Is Dice Control Real? Can It Be Tested?

Dice controllers sometimes confuse two very important measuring devices in analyzing their abilities, their seven-to-rolls ratio (SRR) and their on-axis shooting percentages. These are not in and of themselves the same thing. They don’t necessarily reflect each other and often have nothing to do with each other.

If you use the Hardways set (2:2, 3:3, 4:4, 5:5) you are not looking to actually hit hardways. There is confusion over this in the minds of many dice controllers. In fact, you are looking to avoid the seven when using the Hardway set.

Because the Hardway set protects you better than any other set against the appearance of the seven it can be used by shooters who do not have the necessary level of on-axis performance needed to switch to more demanding sets such as the 3-V, the 2-V and others.

An SRR of 1:6 is considered random shooting but if you take the SmartCraps tests and discover that you have excellent on-axis ability, you can have an SRR of 1:6 (give or take) and still be a winner at the game of craps. In short, a high SRR does not automatically translate into a high level of on-axis performance. High on-axis performance does not necessarily translate into a strong SRR.

Too many students of the game have confused these two elements, thinking they are the same or nearly the same indicators of performance. They aren’t. Indeed my book Cutting Edge Craps: Advanced Strategies for Serious Players! clearly shows that individuals with high on-axis performance on the SmartCraps tests are often hurt by using the Hardway set.

The great Jerry “Stickman” spent months testing and analyzing on-axis performance and dice sets and came up with the startling fact that the Hardway set is great for non-on-axis shooters but could hurt, sometimes seriously hurt, on-axis shooters.

Naturally, SmartCraps will tell you exactly where you stand when it comes to on-axis performance. Too many players who think they are on-axis shooters con themselves into thinking they should be changing sets because of what they have seen in recent throws when in fact they are merely reducing the appearance of the seven and these other numbers are merely coming up (here is heresy!) in a random way even though the appearance of the seven has been reduced. Obviously, what I am writing does not apply to every shooter – too much goes into a good throw to delineate all the little wrinkles in the face of dice control. But you get the idea. As Macbeth said, “Nothing is but what is not.”

On-axis shooters are often “short rollers” as the 3-V and other sets are not as friendly when it comes to avoiding the seven. However, hitting certain select numbers more than makes up for a weak SRR. Such shooters are not distributing their numbers in some random (or slightly organized) pattern but have heavy hits on the numbers they are looking to get.

So next time you see an elite shooter seemingly going down in flames fairly quickly don’t be so ready to think he or she has just had a crummy roll and lost money. There’s a lot of money to be made if you are an on-axis shooter and you don’t really need long rolls to make that money.

There is also a severe misimpression (that I have helped perpetuate) when it comes to discussing how dice really react when they hit the back wall. I’ll talk about dice pitching once or twice in relation to each other and most people take this literally – meaning the dice hit the back wall, land, and just pitch those one or two turns.

It isn’t so. The dice do all sorts of movements after hitting the back wall. However, a throw can be controlled as long as those dice stay in relation to each other. You can have a “single pitch” even if both dice roll over several times each. The consistency is the key here. I’ve studied really slow-slow motion videos of real dice rolls and they are not as we talk about them. In a sense, we use shorthand for discussion purposes but the fact is that dice move quite a bit after they hit the back wall.

Finally, can dice control be proven? Yes, you just need the proper tests. If you have an SRR of 1:6.3 in home practice, you have a slight edge over the house on certain bets. As your SRR gets better, the edge you have gets better too. You have to do thousands of rolls – maybe divided into 5,000 roll segments – to see whether you really are influencing the game.

For those who think they have axis control, then passing the three SmartCraps tests (and these are damn hard) will tell you definitively whether this is so or whether you are living an illusion. You can’t fool these tests – a good SRR is a good SRR; a good on-axis performance is a good on-axis performance. Unless the dice controller is totally in self-denial, he can prove whether he is changing the nature of the game. You really can’t kid yourself.

Then, of course, comes the trial by fire; actually going into a casino and performing as well as or almost as well as you do at home. There are other elements too – proper betting; not playing when fatigued and so forth.

But is dice control real? Yes. If you can pass the tests, you’ve got the goods. Of course, if you make the wrong bets, you can still lose but that is another post for another time.

Welcome to the forum, Frank. I hope you'll stick around. There is always a lot of dice talk going on.

Hi Wizard:

It took me awhile to get here but from what I have seen so far this is one hell of a site! I will post in many sections. I am doing a new book and I am reviewing gambling message boards --- I have a sneaky feeling this one is getting the four-star treatment. Great job!

Yeah, Dice Control is real... its a real pain in the XXX to keep hearing about it but never see it actually happen.

Quote: FrankScoblete

However, a throw can be controlled as long as those dice stay in relation to each other.

Relationships! I should have known. After all, the Stick is always telling us the dice are coming out. Now they are having relationships with each other and maintaining those relationships despite walls, frets, pyramids, felt and the like.

Well, I don't care if they have relationships with each other or not, I'm pretty broad minded about such things. I only care about their relationship with the number Seven. Show me that and show it to me on a consistent basis.

Quote: FrankScoblete

I have a sneaky feeling this one is getting the four-star treatment. Great job!

Thanks! Hopefully I'll keep all four stars once some of the other skeptics find you. Despite rules enforcing good behavior, dice influence still is a touchy topic around here.

