Myths About Controlled Shooters, Shooting and the Captain

Face: you hit the nail on the head, and absolutely I fit my own description of worthless negative comments.

I already run my own website, and there are generally no opposing opinions on that website. I like posting on this forum and I post here more often than my own forum.

Anyway, great comments those last couple.

well it needs to be big enough to measure. to short and luck will be a major factor.

1000 rolls in a controlled enviornment could be attained very easily and could be done way faster than you think. you could have 50 dice in a bucket and just let people throw to the end of a table. 1 person pick them up and 1 person record result.

could throw 1 throw every 5 seconds at most. thats 720/hr...

you thinking im talking about sitting in a casino with pen and paper? LOL im the noob...

cut in half to 500 throws. should yeild same result with enough people doing the test. The point is to get a fair field against a controller like frank.

Quote: Ahigh

You can dig up anything you want, but the 1.00% edge on a $50 bet that a shooter can roll a 4 or a 10 before a seven will still remain as an absolutely positively viable way to get a 1.00% edge in the game of craps for a 50/50 chance to win.

That argument is misleading. It wrongly implies that somehow your expected loss is different if you make one $25 buy 4 and one $25 buy 10 bet at the same time than if you make the same two bets at different times. Of course that's impossible. The expected loss from making two $25 buy 4 or 10 bets (with $1 vig on win) is $0.666..., exactly double that of one buy bet ($0.333...).

We've been over this before -- you're incorrectly inflating the denominator by counting unresolved wagers and that artificially depresses the percentage. Here's a scenario to illustrate why that doesn't make sense:

a) You're at a table making $25 buy 4 bets. Your $1 vig on wins is an edge of 1.333...% of your action.
b) Your friend is next to you at the table making $25 buy 10 bets. His $1 vig on wins is an edge of 1.333...% of his action.
c) Your friend gets a phone call and tells you he has to leave for a few minutes but he wants you to keep playing his bankroll. You agree. Nothing has changed: your action still has a 1.333...% edge and your friend's action still has a 1.333...% edge.
d) You get a phone call 15 minutes later from your friend: he says "I met this girl at the bar and I can't come back. How much is in my rail?" You answer "$275, and you have a $25 10 on the layout. Look, don't worry. I'll just give you $300 the next time I see you." He agrees. You look forward to hearing his story later, but that's beside the point, which is that
e) Nothing about the bets has changed other than who owns them. The edge on his former buy 10, which is now yours, is still 1.333...%, as is the edge on your buy 4 bet. Certainly nothing about the expected loss has changed: the house expects to win $0.333... on each $25 buy 4 or 10 bet regardless of who made it.
f) Therefore, it's misleading to suggest that one person making two bets would have a different overall edge than two different people each making one of the same two bets.

Ahigh am i not seeing something here? are you a dice controller?

wtf is going on here...?

please say stuff that means something and matters

It might as well be an ad for Viagra - means nothing
And "here" isn't capitalized, you start off with not much credibility at all in my book. - really bro? means nothing
Just declaring something true might work on some as a sales pitch. But that's about all it is without any true and real evidence. - we are trying to make evidence

If I went into this much detail picking apart every person who wanted to say that they knew better than I about this stuff, I would be doing this forever. - you want a medal because you know that a dice has 6 numbers possible on each...oh shit i mean a "di" this is very basic simple fuckin math man. what is there to understand? I understand everything there is to know. I have throw 1000s and 1000s of rolls at the craps tables. what makes you an expert? please tell me you do not think you are a sharpshooter like frank does.

But do you admit that I know more about this stuff than you do? Or do you believe that you are helping out a fellow like me somehow? - i was never aiming toward you, i thought this was aimed at frank and dice controlling in general which is "im my opinion" bull shit. And until proven otherwise you cant change my mind.

Truly I see absolutely nothing of additive value to the discussion about the theory and possibility from your post. - its all about setting words/BS/claims into action lets just prove it once and for all. My test seems legit. If you want to lower the throws that is fine. I assure you the more throws the more accurate it will be.

Now you please tell me something i dont know...

Alan



I am not really sure where to start, as far as ahigh is concerned i have never seen him shoot, so i cant comment, if however his
dice hit the table go different directions, or hit the table and one stops 4 inches from the wall and the other 2 foot that is not
control or influence of anything.

I think Frank made it clear , control is different than influence, but for the purposes of commerce they call it dice control.

If watch a good dice sitter you wont see a lack of control over the dice when the hit the table, most often they hit and stay within a
pie plate range, that is a decent shot. When they hit and both come back off the wall about the same distance that is a good shot
because both acted about the same.

NOw you say a person should not take it personal if you disagree with them, i could not agree more......however there are two sides to
that coin.... If i come on here and indicate that i have been working with dice setting for a number of years and have done well, i would
expert a person to say great, that is good for you, i have never been able to make that work. I am not trying to sell you anyone, i could
care less what you think about dice sitting, but i think a person could respond without calling me a liar, or demanding i prove something.

I went fishing yesterday... only caught a few.... another guy i spoke with said they were there the day before and did well. Now i am
a good fisherman, i did not get all huffy and call him a liar and demand him to show me the fish... if he did or if he did not it does
not matter to me....

Now i have a question for you,,,, why would people like me, spend the money i have spent, practice the amount of time i have, keep
the records i have, if it did not work for me.... Why would i get a dice team together and play together, bet the money i have
worked all my life for if i found there was no advantage. I have played this darn game now for 40 years..... i went from playing the
hoping not to lose to much, to really controlling the outcome much more than i used to... to actually putting money in my safe to play
with and having it grow to where i can play the game without fretting over what i bet.

In truth you have never seen my throw, you have never seen the throw of my partners, you have not seen Stickman, or dice pilot
or billy the kid or Doc or Godess, or Rafter... yet you judge them...

I think if you see people a good number of times and then if you still feel they are not good, that is one thing, but to judge
them and what they have worked hard to do without evening seeing them work.. see i think that is rude.

I wish everyone at the table the best luck, whether they believe in what i do or they dont, i would like to others do the same.

dicesitter.

