Casinos would never cheat ....

Quote:

teddys
It's not a hoax, the 1.4% house edge is real! (Whatever happened to tuttigym?)

Only in the long run, and you will never be at a table for that long run, you would most likely be broke before that happened. The Vig on your bets would eat you alive over time. All math guys only look at the numbers; they never take anything else into consideration.

If we took a survey of the guys on this board that plays craps and writes about the math of the game, it would come as no surprise to me that most of the math guys never play craps. Their math would get in their way, one of the reasons I’m making that statement is very simple. Their math tells them it’s a negative game, why in the world would they ever play a negative game?

Quote: superrick

Only in the long run, and you will never be at a table for that long run, you would most likely be broke before that happened. The Vig on your bets would eat you alive over time. All math guys only look at the numbers; they never take anything else into consideration.

If your playing bets that have a vig of 0.50%-0.20%, yes, most likely you will be broke, but you are almost as likely to not be broke, or even be ahead.

Quote:

If we took a survey of the guys on this board that plays craps and writes about the math of the game, it would come as no surprise to me that most of the math guys never play craps. Their math would get in their way, one of the reasons I’m making that statement is very simple. Their math tells them it’s a negative game, why in the world would they ever play a negative game?

I play craps. I'm a "math guy." The Wizard plays craps. MathExtremist plays craps. Doc plays craps. Miplet plays craps. I think they all consider themselves "math guys." We play because its fun and you have a good chance to win, even in the long run. It's one of the better gambles in the casino. Here's a story: at the Plaza last night, two newbs were playing next to me, betting red chips exclusively. They started aping my bets, and betting come bets every roll (no odds). A guy went on an absolute heater, and the newbs cleaned up. One of them said, "This is way better than slots!" Sure, the game will take your money over time (especially not betting odds), but the slots would have taken their $20 even quicker, with no chance to parlay it into $50 or $60 like they did. That's why craps is a great game.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Most AP's I know are not "math guys."

A math guy is someone who understands the mathematical underpinnings of the game and how it causes them to win or lose more over the long term. For example, knowing why and how card counting works, or why a video poker game that pays back 99.54% can be positive at some times.

Quote: superrick

New Jersey fines Caesars Entertainment $225,000 in Las Vegas case

Read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar/18/nj-caesars-high-roller-settlement/#ixzz2O0QbwnrC

This story is brought to you by the Associated Press and Las Vegas Sun

Let’s see Caesars won somewhere around $200 million at Caesars Palace and the Rio Hotel Casino in Las Vegas

Then Watanabe refused to pay $14.7 million so he was indicted by the grand jury, but criminal charges were dropped, after he settled with the company.

Now Caesars got to keep the $200 million after they feed him drugs, booze and what ever else they could do to keep him at the tables, and nothing happened to them in NV, but NJ got them on a $250,000 fine.

I’ll take the deal any day of the week if I was Caesars, Please., Please don’t tell me that a casino would cheat!

So I just read the entire article that you linked to. Once again, you distort the truth in your own mind and stretch it to cheating. The Casino did not cheat in any way in the case. The only person responsible for drinking and doing drugs is the individual that does it. That's what's wrong with the world these days... not responsibility. It's always someone elses fault. I drink to much at a bar or casino and get in an accident, it's the bar or casinos fault. I get arrested for something, it was my parents fault. I didn't get the education I should have, it's the teachers fault.

Did the Ceasars employees allow the guy to have drugs on property, maybe. Did they serve him alcohol, sure. Did they force him to take the drugs or drink too much, no and no.

So in reply to your final sentence, I am telling you they did not cheat and no major U.S. Casino would knowingly cheat.

ZCore13

deleted

I play craps and I'm a professional math guy. In fact, one reason I'm a professional math guy is because I started playing craps and, not fully understanding the odds, taught myself probability theory. But that's a different story.

The reason I play a negative game is because I think it's fun. I know what my theo is for a few hours of dice. It's on par with a ball game or a concert and, unlike those activities, I have a decent shot of coming out ahead. All entertainment is a negative game if all you look at is the cost. That's axiomatic: if something is a positive game, it's called "investing" or "work," not "entertainment." But entertainment is about trading money and time for something you consider fun, and in that way it's not negative at all (hopefully). I just took a great vacation; it cost a lot of money but it was totally worth it. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

For me, knowing the odds makes gambling more fun, not less. That's not true for everyone, but the idea that "the math gets in the way" is only held by people who don't understand that some people like learning about their pastimes. Similarly, some people keep score at baseball games. They don't have to -- they want to. For them, it makes going to a game more fun.