Quote: Wizard

Thanks! Hopefully I'll keep all four stars once some of the other skeptics find you. Despite rules enforcing good behavior, dice influence still is a touchy topic around here.

Bull crap dude. Everybody is always very nice to each other.

Did you just call the Wizard a liar?

:)

To believe in dice control I need to see a few criteria met.
1) You need to be able to avoid throwing a 7 once a point in established by at least a 6.5:1 ratio.
2) On the initial come out roll you have to be able to throw a 7 at a ratio of 5.5:1 or lower
3) You have to be able to replicate these results over tens of thousands of throws and from multiple positions at the table.

No hostility. But also no arguments. If there is proof, just show it. Otherwise I'm not interesting in rehashing the subject yet again.

So Frank,

So tell me if I read the post correctly... Everything you 'thought' About dice influence and told people was wrong... You can toss the dice as perfectly as you want but as soon as they hit the table, they are random, and as long as they land close together and it's a number you prefer, you can call it dice influence.. Is that what you are saying in short..


I apologize if my writing or grammar is bad, I'm a medical student writing on my iPhone.

Quote: Nareed

No hostility. But also no arguments.
If there is proof, just show it.
Otherwise I'm not interesting in rehashing the subject yet again.

Smart Craps and FrankS has already shown proof to the known world and universe.
Just follow the tests in SC using the hardway set and in as little as 100 to 500 rolls, the proof is right there.
"First and foremost on the list is the Pro Test(c) dice control test.
This feature allows you to enter your actual throws and can tell you with greater than 99 percent certainty if you are, indeed, influencing the dice.
This can potentially be determined in less than 100 rolls.
Yes, that’s right, you can find out if you really have an edge with just a fraction of the rolls it normally took in the past."
http://www.goldentouchcraps.com/smartcraps.shtml

more here
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/12868-dice-testing/

If it is not, keep practicing many hours and you will find some proof of what you can control. of course, you may be in the majority and NEVER have an edge, but keep trying.
The software then will tell you what sets to use on what bets to have an edge.

Having an edge means to size your bets to your bankroll, make the proper bets that you have a demonstrated edge on
and play many many many rounds to have close to a 100% certainty
your positive edge will make you a winner ONLY in the long run, not the short run of a few sessions here and there.

This seems to imply that EVERY person FrankS (GTC) teaches dice control to
WILL with probability of 1
have some provable control after X hours of practice.
X is a variable that the DI sellers still charge $$$s for.
Their time = $$$$$.
(do not bring Wong into this)
But, all DI instructors will also tell you only a few lucky ones will ever "have it",
but they still charge everyone because they do not know who will "have it"

of course, the more rolls the more difficult it is to maintain any edge,
but that requires some math calculations (binomial probability) and no one ever wants to do that crap, just roll the damn dice.

Once you pass the Pro Tests one time in Smart Craps, could be in as little as 100 to 500 rolls,
you are set for life.
Now when sessions fail, you can just blame that on having a bad day, you still have an edge if you throw better,
just practice more and if needed pay more $$$ to have refresher lessons and even slo-mo videos of your shot.

If everyone had slo-mo vids of their shot, most all (99%+ IMO) would stop trying to learn and get better at DI.
Why?
because the two dice most times are all over the place.
One die rotates 720 degrees to the left with a double pitch and the other who knows how many times it spun around.

AlanM says those shots are NOT controlled one bit. he is right.
seeing is believing
It only takes looking at one roll from any shooter to know if that shooter may "have it"
not that the end result of a single toss for 200 rolls showed the dice stayed on-axis 52.3% of the time

AlanM, you can easily make a video and post it on your site of what a controlled shot should look like.

Frank are you willing to discuss and/or immediately accept this:

I would like to go to a real casino in Vegas (you choose) to videotape you or your designated "controlled shooter" at an actual live table, in a live game, and show the results of your session both on my website and on my Los Angeles TV shows. And I will also put the videos on YouTube for your own free and unrestricted use. I have a long running relationship with YouTube and I am not limited to the length of my videos. If your controlled shooter holds the dice for four hours I can put the entire four hour video on YouTube. (Most YouTube users are limited to 10 minutes.)

My goal is to show the controlled shooting that you discuss.

Thanks, Alan Mendelson
www.AlanBestBuys.com
The Best Buys TV Show on KTLA and KCOP

Quote: 7craps

AlanM, you can easily make a video and post it on your site of what a controlled shot should look like.

Yes, I could make the video and post it not only on my site but also on YouTube and I'd also put it on my TV shows. But If I videotaped my own shooting I couldn't swear that any shot was controlled... because if it looked like a controlled shot it's because I got lucky with a shot or two.

I am willing to videotape a true controlled shooter and put those videos out for public inspection. See my invitation above to Frank.

Quote: AlanMendelson

My goal is to show the controlled shooting that you discuss.

Alan was also known in SoCal TV land as the Money Man on KCAL 9.
That may be a sore subject for him now, but life does go on.

Good Luck
Thanks for your videos and your hard work!

Quote: 7craps

Smart Craps and FrankS has already shown proof to the known world and universe.

That's a pitch for a product, and at best an argument. NOT proof.

Frank


Welcome to the club, i tried every word i know to explain this , but i have come up wanting.

