him up on his offers, he feels like that proves something.
All I am trying to say is that all it proves is that the bets he is offering are not as attractive as the bets that the casinos offer all day long to anybody!
That's all.
And I did "go do that" FWIW ... coincidentally pretty soon after your suggestion ... although I didn't read your post until after I got back.
If he would be sure that its impossible he would offer sth. like 5:1 or even 5000:1
But he is not and I have the strong feeling he already knows he is wrong but does not have the spine to admit it after making all his posts about the impossibility of dicesetting. Where I come from we call these people Cowards :)
Quote:What are the correct odds? I get no answer. Just mathematical bullshit. If a Dice Setter has a skill it should be measurable, not
imaginary.
The maths can be used to show HOW a dice -influencer- skill could be measured over 100 rolls. I don't think there's any problem with the test you propose (I'd say you rolling isn't necessary, but that's details), just your insistent demand for 3:1 pie-in-the-sky.
I have no idea what a dice setter will lay you. I can only tell you 3:1 for the normal claims of dice influencers is never going to happen, if they have any sense. Which was my point... you were asking for a bet that no sane person would take, as if I was that good, I'm already making plenty, and need not prove it for $100 to some schmoes on the internet. If I'm not that good, then even if I believe I can roll better than you, I'm not laying 3:1 to show it.
I don't expect anyone to lay you odds on beating you. Even if repeated 100-roll sets would be an interesting challenge, I can't see anyone taking the time to bother. I could be wrong. If you do get a chump at 3:2, I'd expect you to have the edge. I don't gurantee you will win.
If you do get a chump at 3:2, I'd expect you to have the edge. I don't gurantee you will win.
I can guarantee I wont get 3/2 odds either. But I want 3 to 1, I am not the one saying I am skilled. Quite the opposite.
Quote: BuzzardSo whatt are the right odds 101 to 100 ? 300 to 100, etc? I don't expect to get any takers because, well you know, it all just dumb luck.
Sigh. Depends on the alledged skill of the dice influencer. Do you not get that point?
Quote:I can guarantee I wont get 3/2 odds either. But I want 3 to 1, I am not the one saying I am skilled. Quite the opposite.
Sigh. You'll never find anyone with 8 RSRatio. Anything less than that, you can want all you like, but it's like asking for -10 on the Niners in last week's superbowl. No-one will give you that bet.
Evidently you are statring to. "alleged". All I am asking any dice setter is what he thinks are the proper odds on him beating a totally unskilled person. I have made lines in duckpin bowling, 3 rail billiards, and other mundane tests of skill.
Why is setting a line on this " alleged" skill so difficult ? Can it be because the skill is "alleged" and not real ??
Quote: Buzzard" Sigh. Depends on the alledged skill of the dice influencer. Do you not get that point?"
Evidently you are statring to. "alleged". All I am asking any dice setter is what he thinks are the proper odds on him beating a totally unskilled person. I have made lines in duckpin bowling, 3 rail billiards, and other mundane tests of skill.
Why is setting a line on this " alleged" skill so difficult ? Can it be because the skill is "alleged" and not real ??
You are driving me freaking crazy, Buzz!!!! Cesspit has eloquently laid out why 3 -1 for a 100 roll session is not fair odds, EVEN IF a dice influencer had lowered his 7's to 1 in 7 on AVERAGE. Cesspit has given fair odds on a variety of rolls that incorporate an alleged DI's ability.
And tupp HAS bet against you! So quit sayinig the same thing over and over again, ad infinitum, reiteratively, repetitively, etc..............
Quote: SOOPOOYou are driving me freaking crazy, Buzz!!!! Cesspit has eloquently laid out why 3 -1 for a 100 roll session is not fair odds, EVEN IF a dice influencer had lowered his 7's to 1 in 7 on AVERAGE. Cesspit has given fair odds on a variety of rolls that incorporate an alleged DI's ability.
And tupp HAS bet against you! So quit sayinig the same thing over and over again, ad infinitum, reiteratively, repetitively, etc..............
Thanks SOOP! Nice, short, sweet, and to the point.
That's all. It should not require charts, graphs, analysis. If it is not 3 to 1, what is it ? HB was 9-1 against if I remember correctly.
Since it is not 300 to 100, is it 200 to 101, 101 to 100. I will not ask again and just assume 101 to 100 is about the best line.
Thanks for the kind indulgence of those who have contributed to this thread.
Like asking the fair line for next years Preakness favourite. But easier, as there is only one variable (alledged skill under test). But it is unknown.
It DOES require a very simple analysis (this took me about 20 minutes to set up).
I'm still waiting to hear why this Maths is Bullshit?
So when someone claims a skill set that will allow him to roll more sevens than me, I ask for odds or a spot. That's all.
Appreciate your graphs, analysis, etc, but they don't mean much to me.
I agree the question is meaningless without the skill being know. That is what I was asking. what F***ing skill.
Quote: BuzzardGuess it's my lower class background. When somebody would challenged me at 9 ball, i would ask or given a spot is we were of unequal talents. I mean guys play 18 holes of golf, 100 points is usually the deciding factor in 14-1 pocket billiards, etc.
So when someone claims a skill set that will allow him to roll more sevens than me, I ask for odds or a spot. That's all.
Appreciate your graphs, analysis, etc, but they don't mean much to me.
I agree the question is meaningless without the skill being know. That is what I was asking. what F***ing skill.
I believe the Buzzard was originally asking the dice setters what odds they would give him for said contest. When none of them said anything, he proposed the 3-1 number and ran with it. This post reinforces that.
thecesspit has run the numbers and what he has determined is that given the customary claims of dice setters these days, 3-1 wouldn't be acceptable to them had they considered your offer and spoken up. What they would have offered you would be much closer to even odds - because even the most outrageous claims of dice controllers are a very small bias.