I'm also a strong proponent of responsible gambling. I believe understanding the numbers helps dispel many common misconceptions and superstitions about how games work, and I believe an educated gambler is more likely to avoid problem gambling behavior.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Just because I think playing a -EV game like craps is silly doesn't mean others do.

Of course, the conclusion that craps is an absolutely negative EV game must assume that dice influencing is absolutely impossible.

So, it would be a circular argument to say that dice influencing is impossible because craps is a negative EV game.

Quote: tupp

Of course, the conclusion that craps is an absolutely negative EV game must assume that dice influencing is absolutely impossible.

So, it would be a circular argument to say that dice influencing is impossible because craps is a negative EV game.

I don't think anyone's making that argument. Nobody debates that craps is a negative EV game under the assumption of equally-likely die faces (at least, I hope not) and you can compute the change in EV for any bet based on a theoretical uneven distribution of die faces. Ahigh has done this already and WinCraps has had that capability for years. The question isn't whether craps would be +EV if you could influence the dice to produce a sufficiently uneven distribution, it's whether that influence is possible in the first place.

deleted

Quote: Face

For the record, I don’t think DI is impossible.

Nor do I.

Quote: Face

If you could somehow eliminate all of the above variables, you should be able to punch 5 rounds through the same hole at 300yds. Physics says you must.

There are a lot of variables to consider, but even if you punch only one round through the hole at 300 yards, you have still influenced the results.

Quote: Face

I find DI to be the exact same concept.

I think we agree, but maybe not on the matter of degree.

Quote: Face

The big question is “how many variables need be overcome?” Oil, spilled beer, etc covering the dice by contact are one. The deformation of the felt upon contact is another. The deformation of the pyramids, the deformation of the die themselves, the change in the properties of the air, it’s a big list.

The variables inherent in the shooter's performance (trajectory, spin, force/speed, set, uniformity, consistency) are fewer and are given in all environments.

In regards to the environmental variables (table length, "bounciness" of the felt, pyramid height, pyramid "bounciness," stacks of chips near the landing area, etc.), the shooter decides whether or not the table is worth playing. One of the two self-admitted DIs on this forum has verified that if the table doesn't "feel right," he doesn't play.

Quote: Face

Knowing how these variables affect the die, as far as I know, isn’t known yet. I haven’t even read anything that supposes how much or how little it matters. We know it affects things, we know it must, but we have no idea to what degree.

I think that we know that consistency and uniformity help a great deal, as does a compact trajectory and landing very close to the back wall. We also know that bouncy felts are to be avoided.

Quote: Face

We know humans can do surprising things with muscle memory, just look at professional sports and competitive games. But again, to what level such skill needs to be is not known. To make an analogy, do you need the accuracy to hit a bulls-eye, or just somewhere in a strike zone?

You need to avoid one 7 in about 50 throws.

Quote: Face

[snip]
... but there are those in both the Yay and Nay camps who already declare they are the ones who are right with not much scientific evidence to support it.

Oh, there are more camps than just "Yay" and "Nay," but the "Nay" camp is rigidly absolute and assumes that the situation it is a very simple dichotomy.

Quote: Face

And for those of us still with an open mind, we only have anecdotes, conjecture, and a test that was both short, as well as wishy-washy (I think Wong convinced himself to DI, then retracted that belief).

Uhm, the page that I linked actually described two dice trials (in which the shooters prevailed). Wizard lost about $2000 betting against the shooters on one of those "wishy-washy" events.

Actually, in both events, the shooters' goals were clear and were sanctioned by both sides in advance -- there was nothing wishy-washy about the trials.

Furthermore, the forum just completed five dice trials, in three of them the shooter prevailed, one was a push and in two the shooter lost. In one of the trials lost by the shooter lost on an obviously random toss, so I'm not sure if that trial should count. Anyway, the current trial score is:
DI possible 5
DI impossible 2
Pushes 1

Also, a couple of members have been recording their rolls. Those records along with the results of all of the dice trials can be combined to give a more confident idea of whether or not there is something to the idea of dice influencing.

Of course, the "Nay" camp discourages and ridicules such experiments at every opportunity.

Quote: Face

I think there are many of us here that don’t have a stake way or the other, but we’re interested in the science.

You are actually describing most of those who are considered to be "Yay" by the "Naysayers"

Quote: Face

A lot of the arguing from the Nays seems to be the pointing out that X doesn’t necessarily mean something,...