I think i will go back to a forum where people work to get better, not just find ways to
not to.

I am delighted to see you here. But i warn you, this is like the wild west, one needs to have
his six shooter close at hand to survive.

I am experiencing what you were talking about. As my throw improves and i am on axis more i
have to switch to the 3 v . It allows less exposure to the 3/4/ 4-3 and also 5/2 2/5 if i am a little
off.

The thing about dice control that is as frustrating as it is inspiring is that the better you get, the better
you still need to get.... if that makes sense.

Anyway, my six years with dice control has been a hoot.

Dicesitter

thanks for your explanation and hope to see you soon

Quote: 7craps

Alan was also known in SoCal TV land as the Money Man on KCAL 9.
That may be a sore subject for him now, but life does go on.

Good Luck
Thanks for your videos and your hard work!

Thank you for remembering.

My 16 years with KCAL/KCBS is not a sore subject at all. In fact, my Best Buys special reports on the news became the framework for my own Best Buys TV Shows now. And now I put my Infomercial clients on KCAL.

Quote: Nareed

That's a pitch for a product, and at best an argument. NOT proof.

You forgot to mention the second line
Just follow the tests in SC using the hardway set and in as little as 100 to 500 rolls,
the proof is right there.
(you either "have it" or you do not at this point in time)
after you enter your dice rolls.

here are other free tools. (plug the free, home of the brave)
Wong has Dice Tool and there is also Bone Tracker, I have one (not for use) and others have their own.
It (proof of ANY control)
requires a program to calculate even to a 99% certainty or better that one DOES control the outcome of the dice in as little as 100 to 500 rolls.

I tried it.
700 roll sessions
First
Slow and easy just like they (DI sellers and SC) teach you

Second
Then I still set the dice using the hardways set and slammed those dice to the other side.

My SRR and on-axis ratios were better with the harder throw (the second 700 dice roll session) than the super slow and soft toss.
Cool for me
That would make for a good Ahigh video.

One must prove DI themselves.
Because if you do not "have it" as about 99% of those who try will not have it,
spend your time finding the few that do "have it"

(most that claim they do "have it" IMO, really do not have it,
but have convinced themselves from over a few thousand dice rolls, that they really do.
They simply do not understand a multinomial distribution over time)

Question for the Wizard...

Some of these Dice people are saying they can tell if they are influencing in 100, 200, 500, 700 rolls. That just doesn't seem legitimate to me and allows for too much luck. If YOU were to offer a challenge to someone who thought they could control the dice differently than normal random chance, how many rolls would you require for this challenge to take place and trust the results? Obviously it can't be a billion like a computer simulation.

ZCore13

Just the fact that the dice control question has to
asked, has to be tested, and has people who are
so vehemently opposed to it, means it probably
doesn't exist. Nobody is asking if a bullseye can
be hit with a gun 10 times in a row, thats easily
proven. Why isn't dice control? This isn't Big Foot,
we have dice and dice throwers in captivity, fricking
TEST THEM already so we can stop talking the
thing to death.....

Quote: Zcore13

Some of these Dice people are saying they can tell if they are influencing in 100, 200, 500, 700 rolls.
That just doesn't seem legitimate to me and allows for too much luck.

It is the basis for most hypothesis testing in statistics.
p-values
Many tests use them.
The sample size does not have to be almost infinity or even in the millions.
http://stattrek.com/hypothesis-test/hypothesis-testing.aspx

Of course it still is all about statistical significance levels


Let us use a 300 roll sample size and the binomial probability distribution says (after doing the math for say on-axis control)
that the H_o which is that the results are from a random distribution,
is .001 or .1%
That means that in this 300 sample size
only 1 in 1000 other 300 sample sizes on average would result from a random distribution.

The H_o is rejected saying that the results are not from a random distribution.

The alternative hypothesis says that the results are not from a random distribution.
We accept that at a 99.9% significance level.

Others may and do use lower significance levels.
Most all DIs IMHO use no significance levels, let alone any math,
they just believe basing their skills from what their memory says happened in the past.

Next test
and there could be many.

With DI, every DI has different levels of control over the dice from other DIs
as every one has different hand and finger sizes, not to mention arm lengths,
different style underwear and the color of the hair (or how much hair) they have left on their head.

The proof is in the significance level

If all DIs kept an accurate record of their exact dice rolls, IMO,
over 99% would see they have no influence all the time and just some, sometimes.
Just what variance is all about.

But most all Craps players do not want to do any math let alone care about variance.
Keep it simple
Just win more than you lose.

No. Re-read what I wrote.

I was replying to someone but the post wound up at the end here.

Quote: FrankScoblete

Finally, can dice control be proven? Yes, you just need the proper tests.
If you have an SRR of 1:6.3 in home practice, you have a slight edge over the house on certain bets.
As your SRR gets better, the edge you have gets better too.
You have to do thousands of rolls – maybe divided into 5,000 roll segments – to see whether you really are influencing the game.

Not necessarily.
In Smart Craps it can be shown with a 99% degree of certainty or higher (it says that in their help file BTW)
in less than 500 rolls what kind and how much control one does have from their sample size.

of course the statistical significance level is more meaningful with a larger or more sample sizes
but what may be statistical significance for one person at say 90% is NOT
statistical significance for another who believes the threshold starts at 99% (1 in 100) not just 1 in 10.