Quote: dicesitter

Alan



I am not really sure where to start, as far as ahigh is concerned i have never seen him shoot, so i cant comment, if however his
dice hit the table go different directions, or hit the table and one stops 4 inches from the wall and the other 2 foot that is not
control or influence of anything.

I think Frank made it clear , control is different than influence, but for the purposes of commerce they call it dice control.

If watch a good dice sitter you wont see a lack of control over the dice when the hit the table, most often they hit and stay within a
pie plate range, that is a decent shot. When they hit and both come back off the wall about the same distance that is a good shot
because both acted about the same.

NOw you say a person should not take it personal if you disagree with them, i could not agree more......however there are two sides to
that coin.... If i come on here and indicate that i have been working with dice setting for a number of years and have done well, i would
expert a person to say great, that is good for you, i have never been able to make that work. I am not trying to sell you anyone, i could
care less what you think about dice sitting, but i think a person could respond without calling me a liar, or demanding i prove something.

I went fishing yesterday... only caught a few.... another guy i spoke with said they were there the day before and did well. Now i am
a good fisherman, i did not get all huffy and call him a liar and demand him to show me the fish... if he did or if he did not it does
not matter to me....

Now i have a question for you,,,, why would people like me, spend the money i have spent, practice the amount of time i have, keep
the records i have, if it did not work for me.... Why would i get a dice team together and play together, bet the money i have
worked all my life for if i found there was no advantage. I have played this darn game now for 40 years..... i went from playing the
hoping not to lose to much, to really controlling the outcome much more than i used to... to actually putting money in my safe to play
with and having it grow to where i can play the game without fretting over what i bet.

In truth you have never seen my throw, you have never seen the throw of my partners, you have not seen Stickman, or dice pilot
or billy the kid or Doc or Godess, or Rafter... yet you judge them...

I think if you see people a good number of times and then if you still feel they are not good, that is one thing, but to judge
them and what they have worked hard to do without evening seeing them work.. see i think that is rude.

I wish everyone at the table the best luck, whether they believe in what i do or they dont, i would like to others do the same.

dicesitter.

ok is this another person claiming to win? Here is what i think about this. I would like to see records, i would love to see a test like what i have already stated.

But here is what i just cant get over. I doesnt matter what lands on one di. if the other di lands opposite of whats showing on di 1 then you have a 7.

You are essentially telling us all that you can avoid 16.667% of one di more that 1 in 6 times. The math just wont allow this. How how can this happen when the dice fly through the air spin several times, bounce, then bounce off the back wall, most likely still toppling before coming to a rest?

So unless your are really controlling the dice or influencing like you state then I can not believe you, unless a test is conducted.

actions speaks waaaaaaay louder than words my friend.


last thing just to simplify what i have already written above. If i asked you to avoid the 6 on one di and for you to just roll that one di could you do it? im guessing not a chance in hell.

With 2 dice this is what you are doing to avoid a 7 its entirely the exact same thing


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE8_Y7QkS_Q

just scroll to like 18seconds

you are telling me this is not random, it looks like complete chaos
first di lands 2, now the 2nd di has to hit the 5 and its over... trust me it had just of good of chance hitting the 5 as it did the 2

Quote: nezbit

So unless your are really controlling the dice or influencing like you state then I can not believe you, unless a test is conducted.

A test for less 7s is not what FrankS, GTC and even Smart Craps DP says is the best test to prove dice control.

Ahigh may say it is but he is in a different DI camp than FrankS and the other GTC DI experts.

"We've seen in the "SRR" section that the seven to rolls ratio,
while somewhat intuitive and useful for calculating player edge,
is not the best possible measure of dice setting skill.

This results from the fact that sevens can be both 'good' and 'bad',
meaning that they occur when we both achieve and fail z-axis control.

This weakens the statistical utility of SRR for determining player dice setting skill."

http://www.goldentouchcraps.com/CrappyMath/protest.shtml

all about z-axis control.
The Captain had it.
FrankS is one of the greatest DIs ever. It is his claim.

The Wizard
"Stanford Wong writes in 'Wong on Dice' that most careful shooters he observed
were not keeping both dice on axis more than the random expectations, but were achieving influence through correlation."
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/

If you do not play with an edge at Craps or bet on those that have an edge,
"Random rollers / bettors on random rollers are losers.

There is no polite way to say this."
Frank Scoblete
http://www.crapsforum.com/viewthread/2068/P60/#28324

Quote: MathExtremist

That argument is misleading. It wrongly implies that somehow your expected loss is different if you make one $25 buy 4 and one $25 buy 10 bet at the same time than if you make the same two bets at different times. Of course that's impossible. The expected loss from making two $25 buy 4 or 10 bets (with $1 vig on win) is $0.666..., exactly double that of one buy bet ($0.333...).

We've been over this before -- you're incorrectly inflating the denominator by counting unresolved wagers and that artificially depresses the percentage. Here's a scenario to illustrate why that doesn't make sense:

a) You're at a table making $25 buy 4 bets. Your $1 vig on wins is an edge of 1.333...% of your action.
b) Your friend is next to you at the table making $25 buy 10 bets. His $1 vig on wins is an edge of 1.333...% of his action.
c) Your friend gets a phone call and tells you he has to leave for a few minutes but he wants you to keep playing his bankroll. You agree. Nothing has changed: your action still has a 1.333...% edge and your friend's action still has a 1.333...% edge.
d) You get a phone call 15 minutes later from your friend: he says "I met this girl at the bar and I can't come back. How much is in my rail?" You answer "$275, and you have a $25 10 on the layout. Look, don't worry. I'll just give you $300 the next time I see you." He agrees. You look forward to hearing his story later, but that's beside the point, which is that
e) Nothing about the bets has changed other than who owns them. The edge on his former buy 10, which is now yours, is still 1.333...%, as is the edge on your buy 4 bet. Certainly nothing about the expected loss has changed: the house expects to win $0.333... on each $25 buy 4 or 10 bet regardless of who made it.
f) Therefore, it's misleading to suggest that one person making two bets would have a different overall edge than two different people each making one of the same two bets.

Great post ME!
This is the kind of value, information, and good humor I come here for.
It seems the depth and scope of this game is immense.