Yes. That is an obvious point that has been acknowledged repeatedly by just about everyone who is considered to be "Yay." However, such repeated acknowledgements do not stop the "broken record" that is the "Nay" camp.

In addition, many in the "Nay" camp have reasoned that dice influencing is absolutely impossible, because they just know that it is impossible.

Quote: Face

... which I had hoped would result in the Yays to bring some solid evidence to the table. But ever since Ahigh started with his videos (which began the process of providing evidence), the idea has seemed to come off the rails, with people trying to instead argue their way into truth. “Arguing into truth” isn’t possible when the evidence is there and is obtainable. Someone just has to get it.

See above mention of dice trials and roll records. Some are slowly getting it, in spite of all the ridicule and insults. It's hard work, and it takes a lot of time.

Quote: Face

If DIs just want to argue, that’s fine.

Who are these DIs of whom you speak? I count only two on the forum, and only one of them wants to argue.

Quote: Face

But if they want to be taken seriously, if they want to make a discovery, if they want to produce a treasure of knowledge, they need to produce facts and evidence.

First of all, please speak for yourself and do not declare what anyone must do to be "taken seriously."

Secondly, please refer once again to the above mention of dice trials and roll recording, and please review their actual reports scattered throughout this forum.

Work has been done. Hopefully, more will be done, but it's not easy, especially when others are constantly throwing rocks from the peanut gallery (and declaring what one must do).

Quote: Face

Without, every one of these craps threads are going to decay into little more than pissing contests, a place many already seem to be headed.

Certainly, that scenario is ongoing in one of the camps.

Quote: Face

Tl;dr – Prove it.

Again, speak for yourself and don't demand. If you want proof, no one is stopping you from trying your own experiments.

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't think anyone's making that argument.

I am not so sure about that...

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Three Card Poker is a -EV game but there IS a way to beat it thats been PROVEN. Until DI is proven, and it may well be one day, it is a negative EV game for all.

So, the world was flat until Columbus proved that it was round?

Either dice influencing is possible or it's absolutely impossible -- "proof" only verifies the situation one way or another.

By the way, how can Three Card Poker be a -EV game if there is a way to beat it?

" In one of the trials lost by the shooter lost on an obviously random toss, so I'm not sure if that trial should count. "

I hereby nominate this as the most asinine post yet on a dice setting thread. Anyone care to second my nomination ?

Quote: Buzzard

" In one of the trials lost by the shooter lost on an obviously random toss, so I'm not sure if that trial should count. "
I hereby nominate this as the most asinine post yet on a dice setting thread. Anyone care to second my nomination ?

Again with the venomous insults and personal attacks? Do you have any idea to what I am referring?

By the way, what is your answer on the bet that has no monetary risk for you?

Care to explain what an obviously random toss is , and how that differs from a non-random toss ?


foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid: It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements

Note intelligent people in the definition. I do not consider than to be insulting.

Quote: teddys

Here's a story: at the Plaza last night, two newbs were playing next to me, betting red chips exclusively. They started aping my bets, and betting come bets every roll (no odds). A guy went on an absolute heater, and the newbs cleaned up. One of them said, "This is way better than slots!" Sure, the game will take your money over time (especially not betting odds), but the slots would have taken their $20 even quicker, with no chance to parlay it into $50 or $60 like they did. That's why craps is a great game.

Yeah, that guy sucked and was just lucky.

Quote: Buzzard

Care to explain what an obviously random toss is , and how that differs from a non-random toss ?

Go here. Scroll the video to 08:29.

Ahigh jokingly shook the dice and threw, and rolled a seven.

Quote: Buzzard

foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid: It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements

Well, in that regard, I have to confess that I am finally starting to believe in Big Foot, because a big foot is what someone on this forum continually puts into his mouth.

I think dice influencing and dice control are both possible just as I know that hitting a three-pointer from mid-court is possible.

We know that it is possible to sink a basketball from mid court. It happens all the time, and some lucky person wins $10,000 or a new car or gets a college scholarship when it happens --- but we don't think that anyone can do it consistently.

The same is true with dice influencing. We know that some people sometimes can have a perfectly executed throw so that the dice remain on axis, hit the back wall softly and come to rest on a desired number -- even a number that pays a hop bet. But we haven't seen anyone do it consistently.

Quote: tupp

Ahigh jokingly shook the dice and threw, and rolled a seven.

I watched that live, and I wonder what would have been said if it hadn't been a 7 ?? There was only a one out of six chance of throwing a seven, you know. Even if he set the dice and had a magnificent controlled throw, he still would have had only a one out of six chance of throwing a seven.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I think dice influencing and dice control are both possible just as I know that hitting a three-pointer from mid-court is possible.