Like SRR.
It used to be the "golden value" of 6.3
But it has a higher statistical significance over a larger sample size
Just look at the 1 In column

rolls	hits	miss	SRR or Higher	Prob %	1 In
300	47	253	6.383	35.4778855281%	2.82
600	95	505	6.316	31.4321759232%	3.18
900	142	758	6.338	25.2923217814%	3.95
3000	476	2524	6.303	12.4430150297%	8.04
6000	952	5048	6.303	4.9246413768%	20.31
9000	1428	7572	6.303	2.1062440709%	47.48
20000	3174	16826	6.301	0.1218354858%	820.78
30000	4762	25238	6.300	0.0107200388%	9,328.32

Here is for a 6.5 SRR
Much more difficult to attain the more rolls that are made
as a comparison

rolls	hits	miss	SRR or Higher	Prob	1 In
300	46	254	6.52	29.8104016151%	3.35
600	92	508	6.52	20.6775413563%	4.84
900	138	762	6.52	15.1659903396%	6.59
3000	461	2539	6.51	2.8675366135%	34.87
6000	923	5077	6.50	0.3746174613%	266.94
9000	1385	7615	6.50	0.0538674900%	1,856.41
30000	4618	25382	6.50	0.0000001181%	846,801,681.85

The more samples or the greater the sample size, the more confidence we can have.
Some are happy with 50%
Others laugh at that and say 90%
Others laugh at both, like me and say I wants 99% before I raise an eyebrow.

Life of a DI part 1:

So you pass the test... Go to the casino and have an average random shot night... Go back home... Pass the test again... Go to the casino and LOSE... Go back home an pass the test with flying colors.. Go to the casino a lose disastrously... But just before you are about to leave, you have a 25+ roll!!!! And after it you feel great, but alas, you are still in the negative... You are now a dice influencer...


In Golf you can see a significant difference between a amateur and professional.. In football, baseball, bowling, archery... Even in black jack.... But Craps is the only game I've ever seen that a RING amatuer can look EXACTLY like a pro on any given day...

Quote: TheWolf713

In Golf you can see a significant difference between a amateur and professional.. In football, baseball, bowling, archery... Even in black jack.... But Craps is the only game I've ever seen that a RING amatuer can look EXACTLY like a pro on any given day...

That is simply because DI attempts to gain a SMALL edge over the house.
SMALL edges only work in the long run... not the short run where variance dominates.

If you have a proven edge, you get a syndicate together, lots of $$$$ in the bankroll
to survive the bankroll swings as your lifetime drift is upwards
not down as playing against an edge produces.

In reality,
Variance is the TRUE Dominator

Frank- Welcome to the forum. Glad you joined.

Heaven knows the forum is seriously lacking dice control threads. Will you and Domenic attend the next dice control circle jerk at Ahighs? Sure to be a bangin' good time!

I'm confident you can pick up a few new students for your dice control scaminars if you stick around long enough. One tip though- if Keyser signs up, be sure to collect his money up front. Out!

Quote: FrankScoblete

I was replying to someone but the post wound up at the end here.

This site seems to lack "thread view" -- it's only "flat view." Perhaps the "reply" on the individual posts is there in anticipation of eventual thread view capability.

It's probably best to respond by clicking the "quote" button and deleting the unrelated parts of the quote.

Quote: Zcore13

Some of these Dice people...

Well, that single phrase certainly explains a lot.

Quote: EvenBob

Just the fact that the dice control question has to
asked, has to be tested, and has people who are
so vehemently opposed to it, means it probably
doesn't exist. Nobody is asking if a bullseye can
be hit with a gun 10 times in a row, thats easily
proven. Why isn't dice control? This isn't Big Foot,
we have dice and dice throwers in captivity, fricking
TEST THEM already so we can stop talking the
thing to death.....

the dice controllers don't want to blow their cover......once found out, it's back to the salt mines

Quote: tupp

Well, that single phrase certainly explains a lot.

Yes it does. It explains that I don't believe in it and haven't seen any proof to allow me to change my mind. I'm definitely open to the possiblity if it can be proven in real life on a real game over time.

ZCore13

Quote: EvenBob

TEST THEM already so we can stop talking the
thing to death.....

So far no one, except Ahigh,
has shown their DI skills from actual dice rolls on video.
A few do, but who knows the quality of them.

AlanM could easily record Ahigh's shot and FrankS shot in a secret location so everyone can see exactly what is done,
the results and any following conclusions.

Ahigh does add more videos of his dice rolls for his proof.
Only a few other DIs have stepped up to be on video. 2 thumbs up!!

Why???

Once a DI has proven to himself (herself) that he "has it" why prove it to others.
Make money from it in the casino. easy money.
Just remember to still follow the casino rules at the Craps table
and do not take 15 to 30 seconds to finally roll the dice
and then wonder why the Boxman does not like you shooting because most of your rolls are short rolls.

Many want to just make money from knowledge of DI skills showing others how to do it.
Limiting their actual casino action.
Maybe they just cant stand losing or have too many short rolls.
It is a free country this US of A

My Pro Test results are not worth posting as I am not a DI,
I failed the tests over 2,000 dice rolls, OK

even tho' I know I roll more Field #s and 4 & 10s than anyone else.
At least that is what I remember
because the actual dice rolls tell a way different story.

