Dice Agnostic

This is something I wrote a while back, before I was chased off by the local dice police. I figured I'd post it because of the excitement around Mr. Scoblete (who, in my opinion, has been a perfect gentleman, undeserving of the jack-assery that has been directed at him).

The game of Blackjack is easy to simulate. One can quickly run through a million virtual hands on a computer that has been programmed to vary bet size based on deck composition. If one assumes accurate running count, the simulation tends to show a profit over time. It's much tougher to simulate the cognitive process behind counting (e.g., whether or not one can keep an accurate count). Most seem willing to ignore the potential difference between those theoretical numbers and the real-world process they simulate.

Craps can also be simulated, as can the effect of altering the probabilities of the dice in a craps game. As with the cognitive skill of card counting, if one assumes the physical skill of dice influence, the simulation will also show a profit. As with the cognitive skills involved in card counting, it's hard to accurately simulate the motor motor skills required for dice influence. That difficulty of simulation says nothing about whether or not that skill is attainable.

Below, I've outlined the commonly stated arguments against dice influence (though I've rephrased most of them to be more polite than they're typically expressed on this forum). I've followed each with the reasons why I find them unconvincing. In the end, that leaves me an agnostic.


Argument #1: If you really had an edge, you'd just stay at the casino and take all their money.
Why I remain agnostic: An edge is not a guaranteed win. The famous MIT card counting team had losing sessions, losing months, and losing years. The edge derived from counting still results in losses, and sometimes in long losing streaks. An edge in craps would be no different.

Argument #2: Dice influencing is just a scam used by charlatans to sell lessons, books, videos, etc.
Why I remain agnostic: E.O. Thorpe could count cards, and he sold books. Numerous card counters sell lessons at inflated prices (I assume I don't need to list them here). Do we doubt their edge and call them names?

Argument #3: Your sample of rolls isn't big enough to prove you have an edge.
Why I remain agnostic: No sample, no matter how big is going to prove or disprove anything. All you can do with modern statistics is make a statement with a specified level of confidence. That said, the sample required for a high degree of confidence is often surprisingly small. I have my stats students diagnose loaded dice in class based on a chi-squared test with a sample of 20 rolls. The analysis correctly distinguished loaded from honest dice about 95% of the time. I've yet to see someone make the above statement and follow it up with an analysis of statistical power indicating the precise sample size necessary for a desirable level of confidence. Until that happens, “inadequate sample size” is merely an irrefutable argument of convenience.

Argument #4: I saw a self-proclaimed dice influencer throw a point-seven out.
Why I remain agnostic: Now who's relying on a small sample size? An SRR of 7.0 is enough to provide a sizable edge on the pass line. That shooter will throw a hand of point-seven 14% of the time. If dice influencing was real, a point-seven roll would be neither rare nor informative. (note on terminology: SRR, or sevens-to-rolls ratio, is a common metric for dice influence. 6.0 would be random, indicating a seven every six rolls. Anything higher indicates fewer sevens than one would expect from a random process).

Argument #5: The physical skill required for dice control is unattainable.
Why I remain agnostic: When card counting was first described, it was greeted by skeptics as impossible to implement because of human cognitive limitations: Short term memory has a capacity of about 7 - There's no way for a person to track 52 cards, much less the 312 cards in a 6 deck shoe. The problem with that line of thinking is that “card counters” don't literally count cards. Dice control also sounds impossible when first described, but like “card counting”, “dice control” is a misnomer. Dice influencers don't claim to literally control the dice and force them to land with certain faces up. Rather, they attempt to slightly de-randomize the dice. That's a less fantastic claim, and one that would require a less impressive physical ability.

Argument #7: Dice movement is too complex to understand, much less predict.
Why I remain agnostic: Several billiard shots were mysterious not just to great players, but to accomplished physicists for many years (Masse shots, for example; French mathematician Gaspard-Gustav Coriolis, the namesake of the Coriolis effect, was one of the very first to look into it). Furthermore, even current experts disagree about why certain shots do what they do (listen to billiard professionals talk about “squirt”, “swerve”, and “squerve” for some entertaining and confusing contradictions). Nevertheless, skilled players can make those shots consistently. A second parallel: Physicists still don't know what the hell a knuckleball is doing. And even though the ball doesn't knuckle every time, a good knuckleballer maintains an overall edge against the opposing team's batters.

Argument #8: You can't practice dice control, because the table in the casino is always different.
Why I remain agnostic: The conditions for other skilled performances also vary. Billiards players must adjust to humidity, cloth manufacturer and condition, how recently balls have been polished, etc. Golfers adjust to wind, weather, noise, condition of the grass, etc. They do those things based on experience playing under a variety of conditions and immediate feedback from shots as they are made. I see no reason why a dice-thrower might similarly adjust based on visual, auditory, and motor feedback about conditions such as distance, table hardness, and cloth bounciness.

Argument #9: The pyramids on the far wall of a craps table are guaranteed to scramble the dice and will always result in a random roll.
Why I remain agnostic: The amount of randomization would depend on many factors that contribute to post-collision movement. Two obvious ones are the hardness of the throw, and the angle at which the dice hit the pyramids. Naturally, if a throw is soft and comes in at the optimal angle, the amount of post-collision movement could be diminished. Furthermore, the surface of the pyramid rubber is not actually random, but a regular pattern. More importantly, the bottom inch of the rubber has no pyramids at all. Dice influencers know these things and incorporate them into their throws.

Argument #10: If dice control was possible, casinos would ban dice setting.
Why I remain agnostic: Some do ban setting. But most probably determine that it's not necessary. Like card counting, for everyone who can, there are dozens (or more) who think they can, but can't. Granted I play a lot more craps than blackjack, but I've witnessed more backoffs playing craps than I have playing blackjack.

Argument #11: Prove it. Nobody has ever presented data demonstrating dice control.
Why I remain agnostic: They have presented data. Dice influencers are usually pretty maniacal about data collection. The problem is that the challenge of “I'll bet you can't do it for 1,000 rolls” becomes “I'll bet you can't do it for 2,000 rolls”. That in turn becomes, “I'll bet you can't do it in a casino”, which later becomes “I'll bet you can't do it with this angry wolverine in your pants”. If you prefer to rely on established gambling authors, check out Stanford Wong's book on craps. It has data. From real casino action. No wolverine though.

If the casino was concerned it was wide spread enough to dent profits, they would make the dice hit 2 walls from the corner. I assume this would shake them up a bit more. They're out there, but the average person is uncoordinated and lazy.

I've a more simple argument: no evidence.

This is not some esoteric item on the fringes of quantum mechanics or unified field theory, after all, but a rather simple question: can dice influencers, setters or whatever, consistently obtain results different from random throws?

Now, I want to make some things clear:

1) I'm perfectly willing to accept it's an acquired skill which may require talent and certainly requires dedication. In other words, I do not expect everyone to be able to do it.

2) By consistently I do NOT mean "every time" or even "every session," but rather "more often than not." Consider an elite NFL QB.He won't complete every pass, and he will have bad games from time to time, but he can consistently throw well. That's what I mean.

Quote: Nareed

I've a more simple argument: no evidence.

How is no evidence an argument in favor of anything other than agnosticism?

Quote: waltomeal

How is no evidence an argument in favor of anything other than agnosticism?

As I said, it doesn't involve esoteric physics, but rather humdrum, centuries-old science. In science that which is not forbidden is possible. So if the rather complicated mechanics involved say there can be a measure of control, then there can be. That does not mean any person is capable of it, either at all or consistently.

Quote: Nareed

As I said...

You didn't say that.

Argument #1: True

Argument #2: True

Argument #3: False. There are p-values that are acceptable. I think it's somewhere between 0.01 and 0.1%. From there, you can figure out the sample size required. It might be a large sample size, but it certainly can be attainable in a reasonably short period of time. The fact that this is well known yet no one has done the irrefutable work to show it puts me into camp disbelief.

Argument #4: Of course it's true.

Argument #5: I believe that the pyramids on the back wall and the bounces of the dice are enough to randomize the results. If however, you can throw consistently and avoid the back pyramids, then it might be possible.

Argument #6: ?

Argument #7: Dice is much different than billiards because the balls are round and the interactions with other balls and the walls are easily predictable and newtonian in nature. That's why you see lots of billiards (and pinball, and bowling, soccer, golf, basketball, and baseball) games with realistic simulators. With craps simulators, I'm waiting to see something with an actual picture of the dice leaving one's hands, bouncing of a backwall, and landing. Now that would be a cool Wii game.

Argument #8: True.

Argument #9: False. The pyramid may be evenly distributed, but to have the dice hit the exact same position on a pyramid to get the same result is nearly impossible. Therefore, I think modelling the pyramids would be a randomizer to the dice. The section of the back wall without the pyramids is much more promising.

Argument #10: True

Argument #11: Let's see the data and the video from someone who says their an accomplished dice influencer.

Quote: waltomeal

How is no evidence an argument in favor of anything other than agnosticism?

There is no evidence for the theory that dice control is sufficiently effective for any casino operator to care about it. There is plenty of evidence that the dice routinely behave with uniform randomness. Agnosticism, the admission of the unknown, is a basis of scientific inquiry. However, science assigns degrees of belief, and for the question of dice influence, there is a much, much stronger case for uniform results than for non-uniform results based on a shooter's influence. Agnosticism is not inconsistent with a much stronger degree of belief in a supported theory than an unsupported one. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because you don't know, both theories (influence vs. not) are equally likely or equally supported. I might invent a theory that a cosmic deity exerts omniscient telekinetic control over every molecule in the universe, including every die at every craps table. There's no evidence either for or against that theory, but the mere fact I invented it doesn't make it as valid the others.

Look, I know dice influence can work under the right conditions. I've seen it, and I can even do it (e.g. a short blanket roll). But I *haven't* seen it in a casino setting using techniques that conform to the typical allowable roll.

