Thread Rating:

Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 5152
February 24th, 2013 at 10:58:29 PM permalink
Well, I have been the champion of the idea that bad dice are as much of a fantasy as pixie dust and fairy tales.

But today, I found myself betting max Passline bets ($250) at the Fiesta, and after seeing an extraordinarily large number of aces and twelves running into my bets (and losing several hundred bucks) I decided to use the remaining $800 I had on the rail to do some counting.

For every roll, I counted the faces that appeared (two faces occur per roll).

130,125,108,125,119,142

When one die flew off the table, I still recorded the die that resolved on the felt. So this was face counts from approximately 370 rolls (yes I realize the count is odd).



This graph shows 200,000 samples with randomly generated outcomes from the faceweights from the 370 or so rolls (749 samples) of outcomes.

The findings from these samples that I took personally today match the claims that Harley has been making. I have historically been the lead critic of how ridiculous it is to consider that this is happening, but it appears to be happening.

After I compiled this simulation, I made several very large field bets and had fun with it (since I haven't played the field in years, it was actually kind of fun). I hit a $60 aces! And the best part was that I was just betting on random shooters. The aces and twelves just kept coming.

During the samples, there was a set of three hard 8's that came back-to-back, and there were plenty of other unusual things that happened. But I tried to be diligent in collecting as many samples as I could.

I took samples all from random finger snappers at the table .. with no discernable pattern at all from one of their rolls to the next. Just the "come on dice" followed by snapping of the fingers.

I was betting max bets on the passline before I started smelling something fishy in the outcomes and started counting and stopped playing.

After I started counting, and then I went back in heavy, I had a host assigned to me and she hugged me and gave me all kinds of peace-and-love and we all love you so much Aaron kind of stuff.

But they knew what I was doing, and I had my laptop out in the Keno area plotting out charts to see.

It's a long path to grind out a profit in the field, and obviously there is always risk of losing even if the theory is all on target and the player does have an edge.

But it absolutely forced me to reconsider the idea that bad dice could be a very real phenomenon.

On the subject of how I did the recording of the faces, I had six stacks of chips. I added two singles to the stack according to the outcome. I would then exchange five singles for a nickel, and five nickels for a quarter. After I had a common chip among all six stacks, I made a seventh stack that was a common count that was to be added to each of the six stacks.

I honestly hate the idea that I found this to be happening. 6-1 seven-outs were everywhere.

The chart above shows the passline and the dont passline with no odds and the field bet all of them grinding on $5 bets. You can see the pass and the don't pass line has a reduced edge and the passline has an increased edge and the field bet has massive exposure. This exposure could be a reason why LVH and Cosmopolitan have moved to only paying double on the 12.

I still have a lot more investigating to do into this. And frankly, I am NOT excited about it. It makes me very sad that I can't just say "what a bunch of bullshit all this biased dice theory."

Especially since I have been the poster-boy for there is no such thing as biased dice.

This is not enough samples to come to a conclusion, but I have seen enough to warrant further investigation into this subject.

And on that note, if there are any casinos who wish to be on the up-and-up and want to help me get to the bottom of this and take the position that they are not using what I would call "unfair dice" please let me know. I fully do not expect ANY cooperation at all as the casino pit crews that I have talked to on this subject have all clammed up pretty quickly leading me to be even MORE suspicious.

If you do think that you have bad dice on a table, and especially if you see a lot of aces and twelves, I say start doing a count, and if you have got really heavy six faces, go for it on the field and reverse martingale their asses. It would fucking HURT if there is any truth to this and if any of these places are going overboard on the heavy six faces like what it looks like may be the case.

It's ridiculous for them to consciously be exposing themselves on the field. The only thing saving them may be that most people with big bankrolls are too "smart" to play the field!
7craps
7craps
Joined: Jan 23, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1977
February 24th, 2013 at 11:32:07 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

Well, I have been the champion of the idea that bad dice are as much of a fantasy as pixie dust and fairy tales.

But today, I found myself betting max Passline bets ($250) at the Fiesta, and after seeing an extraordinarily large number of aces and twelves running into my bets (and losing several hundred bucks) I decided to use the remaining $800 I had on the rail to do some counting.