Quote: MakingBook

Heaven knows the forum is seriously lacking dice control threads.

Thanks, that was the best laugh I've had in days.

The reason I am posting is that I am retired from teaching in Golden Touch Craps (there's only so much time in a year) and I am working on a new book, one section of which discusses these gambling message boards and the posters, owners, etc. So I am not sculling for students. I will, however, occasionally mention my books but that is what authors do. But I'll try not to be too obvious about it...well, actually, I can't be too subtle about it. (Actually I am working on three books and a screenplay at once - a maddening pace. My "coffee breaks" are going to message boards and reading, perhaps writing as I am doing now.)

The criticisms here seem to be well thought out but I am sure that many of the critics are blackjack card counters. Having been a card counter for almost 25 years, I can tell you some of the bad streaks you hit can knock the wind (and other things) out of you. I remember once at Ftizgeralds in Tunica I lost (now hold your breath) 22 hands in a row. It was a single-deck game and the counts were up and down as single-deck games are quite dynamic. I lost big bets; little bets. It was horrendous. At the table with me was Henry Tamburin. I have had weeks, months even, where I got pounded. Card counters know the score on this score. Even with an edge the game can be humbling. Of course, in a quarter century the results are what you would expect the results to be. Even after a pounding I would go home and practice. I don't see much of a difference in dice control. It is also in and out and, yes, you go home to practice. In a bad slump, a baseball player will keep taking batting practice. Then he will continue to take batting practice even when he is out of the slump. In any skilled activity, that is what you do.

I have been on blackjack teams where we got clobbered, even with a huge number of hands. I have been on teams that have clobbered the casinos too. In terms of money, the bottom line wins. (I am assuming substantial play here.)

Sadly, casinos have started to ban dice controllers despite the fact that some folks think this has never happened or that casinos do not believe this skill exists. Again much like card counting if you hit the same casino over months and years, sooner or later they are going to say, "This guy has won 'X' amount of money. Let's get rid of him."

The two tests for dice control are valid. Both the SRR, which does require thousands of rolls, and the SmartCraps tests will tell you what you have. If you say a pitcher can throw a ball at 100 miles per hour, you do not have to see him throw the ball a thousand times. A few throws will tell you what is going on. I would imagine the three SmartCraps tests are analogous to that with somewhat more than a "few throws" needed. Keeping those dice on-axis is not easy and most dice controllers can't do it. Still enough people have passed those three SmartCraps tests so it can be done. Enough people have good SRRs. And I am not hawking SmartCraps. I have no financial interest in it. SmartCraps will also change your sets based on how on-axis a throw seems to be.

The proofs are there. Although some of you think that because the dice make more movements than we initially discuss that everything is random. That is not necessarily so. I liked the poster who made fun of relationships but strictly speaking that is what it is all about relationships between the dice. As far as Alan is concerned I have no interest. Why not learn how to do it and test yourself? Put yourself through the process. That would make a great video --- you succeeding or you failing, now that's a story. I had a Playboy writer follow a few of us around Vegas for a week. We had taught him the essentials of dice control (then didn't let him shoot at the tables). But he gained first hand knowledge. I think that is the way to go.

Okay, I have to get back to work. I appreciate the responses, even with the touch of sarcasm in some of them.

Quote: EvenBob

Just the fact that the dice control question has to asked, has to be tested, and has people who are so vehemently opposed to it, means it probably doesn't exist.

What? Was this argument really posted?

Of course, the acts of asking a question and testing a hypothesis have absolutely no bearing on whether or not something exists.

In regards to the inane notion that vehement opposition indicates that something does not exist, since when has popular opinion been synonymous with the truth? Do we really need to list the countless examples in which popular notions and actual truth have diverged?

Quote: EvenBob

Nobody is asking if a bullseye can be hit with a gun 10 times in a row, thats easily proven. Why isn't dice control?

Some truths in life are not so obvious/intuitive nor immediately apparent, hence, the round earth, radio waves, relativity, animal intelligence, etc.

Quote: EvenBob

This isn't Big Foot, we have dice and dice throwers in captivity, fricking TEST THEM already so we can stop talking the thing to death.....

The concept on dice influencing has-been/is-being tested on this forum and on others.

Most of the discussion on dice influencing involves three parties:
- those who merely test and give their hypotheses/ideas;
- those who vehemently deny dice influencing and who ridicule the testers/hypothesizers (usually, with inane arguments such as the one above);
- and those who are compelled to defend against the ridicule of the vehement deniers.

If the vehement deniers would just let the testers give their reports and hypotheses without the fighting and ridicule, two thirds of this discussion would be eliminated.

Quote: tupp

Well, that single phrase certainly explains a lot.

Quote: Zcore13

Yes it does. It explains that I don't believe in it and haven't seen any proof to allow me to change my mind. I'm definitely open to the possiblity if it can be proven in real life on a real game over time.

There might be one sort of significant point missing from that explanation.

Quote: FrankScoblete

Dice controllers sometimes confuse two very important measuring devices in analyzing their abilities, their seven-to-rolls ratio (SRR) and their on-axis shooting percentages. These are not in and of themselves the same thing. They don’t necessarily reflect each other and often have nothing to do with each other.