Agreed.

Quote: AlanMendelson

The same is true with dice influencing. We know that some people sometimes can have a perfectly executed throw so that the dice remain on axis, hit the back wall softly and come to rest on a desired number -- even a number that pays a hop bet. But we haven't seen anyone do it consistently.

This notion probably takes the concept of dice influencing a lot farther than most expect.

Dice influencing doesn't need to be as difficult as rolling a desired number "consistently." It is much easier to avoid one 7 in 50 rolls, which is about all one needs to overcome the house edge.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I watched that live, and I wonder what would have been said if it hadn't been a 7 ??

Really?

I watched and wonder what would have been said if Ahigh had attempted a controlled shot and avoided a 7.

Quote: AlanMendelson

There was only a one out of six chance of throwing a seven, you know. Even if he set the dice and had a magnificent controlled throw, he still would have had only a one out of six chance of throwing a seven.

No. An actual controlled throw would have reduced the possibility of rolling a seven to somewhere below the 1-in-6 conventional math expectations.

Likewise, saying that "craps is a negative EV game, doesn't apply to a dice influencing. Conventional probability doesn't take into account the effects of dice influencing.

But since dice influencing only applies in a fantasy world, conventional probablity is what we have to go by in the real world. Dice sliding, maybe. Dice influencing, no different than Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

But since dice influencing only applies in a fantasy world, conventional probablity is what we have to go by in the real world. Dice sliding, maybe. Dice influencing, no different than Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Wow! That is an entirely new, unique point, and the joke is so clever and original!

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

But is so true.

I guess the question is: How do you know that it is so true? What is your proof?

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

That why they're on here arguing about it instead of utilizing it by making money.

Is that your argument for why dice influencing is impossible?

Something isn't until it's proven it is. That's the way life works. The burden of proof would be on the dice setters to prove it does work. That has never been proven. Also not proven is that U.S. Casinos are knowingly switching in and out biased dice to cheat the customers. Now that the masked man is gone, that areguement may be over though.

ZCore13

" Now that the masked man is gone, that areguement may be over though."

Rushing to say I doubt it, before someone proves I am right!

If I knew that dice influencing/control were possible and I had the skill/ability to do it, I certainly would not be on this forum discussing it, just as I would not have written a book about card counting if I were one of the first people to figure out how to gain a definite advantage over a casino with that technique. It would be like taking a shotgun after the golden goose.

If I had no skills whatsoever at dice influencing/control but didn't mind scamming the gullible suckers, I might offer seminars and videos on the subject.

If I were highly skeptical that dice influencing/control could be performed with a consistency that would provide a reliable advantage over a casino, I certainly would not consider it my responsibility to prove my position in any debate -- I would consider that I have the default position (null hypothesis) and would expect anyone who disagrees to prove their position.

Quote: tupp

No. An actual controlled throw would have reduced the possibility of rolling a seven to somewhere below the 1-in-6 conventional math expectations.

Yes, that's true if you think Ahigh can somehow influence the dice.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Yes, that's true if you think Ahigh can somehow influence the dice.

Oh no, I can't. I'm just lucky! I'm pretty sure that my seven to rolls ratio will end up being very nearly 16.67%, it's just that I haven't collected enough samples yet!

I'm just DAMN LUCKY.

You have seen my woman, right?

Hopefully your woman is out with the kids, shopping for toys, thanks to Uncle Tupp.

Tony went to see the Maserati's at the Wynn Museum and got a $30 Ferrari Shirt.



He also got a game for his PSP Vita:



Tory got a sweater from Ambercrombie and Fitch:



Thanks very much Tupp and Buzzard!!

Quote: AlanMendelson

I watched that live, and I wonder what would have been said if it hadn't been a 7 ?? There was only a one out of six chance of throwing a seven, you know. Even if he set the dice and had a magnificent controlled throw, he still would have had only a one out of six chance of throwing a seven.

Don't forget that he threw a "influenced" 7 right before it...

There was no difference

Throwing dice is not like shooting from half court.... It's more like a pitcher trying to throw 200 curve balls in a row at the same speed.... With 2 balls..

As the Wizard says, "it's not whether you win or lose, it's whether you have a good bet."

Even if it were not random, my position was I had a 1 in 6.55 chance of pushing with a controlled throw and a 1 in 6 chance of pushing with a decent chance.

The difference is $3.81679 cent behind versus $4.17 cents behind or about 36 cents(!!!) The value in randomly rolling those dice was worth $0.36!!! I didn't do math for the $100 plus worth of groceries I provided during the show FWIW either and think that was worth it. Same with the $1,500 worth of equipment to broadcast this and other events live.