For every roll, I counted the faces that appeared (two faces occur per roll).

130,125,108,125,119,142

"If there's somethin' strange in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call?

If it's somethin' weird an' it don't look good
Who ya gonna call?"

Man, nothing strange or weird...
You are just watching the variance from a multinomial distribution unfold. Cool!
Casino Craps dice do show wear during their run on the felt.

where is your chi-squared test results?
Mine shows a 5.12 statistic with 5 DoF
That is a p-value of 0.401710642
Yahoo!

That means we'd end up with a result this skewed or more 40% of the time we rolled the die 749 times, if it were completely fair.

The bottom line is while these results are more skewed than would be expected,
they are not skewed enough to raise any eyebrows in such a small sample

I ain't afraid o' no ghost
I ain't afraid o' no ghost
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 5152
February 24th, 2013 at 11:41:17 PM permalink
There were some strange things going on. Maybe it's just Harley getting into my head, and I respect your analysis and opinion, 7craps. I hadn't run a chi-squared on the faces yet.

I am still no chi-squared expert, but if you're saying this trend of the field wasn't likely to hold up, I think I understand that position, and I do tend to agree with you because I don't want to believe that the trend could continue, but man, it was very consistent. Those 6 faces stayed ahead and were leading the way throughout the count. And the three faces just way behind.

And it's not just that it fell outside of random, it's that it matched the theoretical desirable profile for what I characterized as the sort of "ideal" bad dice.

I think over the longer term the heavy 6-1 seven out might fade, but that would be more desirable. They don't want exposure in the field, and they ABSOLUTELY had it during the rolls that I recorded.

And after recording, I was rolling 12's like CRAZY and a field better on the opposite end of the table went from a couple hundred to a couple thousand with big bold field bets with tons of hi's and lo's (IE: AFTER I stopped recording and I was rolling).

I don't even want to believe this is happening, so I hope that if I kept recording it would balance out, but I just have to do more digging. It just matches too closely what Harley has been saying all along, and I want to close the door on the possibility, but I owe it to Harley to keep pursuing this until I find out for sure what the truth is.

And right now I don't know. I mean I just don't know. It really stinks to me.

And just LAUGHABLE that there can be exposure on the field. The only other bet that is exposed is a buy on the ten (they do automatic buys). All the other place bets and other bets in general are getting KILLED with these face weights.
TheWolf713
TheWolf713
Joined: Feb 12, 2013
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 315
February 25th, 2013 at 3:14:44 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

There were some strange things going on.
And after recording, I was rolling 12's like CRAZY and a field better on the opposite end of the table went from a couple hundred to a couple thousand with big bold field bets with tons of hi's and lo's (IE: AFTER I stopped recording and I was rolling).

I don't even want to believe this is happening, so I hope that if I kept recording it would balance out, but I just have to do more digging. It just matches too closely what Harley has been saying all along, and I want to close the door on the possibility, but I owe it to Harley to keep pursuing this until I find out for sure what the truth is.

And right now I don't know. I mean I just don't know. It really stinks to me.

And just LAUGHABLE that there can be exposure on the field. The only other bet that is exposed is a buy on the ten (they do automatic buys). All the other place bets and other bets in general are getting KILLED with these face weights.




Don't you set your dice on boxcars? If you were getting alot of 6-1s it's because of your pitch of the dice when it makes "the turn" on the pyramids...

When the dice are made... They are balanced, but after they are engraved with the logo of the casino... There goes the balance... I have some old treasure island dice and no one can tell me that the big ass TI on the side does not make a difference.. The corner of the 6 and two seems to be more dense than the other side.

Or maybe... Just maybe... You had a bad day... you dice guys are gonna learn.. The moment you stop all the one leg leaning throws, you might actuallly start shooting better... Embrace random and it will embrace you.. (I'm just poking fun) but honestly if your setting box cars and you've been getting 6-1 all day, why not just flip one Die and shoot from 6-1. Don't get stuck in your practice set... All that practice doesn't mean anything if you can't make a slight adjustment in live action.. You know exactly what faces are falling, so make that slight adjusmentt and get back to good shooting...