What's the mechanism for affecting one's SRR other than via on-axis control? Even sliding is a form of axis control -- you're keeping the vertical (yaw) axis vertical. If all three die axes (pitch, roll, yaw) are changing, how does influence occur?

Quote:

Finally, can dice control be proven? Yes, you just need the proper tests. If you have an SRR of 1:6.3 in home practice, you have a slight edge over the house on certain bets.

Actually, assuming you can transport that SRR to a casino and it was achieved via pitch-axis control (keeping the numbers on the sides from ending face-up), you have a huge double-digit edge on several bets. It's not slight at all. However, it takes an enormous amount of axis control to move the SRR needle that far.

So how does someone achieve an expected 1:6.3 SRR without influencing at least one axis of at least one die?

Frank,

Welcome as well. Question for you: What are your thoughts on the effect of the ultra-bouncy table? We have a new casino here in town and they installed table surfaces that feel at least double, if not triple, as bouncy as their other, older local property. It is difficult to just keep the dice on the table at the new place. Moreover, it most certainly is tougher to induce any control whatsoever over the dice.

And yes, I have a 'couple' of your books... ;-)

Quote: FrankScoblete

As far as Alan is concerned I have no interest.

That's too bad, because I would keep the cameras running non-stop, and I would put the entire full length video on the web without edits, and there would be no question as to how many numbers or hardways were thrown in a row.

Quote: FrankScoblete

Why not learn how to do it and test yourself? Put yourself through the process.

We met many years ago... back in the early days, but it's okay that you don't remember. Oh yes, I "learned" how to do it. And I rubbed elbows with Heavy and Patterson and Sharpshooter and all the rest back in the day when you were all getting started. And I had the form and style down so well that I was asked to leave (actually told to leave) NYNY and MGM Grand and Bellagio (I've told the stories here before)... but I also know the reality of what is really "dice control" and so I want to see someone prove they can do it.

Unlike a show on the Travel Channel or the History Channel, I won't be editing for dramatic effect. But I do promise to be fair and objective. I would just absolutely love the opportunity to show proof that it can be done. I would really like to be the one. I'm sure I could get a million YouTube views and double my Nielsen numbers if I could show the proof!

I never said a person has no axis control because even random rollers will land dice on axis after they hit the back wall. In my book "Cutting Edge Craps: Advance Strategies for Serious Players" [yes, a plug] I go through various degrees of axis control. using the Hardway set. Anytime a 1-pip or 6-pip shows that die is off axis. At some point, a shooter's ability becomes such that the on-axis throws get into percentages where the Hardway set might indeed become a set you don't want to use. You then switch to a set that SmartCraps recommends.

As for ultra bouncy tables, your throws do need to change. These tables are obviously more like astro-turf than real grass. I think it is preferable to play on real grass. Fewer injuries (to your bankroll).

Quote: FrankScoblete

The reason I am posting (etc.)

This post went a long ways towards convincing me you are really Frank Scoblete and not an imposter. I'd lay odds now you are no imposter; that particular post just isnt something an imposter would think to put out there.

It's the internet, ya know. Just saying.

Welcome for the forums, Frank.

I've heard alot about SmartCraps and indeed it is probably the only tool you need to see if your throws have bias. However, at what point does SmartCraps determine whether it's just luck or a true undeniable bias. Clearly, no matter what your results are, is it possible that SmartCraps is telling people that they have an edge when it is just simply luck?

For me, I am thinking a great number of rolls is required to show that you have an edge. Of course, the further away from "normal" your variance is, the quicker that the program would show your bias.

And I always think about the mechanics of the throw and the back wall and the pyramids. While I am fairly convinced that one could throw dice (on axis) and get the bounce such that the dice stay "on axis", I think the positioning of the pyramids and the interaction of the pyramids with the dice change the momemtum of the dice such that they are no longer on axis. The dice would then bounce again after the hit off the pyramids and cause more randomness. This is why I have a problem believing in dice influence.

And I've never seen a video (continuous) or even sample set that shows this variance or bias at play. And I don't buy the excuse that players are making too much money to show this. It's not like it's a secret.

Frank, you've made your living stating that craps can be beaten with the correct throw, so obviously, you are biased to that.

Getting the dice to stay on-axis a large percentage of the time, even for 500 rolls, is an extremely difficult feat.

The SRR does take thousands of rolls to establish an edge. On-axis doesn't take that many --- usually the shooter fails at least one of the three SmartCraps tests and that is that. For good shooters there is a conjoining moment when on-axis performance gets strong enough that the Hardway set becomes a poor set to use and another set will be recommended.

Certainly, the back wall can be a tough thing to deal with but I can show clearly (reference Cutting Edge Craps) how it is not as deadly as many casino people and players think. I have some graphics that show certain "anomalies" that are not usually known concerning the back wall.

There is no doubt that even if your throw starts out perfectly (which it rarely does), by the time it is finished and those dice are now resting on the felt, most of the control has been stripped off perfection. Just as in blackjack, the edges are relatively small even for the best dice controllers.

Many of the rolls will be reduced to random, no doubt about that, by a host of factors.

Now, Alan in one of his excellent posts above, thought of an interesting project. Follow a controlled shooter around and record him for four or five hours, or maybe days, to see if he really can do what he proclaims to do. At first we might say, "Hey, that would show once and for all that controlled shooting works." But I have had blackjack days, weeks, even months where I got my ass handed to me. Yes, I could count cards; yes, I had an edge; yes, I bet into that edge (and I was never hesitant to put out the big bets in high counts); but I still got pummeled.

How did I know I had the edge at BJ? I practiced at home and kept records. I knew I could beat the casinos --- and my wife the Beautiful A.P. and I did for almost a quarter century --- but a day, a week, a month, several months could see losses come crashing down on my head. The worst was a one-hour game in the high roller room at Treasure Island in the late 1990s - I lost 12K in one hour. But I made that up (took a lot more than an hour) but had I been filmed I might have looked like a total jerk. "That guy can't count cards, look at how much he lost in just an hour!"

Dice control is similar. You prove you can do it at home, in practice, before you ever place a real bet in the casino. Your stats will show you if you have a decent SRR or good on-axis control before you risk your money. But you can lose. You can get your butt kicked big time.

Before I was banned from the state of Mississippi, I lost on 72 turns with the dice --- in a row --- at the Horseshoe. Not all were point/seven-out's, on some I hit a number or two, but I lost on my roll. That was a true embarrassment because it was just after a weekend of classes and the tables was full of students. I fell flat on my face! Had Alan been filming that week, I would be the subject of total ridicule (please, no one post with any ridicule on that statement).

Well, anyway, I am enjoying the give and take here and so far this section of the site seems to have a lot of very smart people posting. I am going to journey to other sections. I have to say the Wizard has done one hell of a job creating all of this.

Frank, thanks for mentioning me in your response.

I have to mention the difference between card counters and dice throwers. Dice throwers control the game. It is the only game in the casino that is controlled by the player. The shooter and only the shooter determines the final outcome as the obstacles on the table are all fixed -- the surface, the pyramids, the chips where they lay.

In blackjack even if you are a counter, there is always the variable of the next card in the deck or shoe that may not be what you think it is.

The same is true for "advantage play" in video poker. The expert player has no control over the RNG.

But craps is different. If a shooter claims to be a "controller" or an "influencer" he should have that control or influence all the time and not only on selected sessions.

In the early days when I hung out with the rest of you guys and I was also on the DI/DC bandwagon, I also accepted the idea that you can't have consistent control or consistent influence. But then I started to realize that if your control or influence is not consistent then what good is it? And what makes you better than a random shooter who has good hands and bad hands, good sessions and bad sessions?

If DI and DC can't be consistent then it is no better than random shooting.

And unfortunately, I have never seen any of the so-called "big names" of dice influencing and dice control be consistent. I should have recognized that the first time I watched Sharpshooter throw the dice, but I guess I was too mesmerized to realize there is no consistency.

We often compare a dice controller or dice influencer to a professional quarterback, pitcher or golfer. Honestly they do have consistency -- and they have to deal with variables a craps shooter doesn't have to deal with.

In the case of the quarterback, he has to hit his wide receiver while dodging defense players and while his wide receiver is dodging defeders as well.
In the case of the pitcher, he has to vary his pitch within the strike zone. I would say that any MLB pitcher could pitch across the letters consistently but they don't dare do that in a game situation.
And professional golfers could make 6 foot putts, or hit a 100 yard drive all day long.

But I am yet to see a craps shooter have any kind of measurable consistency. I've seen the reports -- someone had 42 throws, but then it was point-7. Or they threw five numbers in four hands but then had a remarkable five pass run.

Frank, how many of your DIs and DCs have hit all six numbers at the fire bet? Now that would be a test of dice influencing and dice control -- moreso than any SRR.

Alan, great points. I used the blackjack thing as an analogy and it doesn't hold up completely as you show.

However, I prefer to look at hitters in baseball as an example. I've seen horrendous slumps even in the most brilliant of players. Remember Pujols in the first quarter of last season? Awful. Then he roared back. He hadn't lost his skill; he was just off. The dice controller is in the same boat. Losing streaks are common for SRR players with some talent; most turns with the dice (maybe 60 to 70 percent) could be losers (I explain that in one of my books) but a dice controller can only lose his initial bets (if he bets intelligently) and when he wins he can make up for those losses. Three-hundred hitters in baseball make the bigger bucks. Home run hitters make bigger bucks too.

For on-axis shooters, they are more like singles hitters, bunters, Suzuki-style players and the like. There is more consistency but the wins are often more like singles than devastating explosions. These shooters will probably win more money over time (I am guessing at this but I think I am right --- okay, okay, I always think I am right) than the SRR folks. Yes, they can have monster rolls, but mostly they have repeating number(s) and make their money that way - bunting to get on base.

I am not a football fan so I can't really do the quarterback thing but I can look at basketball statistics and see that some players have shooting percentages over 60 percent (a couple) but they don't take as many shots as Kobe. Some have percentages in the 50 percent range like Lebron. The overwhelming majority of the players in the league are somewhere in the 40s.

The Fire Bet probably cannot be overcome by even the best dice controllers. It is a bad bet, an horrendous bet. Just look at a 20-25 percent house edge; can't really be done without a lot of luck. I would recommend taking the money that would be wasted on the Fire Bet and use it on the Pass Line, Come or placing of a six and eight. A dice controller has a good shot then. The Fire Bet just burns up the bankroll.

