TheWolf713
TheWolf713
Joined: Feb 12, 2013
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 315
March 20th, 2013 at 8:15:28 PM permalink
I just finished watching Ahigh's Ustream show with the Masked Shooter "The Avenger" LOL (I like the name)

To the DI believers and Newbies, this would be a great performance... They would say he "was in Control". And "The release was excellent." And it would give them hope that there are actually DIs out there....

But if you didn't hear the grand total and 200 rolls...... He still had 31 sevens....

What does that mean? Was the theoretical Distribution of 1in 6 met... NO...

But was the Actual Percentage of 7s still met...YES!!!!!

Making it no more greater than if a novice shooter grabbed the dice and did the same thing.


I respect what these gentlemen do, and this is by no way a personal attack. Im really trying to understand that even after the shooting, after the rush and excitement is gone, and looking at the Data as Facts, Can you call that a "DI" performance???

Just Bringing the Horse to the Water.... What do you guys think?
"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: 88
  • Posts: 5161
March 20th, 2013 at 9:30:46 PM permalink
I thought that the demonstrated throw was not a legal throw, in general. I told this to the shooter at the time things were rolling. It pretty much makes any conclusions irrelevant for long term advantage play. So there's not much point to analyze the results anyway.

But the results started off terrible. I asked the shooter if there was a strategy he wanted, and I picked a strategy that would reward a particularly low seven-to-rolls ratio (working the comeout).

There is so much discussion online about the possibility of dice control and very few people willing to do what I have been doing now for a while: getting in front of a camera and demonstrating a real shot.

And so far, Nickolay and I are the ONLY shooters demonstrating the ABSOLUTE BEST SHOT we could deliver in the casino and generally revealing the details of how the shot works.

The Avenger has another shot that he feels is better that he does not want to reveal because he feels that it would compromise his ability to use it for his own personal advantage.

I have heard reports from dealers who have witnessed this shooter making money with this (better non-demonstrated) legal shot. And I have also heard the Archie Karas has used this exact same shot in the past as well.

I never use the shot, but I've seen it. I generally don't talk about it and I generally don't use it.

There are several shots that are closely guarded by the "community" of DI's. They are genuinely concerned about "leaking" information that they feel is proven to generate revenue from craps play.

An example of this type of "information" is "the method." You can do internet search and learn about the method existing, but the method itself is sold and describing the method is prohibited by contract for anyone who has purchased it.

But if you perform the method and someone watches you perform it, they can pick up on it. "The Method" is not a shot, but a betting system FWIW. But for these purposes, it serves as a better example, because we all know better that betting systems built for random shooters is more well known to be straight bull.

Yet this is much of the drama of these guys. And if it's kept secret, it's harder to know if it's just some bullshit that people pay for or if it really withstands scientific scrutiny.

There is some legitimacy to not wanting to describe weak spots in the ability to gain an advantage with craps play as many of these weak spots can be covered if well known.

But I think trying to hide stuff like this is a joke myself.

I think that whether it's the method, the little joe shot, or any other kind of weird shot like the twisty-twirly-thing-a-ma-bob, people will watch it and pretty much know what you're doing even if they don't know the details.

But some of this crap is sold and people pay money and sign shit saying they won't disclose it as if it's something special.

Yet to this point, there is nothing proven to work, and only excuses for why nobody is able to demonstrate a control that a computer can characterize with a chi-squared test as not meeting the qualifications of not just being pure dumb luck.

  • Jump to: