Can You Be Banned for Dice Control? Have Casinos Done This?
Quote: thecesspit18 numbers means jack all, just like 18 cards from a baccarat deck mean jack all.
Using 18 numbers to decide on RSR, signature numbers or how to bet is magical thinking. It means NOTHING. Zero. Zilch. Bugger all. Sweet Fanny Adams.
Well of course. And what makes you think I said that signature numbers or SRRs are determined by rolling just 18 numbers?
All I did was give you an example of 18 rolls with the appearance of an outstanding SRR that loses money.
Quote: AhighThe cross sixes set. Oh yeah that one. The one with threes on top right? And they make a V shape. I'm sure you know there are eight such sets, right?
Which of those 8 "flying V" sets are you using?
That is not the cross sixes set, Ahigh. Ask heavy.
1. NO
2. WRONG
3. LIE
That's why I shoot the crossed sixes. When I shoot a seven withthe crossed sixes it is invariably the 6-1, because I've double pitched one die. However, the V-3 seems to be an equal opportunity seven set for me. I see them all - not just the 3-4. Our friend Sharpshooter has done quite a bit of research on the topic of "secondary numbers" - numbers that roll when the dice get a quarter turn off axis in any direction - and "thirds" - numbers that roll when you get the double pitch or roll. His conclusion - the safest set for MOST precision shooter is the hardway set with the 6-1 6-1 on the sides. I haven't seen his new book yet - but I suspect when it gets out he'll have the charts on this included. The negative, of course, is that the hardway set is just another permutation of the all-sevens set - which has four sevens on axis. Frankly, it scares the heck out of me.
http://www.dicesetter.com/setting/mysets.htm
Every time I ask which of the eight flying V sets someone uses, they can't seem to answer.
http://www.dicesetter.com/mb_archive/v3x6.htm
I haven't read all of the above link. Maybe they distinguish between these eight different sets in that discussion. Or maybe they just think they get the same results from all eight sets. I don't know.
All I know is every time I ask for clarification, the conversation just stops.
As a result, each and every time someone talks about the flying V set or I see it being used in the casino, I automatically think, "THIS PERSON IS CLUELESS!"
Once I understand, maybe I will think differently, but it's no surprise you're in this group that thinks that it's awesome.
In my world, there are 24*24 or 576 different possible sets. These are 8 of them. The hardway sets are another 8.
With my throws, I haven't found a single flying V set that warrants any interest whatsoever. My software has never told me to use a flying V and it considers all 576 possible sets when telling me what sets to use.
So I'm just curious, but this seems to be one of those "red herrings" in the world of dice control. And one that, for me, is a tip off that someone is using something without doing their own due diligence.
Quote: AlanMendelsonDo I get a prize for stumping the king of craps who didn't know what the crossed sixes set is?
You get a kick in the rump for being ambiguous and not even knowing what I am asking! What I asked is WHICH ONE OF THE 8 POSSIBLE FLYING V SETS DO YOU USE?
You have NO CLUE!!! and probably use one of the eight without even remembering which one you used last time.
3132: RSR 6.135
3135: RSR 6.158
3231: RSR 6.158
3236: RSR 6.135
3531: RSR 6.135
3536: RSR 6.158
3632: RSR 6.158
3635: RSR 6.135
And for hardway sets, each hardway set gives me a RSR of 6.377
That's just for my throw. I suppose that someone out there has a throw that might work for flying V, but it's not me right now!
But you know, the point of the conversation is that each of those eight flying V sets is going to give you different, as you call them, signature numbers. And generally nobody ever gets to the depth of talking about which flying V set works for anything specific at all.
I just get bored with ambiguous talk when it comes to talking about what sets are working for you. I find the details of the set very important for my throw, and I wish someone else had as much interest in the details. But I guess a flying V is a flying V is a flying V to most people. Pick one any one and who cares?
For my throw, every quarter turn on each die makes a huge difference.
Quote: AhighYou get a kick in the rump for being ambiguous and not even knowing what I am asking! What I asked is WHICH ONE OF THE 8 POSSIBLE FLYING V SETS DO YOU USE?
You have NO CLUE!!! and probably use one of the eight without even remembering which one you used last time.
I don't. I have always used the cross sixes set and for the same reasons as Steve (heavy) stated.
And if you look back at the incident when I got into the dispute at Bellagio I reported I was using the cross sixes with 5/4 in front and the dice came to rest against the wall with 5/4 showing.
Ask Harley. All I used when he was charting me at Caesars was the 5/4 which favors outside numbers and probably why I couldnt repeat the 6 but is why I turned a $200 buy in into $1200 hitting the outside.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: AhighYou get a kick in the rump for being ambiguous and not even knowing what I am asking! What I asked is WHICH ONE OF THE 8 POSSIBLE FLYING V SETS DO YOU USE?
You have NO CLUE!!! and probably use one of the eight without even remembering which one you used last time.
I don't. I have always used the cross sixes set and for the same reasons as Steve (heavy) stated.
And if you look back at the incident when I got into the dispute at Bellagio I reported I was using the cross sixes with 5/4 in front and the dice came to rest against the wall with 5/4 showing.
Ask Harley. All I used when he was charting me at Caesars was the 5/4 which favors outside numbers and probably why I couldnt repeat the 6 but is why I turned a $200 buy in into $1200 hitting the outside.
Still ambiguous. Which flying V set has a 5/4 in front? The fours are on the bottom, my friend.
I gave you pictures of the eight flying V sets to make it easy. Maybe you could right click, choose "COPY IMAGE URL" and then post and paste the image in so I know which one you're talking about. It's like the menus at Denny's. I took all those photos just because I knew we would not be able to communicate without them. And still we have issues.
From your description of which one you use, I'm still left thinking you have NO CLUE.
One more thing is that I don't talk to Harley or SuperRick on a regular basis. The last time I talked to either one of them was months ago. But neither one of those guys has agreed to meet with me and then cancelled even a single time. Much less whine and complain about being unable to meet with you on one occasion (not a cancel, just couldn't do it!)
You are unbelievable!
Quote: Ahigh
Still ambiguous. Which flying V set has a 5/4 in front? The fours are on the bottom, my friend.
Ahigh, let me try to explain it to you slowly.
The boxcars are on top. One faces north-south, and one faces east-west. Hence the name of the set is "cross sixes" or "crossed sixes."
The 5 and 4 are in the front, or the 3 and 2 are in the front, and the most popular forms of the cross sixes.
Once more, look at the picture on this page:
http://www.dicesetter.com/setting/mysets.htm
The cross six set is the second photo from the top.
I do not use any variation of the 3-V set.
Quote: AlanMendelsonWell of course. And what makes you think I said that signature numbers or SRRs are determined by rolling just 18 numbers?
All I did was give you an example of 18 rolls with the appearance of an outstanding SRR that loses money.
No no no. Using 18 numbers doesn't give a RSR at all. Nothing at all. There's 'no apperance' of a good RSR, because anyone taking 1 seven in 18 numbers to proclaim a RSR of 18 is blithering idiot.
Even if I knew the rough bias on those dice, 18 numbers wouldn't be a test of the 'best way' any more than 18 cards is a good test of a blackjack counting method. Just as heavy came in claiming he would have won with his method on that roll. So what? Meaningless drivel. Matters so little its pointless talking about. Any short string of results can be seen as shit or shinola against a particular method. Proves nothing about the method (whether it's DI, martingale, bias dice or card counting).
Quote: AlanMendelsonI have always used the cross sixes set and for the same reasons as Steve (heavy) stated.
Why set the dice when you admit you have no controlled throw?
It seems to me that you are setting yourself up for disappointment for not achieving what you expected, instead of being glad for catching a bit of unexpected luck.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAhigh, let me try to explain it to you slowly.
The boxcars are on top. One faces north-south, and one faces east-west. Hence the name of the set is "cross sixes" or "crossed sixes."
The 5 and 4 are in the front, or the 3 and 2 are in the front, and the most popular forms of the cross sixes.
Once more, look at the picture on this page:
http://www.dicesetter.com/setting/mysets.htm
The cross six set is the second photo from the top.
I do not use any variation of the 3-V set.
Okay, I have never heard of the cross six set.
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Here's what my throw looks like with that set:
Rolls to Seven ratio (RSR): 6.158 +2.63%
Passline/CO player edge (per initial roll): -2.71%
Don't Pass/CO player edge (per initial roll): -0.82%
# #/7% delta% #/roll%
2 -0.21% -0.1005% less
3 +1.57% +0.2403% more
4 +0.18% -0.1545% less
5 +2.11% +0.5394% more
6 -0.13% -0.4143% less
7 +0.00% -0.4266% less
8 -0.73% -0.6791% less
9 +0.98% +0.0981% more
10 +1.00% +0.1103% more
11 +0.72% +0.0343% more
12 +5.92% +0.7527% more
Updating graphics
Killing -11628
No bets
Total rolls: 3399
1) 1112 16.36% - 16.67 = (-0.31)-------------------------------------------------- 1
2) 1139 16.75% - 16.67 = (+0.09)--------------------------------------------------- 2
3) 1125 16.55% - 16.67 = (-0.12)-------------------------------------------------- 3
4) 1135 16.70% - 16.67 = (+0.03)--------------------------------------------------- 4
5) 1129 16.61% - 16.67 = (-0.06)-------------------------------------------------- 5
6) 1158 17.03% - 16.67 = (+0.37)---------------------------------------------------- 6
X**2: 1.05 p: 0.95871
fw 1112,1139,1125,1135,1129,1158 1112,1139,1125,1135,1129,1158
11: ----------------------- 2 (91)
12: ------------------------- 3 (98)
21: ------------------------- 3 (99)
13: ------------------------ 4 (95)
22: ----------------------- 4 (92)
31: ----------------------- 4 (91)
14: ------------------------ 5 (95)
23: --------------------------- 5 (107)
32: ------------------------ 5 (96)
41: ------------------------- 5 (98)
15: ----------------------- 6 (92)
24: ----------------------- 6 (89)
33: ------------------------- 6 (97)
42: ---------------------- 6 (87)
51: ------------------------ 6 (93)
16: ---------------------- 7 (85)
25: ------------------------- 7 (97)
34: -------------------------- 7 (103)
43: ----------------------- 7 (90)
52: ------------------------ 7 (93)
61: --------------------- 7 (84)
26: ------------------------ 8 (95)
35: --------------------- 8 (84)
44: ------------------------ 8 (95)
53: --------------------- 8 (81)
62: ------------------------ 8 (94)
36: ----------------------- 9 (91)
45: ------------------------- 9 (98)
54: ------------------------- 9 (99)
63: ------------------------ 9 (93)
46: ------------------------ 10 (94)
55: -------------------------- 10 (101)
64: ----------------------- 10 (92)
56: ----------------------- 11 (91)
65: ------------------------- 11 (99)
66: ------------------------------ 12 (120)
X**2: 18.10 p: 0.99187
Killing -7100
2) 91 2.68% - 2.78% = -0.10% (-3.42)--------- 2
3) 197 5.80% - 5.56% = 0.24% (+8.17)------------------ 3
4) 278 8.18% - 8.33% = -0.15% (-5.25)------------------------- 4
5) 396 11.65% - 11.11% = 0.54% (+18.33)----------------------------------- 5
6) 458 13.47% - 13.89% = -0.41% (-14.08)----------------------------------------- 6
7) 552 16.24% - 16.67% = -0.43% (-14.50)------------------------------------------------- 7
8) 449 13.21% - 13.89% = -0.68% (-23.08)---------------------------------------- 8
9) 381 11.21% - 11.11% = 0.10% (+3.33)---------------------------------- 9
10) 287 8.44% - 8.33% = 0.11% (+3.75)--------------------------10
11) 190 5.59% - 5.56% = 0.03% (+1.17)-----------------11
12) 120 3.53% - 2.78% = 0.75% (+25.58)-----------12
X**2: 10.40 p: 0.40592
4:7 ratio is 50.362% - 50.000% = +0.362% (+0.72% diff)
5:7 ratio is 71.739% - 66.667% = +5.072% (+7.61% diff)
6:7 ratio is 82.971% - 83.333% = -0.362% (-0.43% diff)
8:7 ratio is 81.341% - 83.333% = -1.993% (-2.39% diff)
9:7 ratio is 69.022% - 66.667% = +2.355% (+3.53% diff)
10:7 ratio is 51.993% - 50.000% = +1.993% (+3.99% diff)
X**2: 2.67 p: 0.84949
Observed: 552.0 sevens - 2847.0 non sevens RSR 6.1576
Expected: 566.5 sevens - 2832.5 non sevens RSR 6.0000
X**2: 0.45 p: 0.50454
Seven outs 415 (75.18%) - Seven winners 137 (24.82%)
Pairs 596 17.53% - 16.67% = 0.87% (+29.50 rolls)
Hards 385 11.33% - 11.11% = 0.22% (+7.33 rolls)
HiLos 211 6.21% - 5.56% = 0.65% (+22.17 rolls)
H2 91/22 ( 2.68% - 2.78% = -3.42)
H4 92/27 ( 2.71% - 2.78% = -2.42)
H6 97/29 ( 2.85% - 2.78% = +2.58)
H8 95/25 ( 2.79% - 2.78% = +0.58)
H10 101/29 ( 2.97% - 2.78% = +6.58)
H12 120/27 ( 3.53% - 2.78% = +25.58)
EZ: 2803 (82.47% - 83.33% = -29.50)
X**2: 7.96 p: 0.24118
It doesn't match the findings from the web page. I get more 5, 9, and 10, an average number of fours, and fewer 8's by a long ways and slightly fewer sixes. For me, though, the sixes and eights are missing on my throw.
This is another area where I get annoyed that people think that they can tell someone what set to use and if they don't get what they expect, they must be throwing it wrong. LOL.
I think all throws are unique. Any similarities are not to be depended on from one person to the next, and sometimes even the same person one year to the next.
You have to keep things updated, and that's even assuming that any of this "true DI" as you describe it is anything besides a bunch of bull crap!
And still my RSR is much lower with this set. I'm not sure of the theory of how it targets "inside" numbers .. but at best, I think that would be throw specific. If I was trying to hit 5, 6, 8, 9 instead of 5, 9, 10 I would be sadly disappointed in the long run with this advice from Heavy on my throw.
Quote: MrVWhy set the dice when you admit you have no controlled throw?
It seems to me that you are setting yourself up for disappointment for not achieving what you expected, instead of being glad for catching a bit of unexpected luck.
there was a time when I did, and as I always say: it doesnt hurt to try.
In my case I lost the ability to have a controlled throw after my kidney transplant and the anti rejection drugs I take cause a slight tremor in my hands and fingers.
there was a time when I did have what I would call limited ability to control dice. Never enough that I could consider myself proficient at it. And again, it never hurts to try. I urge everyone to try. Even Ahigh, if he ever can figure out that the cross sixes set is not any variation of the flying wedge or 3V set.
Quote: AlanMendelsonEven Ahigh, if he ever can figure out that the cross sixes set is not any variation of the flying wedge or 3V set.
If people didn't come up with half a dozen ambiguous names for sets instead of just using four numbers like I use, these communication problems wouldn't happen.
I call your set the 6564 set and I can name all 576 sets uniquely with four numbers without an ounce of ambiguity. I'm sorry that nobody else has "figured it out" and has these multiple paragraphs of discussions and photos to try to describe sets when I do it with four characters. I'm so "behind" all these experts, I guess with their fancy names.
Quote: thecesspitNo no no. Using 18 numbers doesn't give a RSR at all. Nothing at all. There's 'no apperance' of a good RSR, because anyone taking 1 seven in 18 numbers to proclaim a RSR of 18 is blithering idiot.
Even if I knew the rough bias on those dice, 18 numbers wouldn't be a test of the 'best way' any more than 18 cards is a good test of a blackjack counting method. Just as heavy came in claiming he would have won with his method on that roll. So what? Meaningless drivel. Matters so little its pointless talking about. Any short string of results can be seen as shit or shinola against a particular method. Proves nothing about the method (whether it's DI, martingale, bias dice or card counting).
Will you STOP ??
I never said that an SRR can be determined with 18 rolls. I simply said that if someone has an outstanding SRR and they had these particular 18 numbers come up but they BET ON THE INSIDE that they would lose money. Okay? Do you have it now? Geez.
Again here is what I wrote originally:
Here, for example, is a great SRR:
1. Come out point 6.
2. 3
3. 2
4. 2
5. 11
6. 11
7. 12
8. 8
9. 12
10. 11
11. 5
12. 4
13. 5
14. 10
15. 11
16. 4
17. 5
18. 7 out. The point of six was never made.
How would you compute the SRR of the example above and suppose the shooter had his money on the 6 with full odds, and the 8 and the 5 and 9? Let me do the math for you at a $10 table with 3-4-5 odds:
Point of six with 5x odds: $60
$10 on the 5 and 9 = $20
$12 on the 8 = $12
Total outlay $92
After the 18 rolls above:
Amount won: $56
Net loss: $36
I guess while there is nothing RIGHT about dice setting, at the same time there is nothing WRONG with it, either.
Either way, you get a random result.
That works.
Quote: AhighIf people didn't come up with half a dozen ambiguous names for sets instead of just using four numbers like I use, these communication problems wouldn't happen.
Ahigh, to be honest I never heard of your title the "6564 set" and I've been at this a lot longer than you have. I just did a google search for "6564 set" and I get chairs and lego.
Quote: MrVOK, fair enough.
I guess while there is nothing RIGHT about dice setting, at the same time there is nothing WRONG with it, either.
Exactly right. If craps is a random game, then it doesn't hurt to try.
And as I said many times, I have made more money and have seen longer rolls from random shooters than from "dice influencers" or "dice controllers."
Quote: AlanMendelsonAhigh, to be honest I never heard of your title the "6564 set" and I've been at this a lot longer than you have. I just did a google search for "6564 set" and I get chairs and lego.
That's not all you haven't heard about because you don't know what I'm doing. I have a system of describing sets that is very simple: LEFT-TOP, LEFT-THUMB, RIGHT-TOP, RIGHT-THUMB.
The guys on axis pro website also point out how nobody uses my method and therefore it is useless (to them).
It works perfectly for me and the three other people who have taken the time to understand how it works.
Lord knows I don't expect you to take the time to learn something new. What do they say about old dogs?
Quote: AlanMendelsonExactly right. If craps is a random game, then it doesn't hurt to try.
And as I said many times, I have made more money and have seen longer rolls from random shooters than from "dice influencers" or "dice controllers."
Let me correct you: it doesn't hurt to try if (and only if) the game is completely random. In the other cases, half the time it hurts and the other half it helps. And probably in neither case do you know which it's doing because you're just hoping. So if you're just trying without doing your due diligence, you might as well just turn your bets off when the stick man shows up or any other superstition. It has an equal chance of helping you as setting the dice without knowing a damn thing about your throw.
In fact, any system that has you not betting is a superior system to setting and throwing consistently without doing anything else as part of your diligence in pursuit of a player edge.
I set and threw consistently for more than a year before I started feeling like I was hurting my chances of winning (which as it turns out I think I was) from having too many boxcars with my 6565 set. I am very heavy off the top of my set with my throw in theory.
Boxcars were killing me!! Now what used to be boxcars are the hardway of my point on even numbers. Works a lot better.
Quote: AhighLet me correct you: it doesn't hurt to try if (and only if) the game is completely random.
You don't mean to suggest... again... that the games are not fair??
Quote: AhighI set and threw consistently for more than a year before I started feeling like I was hurting my chances of winning (which as it turns out I think I was) from having too many boxcars with my 6565 set. I am very heavy off the top of my set with my throw in theory.
Boxcars were killing me!! Now what used to be boxcars are the hardway of my point on even numbers. Works a lot better.
The cross sixes set (what you call the 6565 set, but I think you mean 6564 since 6565 has the sixes in line and not crossed) indeed favors the outside numbers. My "signature" numbers are outside numbers.... which are far away from the 7.
Twice in Vegas (once at Caesars, once at Rio) I had five of six numbers made for the Fire Bet. In BOTH cases the missing number was an inside. At the Rio I never hit the 6 as my point. At Caesars I never hit the 8 as my point.
In the photo above from last year, I took this after the fifth fire point was made. I went on to roll another six, but did not repeat the six. Sixes and 8s are hard to hit with the cross sixes set.
In both cases -- at Rio and Caesars -- I considered switching to 3-V set but I was afraid to do it, since I don't have much luck with it. I thought if I kept to the cross sixes I would eventually hit it, hoping that the cross sixes would deter the 7 as long as possible.
Quote: AhighBoxcars were killing me!!
And one more thing: after the come out roll, horn numbers including the 12 can't kill you. They are neutral for place bettors.
Quote: AhighThat's not all you haven't heard about because you don't know what I'm doing. I have a system of describing sets that is very simple: LEFT-TOP, LEFT-THUMB, RIGHT-TOP, RIGHT-THUMB.
The guys on axis pro website also point out how nobody uses my method and therefore it is useless (to them).
It works perfectly for me and the three other people who have taken the time to understand how it works.
Lord knows I don't expect you to take the time to learn something new. What do they say about old dogs?
Why do you try to reinvent the wheel? I wish you and the "three other people" good luck using it.
Quote: MrVWhy set the dice when you admit you have no controlled throw?
It seems to me that you are setting yourself up for disappointment for not achieving what you expected, instead of being glad for catching a bit of unexpected luck.
Post of the YEAR!!!
Last trip I decided to set the dice for a few throws, and started with my usual flying V (3132 in AHigh vernacular).
Almost immediate 7 out.
So the next time, I switched to the crossed sixes and had a good roll, followed by a REALLY good roll. I like this set.
The only other thing I ever do now if I am not setting , is just make sure that a 7 is not facing me on my thumbs. So I will quickly rotate one die 1/4 turn if the dice facing my thumbs total total 7
Quote: AlanMendelsonWhy do you try to reinvent the wheel? I wish you and the "three other people" good luck using it.
What are you questions so inept?
First I am not reinventing the wheel. I came up with this to allow my rolls to make a note of the set that I used. This is the most terse and accurate format I could come up with. If someone else had done this work already and I was in fact reinventing the wheel, there would already be a 4-number representation of all 576 sets. So I invented (not reinvented) the wheel. And everyone else is still using sawed off logs with special names instead of wheels as far as I am concerned. They even use different names and they argue about what a set is or the details of it and generally never get anywhere.
About my set I was using as shown on my website, it has nothing to do with the "cross sixes" set that you used. But I can tell you that it would have had just as many boxcars and aces. Looking at it, I was using the 6262 set. This is all clearly talked about in other threads, along with my format for representing rolls and what set is being used.
I have never used a cross six nor have I ever heard of it. Just because some other dudes who sell classes talk about it doesn't make it a good set, and the description for what it is supposed to do didn't fit what it would do on my 3000+ throws.
The fact that three of four people use my techniques is not a reflection on how ineffective those techniques are, it's a reflection on how most people couldn't care less because it's too damn hard to do everything you can possibly do in attempt to get an edge and way easier to just use faith and superstition making a half-hearted effort, failing, and then pretending you are doing better or that maybe you will do better later.
Quote: AlanMendelsonPick your answer, Ahigh:
1. NO
2. WRONG
3. LIE
Now that was funny!!!
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Now that was funny!!!
I find all of Alan's posts funny. And a little bit annoying. Your posts I find to be a bit more personal and completely devoid of any knowledge. At least Alan can post a photo of a craps layout and talk about the details of sets.
Quote: AhighI find all of Alan's posts funny. And a little bit annoying. Your posts I find to be a bit more personal and completely devoid of any knowledge. At least Alan can post a photo of a craps layout and talk about the details of sets.
All you do is talk... and talk... and talk. All the time and money and no proof, no revelations, not even an indication of it being worth a damn. You bore me now oh masterful Las Vegas Sasquatch chaser.
ZCore13
Quote: AlanMendelsonBe careful Zcore13... Ahigh might think you're after his wife.
Or that I'm trying to solicit money from him.
ZCore13
Quote: AlanMendelson
In both cases -- at Rio and Caesars -- I considered switching to 3-V set but I was afraid to do it, since I don't have much luck with it. I thought if I kept to the cross sixes I would eventually hit it, hoping that the cross sixes would deter the 7 as long as possible..
As far as trying to avoid the 7, the X6 and 2 or 3 V sets will be exactly the same, assuming balanced dice. The positioning of the numbers that add up to 7 will be in the same position no matter which of these 3 sets is used. Assuming that one is able to influence the dice, the only thing that will change by changing between these sets are the signature numbers. As ahigh said, there are several different variations of the 3V set (as well as the 2V and X6). Each (again assuming influence), would lead to different signature numbers.
Quote: Zcore13All you do is talk... and talk... and talk. All the time and money and no proof, no revelations, not even an indication of it being worth a damn. You bore me now oh masterful Las Vegas Sasquatch chaser.
I wish I bored you. Your posts are annoying. Empty and annoying, and in general, they all fall under the category of personal attack in the guise of your being concerned. Why not admit you couldn't give a rats ass about me? At least that would be honest!
Quote: JB85As far as trying to avoid the 7, the X6 and 2 or 3 V sets will be exactly the same, assuming balanced dice. The positioning of the numbers that add up to 7 will be in the same position no matter which of these 3 sets is used. Assuming that one is able to influence the dice, the only thing that will change by changing between these sets are the signature numbers. As ahigh said, there are several different variations of the 3V set (as well as the 2V and X6). Each (again assuming influence), would lead to different signature numbers.
For the 3v and cross six sets, I think there are two possible RSR ratios for a given toss for the eight different sets.
And for the record, it's been a pleasure having JB85, KCLady, and rman do enough to record rolls and assist me with my software. So far, for those who went through the effort to understand it, nobody accused me of reinventing the wheel or wasting my time, and they all appreciate what I did.
Quote: AlanMendelsonWill you STOP ??
Can't make me. But, I'm finished with this line right now/
Quote:I never said that an SRR can be determined with 18 rolls. I simply said that if someone has an outstanding SRR and they had these particular 18 numbers come up but they BET ON THE INSIDE that they would lose money. Okay? Do you have it now? Geez.
I get what your point is. I also think your point is completely well, pointless. I don't think you get MY point at all. You just want to cherry pick some data and say 'oh RSR is useless'. Well, take any 18 random events and assigning meaning is pointless with or without bias. It's shows almost nothing whatsoever.
Again here is what I wrote originally:
Quote:Here, for example, is a great SRR:
It's just some random string of numbers. Reading ANY meaning out of it is a fruitless exercise. Pointless, see. Meaningless. Proves and shows and explains nothing useful.
Quote: JB85As far as trying to avoid the 7, the X6 and 2 or 3 V sets will be exactly the same, assuming balanced dice.
As I said, I considered switching to the 3V but the cross-sixes was working. So many times Ive been with a DI who switched a set to hit a particular number only to 7-out that I just decided to leave well enough alone. As I said, I thought I would eventually hit it.
As you could see from the photo there were very few repeat numbers. I was pretty much setting points and hitting them with full odds. I figured if I kept setting points and hitting them it would be a nice way to keep playing until the inside "big number" would come along.
By the way, I always have a $5 horn high ace deuce on the come out at a $25 table because I tend to throw horns... as I should with this set. And out of habit I have a $5 horn high yo on the first roll after the point is established. The horn numbers hit enough for me to keep betting what are oftened called "crazy crapper" bets.
Quote: AlanMendelsonBy the way, I always have a $5 horn high ace deuce on the come out at a $25 table because I tend to throw horns... as I should with this set. And out of habit I have a $5 horn high yo on the first roll after the point is established. The horn numbers hit enough for me to keep betting what are oftened called "crazy crapper" bets.
Do tell! Why not bet a four dollar crap check and a dollar yo? I thought Caesar's paid 31-for-1 and 16-for-1. If it's 30-for-1 and 15-for-1 forgive me for asking, because that bet is equally smart in that case.
Every time I see someone bet the horn high ace-deuce it's like seeing someone bet a big 6 or a big 8 for some multiple of $6 or an "any seven" for more than $3 without doing a three-way-red. I see it all the time though.
Quote: AhighThat's not all you haven't heard about because you don't know what I'm doing. I have a system of describing sets that is very simple: LEFT-TOP, LEFT-THUMB, RIGHT-TOP, RIGHT-THUMB.
The guys on axis pro website also point out how nobody uses my method and therefore it is useless (to them).
It works perfectly for me and the three other people who have taken the time to understand how it works.
Lord knows I don't expect you to take the time to learn something new. What do they say about old dogs?
It is sometimes worthwhile for "young-pups" to take into account the learnings of "old-dogs". For example I "also" devised a dice-set nomenclature system that is interestingly similar to what you describe... about 10 years ago.
Here is an excerpt, but you can see the full description here:
Radial Set Notation: A written notation for describing a dice set configuration based on the dice Radial faces. The notation is in the form of “Left Die: Top/Front – Right Die: Top/Front” (e.g. 3/2-3/6 for the classic 3V formation). This notation is used to clearly denote the one and only way the dice can be set to make the described permutation. Compare to the Axial Set Notation, or the Set Family description (3V, 3V, X6, etc.), which leaves the 16 possible axial set permutations open to interpretation.
Axial Set Notation: A written notation for describing a dice set configuration based on the dice Axial faces. The notation is in the form of “Left Die: left side-right side / Right Die: left side-right side”. For example: “1-6 / 1-6” for the All-Sevens (or “Hardways”) set. Sometimes an abbreviated notion is used, for example, “16-16” for the All-Sevens (or “Hardways”) set. This notation is useful for quickly denoting the six base dice sets. The notation does not support proper identification of a specific permutation of any of the six base dice sets.
Of course I was just trying to provide a codification of the dice-set, I didn't try to take credit for the notation since similar notation concepts had been around for some time (see: Yuri Kononenko 1998, Sharpshooter 2002).
Quote: AlanMendelson...
Once more, look at the picture on this page:
The cross six set is the second photo from the top. ...
This also makes me sad to see Irishsetters original work being reused without any credit. I know he sold the rights to the website and most of the content, but again "old-dogs" history.
You can see the original version at:
Quote: MaddogIt is sometimes worthwhile for "young-pups" to take into account the learnings of "old-dogs". For example I "also" devised a dice-set nomenclature system that is interestingly similar to what you describe... about 10 years ago.
I didn't mean to take credit or to suggest that nobody else had ever thought of this. But I did mean to suggest that most people over on the axis website more commonly come up with excuses for why they don't care about the details; the description of sets is just one area. But folks are still writing down "7" instead of "43". Forget about "43" versus "34" on the outcome. Why should the details of the full domain of possible sets be important.
I made the point over there, and I'll make it here: if you want to be taken seriously, the details should matter a little more, and congrats to you for feeling it's important enough to fully describe the set.
Quote: AhighI made the point over there, and I'll make it here: if you want to be taken seriously, the details should matter a little more, and congrats to you for feeling it's important enough to fully describe the set.
This sounds like a tautology, but the details should only matter if you can demonstrate that the details matter. From what I've seen you post, I don't believe you have either sufficient throw consistency or sufficient samples to conclude, as you did previously, that a "every quarter turn on each die makes a huge difference." In that same post, you mentioned a 6.377 RSR, which should be enough to give you >25% edge over the house on five different bets if all you're doing is keeping the dice on axis. You would notice a 25% edge in a very short period of time if it were actually present, and so would the casino, so it's only sensible to conclude that (a) you're not making the right bets when you play, (b) your at-home throws don't translate to a casino, or (c) your sample size is too small and hasn't converged on the asymptote yet.
I've mentioned this before, but your methodology appears to involve making many throws (presumably as consistently as you can) and then doing a post-hoc analysis of the results, what those results would have been had you re-oriented the dice each time, and then concluding which orientation is "best" for your throw. I think that's backwards, and it circularly assumes causality when that's what you're trying to prove. Until you understand whether there is any causal relationship between how you're throwing the dice and the distribution of final outcomes, you can't conclude anything from your analyses.
I'm not suggesting that on-axis rolling is the only plausible method of dice influence, but the physical model behind it is pretty obvious: if you can eliminate two out of six faces on the dice, the probabilities of each total have changed. If you can, even on occasion, observe your own throws following that physical model, then you can reasonably conclude that your throws have altered the probabilities accordingly. I think that's what Alan was attempting to request. If you're not using the on-axis technique but some other, how does that work? Perhaps your dice bounce once, fly up toward the underside of the rail, bounce back down and roll sideways no more than 3 faces each. If so, perhaps you can compute the dice distribution under that model, and perhaps it yields non-uniform face probabilities. But without that starting point (or another based on some other model), it seems that all you're doing is assuming the conclusion that you are influencing the dice such that the probabilities are non-uniform, and then quantifying how non-uniform they are. I don't think that's warranted yet.
Quote: AhighWhat are you questions so inept?
First I am not reinventing the wheel. I came up with this to allow my rolls to make a note of the set that I used. This is the most terse and accurate format I could come up with. If someone else had done this work already and I was in fact reinventing the wheel, there would already be a 4-number representation of all 576 sets. So I invented (not reinvented) the wheel. And everyone else is still using sawed off logs with special names instead of wheels as far as I am concerned. They even use different names and they argue about what a set is or the details of it and generally never get anywhere.
About my set I was using as shown on my website, it has nothing to do with the "cross sixes" set that you used. But I can tell you that it would have had just as many boxcars and aces. Looking at it, I was using the 5252 set. This is all clearly talked about in other threads, along with my format for representing rolls and what set is being used...
I thought your 4 numbers represented the Left Top, Left Thumb, Right Top, and Right Thumb ?
Quote: AhighThat's not all you haven't heard about because you don't know what I'm doing. I have a system of describing sets that is very simple: LEFT-TOP, LEFT-THUMB, RIGHT-TOP, RIGHT-THUMB.
If so, how do you get a 5252 set ?
Quote: RaleighCrapsI thought your 4 numbers represented the Left Top, Left Thumb, Right Top, and Right Thumb ?
If so, how do you get a 5252 set ?
That's a typo, 6262 was what I meant to type. I corrected it in the post.
Quote: Ahigh
For my throw, every quarter turn on each die makes a huge difference.
Am I missing something? Here are your 8 different "Flying V" sets and reported RSR's:
3132: RSR 6.135
3135: RSR 6.158
3231: RSR 6.158
3236: RSR 6.135
3531: RSR 6.135
3536: RSR 6.158
3632: RSR 6.158
3635: RSR 6.135
It seems there is almost no difference with any turns of the dice.
ZCore13
I'm curious if you think there's any reason behind the Radial Set Notation never being used and instead the Axial Set Notation or "Named Sets" (Hardway, 3v, 2v, x6, s6, p6) are the most commonly used notations.
Alan, this comment is beneath you. Or so I thought. Delete it and then I will delete this reference !
Quote: Zcore13Am I missing something?
Most definitely.
Quote: Zcore13Here are your 8 different "Flying V" sets and reported RSR's:
3132: RSR 6.135
3135: RSR 6.158
3231: RSR 6.158
3236: RSR 6.135
3531: RSR 6.135
3536: RSR 6.158
3632: RSR 6.158
3635: RSR 6.135
It seems there is almost no difference with any turns of the dice.
There are two possibilities for RSR's for each group of four flying V sets. The other outcomes are not as simple and so each quarter turn on each die does affect many things when you're looking beyond just seven versus non-seven.
Quote: Buzzard" Be careful Zcore13... Ahigh might think you're after his wife. "
Alan, this comment is beneath you. Or so I thought. Delete it and then I will delete this reference !
Delete it? When Ahigh apologizes to me and to my wife for his comment then I will delete it.