Quote: Face

Like this? ... Here we have a negative comment and a cry for attention

Face, you have spotted the post that first got me going. Yes, I mean it took that long for Ahigh to get under my skin. Up till then I was OK.

I think I can say I usually don't make negative comments. That post got to me. I didn't reply immediately to it, trying to keep my non-troll reputation intact, but as you may have noted I finally had to let some steam off.

Quote: MathExtremist

That argument is misleading.

I remember that original discussion. It is interesting to me that a few [clearly not all] of our math whizzes struggled with a reply.

It basically boils down to some advice Goatcabin once gave: [paraphrasing] when pondering the effect of bet combinations, just remember that the EV of each bet in negative expectation, separately, is going to be undefeatable, combinations notwithstanding.

Quote: dicesitter

as far as ahigh is concerned i have never seen him shoot, so i cant comment, if however his
dice hit the table go different directions, or hit the table and one stops 4 inches from the wall and the other 2 foot that is not
control or influence of anything.

dicesitter, I think you should take a look at Ahigh's videos. He claims (or has claimed... he changes his story I really don't know anymore) that these types of throws show "control" or "influence" or is proof that he is the world's greatest shooter... or some combination of those.

When I pointed out, from the beginning, that these types of random throws were not indicative of any kind of influence, I went to the top of Ahigh's s--- list.

Quote: Ahigh

If I bet $50 that I can roll a 4 or a 10 before a 7, I will get paid $49 half the time with vig on the win anywhere here in Vegas that does the bet that way (Vig on the win for $1). The edge on that bet ($50 bet that I can roll a 4 or a 10 before a seven) is 1.00%. When I hit a four or a ten, I take my 99 and I go. Everybody else doesn't understand how the bet works, not my problem!

Excuse me, Ahigh, but what about your original passline bet? Obviously the example you give refers to a place bet (you are buying the 4 and 10 in your example). You still have to account for the fate of your passline bet UNLESS you are buying the 4 and 10 and shooting from the don't in which case you pass the dice and pick up your don't pass bet.

Quote: Ahigh

I live here in Vegas, and I actually know what I'm talking about!

I forgot, there's something in the water that makes residents of Vegas more knowledgeable about craps. In the meantime were you shooting from the don't? If not you don't really have a true $99 return as the shooter.

Quote: dicesitter

In truth you have never seen my throw, you have never seen the throw of my partners, you have not seen Stickman, or dice pilot
or billy the kid or Doc or Godess, or Rafter... yet you judge them...

dicesitter, I have never seen your throw. And if you are the true dice influencer who we have been waiting for, then please let me know when and where you will be shooting in Vegas so I can be at your table.

You see, I have either played with or watched the videos or read the reports of all of the big name DIs... and I am yet to read or hear about anyone's ability to CONSISTENTLY have better than average rolls.

Among the "greats" that I have either played with or seen reports about their sessions, they all seem to have their share of great rolls (hands) and point-sevens or a couple of numbers and then a seven.

If someone is going to claim to be a true dice influencer or a true dice controller, they had better be great all the time. Anything less is random. And sorry, that's what I beleive. And I justify it this way:

ANY major league pitcher can throw a hundred fast balls in a row into the strike zone. They don't do that in a game, of course, because they need to vary where in the strike zone they throw, and they don't always throw a fast ball and will opt for a curve or slider or screwball or an intentional "ball" for strategy purposes.

Quote: nezbit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE8_Y7QkS_Q

just scroll to like 18seconds

you are telling me this is not random, it looks like complete chaos
first di lands 2, now the 2nd di has to hit the 5 and its over... trust me it had just of good of chance hitting the 5 as it did the 2

Unfortunately this video is an example of what many people claim is dice control or dice influencing. It is not. Sure there was control in the toss and until the dice hit the table -- and then all control and all signs of influence were LOST. The throw was too hard, the bounce was too big, the dice hit the table and became random.

Our friend Ahigh has similar videos which he claims illustrate "control" or "influence" and some support him because the end result. The end result is not how you measure dice control or dice influencing. How the dice are thrown, act and react on the table is how you measure dice control along with the result.

EDITED TO ADD: Unfortunately the author of the video must have felt too much heat and the video has been made private. There were also several comments made on the author's YouTube page from others who said the video did not show controlled dice as soon as the dice hit the table.

But our friend Ahigh has plenty of videos on YouTube that he says show control or influence, like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni-uMB17x4I

But you be the judge. Are the dice controlled? Is there influence? Well, he does influence the dice enough to keep them on the table.

Quote:

It basically boils down to some advice Goatcabin once gave: [paraphrasing] when pondering the effect of bet combinations, just remember that the EV of each bet in negative expectation, separately, is going to be undefeatable, combinations notwithstanding.

Look, and I will say it again, what I am talking about it one bet with a 50/50 chance to win and a 1.00% edge.

As soon as you talk about two bets, you are simply not understanding what I know to be true.

It is a microcosm of the discussions on this forum that are clearly very dogmatic more than factual.

MathExtremist would also have to agree that once you divorce yourself from the felt and the things that are taught about individual bets that are on the felt, you can come up with bets that aren't on the felt and those bets do exist in reality however you manage to get those bets whether you get them with a friend or whatever you can get a bet by doing things.

Those who believe that a single bet that I can roll a four or a ten before a seven is not a single bet will never ever ever ever ever understand the truth that I speak.

And misleading or not, those people will never ever understand what I understand.

That doesn't make me wrong.

That makes them less intelligent.

And that would include Math Extremist if he goes on to say "Ahigh is wrong that he can get a 1.00% edge to bet that he can roll a four or a ten before a seven when he goes to the casino to play craps."

Math Extremist, however, knows that I am right and that I can do that.

The Wizard came up with a bet that didn't exist on the felt, and nobody told the Wizard that he was wrong because his bet didn't exist on the felt.

But everybody wants to tell me that I'm wrong because of what the felt says or because they can't understand that what I am talking about is one bet that doesn't exist on the felt.

So let me recap:

#1) I am not wrong on this issue
#2) People who say that I am wrong simply don't understand
#3) This issue only came up because someone I blocked (EvenBob) concluded that I was somehow a bad guy because somebody he thought was a "Math Whiz" left the forum over this issue

I find humor in the idea that dice sitter has never "seen my shot" when I have hours and hours of my shots on you tube.

It just goes to show that many people just post and post and post lots of drivel without understanding much at all.

Quote: Ahigh

I find humor in the idea that dice sitter has never "seen my shot" when I have hours and hours of my shots on you tube.

dicesitter, please see one of Ahigh's examples of his "shot." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni-uMB17x4I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sGmYoiDVJI

Start watching this video at 1:11

At 1:12:36 I normalize all the data as if it were rolled with the exact same set and the 21 possible outcomes show clearly that the hard 8 comes up more often than any other outcome.

Transforming roll data to set 4242
Updating graphics



comeout: passline:5
Total rolls: 3198
1) 1082 16.92% - 16.67 = (+0.25)--------------------------------------------------- 1
2) 1058 16.54% - 16.67 = (-0.13)-------------------------------------------------- 2
3) 1055 16.49% - 16.67 = (-0.17)-------------------------------------------------- 3
4) 1083 16.93% - 16.67 = (+0.27)--------------------------------------------------- 4
5) 1067 16.68% - 16.67 = (+0.02)--------------------------------------------------- 5
6) 1051 16.43% - 16.67 = (-0.23)-------------------------------------------------- 6
X**2: 0.90 p: 0.97045
fw 1082,1058,1055,1083,1067,1051 1082,1058,1055,1083,1067,1051

11: ----------------------------------------- 2 (81)
21: ------------------------------------------------- 3 (196)
22: ---------------------------------------------- 4 (92)
31: --------------------------------------------- 4 (177)
32: -------------------------------------------- 5 (176)
41: ---------------------------------------------- 5 (182)
33: --------------------------------------------- 6 (89)
42: ------------------------------------------- 6 (170)
51: ---------------------------------------------- 6 (184)
61: ---------------------------------------------- 7 (181)
52: ---------------------------------------- 7 (157)
43: --------------------------------------- 7 (153)
53: ----------------------------------------------- 8 (188)
44: -------------------------------------------------------- 8 (112)
62: -------------------------------------------- 8 (175)
63: ---------------------------------------------- 9 (183)
54: -------------------------------------------- 9 (176)
55: ------------------------------------------------ 10 (96)
64: --------------------------------------------- 10 (178)
65: ------------------------------------------- 11 (170)
66: ----------------------------------------- 12 (82)
X**2: 17.56 p: 0.61630

2) 81 2.53% - 2.78% = -0.24% (-7.83)-------- 2
3) 196 6.13% - 5.56% = 0.57% (+18.33)------------------- 3
4) 269 8.41% - 8.33% = 0.08% (+2.50)-------------------------- 4
5) 358 11.19% - 11.11% = 0.08% (+2.67)---------------------------------- 5
6) 443 13.85% - 13.89% = -0.04% (-1.17)------------------------------------------ 6
7) 491 15.35% - 16.67% = -1.31% (-42.00)----------------------------------------------- 7
8) 475 14.85% - 13.89% = 0.96% (+30.83)--------------------------------------------- 8
9) 359 11.23% - 11.11% = 0.11% (+3.67)---------------------------------- 9
10) 274 8.57% - 8.33% = 0.23% (+7.50)--------------------------10
11) 170 5.32% - 5.56% = -0.24% (-7.67)----------------11
12) 82 2.56% - 2.78% = -0.21% (-6.83)--------12
X**2: 9.18 p: 0.51469

4:7 ratio is 54.786% - 50.000% = +4.786% (+9.57% diff)
5:7 ratio is 72.912% - 66.667% = +6.246% (+9.37% diff)
6:7 ratio is 90.224% - 83.333% = +6.891% (+8.27% diff)
8:7 ratio is 96.741% - 83.333% = +13.408% (+16.09% diff)
9:7 ratio is 73.116% - 66.667% = +6.449% (+9.67% diff)
10:7 ratio is 55.804% - 50.000% = +5.804% (+11.61% diff)
X**2: 5.73 p: 0.45401

Observed: 491.0 sevens - 2707.0 non sevens RSR 6.5132
Expected: 533.0 sevens - 2665.0 non sevens RSR 6.0000
X**2: 3.97 p: 0.04628

Seven outs 344 (70.06%) - Seven winners 147 (29.94%)
Pairs 552 17.26% - 16.67% = 0.59% (+19.00 rolls)
Hards 389 12.16% - 11.11% = 1.05% (+33.67 rolls)
HiLos 163 5.10% - 5.56% = -0.46% (-14.67 rolls)
H2 81/22 ( 2.53% - 2.78% = -7.83)
H4 92/18 ( 2.88% - 2.78% = +3.17)
H6 89/25 ( 2.78% - 2.78% = +0.17)
H8 112/25 ( 3.50% - 2.78% = +23.17)
H10 96/33 ( 3.00% - 2.78% = +7.17)
H12 82/23 ( 2.56% - 2.78% = -6.83)
EZ: 2646 (82.74% - 83.33% = -19.00)
X**2: 8.08 p: 0.23196
comeout: passline:5

You have to understand that this is after transforming all my roll data as if it were all rolled with the same set. So when I rolled with a boxcar set, and I came up boxcars, after this transformation, what came up as boxcars are represented as hard 8's in this analysis.

In other words, this is an analysis of my throw, not of the outcomes from my throw as the data is normalized as if it were all thrown with the exact same set.

those rolls didnt look controlled at all

like i said just lay one of the di at the end of the table on any number then avoid rolling the other to total 7... cant happen.

Now 1 of the dice will always come to rest first while the other is still moving, so what makes this any different? Where is the influence? I mean its 6 sided its how much influence can you give something that is flipping all over the place? you may say that its not and you may toss a good throw now and again, but im sure good throws hit 7 all the time so the only way to "TEST" this is actually test vs random people. - we already know random people throw a seven 1 in 6.

Why cant a test just take place? How hard can it be?

Showing videos means nothing to me. I could tape hundreds of videos and just pick out the one i "ran good" on.

I cant believe this is even a topic...so sad.


lets get real. just chuck 1 di and avoid any number you chose. if you run better than 1 in 7.5 (not really sure what realistic should be) over 5000 rolls then i will 100% change my view and know that you can "influence dice". until then what is point, if you believe in this stuff then your wallet should be padded beyond belief or does selling books do that?

