Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 5144
March 10th, 2013 at 11:30:01 AM permalink
The word "significant" is a specific word relative to testing a null hypothesis. So just to be more succinct, I was not saying the results were significant in that context.

So let me state what I was trying to say using other words to be more clear.

A year ago, I wrote Harley off as a total nut job. I watched Koga's videos and I saw a guy who didn't know how to use a balance. I read Harley's blog and I connected these two guys together and I thought, "oh my freaking god how in the world could they expect anyone to believe any of this bull crap!"

So then I made the die balance to put this whole issue to bed. Then I made a video effectively saying "these guys are bonkers! Look at this: a die looks bad in the poor balance and it looks fine in my balance! Case is closed!"

And it was for a long time.

Then fast forward to the Ahigh show and all the Koga Ninja videos and now more claimed proof that biased dice exist and popped up on my show!

So reluctantly (VERY RELUCTANTLY) I reopened the case and I gave Harley a fair re-trial.

I met with him and I listened to him and I let him tell me what kind of observations he had.

While he did all of this, I still had (and even HAVE) my skeptics hat on. And I still think he sounds like a total conspiracy theorist. And I absolutely believe he is holding a false belief or two up there in his conspiracy theorist's mind. And I tell him this to his face, and he understands and respects that.

But when I use "significant" .. let me reword that: the evidence that Harley has provided to me and that I have collected on my own means enough to me personally for this issue NOT to be put to bed any longer.

The case is back open, and I will continue to dig up evidence. What would be great would be if other people would HELP to dig up evidence and keep an open mind about distributions coming from dice that fit known theoretical profiles of distributions that could favor the hold on the table, especially during the busiest times when people bet with more common and/or expected bets.

And here is an assertion that I will make: the game itself is designed to be a fair game. There is a don't side, and if the game were played equally by as many don't betters as do betters, this would be less of a concern.

But the fact is that fewer people play the don'ts. And therein lies a big opportunity for the house to be selected about what dice have statistically had better holds during certain times and opportunity to re-introduce dice that have had favorable holds in the past.

I personally like to feel razor sharp corners on a fresh stick of dice any time I show up to a table. I like being there at the beginning of a shift with an extra security of knowing these are brand new dice!

So all I'm saying is that this can of worms is back open. I'm not saying anything has been proven. And I'll be honest about this: I think that the fact that this can of worms is open makes the game more entertaining even if it is the kind of thing where more suckers (including suckers making free odds bets) are getting taken out there without knowing everything that can be known about the game.

Now I know it might rub some people the wrong way having their belief systems challenged who aren't used to being wrong about things like the cost of a bet that should be free.

But this is what I am saying: pointing out fallacies in those who are not used to it is a lot more fun than making fun of the easy targets.

And the truth is that there is this possibility: the possibility that brand new sticks of dice have enough of a bias to have an edge on what should be a free bet. A possibility that milks the common "knowledge" of maximizing odds to be more likely to win could in fact be making intelligent readers of this forum suckers for the casino from making free odds bets thinking it's not costing them anything in the real of millions of throws.

And they would be right, if only they knew with certainty that the dice were 100% fair out there.

Here's the truth: the dice are not 100% fair. We can argue 99.99999% fair versus 97.00% fair, but nobody can tell me the dice are 100% fair because we should all know that there is either a player edge or a casino edge on a free bet depending on the bias of the dice. And every single die ever manufactured has a bias, and that is where the edge is going to go whether it goes for the player or for the house depends on the dice not on the math. And so if you want to say all the dice out there are not set up to take money from what should be free bets, that is what I would like to believe too.

But as long as the holds are being profiled for sticks of dice that are out in play and then they are re-introduced, there is a chance that players are doing battle without the sufficient accounting that the casino is doing. They are just making "free bets" and expecting everything to be fair.

The casino is doing their homework looking at holds and writing down serial numbers and the players are not.

So we will see, I guess. But in the short term, I think that all players' guards should be going up on any free bets. And if you want to keep it easy, absolutely switch to the dark side until the cloud passes. But I wouldn't be going to a 100x odds place and going for it myself without looking a little further into this issue myself. Not if it were my money.

Add to this two additional facts: The LVH and the Cosmopolitan both switched from paying triple in the field to paying double in the field in 2012. Sure, it's very possible this is a coincidence. But if more Chinese dice are being made with bias that negatively affects the field (even INFREQUENTLY) ... why does a 2.78% edge PER ROLL BET .. REALLY need to be 5.56% all of a sudden? Go to these places and compare the number of field bets being made to a place that has 2.78% field bet. The number of bets on the field gets cut MORE THAN IN HALF when they do this! They aren't making more money in the field from my view; they could possibly just be looking to lose less to the lucky people who inadvertently got luckier than they should have SOMEHOW.
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
March 10th, 2013 at 12:09:54 PM permalink
" why does a 2.78% edge PER ROLL BET .. REALLY need to be 5.56% all of a sudden?"

gee, why have 0 and 00 in roulette ? DUH !
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet

  • Jump to: