Is Dice Control Real? Can It Be Tested?
Quote: hardtenI understand your train of thought here, but there are other threads. No? I just think it's funny that someone thinks that I'm part of some sort of "long con." Spamming one thread with new comments to "keep it going."
They don't really think that. The other thing about this forum is that due to the rules, the guy who made this sarcastic remark may have more wished to call you a more derogatory name (shill isn't exactly a bad name, but it's not a flattering term either). But since that is against the rules, you instead get to read about ten times as many messages explaining the hows and whys of sarcasm.
You should probably just read for a while. There is a ton of information about the characters on this forum available to you without actually interacting with them.
If you end up in Vegas, I will meet up with you and we can play. Just stay focused on the fun parts, and don't let the naysayers on this forum get you down if you enjoy believing, believe, I say.
Quote: Ahigh
If you end up in Vegas, I will meet up with you and we can play. Just stay focused on the fun parts, and don't let the naysayers on this forum get you down if you enjoy believing, believe, I say.
Sounds good. I've watched your videos and they are really well done. I'm planning a run to Vegas in August. I will def be in contact with you about that.
Is there anyone on these boards that plays in New Mexico? Specifically, Ruidoso?
Quote: AhighIt's the ratio of the box to seven not just the RSR ratio that you really want to look at assuming you want to take advantage of more than just the RSR.
Does that apply to pass as well as don't pass bets? And can your software reflect that?
Quote: SanchoPanzaDoes that apply to pass as well as don't pass bets? And can your software reflect that?
Yes.
I know if I were new to something related to gambling that 90% of the SHARPEST players in the US. avoid or preach against I would be asking way more questions to people who failed doing this. If nothing other than getting info on what to avoid doing.
I think any higher profile "DI" has a responsibility to discourage a 26 year old rookie from jumping right in. Explaining how hard it is, how much money it takes to be successful= making money, the addictive factors. and all the pitfalls. For someone successful like AHIGH who seemingly already has everything (but DI proof) this is a wonderful "hobby" From what I can tell no one is making money from solely "DI" (This should be the only question a want-a-be DI should have). I would equate being a DI to being a Navy Seal. One would have better odds of being a 110 pound gimp and becoming A Seal then becoming a successful DI.
am I "Paranoid much" ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdyOVDgKsgA Sometimes the helicopters really are following you.
Quote: AxelWolfFrom what I can tell no one is making money from solely "DI" .
Axel, I agree with you, but the "DIs" would say otherwise. Haven't you read 'dicesitter's' posts? He and his team are routinely beating the casinos for multiple times their buy ins. ROUTINELY. Harley, the masked gentleman from the Nickolay challenge, says he makes his living rolling them bones (with supplements from roulette!)
But don't be surprised when a new member enters and gravitates to a topic they are interested in. When I first joined I read every pai gow thread, and every dealer error thread, and actively participated, because I was most interested in those topics. If you claim to be a DI, or are just interested in the topic, it stands to reason you would 'bring up old threads' as they are new to you.
Quote: hardten....but to say it means nothing is bit of a stretch.
Not at all, if you'll peruse what 7Craps posted, he stated that you are 1:12 to be where you are at this point. 1:12 is completely meaningless. That would very nearly be the equivalent of me picking a number in Roulette, having it hit within three spins, and declaring that I found a wheel biased toward that number.
Quote: AhighThe message is really clear, newcomer: you're not welcome here by the guys who dislike posts about craps on the board where they wish not to discuss the topic any further.
No, it is not that there are "guys who dislike posts about craps on the board;" rather, there are "guys who dislike unproven declarations of quasi-mystical dice control on the the board."
I love craps; it's the dice setters and their ridiculous, never-ending attempts to prove that their gambling god is "real" that irk me.
Quote: MrVNo, it is not that there are "guys who dislike posts about craps on the board;" rather, there are "guys who dislike unproven declarations of quasi-mystical dice control on the the board."
Please list the "unproven declarations" of which you speak.
Quote: MrVI love craps; it's the dice setters and their ridiculous, never-ending attempts to prove that their gambling god is "real" that irk me.
Dice setters?
In regards to attempts to "prove" that dice influencing is possible, there have been seven trials sanctioned by both sides. Four of the trials went in favor of the shooters, two favored the naysayers and one trial was a push. So, sanctioned evidence leans toward the possibility of dice influencing.
My mom swore up and down she was winning on penny slots I explained to her she just thinks she is because of selective memory.So in November I sent her an old tablet with some different apps to track her casino play. BIG Mistake I got a call 2 or 3 times everyday asking how to work her Tablet for over a week. Now shes obsessed. she first started recording slot play the day after Thanksgiving. Its a fun added game to her. She even calls me just to tell me about her wins or losses. She plays 2 to 3 hrs one to two times a month. Assuming my mommy isn't telling lies, to date she is up $388.07. "evidence leans toward the possibility of slot influencing"Quote: tuppPlease list the "unproven declarations" of which you speak.
Dice setters?
In regards to attempts to "prove" that dice influencing is possible, there have been seven trials sanctioned by both sides. Four of the trials went in favor of the shooters, two favored the naysayers and one trial was a push. So, sanctioned evidence leans toward the possibility of dice influencing.
Quote: AxelWolfMy mom swore up and down she was winning on penny slots I explained to her she just thinks she is because of selective memory.So in November I sent her an old tablet with some different apps to track her casino play. BIG Mistake I got a call 2 or 3 times everyday asking how to work her Tablet for over a week. Now shes obsessed. she first started recording slot play the day after Thanksgiving. Its a fun added game to her. She even calls me just to tell me about her wins or losses. She plays 2 to 3 hrs one to two times a month. Assuming my mommy isn't telling lies, to date she is up $388.07. "evidence leans toward the possibility of slot influencing"
It was probably unnecessary to give all that irrelevant back-story -- especially with such ineffective and erroneous use of a quote for a punch line. It could have been set-up merely as, "My mom has been playing slots since Thanksgiving and she is up $388.07..."
Of course, there is a stark difference between monitored, sanctioned dice trials and your mom's aimless slot play. Dice trials measure only roll results against agreed-upon guidlines -- cumulative wins and losses depend on entirely on how one bets and have no bearing on such trials. Your mom's last session could be when she suddenly decided to bet full max on every pull, as opposed to a single penny on each pull -- if it was a winning session, that could counter a multitude of previous losing single-penny pulls. She could have also chanced on one jackpot. The comparison is like apples to oranges.
Quote: MrVHow about Scoblete's brag about The Captain's world record roll?
I am not familiar with the story, but, as we all know, one session doesn't prove anything on its own. I don't think anyone here believes otherwise -- even Mr. Scoblete.
Quote: MrVHow about pretty much ANYTHING that that old scoundrel, The Mad Professor, writes?
Is that person posting on this board?
Actually, I think that only one or two people here have declared that DI is absolutely true. The rest of us discuss the possibility, and a few test and record rolls.
Quote: MrVYou want the truth ?
How very clever and original.
As it was an unnecessary back story it was just as unnecessary to point that out IMO almost hypothetical. NOT worth a argument. The back story was more entertainment for me to tell. Interesting to my mom when I send her link to read. I hope she will reference it if she ever writes a book called, "How to con people into thinking you can win with slot control" Your right it is a lot different however she did have some parameters even if she didn't realize them. She NEVER bets more then 2 coins per line and never more then 50 lines. She dose start and leave at the same times due to a shuttle bus scheduled. None of her single wins have been more then $100. I'm really saying that even some of the worst games people can get lucky for a long time.Quote: tuppIt was probably unnecessary to give all that irrelevant back-story -- especially with such ineffective and erroneous use of a quote for a punch line. It could have been set-up merely as, "My mom has been playing slots since Thanksgiving and she is up $388.07..."
Of course, there is a stark difference between monitored, sanctioned dice trials and your mom's aimless slot play. Dice trials measure only roll results against agreed-upon guidlines -- cumulative wins and losses depend on entirely on how one bets and have no bearing on such trials. Your mom's last session could be when she suddenly decided to bet full max on every pull, as opposed to a single penny on each pull -- if it was a winning session, that could counter a multitude of previous losing single-penny pulls. She could have also chanced on one jackpot. The comparison is like apples to oranges.
PS. I'm not the first person who rambles on with stories and things that have nothing to do with anything or is not needed to explain something and compares apple to oranges to prove a point that can't be proven. I just employ bad grammar and punctuation doing it.
Quote: tuppHow very clever and original.
Let me spell it out for you, bucko.
You starry eyed dreamers who believe in the possibility of dice setting actually working have the burden of proof, not me.
Under the standard method of scientific anaysis, a proposition is deemed unproven unless or until it is objectively proven.
OK, your move ...
Yes, if you and your team had your own table you can do that. In fact, Ive seen "don't players" converge on the same table to have their fun of point-sevens.
Quote: TheWolf713Hard ten what area in Texas are you close to?
Midland, Texas to be exact.
Because he probably took longer.Quote: Mikey75. I will say this his rolls on average had lasted longer than most anyone else's. .
Quote: MrVLet me spell it out for you, bucko. You starry eyed dreamers who believe in the possibility of dice setting actually working have the burden of proof, not me.
No. The "burden of proof" is not on anyone just because you say so.
Furthermore, resorting to name calling and faulty characterizations of others never helps ones position.
Quote: MrVUnder the standard method of scientific anaysis, a proposition is deemed unproven unless or until it is objectively proven.
Okay. Please objectively prove the proposition that dice influencing is absolutely impossible.
Quote: MrVOK, your move ...
I think that the biggest difference between us is that one of us uses this forum for dueling and for dubious verbal attacks, while the other simply wants to participate in earnest explorations of possibilities and in seeking truth.
Can at least that be agreed upon?
Should be, it's easy.
Quote: MoosetonIn my humble opinion DI is possible. Short rolling you can easily influence the dice. If u can get away with that, then yes DI is possible. Can at least that be agreed upon?
Most would agree that influencing a short/blanket roll is possible and that one can occasionally "get away with that." However, it is not a method that could be sustained, nor do most find intentionally employing such rolls ethically (or "legally") acceptable.
Furthermore, most DIs do not train in short rolls, so they would probably not do very well with them. More importantly, DIs do not want to risk getting attention/heat from the pit staff for short rolls.
Until a so-called DI doesn't need "luck" then it is a skill. A professional baseball player doesn't need luck to throw a fast ball into the strike zone -- and using that analogy, a skilled DI shouldn't need "luck" to hit his numbers or avoid hitting numbers.
And it doesn't hurt to try... so we try.
Quote: AlanMendelsonTheoretically, the WHOLE BALL OF WAX is possible. I just haven't seen anyone do it with the consistency to make me believe they have the skill to do it enough that it will make a difference when they play.
Perhaps you are expecting too much.
Quote: AlanMendelsonUntil a so-called DI doesn't need "luck" then it is a skill.
Not sure if you said exactly what you meant, but everyone has good and bad days, especially at such a difficult task.
Quote: AlanMendelsonA professional baseball player doesn't need luck to throw a fast ball into the strike zone -- and using that analogy, a skilled DI shouldn't need "luck" to hit his numbers or avoid hitting numbers.
A faulty analogy in numerous ways. Any pitcher can throw the ball into the strike zone -- dice influencing is much more of a challenge than that. A pitcher often intentionally avoids the strike zone, but a dice influencer tries for a non-loss roll on every toss. A pitcher must make almost every pitch "count," but a dice influencer only needs to ensure about one non-loss roll in fifty rolls. etc.
A more accurate version of such an analogy might be, "Very few major league baseball pitchers can get average over 8 strikeouts per game -- skilled DIs that can average one ensured non-loss rolls in 25 are just as rare."
Math experts:
What's an acceptable amount of rolls ?
what kind of edge would you need in craps to say that's nearly impossible to be random?
I know there are extremely smart determined AP teams out there with tons of cash that would not have given up on this.
Quote: AlanMendelsonTheoretically, the WHOLE BALL OF WAX is possible. I just haven't seen anyone do it with the consistency to make me believe they have the skill to do it enough that it will make a difference when they play.
Until a so-called DI doesn't need "luck" then it is a skill. A professional baseball player doesn't need luck to throw a fast ball into the strike zone -- and using that analogy, a skilled DI shouldn't need "luck" to hit his numbers or avoid hitting numbers.
And it doesn't hurt to try... so we try.
If a professional pitcher doesn't need luck to make strike's, why does he get four misses before the batter walks?
When the pitch hit's the batter, is that an accident or assault?
How bout the batter, to get a hit does he need luck? He can miss 27 innings in a row and still
get paid millions of dollars. Using those parameters, I could be a di.
Most people would except that they are both bi's, ball influencer's.
Quote: petroglyphIf a professional pitcher doesn't need luck to make strike's, why does he get four misses before the batter walks?
This question is really the essence, I think, of your misunderstanding about the sport of baseball. Every major league pitcher can throw a fast ball into the strike zone. it's a basic skill. The reason why pitchers don't throw fast balls directly into the strike zone is because if they throw the ball with predictability as in right across the letters every batter will hit the ball out of the park. So pitchers change where the pitch will reach the batter -- sometimes high, sometimes low, sometimes inside.
the game of baseball gives batters three chances to swing and hit. the game only allows only four bad pitches within a reasonable area for the batter to try to swing.
In craps, a "dice influencer" does not have to contend with a batter. All the DI has to do is pitch strikes. If there were no batter a pitcher could hit the strike zone every time till he got too tired to do it. Can a DI throw the dice and hit his "zone" every time till he gets tired? It's possible, but I haven't seen it.
Quote: tuppAny pitcher can throw the ball into the strike zone -- dice influencing is much more of a challenge than that.
Exactly right, tupp, which is why I am yet to see anyone show that they can influence the dice with any consistency. Until you or anyone can throw the dice by design as consistently as a pitcher can throw a strike, DIs have not mastered any skill.
But keep trying....
Quote: tuppPlease objectively prove the proposition that dice influencing is absolutely impossible.
Obviously you know nothing of the scientific method.
Google it, then try again.
Possibility is not proof. Doubt is not truth. There is only what "is" and what "is not"... And there "is not" one person who has proved it yet..
A professional pitcher "is" what he "is" without a doubt. But a. DI on the other hand.... Has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThis question is really the essence, I think, of your misunderstanding about the sport of baseball. Every major league pitcher can throw a fast ball into the strike zone. it's a basic skill. The reason why pitchers don't throw fast balls directly into the strike zone is because if they throw the ball with predictability as in right across the letters every batter will hit the ball out of the park. So pitchers change where the pitch will reach the batter -- sometimes high, sometimes low, sometimes inside.
the game of baseball gives batters three chances to swing and hit. the game only allows only four bad pitches within a reasonable area for the batter to try to swing.
In craps, a "dice influencer" does not have to contend with a batter. All the DI has to do is pitch strikes. If there were no batter a pitcher could hit the strike zone every time till he got too tired to do it. Can a DI throw the dice and hit his "zone" every time till he gets tired? It's possible, but I haven't seen it.
Exactly right, tupp, which is why I am yet to see anyone show that they can influence the dice with any consistency. Until you or anyone can throw the dice by design as consistently as a pitcher can throw a strike, DIs have not mastered any skill.
But keep trying....
Alan, No harm or foul intended.
Sometimes the comedy of situations causes me to reply quicker than I should, not grasping the seriousness of the matter. My bad.
The essence of my reply was not so much a misunderstanding of baseball but levity.
Craps is not a professional sport. I don't think of drink swilling, cigar smoking, chip throwing loud mouth dice setter's as athlete's.
The hilarity of the comparison overwhelmed me.
Instead of Major league baseball, craps is more like T-ball
Quote: petroglyphI don't think of drink swilling, cigar smoking, chip throwing loud mouth dice setter's as athlete's.
The hilarity of the comparison overwhelmed me.
Hey! The masked dice thrower at Ahigh's house reminded
me of the masked pro wrestler Mr X, who was for sure an
athlete. Take back what you said..
Quote: tuppAny pitcher can throw the ball into the strike zone -- dice influencing is much more of a challenge than that.
Quote: AlanMendelsonExactly right, tupp, which is why I am yet to see anyone show that they can influence the dice with any consistency. Until you or anyone can throw the dice by design as consistently as a pitcher can throw a strike, DIs have not mastered any skill. But keep trying....
Consistency in dice influencing doesn't have to be as high as that of a baseball pitcher's ability to throw a strike.
You pulled my quote from a larger context of other reasons that demonstrate how baseball pitching and dice influencing are two very different tasks. I also followed that list of differences with a simple baseball example that is more accurate than the one you gave.
I will try an even more oversimplified baseball example in the hope that you will understand the concept: the task of dice influencing is akin to a baseball pitcher trying to throw a strike from the center field wall.
Please think about the difficulty of that task.
Now, I am going to elaborate on this oversimplified example.
Just because this task is so difficult, that doesn't mean that it can't be done successfully. Due of the increased challenge for the pitcher, the rules are different in our new baseball scenario:
- the pitcher makes a point on every strike;
- the pitcher loses a point when he makes a wild pitch that the catcher cannot catch from his position directly behind home plate;
- the pitcher wins if he has at least one point at the end of the game;
- every other pitch fielded by the catcher is inconsequential.
(By the way, there is no batter in this new game.)
Now the task is more doable -- the pitcher's skill might result in an occasional strike. There will also be a few strikes that result more from luck, but there is no sure way to tell which result from a little luck and which result completely from skill (but the pitcher can sort of tell from the feel of the pitch). There will also be some wild pitches that the catcher cannot field without leaving his position. Some games will have erratic wind gusts.
Nevertheless, the pitcher tries to do his best on every pitch.
Here is the important part -- to be successful, the pitcher only has to ensure that he can prevent one wild pitch in every 50 pitches. By preventing that one wild pitch, most pitchers' point-winning pitches will edge-out their point-losing pitches by one point per game.
So, the pitcher doesn't have to throw a strike on every pitch (despite the fact that there is someone on an obscure Internet gambling forum who continually insists that the only way to know if the pitcher has skill is if he can throw a strike on every pitch).
Can you make all of the connections between this hypothetical baseball scenario and the task of dice influencing?
Quote: petroglyphI don't think of drink swilling, cigar smoking, chip throwing loud mouth dice setter's as athlete's.
Ignorance is often revealed in one's statements.
As it has been said before to others in this forum, you probably don't know what you are looking at.
Quote: tuppIgnorance is often revealed in one's statements.
As it has been said before to others in this forum, you probably don't know what you are looking at.
I don't understand your intent here? And, I don't really want to accept the way it appears at first glance.
What are you saying, tupp?
Anybody else think this may be interesting assuming the other shooter could mimic a so called controlled shot?Quote: AxelWolfAhigh how about this as a challenge? Get a random person and then give him a 20 minute lesson on how to DI. Then have him toss the Dice trying to Control the dice the best he can. Then you do the same. Make sure you Video record all the tosses of each person then edit the video to block out both shooters or don't record him/her in the first place. Then randomly mix up the filmed tosses so you don't know who pitched the dice. Then play back the film slowly. You should be able to pick out all your own throws from the other persons, with lets say 90% accuracy right? I think if you can do that more people may start to be more open minded, I would. I think I can get my GF to come on your show she may have tossed dice twice total playing craps match plays. Shes a younger hot blonde, Most people say shes very sexy so you may get some more viewers.
Tupp: In that event, what criteria would you suggest as a valid or good measure of consistency?Quote: AlanMendelsonTheoretically, the WHOLE BALL OF WAX is possible. I just haven't seen anyone do it with the consistency to make me believe they have the skill to do it enough that it will make a difference when they play.
Quote: tuppPerhaps you are expecting too much.
No plans for any shows unless/until I feel motivated, and right now my motivation level for shows or doing anything on my table at home is pretty low given a variety of circumstances.
Today I installed a security camera. Yesterday I gambled at several casinos. I was sick the previous 5 days. My work has been keeping me unusually busy too.
When a "dice influencer" can show true dice influencing on each and every roll so that the dice return a desired number (and not merely avoiding a 7 which any random shooter can accomplish one out of six times) then we can consider dice influencing to exist.
Even your buddy Ahigh on his TV show was saying when he felt a throw showed influence and when it didnt.
Quote: SanchoPanzawhat criteria would you suggest as a valid or good measure of consistency?
Do it when you say you will, like Annie Oakley
shooting the cigarette out of the princes mouth.
Its a skill or it isn't.
Quote: AlanMendelsonEven your buddy Ahigh
You guys argue a lot.
Quote: AlanMendelsonTupp... skill is skill. There is no question that there are many pitchers with the skill to throw a fastball into the strike zone. it can be done and repeated on demand. The same cannot be said of throwing dice.
We seem to have a problem differentiating skill from results (we also seem to have problems comprehending posts of others).
You say that many pitchers have skill to pitch a fastball into the strike zone repeatedly, on-demand. If you were to stand those same pitchers at the center field wall, do you think that they could still hit the strike zone on-demand repeatedly? I would guess that even you would answer this question with a "no."
Now, do you think that those many pitchers with skill pitching from the mound have suddenly lost their throwing skill because they cannot pitch strikes on-demand, repeatedly from the center field wall?
Please address this last question.
Quote: SanchoPanzaTupp: In that event, what criteria would you suggest as a valid or good measure of consistency?
Most of the same results criteria that we have discussed over numerous threads, but we could just keep it simple by using the seven-to-rolls ratio.
Quote: EvenBobDo it when you say you will, like Annie Oakley shooting the cigarette out of the princes mouth. Its a skill or it isn't.
You really believe that's how it works, don't you?
Quote: tuppYou seem to have a problem differentiating skill from results (you also seem to have problems comprehending posts of others).
You say that many pitchers have skill to pitch a fastball into the strike zone repeatedly, on-demand. If you were to stand those same pitchers at the center field wall, do you think that they could still hit the strike zone on-demand repeatedly? I would guess that even you would answer this question with a "no."
Now, do you think that those many pitchers with skill pitching from the mound have suddenly lost their throwing skill because they cannot pitch strikes on-demand, repeatedly from the center field wall?
Please address this last question.
Pitchers have a skill: its called pitching. Pitching is from the mound to the strike zone. What kind of silly argument are you trying to dream up about hitting a strike zone from center field?
Please explain this.