Please just run a test someone.

science and math wont lie...people will

And I still go back to the better bet is on who is the next person to cross the line and draw a suspension from this topic. I see the edge being pushed closer and closer. And once it happens will someone try to argue their posts help "influence" the results? Or will others state it was entirely random?

Quote: Ahigh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sGmYoiDVJI

Start watching this video at 1:11

At 1:12:36 I normalize all the data as if it were rolled with the exact same set and the 21 possible outcomes show clearly that the hard 8 comes up more often than any other outcome.

Transforming roll data to set 4242
Updating graphics



comeout: passline:5
Total rolls: 3198
1) 1082 16.92% - 16.67 = (+0.25)--------------------------------------------------- 1
2) 1058 16.54% - 16.67 = (-0.13)-------------------------------------------------- 2
3) 1055 16.49% - 16.67 = (-0.17)-------------------------------------------------- 3
4) 1083 16.93% - 16.67 = (+0.27)--------------------------------------------------- 4
5) 1067 16.68% - 16.67 = (+0.02)--------------------------------------------------- 5
6) 1051 16.43% - 16.67 = (-0.23)-------------------------------------------------- 6
X**2: 0.90 p: 0.97045
fw 1082,1058,1055,1083,1067,1051 1082,1058,1055,1083,1067,1051

11: ----------------------------------------- 2 (81)
21: ------------------------------------------------- 3 (196)
22: ---------------------------------------------- 4 (92)
31: --------------------------------------------- 4 (177)
32: -------------------------------------------- 5 (176)
41: ---------------------------------------------- 5 (182)
33: --------------------------------------------- 6 (89)
42: ------------------------------------------- 6 (170)
51: ---------------------------------------------- 6 (184)
61: ---------------------------------------------- 7 (181)
52: ---------------------------------------- 7 (157)
43: --------------------------------------- 7 (153)
53: ----------------------------------------------- 8 (188)
44: -------------------------------------------------------- 8 (112)
62: -------------------------------------------- 8 (175)
63: ---------------------------------------------- 9 (183)
54: -------------------------------------------- 9 (176)
55: ------------------------------------------------ 10 (96)
64: --------------------------------------------- 10 (178)
65: ------------------------------------------- 11 (170)
66: ----------------------------------------- 12 (82)
X**2: 17.56 p: 0.61630

2) 81 2.53% - 2.78% = -0.24% (-7.83)-------- 2
3) 196 6.13% - 5.56% = 0.57% (+18.33)------------------- 3
4) 269 8.41% - 8.33% = 0.08% (+2.50)-------------------------- 4
5) 358 11.19% - 11.11% = 0.08% (+2.67)---------------------------------- 5
6) 443 13.85% - 13.89% = -0.04% (-1.17)------------------------------------------ 6
7) 491 15.35% - 16.67% = -1.31% (-42.00)----------------------------------------------- 7
8) 475 14.85% - 13.89% = 0.96% (+30.83)--------------------------------------------- 8
9) 359 11.23% - 11.11% = 0.11% (+3.67)---------------------------------- 9
10) 274 8.57% - 8.33% = 0.23% (+7.50)--------------------------10
11) 170 5.32% - 5.56% = -0.24% (-7.67)----------------11
12) 82 2.56% - 2.78% = -0.21% (-6.83)--------12
X**2: 9.18 p: 0.51469

4:7 ratio is 54.786% - 50.000% = +4.786% (+9.57% diff)
5:7 ratio is 72.912% - 66.667% = +6.246% (+9.37% diff)
6:7 ratio is 90.224% - 83.333% = +6.891% (+8.27% diff)
8:7 ratio is 96.741% - 83.333% = +13.408% (+16.09% diff)
9:7 ratio is 73.116% - 66.667% = +6.449% (+9.67% diff)
10:7 ratio is 55.804% - 50.000% = +5.804% (+11.61% diff)
X**2: 5.73 p: 0.45401

Observed: 491.0 sevens - 2707.0 non sevens RSR 6.5132
Expected: 533.0 sevens - 2665.0 non sevens RSR 6.0000
X**2: 3.97 p: 0.04628

Seven outs 344 (70.06%) - Seven winners 147 (29.94%)
Pairs 552 17.26% - 16.67% = 0.59% (+19.00 rolls)
Hards 389 12.16% - 11.11% = 1.05% (+33.67 rolls)
HiLos 163 5.10% - 5.56% = -0.46% (-14.67 rolls)
H2 81/22 ( 2.53% - 2.78% = -7.83)
H4 92/18 ( 2.88% - 2.78% = +3.17)
H6 89/25 ( 2.78% - 2.78% = +0.17)
H8 112/25 ( 3.50% - 2.78% = +23.17)
H10 96/33 ( 3.00% - 2.78% = +7.17)
H12 82/23 ( 2.56% - 2.78% = -6.83)
EZ: 2646 (82.74% - 83.33% = -19.00)
X**2: 8.08 p: 0.23196
comeout: passline:5

You have to understand that this is after transforming all my roll data as if it were all rolled with the same set. So when I rolled with a boxcar set, and I came up boxcars, after this transformation, what came up as boxcars are represented as hard 8's in this analysis.

In other words, this is an analysis of my throw, not of the outcomes from my throw as the data is normalized as if it were all thrown with the exact same set.

this one test? how consistent can you do this? or is this just a single test that looked good so you saved it and show to whoever will look at it?

so what is a good/better/best SSR?

Nez, I'm not going to rip into you because you're new here. But this is the result of every roll that I have recorded since August. All those rolls are on video. All of them. I excluded nothing. Counter to what some people may believe, I don't roll that often at home and record. It's a lot of work.

Maybe it was you who say 10,000 rolls wouldn't take that long. This is 3,000 rolls fully documented and it's taken me since August to get it all done and fully documented.

It's not a "best of" it's not a slice. It's all my rolls that I have recorded.

Your comments that say things like "video means nothing to me" and what not are the type of comment that leads me to want to block you, but I'm not there yet, since you're so new and absolutely not familiar at all with what I'm doing.

Calm down a little bit.

I am keeping my blog updated with all my roll data.

You can find it here and you can analyze it any way you want.

https://wizardofvegas.com/member/ahigh/blog/#post896

I'm pretty sure I have video for all of this data for anyone who wants to scrutinize it.

One reason that I am only at 3000 rolls is because the increased scrutiny that I might be cherry picking led me to come up with a mechnism to do live broadcasts for my rolls to ensure that I am not cherry picking.

For all future rolls that go into this data set I will:

1) Pre-announce more than 8 hours in advance that I intend to do the rolls
2) Perform the rolls live on U-stream
3) Ensure that I have at least 2 witnesses watching on Ustream
4) Publish the video to you tube
5) Continue to publish all of the data

The whole point of this is to prove that I am not cherry picking.

Trust me many people say "it doesn't look like control!"

It might not be control. But whatever it is, it is very thoroughly documented, and it will continue to be thoroughly documented.

I have a lot of other things that I am doing too, but I am planning to record more rolls now that I have gotten past all the time and effort to prove that I am not cherry picking data.

The one other point is that anybody who says my shot sucks has much less evidence than I have that their shot is any better than mine. So far anyway!

But I would also like to remind everyone that they have been invited to show more control in fewer throws.

I have consistently had more outcomes from the top of my set, and that was established as occurring way back in August and hasn't stopped since.

Are the dice washed and tested regularly? I seen some video where it turned out biased dice were used. Some sticky clear soda on one side could make a difference.

Quote: AxelWolf

Are the dice washed and tested regularly? I seen some video where it turned out biased dice were used. Some sticky clear soda on one side could make a difference.

They are not washed. I use fresh dice just like the casino. As time goes on, more emphasis is placed on ensuring that the dice I use are fair. I absolutely am concerned about this and do everything that I can to ensure that I use fair dice.

proof of DI/DC or whatever one calls it AT HOME is a far cry from it being possible at a casino

Quote: nezbit

those rolls didnt look controlled at all

And that's the bottom line. Videos, graphics, charts, statistics won't change that. It's smoke and mirrors to cover up random throws.

Quote: AlanMendelson

And that's the bottom line. Videos, graphics, charts, statistics won't change that. It's smoke and mirrors to cover up random throws.

So emotional, Alan. But you're wrong. I don't use smoke, but there are mirrors on the very real craps table that was at a casino previously.

The video and graphics and charts don't change anything. They characterize the distribution of outcomes and quantify the chances that what you are seeing falls within what is expected for the results assuming randomness.

So far, it is absolutely a random toss. I just have gotten lucky to have a good rolls to seven ratio with my random toss. According to the numbers anyone who has done what I am doing would get the same results one out of fourty times they went through the same steps randomly.

Your accusations that I am contriving the results, however, suggest that maybe you are starting to feel that my results don't appear random and that I am using "smoke and mirrors" to get my results.

If that is the case, I assure you that there are not any tricks being used that I am hiding to get my results.

Everything is out in the open.

I'm going to make a bold statement, though, Alan. Your comments are seeming to have an agenda to them.

You are welcome to come on the show and demonstrate your shot, too. You have so much more experience at attempting to have a controlled shot, it would be interesting to see what 200 of your throws come up with relative to your expectations.

My last performance was very nearly exactly within the expectations of my throw.

* Heaviest on the hard 8
* 15.00% sevens

I personally think that you are just getting emotional because you wish that your results were so lucky as mine.

When I saw you shoot at Caesars, you looked lucky for a minute, and then it looked like you were unlucky.

I have had unlucky sessions myself, so I know how it can be.

But I hate to see you so emotional when talking about my results and thinking that I am cheating to get the results I am getting because they don't look controlled to you.

The outcomes is all that matters to the stick man and the dealer and the box man. If they don't look controlled, that's a feature and not a problem.

If you weren't so nasty and emotional when talking about me, I wouldn't have a problem with you.

You have seriously rubbed me the wrong way, though, Alan.

In fact, I think you might not be such a nice guy after all.

Quote: AxelWolf

proof of DI/DC or whatever one calls it AT HOME is a far cry from it being possible at a casino

That argument rests on the definition of far cry.

You must also consider the difference between at "a" casino versus "any" casino.

My table is very nearly identical to the table where I play most often.

So to me, it's not a "far cry" for THE casino where I normally play.

I will agree to this much: proving control on my table does not assert control on the most challenging table in a real casino.

Each table is different.

I am absolutely an expert on the details of the tables around town.

I take this into consideration.

It's a whole other topic, but I actually ENJOY playing on the most difficult tables with the smallest opportunity for odds as winning is more fun there and more challenging.

Quote: AlanMendelson

It's smoke and mirrors to cover up random throws.

Alan Mendelson ladies and gentleman.

Block the haters again Aaron, and full speed ahead! And get him some cheese for that incessant whine!

Quote: Ahigh

When I saw you shoot at Caesars, you looked lucky for a minute, and then it looked like you were unlucky.

Again, I wish you had said hello to me... after I told you I was going to be in town and invited you and your wife for dinner. You sent an email with your regrets, but after I left LA and wasn't near my computer.

I'm curious why when you stood at the end of the table one dealer muttered to another "isn't that?" and the other dealer said "I think so." Do you have some history at Caesars you'd like to share?

Quote: Ahigh

I have had unlucky sessions myself, so I know how it can be.

The difference between you and me is that I don't make any claims about being a great shooter. I don't claim to have influence on the dice or any ability to control the dice.

Quote: Ahigh

But I hate to see you so emotional when talking about my results and thinking that I am cheating to get the results I am getting because they don't look controlled to you.

I'm not emotional. I'm just challenging your claims and you're the one who is emotional. You're not blocking me anymore?

Quote: Ahigh

The outcomes is all that matters to the stick man and the dealer and the box man. If they don't look controlled, that's a feature and not a problem.

No, it is a problem when you claim to be a dice influencer. If you said you were lucky and look at how I got lucky it would be different. But you claim to be influencing the dice with your set, and your throw and your control. Well, on second thought, you used to claim that. Then you didn't. Then you did. Ummm.... what are you claiming today?

Quote: Ahigh

If you weren't so nasty and emotional when talking about me, I wouldn't have a problem with you.

You have seriously rubbed me the wrong way, though, Alan.

In fact, I think you might not be such a nice guy after all.

Sorry that criticism rubs you the wrong way, and sorry you can't take the heat. Back in the old days when I was a big advocate of dice control and influencing I took the heat. There are a few here who will remember the old "craps newsgroup days" going back ten years ago (or was it longer)? But I learned from them and from those heated exchanges. I realized when I was wrong and what I was wrong about. It's a good feeling when you realize you learned something and you were wrong and you let the other guy know he was right.

I have a saying about people who stand their ground when wrong. I say "they have their feet firmly planted in quicksand."

Sorry I rubbed you the wrong way. I hope you will step up to the plate and defend your position. The discussion will do everyone some good.

Quote: Ahigh

Each table is different.

I am absolutely an expert on the details of the tables around town.

Damn, I remember when I said "All craps tables are alike" and you said:

"Very well. You have been blocked. Truth is important, and word selection is not an irrelevant part of conversation.

http://bit.ly/16LyCZP

Generally speaking, you make too many false claims for me to continue spending my time attempting to reason with you.

That is a true statement. We're done."

And you continued to write a lengthy discourse:

"The truth is, and let me spell it out again because I do not think you read it before, but here is the TRUE STATEMENT.

EVERY SINGLE CRAPS TABLE IN LAS VEGAS IS ALIKE."

So, now the tables are different, and you actually "enjoy playing on the most difficult tables"?

Is that your position today? Does that mean you are a dice influencer or dice controller today, or not?

If you're going to dislike me for rubbing you the wrong way, I want you to hate me.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Back in the old days when I was a big advocate of dice control and influencing I took the heat. There are a few here who will remember the old "craps newsgroup days" going back ten years ago (or was it longer)? But I learned from them and from those heated exchanges.

The group was active as recently as 2007; see: alt.rec.craps

Whatever happened to Mason??

Dunno, he just dropped out of sight, *poof*.

A unique and colorful character, for sure.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I want you to hate me.

I can tell, bro. I am asserting that all craps tables are different. And also that all craps tables are alike. Yes.

You're in the business of reporting. You should understand that word selection is important. The apex of the discussion is the word "alike" and what it means.

I think the entire discussion that effectively states that no two craps tables are similar enough to establish control on one table and not have it mean anything at all to a different table is the thing that I take issue with.

Table differences are important.

Let me talk about a specific table difference.

At the Gold Coast, there are three tables there. Let's call them East, West, and South. Hopefully you can figure out which is which from the description.

West table is WAY bouncier than south. If you found a shot worked on South, I wouldn't expect jack shit on West to be even remotely similar.

Also, I think any control you might be able to get on the South table is not going to matter at all on the West table.

The tables are very nearly identical. But I believe the bounce is wildly different.

Now let's talk about Caesars. Since you go there so often, take notice next time you are there.

You will find no fewer than THREE DIFFERENT KINDS of back walls on the tables at Caesars.

And in fact, I believe you would find that NO TWO TABLES AT CAESARS are exactly the same. In fact, there are noticeable differences between each and every table at Caesars.

I don't think that's a coincidence at all.

Caesar's also happens to have a $50,000 limit on their bets.

I think they hope and expect nobody notices the differences between each table at that casino.

I notice.

Did you?

Quote: Ahigh

Now let's talk about Caesars. Since you go there so often, take notice next time you are there.

You will find no fewer than THREE DIFFERENT KINDS of back walls on the tables at Caesars.

And in fact, I believe you would find that NO TWO TABLES AT CAESARS are exactly the same. In fact, there are noticeable differences between each and every table at Caesars.

Now, you're preaching to me that the table are different? What the heck do you think I meant when I said no two tables are alike?

And tell me why you came to spy on me? You knew I was going to be there, because I told you and I invited you and your wife to dinner. You have my cell phone number and we've talked. But instead of calling -- or coming over to me to say hello -- you stood at the far end of the table I was at with your note pad taking notes. I see you also looked up my photos. Are you stalking me now? Do I need a restraining order?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Now, you're preaching to me that the table are different? What the heck do you think I meant when I said no two tables are alike?

And tell me why you came to spy on me? You knew I was going to be there, because I told you and I invited you and your wife to dinner. You have my cell phone number and we've talked. But instead of calling -- or coming over to me to say hello -- you stood at the far end of the table I was at with your note pad taking notes. I see you also looked up my photos. Are you stalking me now? Do I need a restraining order?

That's ridiculous. My friend recognized you, not me, first of all. My friend invited me to Caesar's on Saturday, and I accepted. It had nothing to do with you at all.

My friend is also a very private person who did not want to be introduced to you, or that would have occurred.

None of these details involved you in the slightest. Your accusations that they might is highly arrogant.

And while we're on the subject of my wife, even if she had been in town, I don't want my wife around you, Alan. And if we did show up, I'd be more comfortable providing a free dinner to you than the other way around.

I generally don't pay for food as much as I gamble. Free meals are not a big motivator for what I choose to do.

I ate at the high limit room for free that day, and I don't need you paying for my food even though it was a nice offer.

Good Grief! You two really need to just get it over with and f***,Or just break up before someone goes to the slammer for domestic violence.

Quote: rainman

Good Grief! You two really need just get it over with and f***,Or just break up before someone goes to the slammer for domestic violence.

LOL. Yeah!!

Oh my God.

That was certainly more info than I ever wanted to know lol.

rainman... I think he got the hint and removed it.

nexbit


Who do we have to prove it to..... certainly not you or Ahigh or Alan..... i am betting my money, i am the one that
needs to be sure i have an advantage, i am the one that will win or lose, what you beleive is what you believe
and i dont care.... my point was simple.... you either can say that fines i am glad it works for you, or your a liar.

The truth is simple if you want to be honest......... i could go on the Ahigh show and have a good session and all
you folks would say well that was just one day, it means nothing.... 2 days it means nothing and on and on,
i could go one 1 day and not do well and all you folks would be saying.see i new it did not work.

Dice sitting will never win with you because because you have made up your minds... thats cool, in the mean time
we are having fun and doing well.

Dicesitter

dicesitter... contrary to what others have said ONE good session would convince me that you are a true dice influencer.

You might recall that I said here some time ago that I can tell if someone is dice influencer by watching ONE roll of the dice and that's because I have a strict definition about what an influenced toss is.

Again:

Dice are set
Proper grip is used keeping the dice "locked together"
Dice are thrown at a 45-degree angle softly, on axis, hitting at the end of the come box
A gentle bounce and roll together, on axis, to the back wall center
gently hitting or lightly bouncing off the back wall

Do that and you have my vote regardless of the end result of the dice. And why do I say regardless of the end result of the dice? Because if you keep your set dice on axis with a restrained throw, bounce and roll, you will have a good result.

*sigh*

As long as there are suckers who believe bullshit, there will be people to believe that they can influence the dice and instead lose their money.

That's not the argument.

As far as the original subject of this message, there are absolutely positively guys who are full of shit who believe that they can influence the dice and make up stories and convince people of things that are not true.

That includes bullshit about you can take a class and a few days later have an advantaged shot.

As far as this forum, the guys who are most active to talk about proof about influence have the least clue about what constitutes evidence of an influenced shot.

Just to get started, even if I prove that my shot has an advantage, if I went through the painstaking process of deleting every roll that has one or more of the dice turning up short, I would have different data.

My rolls include short rolls, and all the data could look totally different without those short rolls in there.

Nobody is even talking about that. They instead want to talk about how the rolls look MORE random, not how they look LESS random. It's like totally backwards from productive talk because they want to conclude that everything IS random instead of talking about where less than perfect randomness comes from and how to get it into the program and get paid for it in the casino.

But whatever. I think just going back and forth with some of these folks is just pointless.

And I mean absolutely pointless.

I'm going to just beef up my ignore list a little more and keep plodding along without interacting with these folks..

LOL.

Quote: Ahigh

I'm going to just beef up my ignore list a little more and keep plodding along without interacting with these folks..
LOL.

You don't realize that you lose when you don't respond or ignore or just come out and post "wrong"?

If you don't want to discuss why are you here?

Wow, Scoblete really knows how to start a thread. Reminds me of throwing a hunk of meat into a pack of hungry dogs, and then heading out to a restaurant.
I envision him now laughing his ass off while getting all this material for another book, maybe titled "the dogs of craps wars" or something like that.

The entire website is to promote travel to Las Vegas. I gotta say if I found this thread while researching LV, I might just have a giant "wtf" moment. Many of the disagreements here seem to be taken out of context and blown completely out of proportion. I'm a bit suprised at the arguments given several of you guys obvious educations. Some of them reduced to a below high school level of smack down. Never, ever bring your significant other into an argument, especially with someone you don't even know or worse yet, online. No good can come from it. They may forgive but they will never forget. I admit to being somewhat naive to big city ways, wonder if maybe social predator's might lurk here and at times there is a mean and dark undertone.

I've met Ahigh, once and watched him shooting dice in I think three casino's. His throw to me looks different, in real life. Bettor actually and a lot like the description Alan gives. Like all of us he's different in real life than here on the web. He's a personable, intelligent guy that is enthusiastic about craps. No one can take a constant beating. I'm confindent that he will get wore down with enough grinding and probably move on. It is impressive the amount of attack he's been able to shrug off and continue to provide us with entertainment without any benefit to himself that I can see, other than maybe he's just in it for the pain? Good on him.

I've also met SuperRick and some of his associates. It was a great experience. I'd watched all the video's and read what I could find about dice influencing. About the time I was thinking it was only an illusion, or a hoax for someone to sell books on gambling. I was lucky enough to get to witness a few people that had went way beyond what my experience told me was possible. Rick is a genuinely good man who would rather help someone than use them to make his life more comfortable. He's a rare breed, who not only can talk it, but can do it. I think like any game, the better you understand the rules, the more likely it is that you will get a desirable outcome. I accept that other's know things I don't. We all know something other's don't. Knowledge is free, but you have to bring your own container.

I also had the pleasure to meet "Manny" who has one heck of a good shot, and Harley, Rich, good guys, all.

just answer this ok

can you take just one of the di throw it and avoid whatever number i chose?

if you cant do this then you can't avoid a 7 (better than 83.333% of course).


i doesn't matter if you don't see it like that or it doesn't work like this. One of the 2 dice will always land first on a random side and then you are essentially trying to avoid the 1 in 6 on the other di. Now like i stated above if you cant avoid one number on a single di then you can't influence dice.

Its really that simple, you cant tell me the dice flip once or only twice, then i might listen to what you are saying, but they flip numerous times making any sort of influence go out the window, just like if you rolled a single di by itself.

the other thing i cant get my hands around is why would you ever share your secrets or even be online at all when there is so much money to be made? If i could actually have an edge at craps over the long run i would spend countless hours there making that happen. Just seems very strange all these claims that are made.

I am still all for the documented trials vs 10-30 other people vs a DI/DC and see the results. Again has to be a big enough sample size to rule out luck.

I am a gambling researcher.

Like a grad student who has a masters thesis, this is something akin for me.

An unsolved problem I wanted to tackle.

Hopefully this helps.

Without going into details of compensation for my normal line of work, let's just say that I am very well off and have been paid very well for over a decade in my career.

I only decided to pursue craps as a hobby in Fall of 2006. At that moment in time, I was working a very challenging job bringing down good money while earning enough in interest to pay all of my bills.

It was this condition (not needing to work at that moment) when I realized, "of all the things I could be doing, I would sure like to learn to play craps really well."

My life turned into a big mess not too long after that, but I didn't forget what I discovered about what I would like to be doing.

But I didn't want to play craps for a need for money, I wanted to play craps for a lack of need for money. It just seemed like a more worthy challenge than amassing as much money as I possibly could.

My financial motivations since losing a WHOLE lot of money since then has been learning how to KEEP money.

It's a LOT harder to keep money than it is to earn it in the first place.

Most people just jump to what to spend it on thinking they will become happier.

Only to find that without the money they need, they have to work more.

And then they work (often at things they don't enjoy).

And then they aren't happy.

I am happy.

:-)