It's small stuff.

Here's the big stuff to me and more interesting than that is this: who knows how many non-sevens I rolled immediately after that?

Who knows the total number of times I threw a valid roll for the challenge with the Wizard?

Quote: Ahigh

As the Wizard says, "it's not whether you win or lose, it's whether you have a good bet."

More interesting than that is this: who knows how many non-sevens I rolled immediately after that?

Between 4-6 if I remember correctly.. average roll... And then you did get the 14... Also expected (1-13 chance)

Quote: TheWolf713

Between 4-6 if I remember correctly.. average roll... And then you did get the 14... Also expected (1-13 chance)

Wrong!

There were 14 rolls with no seven at the end.

The question is how many valid rolls between the last 14 rolls and the first 7 rolls. And how many non seven rolls after the random toss?

There's plenty of evidence to figure it out! Yet nobody knows to this date with certainty as far as I know.

Even the Wizard claims he does not know.

Quote: Ahigh

Wrong!

There were 14 rolls with no seven at the end.

The question is how many valid rolls between the last 14 rolls and the first 7 rolls. And how many non seven rolls after the random toss?

There's plenty of evidence to figure it out! Yet nobody knows to this date with certainty as far as I know.

Even the Wizard claims he does not know.

Maybe I'm confused.. are you skipping a set? There were 28 rolls right???

Quote: TheWolf713

Maybe I'm confused.. are you skipping a set? There were 28 rolls right???

I think everyone ASSUMES there were 28 rolls. Are you sure?

I was told to "let it go" so hopefully I don't get nuked for bringing it up.

Another thing...


I feel the wizard took it VERY light on your challenge... He let you redeem your initial loss and gave you odds..
No disrespect intended

You know the whole thing was for fun. Even if I went long enough to do max bet and hit him for $1,000 (which would be very unlikely), it's not changing anybody's life.

The point I made before taking any bet from anyone is that I prefer to keep my bets good bets and I get plenty of good bets in the casino.

I won a $100 odds bet on an eight at lunch today, and I play every single day.

It is no big deal for either one of us.

But as the Wizard points out: maxxing out your odds bets is the smart bet.

The bet I had with the Wizard wasn't as good as a pass line bet, I think for me.

I think the Wizard said his edge assuming everything was random was the same as my edge against him assuming I had an average RSR of 6.5 or thereabouts.

So at the very least, he had a good bet for sure assuming a controlled shooter doesn't exist, and I only had a good bet if I could recreate my RSR for the 3000 rolls I had recorded. Even if I had control, if it was only half as much as I thought, the Wizard would still have a good bet and not me.

Otherwise I had a shitty bet and he had a good bet.

Quote: Ahigh

You know the whole thing was for fun. Even if I went long enough to do max bet and hit him for $1,000 (which would be very unlikely), it's not changing anybody's life.

The point I made before taking any bet from anyone is that I prefer to keep my bets good bets and I get plenty of good bets in the casino.

I won a $100 odds bet on an eight at lunch today, and I play every single day.

It is no big deal for either one of us.

But as the Wizard points out: maxxing out your odds bets is the smart bet.

The bet I had with the Wizard wasn't as good as a pass line bet, I think for me.

I agree and I can respect that...

DI you plan on doing another show later.. I pretty sure nick would want to redeem himself as well... Oh and don't let Harley shoot LOL...

On the discussion on DI, I have the opinion very few could actually accomplish it and the effort needed to gain it cannot exceed not being able to throw if you could. There is no point to try if you succeed and are banned from the casino.
Most who even try are probably not athletic or coordinated in the first place. Most likely those who could do it, would be athletically superior and also would have succeeded in other sports.

Quote: TheWolf713

Oh and don't let Harley shoot LOL...

But how would know if it was him? Didn't every Lone
Ranger end with somebody asking "Who was that masked
man?"

Quote: EvenBob

But how would know if it was him? Didn't every Lone
Ranger end with somebody asking "Who was that masked
man?"

Hahaha!!!!!!!

Quote: Zcore13

Something isn't until it's proven it is. That's the way life works.

I see.

So, the earth was flat, but it suddenly became round as soon as Columbus proved it to be round.

That's certainly the way life works for some on this forum.

Quote: Buzzard

Hopefully your woman is out with the kids, shopping for toys, thanks to Uncle Tupp.

By the way, Buzzard, have you decided to take my bet in which you have no monetary risk?