I was having fun building evidence, but I got to the conclusion that generally nobody cared about the truth so I moved on, admitted it's all just luck, and I've been really lucky ever since.

Quote: Ahigh

I was having fun building evidence, but I got to the conclusion that generally nobody cared about the truth so I moved on, admitted it's all just luck, and I've been really lucky ever since.

<smile> "Luck" rules. You rock on Ahigh.

In a nutshell.... Dice influence...What it is and what it is not


1) Dice sliding is real... Thus the concept of Influence is possible (this is where the fire arises...) ....

2) Now with that being said.... Dice sliding is illegal... Because it gives a player a Significant advantage..
(Dice sliding IS NOT THE SAME AS THE LEGAL THROW AT ALL)

3) If the legal dice influence that players try to portray posed a threat, it would be illegal as well.. But it doesn't... Because they have done all the math for everyone that the combinaion of table, added padding, and pyramid is more than enough to generate the most optimal random roll... Not all but dam sure enough.. (this is where the fire dissipates)

4)The greatest advantage the casino has is making someone 'believe' they have an advantage over them. They'll even kick a few people out to let the lie live. It's great for business.

5) I can understand why so many people are on the fence about this....

6) Even dice sliding only controls ONE DIE, how can you think you can control two with more variances..

it may not look as polished as a writer can do, but it's the truth.. Cave man style..

CONCLUSION) Once you separate the two concepts for what they are (sliding "is influencing" and the legal throw "is not influencing" ) you will stop wrecking your brain behind it. You dont have to prove anything, it is what it is

Quote: waltomeal

Argument #1: If you really had an edge, you'd just stay at the casino and take all their money.
Why I remain agnostic: An edge is not a guaranteed win. The famous MIT card counting team had losing sessions, losing months, and losing years. The edge derived from counting still results in losses, and sometimes in long losing streaks. An edge in craps would be no different.

With enough of a starting bankroll, if you can put a lower bound on your edge, this shouldn't be an issue.

Quote: waltomeal

Argument #3: Your sample of rolls isn't big enough to prove you have an edge.
Why I remain agnostic: No sample, no matter how big is going to prove or disprove anything. All you can do with modern statistics is make a statement with a specified level of confidence. That said, the sample required for a high degree of confidence is often surprisingly small. I have my stats students diagnose loaded dice in class based on a chi-squared test with a sample of 20 rolls. The analysis correctly distinguished loaded from honest dice about 95% of the time. I've yet to see someone make the above statement and follow it up with an analysis of statistical power indicating the precise sample size necessary for a desirable level of confidence. Until that happens, “inadequate sample size” is merely an irrefutable argument of convenience.

And yet, it ought to be the DI's jumping all over themselves to provide this, and all they come up with is cherrypicked session stats.

Quote: waltomeal

Argument #10: If dice control was possible, casinos would ban dice setting.
Why I remain agnostic: Some do ban setting. But most probably determine that it's not necessary. Like card counting, for everyone who can, there are dozens (or more) who think they can, but can't. Granted I play a lot more craps than blackjack, but I've witnessed more backoffs playing craps than I have playing blackjack.

These backoffs are mostly for failing to hit the back wall, which is indicative of DI techniques known to work, and it's a policy you can see Frank mocking on this board, the fact that they're more concerned with reality than fantasy.

Quote: waltomeal

Argument #11: Prove it. Nobody has ever presented data demonstrating dice control.
Why I remain agnostic: They have presented data. Dice influencers are usually pretty maniacal about data collection. The problem is that the challenge of “I'll bet you can't do it for 1,000 rolls” becomes “I'll bet you can't do it for 2,000 rolls”. That in turn becomes, “I'll bet you can't do it in a casino”, which later becomes “I'll bet you can't do it with this angry wolverine in your pants”. If you prefer to rely on established gambling authors, check out Stanford Wong's book on craps. It has data. From real casino action. No wolverine though.

Again, at least as far as I can see, cherrypicking is rampant.

Quote: TheWolf713

6) Even dice sliding only controls ONE DIE, how can you think you can control two with more variances..

I slide both dice and Im not the only one who can do it. But you are talking about a whip shot where one die is slid with a whipping motion to control one face.

A slide with both dice frozen with the same face up is so obvious it never has a chance. When the LVRJ interviewed me about the Wynn case I told how a don't shooter did it at Caesars... but he was losing so much money I think the dealers gave him a pass just so he could win for once after dumping so much money on an incredibly long roll.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I slide both dice and Im not the only one who can do it. But you are talking about a whip shot where one die is slid with a whipping motion to control one face.

A slide with both dice frozen with the same face up is so obvious it never has a chance. When the LVRJ interviewed me about the Wynn case I told how a don't shooter did it at Caesars... but he was losing so much money I think the dealers gave him a pass just so he could win for once after dumping so much money on an incredibly long roll.

I apologize, I tend to put them in the same boat..

LVRJ consults Mendelson. Neato.