Alan did we ever meet?

Yes, we met years ago. But I wouldn't expect you to remember me. It was a crowded event and you were the celebrated author and I was just another paying attendee.

A baseball hitter faces the variable of a pitch that could be a fastball, a slider, a curve, a knuckler. The craps shooter faces no variables except his own ability to throw the dice. The table is static, isn't it. Theoretically, you can adjust your throw to account for the pyramids. Sharpshooter wrote about it in his book.

I am all in favor of on-axis control. In fact, I think it is the only way to separate a true "influenced shot" from a random shot. If you can't at least keep your dice on axis, what the heck are you doing?

When I mention the Fire Bet it is not whether or not it's a good bet. The question is, if a shooter can really influence the dice or control the dice, he certainly should have no trouble making a lot of passes. Isn't that what you're supposed to do with DI and DC, make numbers and passes? I would expect to hear about DIs and DCs making 4, 5 and even all 6 fire bet numbers all the time!

Alan


Your last sentence makes sense, but in real life i found that not to be the case.

For instance in my longest roll to date of 57 i never made a 5 and had only 1...9. I have had several
rolls of over 40 and never made a five. I have had over 30 rolls of 40 or more in the 3 .5 years of dice
control and never had one with the 3v set.

For me atleast just getting good enough to know when to use the hard way set and the 3v set and do it
is the outer reach of my ability. Perfect axis control... i mean perfect can get you 4,6,8,10 but then you have to
change for the 5 and 9. i guess you could set the 5-4 on top which gives you 1/4 on the bottom, but also gives
1/6 and 6/1.

I have a friend that is 100% random,his srr is not good and he had no access control.... he has hit 5 -5 point
fire bets in the past 3 months. I play and i get 6 6 8 6 8 out , i am not even close to a fire bet so i dont play
it. he can hit 4/9/5/8/10 5 pass line winners and they are all different. He just throws into the corner
and they roll all the way around, zero control over anything....

I asked how many 40 or more rolls
he had the last 3 years, he says maybe 4-5... and he plays 2 or 3 times as much as i do.

Once again, influence does not mean you can hit any number you want anytime you want.

Frank has seen them all, hundreds of new ones and the best ones, if it can be done with the dice or not done,
Frank understands why or why not, most of us just assume things.

Dicesitter

What about following around a player for a longer period of time. Multiple sessions over maybe a month or two should produce enough rolls to see if the dice are coming up differently than a random shooter. The fact that you win or lose isn't even that important to the outcome (other than to the shooters wallet). The key is the outcome of all the rolls.

For that matter, it wouldn't even have to be at a casino with real money. Why not do it on a home table or office?

That's kind of why I asked for the Wiz's opinion on how many rolls would be a fair amount in his opinion to constitute a fair challenge.

ZCore13

I have people I know who have hit the entire six numbers. Still a bad bet, like betting on Megabucks where the odds are 50 million to one (give or take) to bring home the prize. You'll spend a lot of money trying to take home that prize and you will spend a lot of money on that Fore Bet.

My longest roll to date is 89 but I did do six 50+ rolls in one year (all witnessed). However (and I know Alan would pump in an "however" here so I beat him to it) even a random roller who plays an incredible number of days in the casino might be able to do that too. (Okay, I doubt it, but I am trying to sound fair.)

Alan, I think for you and me, I stand by my first post that with SRR and/or SmartCraps showing an edge and the player able to play such an edge in the casino, that player will win, not always but enough to be ahead in his dice control career. I know you don't think so, so we should leave it at that.

That's about the best I can do and I also understand those posters who disagree with everything I have said.

Maybe in awhile I will give some of the incidents that help to prove (at least to me) that casinos are very much aware of dice control even if they say they aren't.

But my caution to everyone, dice controller, would-be dice controller, random player is this: Make the best bets; forget the crazy crapper bets and bet small in relation to your bankroll. I know that might sound trite but it happens to be the right way to go about it. And here is the real, "Oh, my God, I can't believe he is saying that" moment. I recommend only one Pass Line or Come bet with odds after the 5-Count on a random roller. If you are a random roller ---- one bet on you too.

Quote: FrankScoblete

I stand by my first post that with SRR and/or SmartCraps
showing an edge and the player able to play such an edge in the casino,
that player will win, not always but enough to be ahead in his dice control career.

This is still such an incomplete and misleading statement.
Why??
There is no time factor or number of bets even mentioned or considered.

Why do you always leave out the time factor in your many blanket statements??
Just like the 10X spread bankroll session formula you have mentioned before.
http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/article/proper-bankroll-for-craps-31134

Math guys and girls easily use EV and Variance to calculate the probabilities of being even or ahead
after X number of resolved bets, with an edge or no edge.

Not 100% of ALL DIs playing with an edge
will always be ahead after their playing career is over.
It depends on how many actual bets are resolved.
The bell curve is not shaped that way because you think it is.

This then appears to me what you are really saying is all the statements below are true:

after 6 months of his dice control career that player will win enough to be ahead
after 12 months of his dice control career that player will win enough to be ahead
after 2 years of his dice control career that player will win enough to be ahead
after 20 years of his dice control career that player will win enough to be ahead

or is 20 years actually better than just 2 years?
Are more bets better than less bets playing with an edge?

Good Luck