I don't know if you will take my advice, but I hope you do. I just want to see players win. But some people are so blinded by over-complicated lies, and they will laugh at a very simple truth.

There arre unbalanced dice. It might just be a problem at that location and I would just stop going there..

"The math guys always say the "dice do not have a memory"... But if you've seen the cracks and edges on a pair of dice after being thrown all day, they sure look like they have some memory to me..."- Wolf
"I'm a DO'er and you my friend, are a Don'ter" -Mark Walberg pain and Gain
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 5152
February 25th, 2013 at 3:16:47 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

I took samples all from random finger snappers at the table .. with no discernable pattern at all from one of their rolls to the next. Just the "come on dice" followed by snapping of the fingers.



Every single roll was recorded from other people random shooting. There was absolutely no controlled shooters at ALL that got recorded. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. Those dice were flying and pretty fast at that.

Please PLEASE try to actually read the posts, people.

In addition, I have posted it multiple times, but I have been using 4242 set since September. Six on the left axis and aces on the right side of the axis. Backspin, three finger GTC style. But to reiterate none of it has relevance to the data I collected in this instance.
dwheatley
dwheatley
Joined: Nov 16, 2009
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 1246
February 25th, 2013 at 3:56:45 PM permalink
Ahigh,
I am a PhD student who has taught undergraduate and graduate level statistics. The textbook formula are fresh in my mind. 7craps is right, the chi-squared test is very important.

The question is: "is it possible the face counts recorded come from FAIR dice?"

Chi-Squared test says YES.

The test is very powerful, and very simple. 40% of 370 dice samples you collect in the same way could have face count results this wonky or worse. The conclusion you must draw is there is no evidence the dice are biased.
-----
If you make the mistake of assuming the face counts you observed represent the true bias of the dice, then you WILL see weird results in a simulation. Unfortunately, all your simulation results are essentially worthless, because they arise from this mistake.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
February 25th, 2013 at 4:12:26 PM permalink
I was thinking much the same... if you poked in any 370 roll set of data and analyzed it over a monte carlo, given that distribution, you'd find all sorts of cool patterns to bet on.

I've fallen into the trap before. Assess the null hypothesis first (how likely is this to have happened by chance).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
February 25th, 2013 at 4:21:16 PM permalink
I agree with 7craps' Chi Squared analysis, and the binomial distribution shows the 6 at .95 and the 3 at .05, but really not anything out of the ordinary.

Please understand the math. Your chart over 200,000 rolls only extends the variance out to show that if the dice remain that way, this is how the result will end up.

Except you don't know that the dice will remain that way.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 8084
February 25th, 2013 at 4:29:09 PM permalink
Quote: dwheatley


The conclusion you must draw is there is no evidence the dice are unbiased.



That is correct. But I am guessing you meant to write there is no evidence the dice are biased. I would add the word conclusive before evidence. If you roll the dice once and record a boxcars, that is 'evidence' that 6's are favored. Quite weak evidence, of course. If it happens 10 times in a row the first boxcars was the first peice of evidence.
Harley
Harley
Joined: May 13, 2012
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 119
February 25th, 2013 at 4:32:33 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I was thinking much the same... if you poked in any 370 roll set of data and analyzed it over a monte carlo, given that distribution, you'd find all sorts of cool patterns to bet on.

I've fallen into the trap before. Assess the null hypothesis first (how likely is this to have happened by chance).



dwheatley and thecesspit - not so fast my friends .... if you for a second doubt AHigh's results as chance or just a pattern, then you have to concur that I am a better prophet than Nostradamus because I told AHigh before he even walked into that casino what the results would be biased to ...

Believe me, I am not Nostradamus, but I can predict with almost 99% accuracy what the dice results are going to be after 30 rolls --- and they will continue to be that same Bias for 500 or 600 rolls which is all we care about because they change dice every 8 hours in Vegas (except Caesar's which will keep them for up to 24 hours on a table)
.... that is simply my opinion .... Ciao, Harley ... Link = http://crapsadvantageplayers.blogspot.com/

  • Jump to: