"Advantage Player" and Craps

Quote: gts4ever

I'm pretty new to this forum so maybe if I knew some more of the history I wouldn't have this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

Why is it that many on here seem aghast when Ahigh talks about shooter skill? I get the impression that some of you understand what he is saying but try to back him into a corner by asking for official statements that can be proven wrong.

To me, Ahigh is describing an AP craps player as someone comparable to a MLB pitcher. Not every pitch goes where they want it, even when it does, sometimes batters will get a hit. Sometimes when they miss locations, they still wind up getting a strike or out. But the better the pitcher, the more times he will throw the pitch he wants. Over time that should result in better than random results. I don't see people asking for mathematic proofs showing why one pitcher is better than another other than to compare the results over a sufficiently long period of time.

I'm not saying I even lean one way or another since I don't know nearly as much as probably anyone in this discussion, but I don't find it beyond belief that tossing two dice against a fixed backdrop, given constant rules of physics, is something that could be practiced and manipulated, even if it appears clumsy to the naked eye.

There are a few, how shall I say, "circumstances" contributing to the acrimony toward Ahigh. First, let me define "Dice Influencing" or "DI" as "modifying the dice results at the game of craps in a way that allows you to win money in the casino over the long term, by way of having an edge on the bets you make."

First, there is the general view that DI is either impossible, highly difficult if not impossible, or at the very least unproven. I think the vast majority of gamblers, including a majority of the regular posters here, hold one of those 3 views. Given the perception of the "big guns" (Scoblete, etc.) as hucksters who make money off of their books and seminars by selling a lie, the protestations reach a religious fervor, even while Ahigh is not actually selling anything or trying to get money from anyone.

Then you add in Ahigh's personality, and everything just explodes. I'm not in any way insulting you here Aaron, but there are some clashes going on here. Logic and reason have tended to go out the door as forum members see Ahigh as the personal embodiment of DI claims on this board, and go out of their way to tear apart everything he says, even when there are some truths in there. Then he gets defensive and changes his story, or lashes out in kind, and the chasm gets even wider.

Me, well I haven't seen any proof that DI is impossible. But I haven't seen any hard evidence to believe it is possible. Personally I think it might be possible for a very, very small number of people who have the hand-eye coordination, diligence, dedication, etc. Ahigh has the tools with his setup to really get to the bottom of it, but so far the stars haven't aligned so as to make anything happen there.

Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week! ;)

But seriously, if you were to search every thread that’s gone 20+ pages, I’d bet a majority are an AP thread where AP got lumped in with cheating by our friend PGD and then the APs got up in arms. It’s happened so often I’m honestly surprised that it both A) hasn’t happened here and B) that Ahigh wasn’t aware of it.

But anyway, much like my question of whether he includes his short rolls as part of his DI numbers, I just wanted to again try to get rid of sources of possible confusion as we go forward. Beliefs aside, the level of confusion present in these conversations seems to be one of the biggest hurdles. So in the future, claims of AP cannot include cheating as proof.

Game over then.

ZCore13

Quote: Face

Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week! ;)

But seriously, if you were to search every thread that’s gone 20+ pages, I’d bet a majority are an AP thread were AP got lumped in with cheating by our friend PGD and then the APs got up in arms. It’s happened so often I’m honestly surprised that it both A) hasn’t happened here and B) that Ahigh wasn’t aware of it.

But anyway, much like my question of whether he includes his short rolls as part of his DI numbers, I just wanted to again try to get rid of sources of possible confusion as we go forward. Beliefs aside, the level of confusion present in these conversations is the biggest hurdle. So in the future, claims of AP cannot include cheating as proof.

FTFY...

To answer the original question.... If you believe in dice influencing then of course those players would be AP's. They would have found a way to legally turn the house edge into a player edge. I know that there is no such thing as a 'DI', so I dismiss that scenario, but others do not.
I would say that comps are to be included in figuring out if you are an AP. Teddys can give details if he wishes, but in summary, he was playing a negative expectation game, betting small on the passline with huge odds, and was rated enough to get free rooms and food for months. His expected loss was a few dollars per day, but he received substantially more value in food and lodging. I assume he also got some free play or match play mailers which sweetened the pot for him. I would say he qualified as an AP craps player for that ill fated period of time in his life.
I would say any intentional forms of cheating would not count as AP, rather, they would be classified as cheating.

Quote: Face

I’m somewhat shocked the APs here haven’t gone all PaiGowDan on you for this. There is, in my opinion and I believe the opinion of all of the APs here, a complete difference between almost everything you listed (illegal activities and blatant cheating) and AP (legal exploitation of an inherent edge).

If there is no such thing as illegal advantage play, then all of the laws in all of the states must be the same. Because what is advantage play in one state could be against the law in another. It's that simple to me. Otherwise any advantage play that is illegal in one state would could not be considered advantage play in another state.

Therefore illegal advantage play must exist. The argument about saying that if it's not legal it's not advantage play is what is pointless. The laws are constantly adapted to how the players exploit the game. The rubber diamonds, at one time, didn't exist. The wall was flat. At that time, advantage play was legal to not bounce off the back wall that everyone is required to bounce off of. Now there are no flat back walls to play on. They all have rubber diamonds. So is Advantage Play on a craps table with no rubber diamonds on it legal? The only form of that is the short roll, and legal or not, it's not tolerated. But it exists!

Quote: Face

Physically changing the properties of the die, toking for collusion, past posting; these are not AP. These are criminal acts and can in no way be used as evidence of “an edge” no more than I could claim I’m a financial wizard because of all the money I have, money which was obtained by bank robbery.

They are only criminal where laws have been written to make it so. See my above argument that advantage play that is illegal is an advantage play. We will have to agree to disagree for now. I agree it's criminal and for a different conversation. But in the future, there may be laws about how you are allowed to throw the dice to make the currently theoretically possible advantage play illegal. That doesn't mean it won't be possible any more; it just won't be legal any more.

Quote: Face

Inherent bias, such as must be present in some quantity in every die ever made, could theoretically be an AP move. The question, which still remains unsolved, is how much bias is required and how possible is it for the human mind to evaluate it? Answer those two questions and prove them as possible and you have proof of AP.

With 1000x odds and a sufficient bankroll, even the most rigorous math guy would have to admit that AP for a bias of two specific cubes if they were closely tracked on the table by the player is absolutely possible to get advantage play. Bang up a pair of dice by throwing them really hard into the mirror, keep track of those two dice, and then choose a virgin die and a banged up die, track the outcomes and bet free odds according to the bias. Absolutely possible to do this. Hard? Yes. Possible, absolutely. Figure out what face comes up most, and assume that it's from the banged up die, get a spreadsheet, do the math and bet the bet that has an advantage after you have enough samples.

Quote: Face

There’s AP for just about every card based game (including “electronic cards”) out there, every single one of them provable and repeatable and explainable. So far, you’ve just posted a theoretical possibility and a handful of criminal activities.

My point in listing all this stuff out isn't to lead someone to participate in these forms of play.

My point in listing all of this stuff out is to make the point that YES IN FACT ADVANTAGE PLAY IS POSSIBLE IN CRAPS.

I do not believe the topic is even up for debate strictly speaking.

The thing that is different from every other game is that it is so difficult and so much work and there are so many variables that are so hard to control that generally speaking there are not a lot of people doing it (and yes, maybe even none). But that doesn't mean it's not possible.

It is possible.

IMO there are twelve ignorant people (so far) that voted for the first answer. Ignoring the facts doesn't change them, and yes it's possible.

Quote: SOOPOO

I would say any intentional forms of cheating would not count as AP, rather, they would be classified as cheating.

Exactly right. Roulette past posters are not
true AP's, they're cheaters. A true AP has a
mathematically provable edge on the game.


This would be easy to prove with DI over a
large sample of throws. You would eventually
reach a point where the evidence was irrefutable.

Quote: Ahigh

If there is no such thing as illegal advantage play, then all of the laws in all of the states must be the same. Because what is advantage play in one state could be against the law in another. It's that simple to me. Otherwise any advantage play that is illegal in one state would could not be considered advantage play in another state.

Therefore illegal advantage play must exist. The argument about saying that if it's not legal it's not advantage play is what is pointless.

I don’t think it’s pointless, and I doubt the others following this conversation do, either. I think it’s a valid point, one which this whole, several month long debate hinges on. If you are going to include “illegal activity” into your proof of AP, where illegal activity is defined as things well outside the box of legit game play even if technically not criminal (dice gaffing, past posting, collusion), then every single person here would have to say yeah, AP is possible. But I will bet cash money that not a single one of the APs or those of us who chase them consider that stuff AP.

Technically, short rolls are not illegal here in Las Vegas. They pay short rolls and they take the dice away if they are paying attention enough. Short rolls are known to be candidates for advantage play. Therefore advantage play exists.

Ask any pit crew anywhere in Las Vegas if they believe AP is possible on short rolls. Most will admit they disallow short rolls for this reason. But they aren't illegal and they get paid ALL THE TIME.

I only listed all that stuff just to say that AP is possible. You can't deny AP is possible without addressing each and every one of these things and saying that they are all impossible.

It's ridiculous to me to think it's impossible.

Impossible for you personally is another question.

Impossible for anyone; um no.

I mean think about the case of rigging jackpots on IGT games by inserting a thing to put a jackpot code on there with a chip and all the crap dealing with surveillance sounds so impossible I wouldn't believe it if it didn't happen. But you can't just say something is impossible and believe it without sufficient evidence.

That's what all you guys are doing. Head in the sand type of thing.

Of course it's possible!!!

Please stop talking with intelligence. You're going to make someone angry and he's going to say (again) that he's going to be coming here less and taking a break from his ever so popular and highly rated Ahigh Show.

ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

Please stop talking with intelligence. You're going to make someone angry and he's going to say (again) that he's going to be coming here less and taking a break from his ever so popular and highly rated Ahigh Show.

ZCore13

I think you meant, "please stop talking intelligently." Intelligence is not a person to converse with, and you are not the person to tell if someone is talking intelligently or not in my opinion.

Quote: Ahigh

Technically, short rolls are not illegal here in Las Vegas. They pay short rolls and they take the dice away if they are paying attention enough. Short rolls are known to be candidates for advantage play. Therefore advantage play exists.

Ask any pit crew anywhere in Las Vegas if they believe AP is possible on short rolls. Most will admit they disallow short rolls for this reason. But they aren't illegal and they get paid ALL THE TIME.

I only listed all that stuff just to say that AP is possible. You can't deny AP is possible without addressing each and every one of these things and saying that they are all impossible.

It's ridiculous to me to think it's impossible.

Impossible for you personally is another question.

Impossible for anyone; um no.

I mean think about the case of rigging jackpots on IGT games by inserting a thing to put a jackpot code on there with a chip and all the crap dealing with surveillance sounds so impossible I wouldn't believe it if it didn't happen. But you can't just say something is impossible and believe it without sufficient evidence.

That's what all you guys are doing. Head in the sand type of thing.

Of course it's possible!!!

All I’m trying to do is relieve confusion. It’s clear to me that at least for me, this is one of the sources.

The vast majority of things you listed can indeed be advantageous. They can give you an advantage. Sure.

But when it comes to AP as I define it, as I’ve known it, and, based on the many PGD conversations between him and the APs here, how they define it, what you’re describing wasn’t AP as it is typically understood. It's not "head in the sand", it's simply the use of a word in a way I've never heard and including things that I wouldn't.

Now that I know you consider AP to be “anything which gives you an advantage, period”, I can better understand where you’re coming from.

Quote: Face

All I’m trying to do is relieve confusion. It’s clear to me that at least for me, this is one of the sources.

The vast majority of things you listed can indeed be advantageous. They can give you an advantage. Sure.

But when it comes to AP as I define it, as I’ve known it, and, based on the many PGD conversations between him and the APs here, how they define it, what you’re describing wasn’t AP as it is typically understood. It's not "head in the sand", it's simply the use of a word in a way I've never heard and including things that I wouldn't.

Now that I know you consider AP to be “anything which gives you an advantage, period”, I can better understand where you’re coming from.

Fair enough: I am not knowledgeable about the existing accepted definitions about advantage play.

Quote: Ahigh

Fair enough: I am not knowledgeable about the existing accepted definitions about advantage play.

Are you serious or is this just more sarcasm, like
'all dice rolls are random' was sarcasm.

Quote: Ahigh

Fair enough: I am not knowledgeable about the existing accepted definitions about advantage play.

Then maybe I can help. Technically, advantage play is defined as a practice of using legal ways to gain a mathematical edge while gambling. The key word here is “legal”, and there are certainly different views on what “legal” means.

I think it would be in your best interest to conform to the accepted definition of AP as continuing with your version is absolutely going to cause confusion down the road. Using the commonly accepted definition: Detecting bias and influencing die would absolutely be AP, short rolls would be on the fringe, and all the other stuff to include collusion, capping, pinching, dice gaffing, and dealer mistakes are definitely “No AP”.

Just a suggestion.

Thanks. There are so many details in craps and so many people who write stuff about the game that's not true, I think the waters are pretty muddy.

I think the easiest advantage play is to count faces on the stick and play according to what faces are coming up more frequently.

If you had a friend who was already playing the game and a table with high enough odds bets, you could do all of your play on top of your friends play.

This is probably the easiest way to AP the game as you don't have to have a controlled shot, but if a controlled shot existed that caused one face to come up more often than the other, it would still work just fine.

Basically you are betting that whatever FACES come up more often will continue to come up more often, and use a spreadsheet to figure out what the best bets are.

Using only free bets, and piggy-backing on top of someone else's non-free bets, this is probably the easiest way to prove that you can make money off the non-uniform outcomes of the stick of dice on the whole.

The best way to play this would be to do it right before a new stick is swapped in.

The last two times I have played at the Silverton, they swap the dice as soon as I get there. I'm sure it's coincidence, though. LOL. I thank them for swapping in fresh dice, though. I don't want no banged up cubes!!!

Quote: Face

Then maybe I can help. Technically, advantage play is defined as a practice of using legal ways to gain a mathematical edge while gambling. The key word here is “legal”, and there are certainly different views on what “legal” means.

I think it would be in your best interest to conform to the accepted definition of AP as continuing with your version is absolutely going to cause confusion down the road. Using the commonly accepted definition: Detecting bias and influencing die would absolutely be AP, short rolls would be on the fringe, and all the other stuff to include collusion, capping, pinching, dice gaffing, and dealer mistakes are definitely “No AP”.

Just a suggestion.

Great post.

Quote: Zcore13

Welcome to the forum. The problem with your analysis and with Ahigh is that you do have to compare results to an everage player, both in baseball and when you are trying to prove you have some sort of control of the dice.

You statement of "I don't see people asking for mathematic proofs showing why one pitcher is better than another other than to compare the results over a sufficiently long period of time." is incorrect. That's what ERA, WHIP, K/BB ratio, etc, etc does. It compares results of every pitcher to the others to determine who is above average and who is below. Each pitcher can be compared with any other for a year, two years, 5 years or a career. They are also professionals and pitch at every different park, even if there are a lot of tourists there or some of the other players on the team are new to the team and he doesn't know them or many other variables. A pitcher can do this because he has proven he can influence and control his pitches. Dice influencers wont let you do that because they don't have any more control than the average.

Ahigh, and all the other people that say they can influence or contol the dice (legally), can't show any relevent statistics or results that are not beyond the average player. They state things after the fact, not before. Blackjack advantage players at times have a statistal advantage that is provable and repeatable. So do other players that play various other table games and side bets. So do Video Poker players. There are BRILLIANT minds on this forum that can prove everything, except dice control. That's why people ask Ahigh questions that they know he can't answer with a straight answer. It's always a dodge or accusation back.

ZCore13

Pitching stats are only relevant after the fact in that they tell you how you have done as opposed to predicting how you will fare going forward. In a sense I would say all pitching stats state things after the fact, not before. They may indicate the likelihood of future performance but don't mathematically predict outcomes.

I don't think it's fair to think of potential AP from DI/DC as you do BJ, where you can prove in a true mathematical sense that using certain rules, you have a long term edge. The craps proofs need to be held to statements like...over x rolls a DI can throw y non sevens, hardways, whatever, less than random with z % confidence. Since I doubt I'm breaking any ground, and because there is still disagreement, I'm assuming experiments like this demonstrating positive results are limited if they exist at all?

deleted

Quote: gts4ever

The craps proofs need to be held to statements like...over x rolls a DI can throw y non sevens, hardways, whatever, less than random with z % confidence. Since I doubt I'm breaking any ground, and because there is still disagreement, I'm assuming experiments like this demonstrating positive results are limited if they exist at all?

Ding ding ding. Nobody can do it with non sliding, back wall hitting legal throws.. It's imaginary.

ZCore13

Quote: AcesAndEights

There are a few, how shall I say, "circumstances" contributing to the acrimony toward Ahigh. First, let me define "Dice Influencing" or "DI" as "modifying the dice results at the game of craps in a way that allows you to win money in the casino over the long term, by way of having an edge on the bets you make."

First, there is the general view that DI is either impossible, highly difficult if not impossible, or at the very least unproven. I think the vast majority of gamblers, including a majority of the regular posters here, hold one of those 3 views. Given the perception of the "big guns" (Scoblete, etc.) as hucksters who make money off of their books and seminars by selling a lie, the protestations reach a religious fervor, even while Ahigh is not actually selling anything or trying to get money from anyone.

Then you add in Ahigh's personality, and everything just explodes. I'm not in any way insulting you here Aaron, but there are some clashes going on here. Logic and reason have tended to go out the door as forum members see Ahigh as the personal embodiment of DI claims on this board, and go out of their way to tear apart everything he says, even when there are some truths in there. Then he gets defensive and changes his story, or lashes out in kind, and the chasm gets even wider.

Me, well I haven't seen any proof that DI is impossible. But I haven't seen any hard evidence to believe it is possible. Personally I think it might be possible for a very, very small number of people who have the hand-eye coordination, diligence, dedication, etc. Ahigh has the tools with his setup to really get to the bottom of it, but so far the stars haven't aligned so as to make anything happen there.

Thanks for the background. Just trying to read through the emotion as best I can.

So, I think I'm getting a feel for the sides here but let me ask this. From the perspective of the non-believer camp, is the predominant feeling that a dice throwing machine could produce results that deviate from random enough to produce long term profit, but that a person cannot replicate a throw that precise? Or is it that even a machine, given that the throw must hit the diamonds, could not even produce consistent enough results?

Quote: Zcore13

Ding ding ding. Nobody can do it with non sliding, back wall hitting legal throws.. It's imaginary.

Such bold and unsubstantiated claims! Where is your evidence? What is your evidence? It sure sounds like guesswork to me.

The truth is that you cannot and will not prove your assertion. You are making an unsubstantiated claim.

Quote: gts4ever

Thanks for the background. Just trying to read through the emotion as best I can.

So, I think I'm getting a feel for the sides here but let me ask this. From the perspective of the non-believer camp, is the predominant feeling that a dice throwing machine could produce results that deviate from random enough to produce long term profit, but that a person cannot replicate a throw that precise? Or is it that even a machine, given that the throw must hit the diamonds, could not even produce consistent enough results?

One of the things that I learned from my throwing device is that the precision of the throwing device from left die relative to right die was no better than I could achieve myself.

Here's an image of a delivery with a sound-based trigger showing the instant in time when the dice hit the felt for one of my shots.



None of the shots from my throwing device look this clean.

Even if only a fraction of my shots benefit from this type of clean throw (control up until the moment the dice hit the felt) there is a possibility that left-to-right-die correlation is just as good from a person as from a machine for an ideal throw that a person could deliver.

The number of mistakes can be lower, but the best case delivery for a person may in fact be superior than the best case from a machine just from the ability to improvise to get desired results.

Quote: Ahigh

There is more than a single method to get a player edge in the game. This also includes collusion with dealers (also illegal), tok-for-mistake in player's advantage (very common, yet also illegal if it can be proven or if you admit to doing this), late betting the don't pass line after a point is established (obviously illegal and an easy way to go to jail, yet if you act stupid enough you can get away with trying it, and many people innocently do try it without knowing the rules of the game), using free bets to overcome the negative aspect of the game (getting over-comp'd -- EG: if they comp your odds as they do in some places).

There are so many ways to advantage play the game. And in general, most known ways are dealt with, yet many instances of illegal advantage plays still go unnoticed at lower denomination bets. IE: the easiest way to advantage play the game is to stay near the minimum bets and bet during busy times so that dealer mistakes on your lower denomination bets are more likely to go in your favor while higher denomination bets are tended to.

That is about as succinct a definition/description as we are about to see here.
1. Try to cheat while the house is making mistakes or isn't looking.
2. Act stupid.
3. Play comped bets.

Note that throws of any sort are not even mentioned. Nor are crookedly weighted pips or similar tamperings.

Quote: Ahigh

Such bold and unsubstantiated claims! Where is your evidence? What is your evidence? It sure sounds like guesswork to me.

Already been "presented." Fifty-thousand rooms along three miles of Las Vegas Boulevard.

Quote: Ahigh

One of the things that I learned from my throwing device is that the precision of the throwing device from left die relative to right die was no better than I could achieve myself.

Here's an image of a delivery with a sound-based trigger showing the instant in time when the dice hit the felt for one of my shots.



None of the shots from my throwing device look this clean.

Even if only a fraction of my shots benefit from this type of clean throw (control up until the moment the dice hit the felt) there is a possibility that left-to-right-die correlation is just as good from a person as from a machine for an ideal throw that a person could deliver.

The number of mistakes can be lower, but the best case delivery for a person may in fact be superior than the best case from a machine just from the ability to improvise to get desired results.

What is the other image in the picture? The image of the other two dice that appear to be about two feet apart, and different distances from the wall and facing in different directions? And where did they originally land?

They aren't the same two dice that looked so perfect at the point of impact, are they? Is where they landed part of advantage play?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Already been "presented." Fifty-thousand rooms along three miles of Las Vegas Boulevard.

Using this argument, I could argue that AP BJ is not possible. Surely ye jest.

Honestly, you guys present so many weak arguments and present so many obviously false statements it is beginning to be quite entertaining.

Quote: SanchoPanza

That is about as succinct a definition/description as we are about to see here.
1. Try to cheat while the house is making mistakes or isn't looking.
2. Act stupid.
3. Play comped bets.

Note that throws of any sort are not even mentioned. Nor are crookedly weighted pips or similar tamperings.

The purpose of mentioning all these things is to point out that it's possible to AP the game. Everyone who voted that it's not possible may some day be PROVEN wrong. Yet that does not stop them from believing something that could in fact be PROVEN to be wrong.

And if they are PROVEN to be wrong, then they have been wrong the entire time; not just instantly becoming wrong when the proof arrives.

To me, this illustrates the value in the work of proving that it's possible because so many people believe so firmly that it is not possible.

But I will give you that the average person has absolutely no hope of advantage playing the game. ESPECIALLY those who don't believe it's possible and just set the dice and throw them consistently HOPING it might help like Alan and others.

If you do even have a bias, half the time it will work against you, and half the time it will work for you!

The first clue I had that I might have a bias, I was losing from too many boxcars showing up when I was doing the same set and throw as I do now with the boxcar set instead of the hard 8 set.

In other words, the first HINT that I had that I might have a bias was because I was LOSING too much money, not winning.

Quote: AlanMendelson

What is the other image in the picture? The image of the other two dice that appear to be about two feet apart, and different distances from the wall and facing in different directions? And where did they originally land?

They aren't the same two dice that looked so perfect at the point of impact, are they? Is where they landed part of advantage play?

Two second exposure. Sound triggered flash. The second image is from a longer exposure time after the dice came to a rest.

How did you infer that this image was part of an advantage play again? This is a demonstration of a controlled shot. I think it was you that I succinctly explained that control is what you have until you release the dice, not what you have as the dice bounce. This image shows control that is actually possible, and yes it also shows the final outcome.

I don't have enough data to correlate the final outcome orientation with the landing orientation. This is just a demonstration of control that is possible on at least one of my shots. Most of my shots are not this clean, especially when I'm messing with all this gear (wireless camera trigger in left hand, etc).

Quote: gts4ever

Pitching stats are only relevant after the fact in that they tell you how you have done as opposed to predicting how you will fare going forward. In a sense I would say all pitching stats state things after the fact, not before. They may indicate the likelihood of future performance but don't mathematically predict outcomes.

Past performance is often a solid indicator of future performance. Such statistics are successfully used all the time in sports betting and horse handicapping.

Quote: gts4ever

I don't think it's fair to think of potential AP from DI/DC as you do BJ, where you can prove in a true mathematical sense that using certain rules, you have a long term edge.

Certainly, the edge in DI is much more difficult to achieve. However, once performance consistency is determined, then math can be applied.

By the way, variance can defeat BJ players, too (not to mention pit heat).

Quote: gts4ever

The craps proofs need to be held to statements like...over x rolls a DI can throw y non sevens, hardways, whatever, less than random with z % confidence. Since I doubt I'm breaking any ground, and because there is still disagreement, I'm assuming experiments like this demonstrating positive results are limited if they exist at all?

Yes, you are not stating anything new. There have been countless discussions and proposals on this forum (and others) as to what statistically constitutes dice influencing.

In addition, there have been seven dice trials with set goals that were sanctioned and wagered on by both sides of the issue. Up until March of this year, there had only been two such trials, both of which favored the shooters. Now, four trials have favored the shooters, two trials have favored the naysayers, and one trial was a push.

It is important to note, that one of the trials going in the naysayers' favor was obviously not taken seriously by the shooter, and the other naysayer trial did not employ an established DI.

Furthermore, two forum members have extensively recorded rolls. One of these members is consistently shooting at one edge of standard deviation 2 after about 3000 rolls.

Quote: Ahigh

But I will give you that the average person has absolutely no hope of advantage playing the game. ESPECIALLY those who don't believe it's possible and just set the dice and throw them consistently HOPING it might help like Alan and others.

Does your throw of the dice differ in any respect from Alan's?

I have asked this question 3 times now. I don't think anyone has responded. Possibility someone did and I missed it. People keep mentioning Stanford Wong and him believing in DI/DC. I believe at the beginning he did believe it was in theory possible, however I think he changed his views on it perhaps not publicly. My question is 1) is he activity participating in DI/DC whether by doing it himself or taking action in doing it. Dose any one know of any SMART organized groups like for Example Cal corp, MIT not sure all the current names. or any well respected pro's who make a living gambling. Playing craps consistently Attempting DI/DC?

Quote: AxelWolf

I have asked this question 3 times now. I don't think anyone has responded. Possibility someone did and I missed it. People keep mentioning Stanford Wong and him believing in DI/DC. I believe at the beginning he did believe it was in theory possible, however I think he changed his views on it perhaps not publicly. My question is 1) is he activity participating in DI/DC whether by doing it himself or taking action in doing it. Dose any one know of any SMART organized groups like for Example Cal corp, MIT not sure all the current names. or any well respected pro's who make a living gambling. Playing craps consistently Attempting DI/DC?

LOL

If you have to ask ...

Gambling with an edge aired recently with Stanford and he disclosed his positions. You can listen to that, but no he has not changed his mind. He merely emphasizes that it is difficult and that people who want to advantage play focus on easier tasks.

I believe he simply de-emphasized controlled shooting because it is too difficult to reasonable expect to be able to accomplish it for the average person who buys one of these books.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Does your throw of the dice differ in any respect from Alan's?

I believe that every throw that has bias has different bias than every other throw.

The way that Alan's approach differs from mine is that I have custom software that I wrote and I understand a lot more of what it takes to obtain an edge from a biased throw than he does.

I think I stated this before, but my clue that I might have an edge was that I was consistently losing more than I should have been losing per roll because I was rolling so many 12's.

I think many people develop edges without keeping enough of their own data to know how to bet in a way that best fits their edges.

I am memorizing the best sets for various points and it's already helping.

For example, when I am shooting for a four, I use the 2323 set and when I am shooting for a ten, I use the 5656 set. It's not intuitive that one set is not just upside down from the other set.

But the relative positions of the hard four position (on top of the set) and the easy four position comes from my heavy hard-8 and ace-deuce from my hard 8 set. So the heavy ace-deuce becomes heavy ace-tres and the heavy hard 8 becomes heavy hard 4.

Similarly for the hard ten set to get the highest ratio of tens to sevens, ace-deuce becomes 6-4 and hard 8 becomes hard ten.

But the short answer is that the theory of advantage play of craps is analogous to a puzzle. Many people have one piece down pat, but until you can work the whole puzzle no picture appears. And maybe you can have better luck knowing what the image is the more pieces you have, but most people don't have everything. They just see something that resembles what they want in a true advantage.

I will say that just using a golden touch throw with a hard 8 set generally has allowed me to throw fewer sevens, and all of that is just following what they say and doing motor memory. The trickiest part about it is getting both dice to fly through the air in tandem like fighter jets in formation rotating with the same speed and landing at the exact same time. You might think you're doing it, but my sound-based triggered photography tells the truth of how well you are doing, and I had no idea how bad my lands looked until I got my tools working.

I know this is a long answer, but you tell me from all the questions that Alan asks me: do you think Alan's approach to advantage play is as advanced as my approach? Years of experience, hands down he wins. Breadth of coverage: just software alone, I don't think Alan has developed his own custom software to tell him how to set the dice from his thousands of recorded throws from the same table in the same position.

Quote: Ahigh

Gambling with an edge aired recently with Stanford and he disclosed his positions. You can listen to that, but no he has not changed his mind. He merely emphasizes that it is difficult and that people who want to advantage play focus on easier tasks.

I believe he simply de-emphasized controlled shooting because it is too difficult to reasonable expect to be able to accomplish it for the average person who buys one of these books.

Who cares if the average person can't do it. You only need 1 person that can do it. Most people cant beat poker but If you find the next Phil Ivey you drop what your doing and back his play. If DI/DC is possible it's a absolute money train .5 will make you gobs of money. I cant believe if Wong though it was possible he would not have ongoing action. Of course hes not going to come out and say, BTW GUYS YOU HAVE ALL BEEN DUPED. He would say just what he did say. Give me a logical reason he or no other legitimate team is doing this. Come on these guys figure any out small obscure edge and exploit it.

Quote: AxelWolf

Who cares if the average person can't do it. You only need 1 person that can do it. Most people cant beat poker but If you find the next Phil Ivey you drop what your doing and back his play. If DI/DC is possible it's a absolute money train .5 will make you gobs of money. I cant believe if Wong though it was possible he would not have ongoing action. Of course hes not going to come out and say, BTW GUYS YOU HAVE ALL BEEN DUPED. He would say just what he did say. Give me a logical reason he or no other legitimate team is doing this. Come on these guys figure any out small obscure edge and exploit it.

I haven't read his book, but I think he may have de-emphasized it due to the difficulty of undertaking the task.

I enjoy the difficulty and challenge myself. It's like the Tungsten dice I created. I enjoyed it not because it was easy and lots of people did it. I was the first.

The person who got six figures in funding to do dice saved Tungsten for last because it was the hardest to do. And she ended up buying my cubes from me because it was easier than doing all the work I did to get them made for me from the Tungsten manufacturers in China. You just can't get that stuff here in the states. You have to do all this import broker shit, and it's a pain in the ass!

When I was making Tungsten dice, nobody understood that either.

But nobody said, "hey it's impossible."

It pretty damn near was, but I made one, and I was the first person to do it too!

Impossible? Whatever guys!!!

I'll tell you what I think about you guys saying it's impossible: you're taking the easy conclusion that has no evidence at all. IE: wimpy!!

My best advantage shot right now is shooting for a four with a 2323 set.

My 4:7 ratio is 60.829% instead of the expected 50.000% with this set from my 3398 rolls.

That's a difference of an extra 10.829%.

The pay for a $25 four is $49.

It should pay 1 out of 3 times you bet it.

With my theoretical advantage, it pays 60.829/160.829 or 37.82% of the time instead of 33.33% of the time.

$74 is the total result of payment on the bet.
$74/3 = 24.666
0.333 / 25 = 1.333% house edge
$74 * .3782 = 27.98
2.98 / 27.98 = 10.67% player advantage.

So on average, I should make $2.98 profit for each resolution of the bet. The bet resolves in 36/9 rolls or 4 rolls. So $2.98 / 4 = $0.74 per roll per $25 bet.

Betting the do and the don't just to shoot and paying $5 for each boxcar on 29% of all rolls means that (.29/36)*$5 is my cost per roll to throw the dice without further variance due to unwanted bets. Some already know that's about $0.04 per roll. Betting the don't is a better bet when I'm biased for the four and against the seven on this throw and costs less than $0.02 per roll and is more ideal.

So the net would be $2.94 per roll if I just work the four and do my throw with the 2323 set.

By the time I get to $100, the pay is $295 and down for vig on the win, so $295 * .3782 = $111.569.
$11.569 / 4-rolls = $2.89 per throw.

At 100 throws per hour on my shot, that's $289 per hour on average from advantage play shooting.

So for every hundred bucks on the felt on average, I should expect no more than $300/hour from my shooting.

This is just me typing out what I have to get a feel for the ceiling of my theoretical bias over 3398 recorded rolls.

This is all theoretical.

I am up over $1000 since Saturday doing my best to test my theoretical advantage play and not gamble except for testing this as best as possible.

I generally keep my exposure at or below $100 on the felt. But I have been shooting for eights and hard 8's mostly, not fours.

But that's with well over 4 hours of play. $200 of that win was from a hard six parlay. On the same table two different days.

It may not exist, this theoretical bias that I have modeled from my recorded throws.

But so far, it is panning out in the casino over the last few days.

I have no clue what your talking about with tungsten dice I seen something posted mentioning them but i skipped over it. I still get your point. I said something at the beginning of my first post regarding DI/DC I'm not %100 sure its not possible. I lean towards not DOABLE IN A MANNER YOU CAN MAKE MONEY. I'm even okay with you not hitting the back wall. I WANT TO BELIEVE. I WANT TO BE WRONG, HORRIBLY WRONG. I WANT YOU TO BE RIGHT. I'm not a scored person who lost any money wile playing, on classes or on books. I would agree with your "I want to be the first" but your not the first to really go for this. your Just the first to openly document. Better men have tried and better men have failed.

Quote: Ahigh

I haven't read his book, but I think he may have de-emphasized it due to the difficulty of undertaking the task.

!

If you really believe Wong gave up on something that could make millions just because it was difficult. I just chuckle and shake my head.

Quote: AxelWolf

If you really believe Wong gave up on something that could make millions just because it was difficult. I just chuckle and shake my head.

I think if Wong was EVER a better shooter than I am today, he would be on my show demonstrating his shot.

Believing that something is possible and being able to do it well yourself are two different things.

Quote: AxelWolf

I have no clue what your talking about with tungsten dice I seen something posted mentioning them but i skipped over it. I still get your point. I said something at the beginning of my first post regarding DI/DC I'm not %100 sure its not possible. I lean towards not DOABLE IN A MANNER YOU CAN MAKE MONEY. I'm even okay with you not hitting the back wall. I WANT TO BELIEVE. I WANT TO BE WRONG, HORRIBLY WRONG. I WANT YOU TO BE RIGHT. I'm not a scored person who lost any money wile playing, on classes or on books. I would agree with your "I want to be the first" but your not the first to really go for this. your Just the first to openly document. Better men have tried and better men have failed.

It doesn't have to be you. But if someone wants to report back to the forum about the possibility of me having an advantage shot in the casino, they should go and record my performance in the casino for me.

I've had so many people ask me for favors to do things for them. Nobody has ever once done me the favor of documenting my performance in a way that does not interfere with my performance.

I have tried and I can't do what I do in the casino and record my rolls.

Just doing it at home with the keyboard is hard enough. But picking up a pen and putting it down, as crazy as it may sound, doesn't work for me.

It's harder for me to do a good roll than you guys might imagine.

But I'm winning, and within the parameters of my theoretical bias.

I think I may move to grinding the four soon, but I've been grinding the eight and the hard eight for 1/6th the amount on the eight.

I have advantages on both with the hard 8 set that I use according to my theory.

I also have a five figure bankroll now.

I tucked some of it away recently, but people are figuring out that I'm winning and I am proudly flashing wads of cash.

Being the first to prove it is all I have been setting out to do. Just to put the debate to rest.

I readily admit that if I prove it's possible, that I doubt that I am the first to do it, just to prove that it can be done and doing it to prove it.

I also readily admit that taking this route may prevent me from cashing in on being able to do it for being well known.

I don't care as I am not hurting for money. I'm doing it because of the challenge, not the financial rewards. The money will be nice if I get it, but I want to conquer the challenge first and foremost. I decided this was what I wanted to do when I had so much money I was in a position to decide what I wanted to do, and this was what I decided I wanted to do.

I'm not in that position anymore (where I can live off interest from cash in the bank and I don't need a job to support my current lifestyle).

But I am still not hurting for money.

You guys that look at making a million bucks as being more important than what I am doing have probably never had a million bucks before.

Having a million bucks is what made me realize this was what I wanted to do.

Quote: Ahigh

I think if Wong was EVER a better shooter than I am today, he would be on my show demonstrating his shot.

Believing that something is possible and being able to do it well yourself are two different things.

Really you think that he has to be the one tossing the dice? come on back in early to mid 2000 secret groups formed seeking the best shooters. IE. people who could hit a dime from 30 feet away with a pair of dice. people with great form and consistency. people who had on paper good ssr numbers. he would be the shooter dice got passed to him. people like Wong didn't even show up they just took action. they had all the advanced software and cameras.

Quote: AxelWolf

Really you think that he has to be the one tossing the dice? come on back in early to mid 2000 secret groups formed seeking the best shooters. IE. people who could hit a dime from 30 feet away with a pair of dice. people with great form and consistency. people who had on paper good ssr numbers. he would be the shooter dice got passed to him. people like Wong didn't even show up they just took action. they had all the advanced software and cameras.

Yeah, whatever you say. All I know is the guy writes about a lot more than craps and he never even put a table in his house.

I thought Wong sounded like a real expert at the game until I heard him talk about it on the gambling with an edge radio show.

When I heard him talk, he sounded like someone who writes a lot of AP books and is a card-playing expert who tried to expand out to craps after learning stuff from a few other people and wrote a book of his own.

I did not get the impression he was ever a fantastic shooter or even had any equipment at all.

In fact, I really haven't had anyone get in contact with me and say, "oh yeah that sound based trigger was done way back." Or "we made a throwing device and it worked better than yours" or "we have interactive software that tests betting strategies against all the different sets."

Instead I get people saying "oh no you're wasting your time because we all know it's impossible because I heard from a friend that they heard stanford took that shit off his website, you dorkus! I know everything by the way. UHHHH!!" That's what I actually hear. From people just like you and on this forum.

But tell me more about the craps lab that's more elaborate than mine from way back when. I want to know all about it!

Quote: Ahigh

But tell me more about the craps lab that's more elaborate than mine from way back when. I want to know all about it!

I wont say that it was advanced as your set up. I know for a fact that a Very smart group formed. I know how expensive and how difficult, almost impossible to get a REAL craps table was. I know the guy had to have the table professionally sawed in half to get it into his house. I know the programs were very sophisticated and that video cameras were used. I know many hours time and money was spent.

I skipped alot of pages that seemed to be about such nonsense as crossroaders with shaved dice and other nonsense that just won't be tolerated and is highly likely to be caught. Its not quite a good career move to rig some gaffed dice and have a go somewhere ... even with blockers and real fast dice-switching you is a gonna get caught! Its about as much of an "advantage" as walking into a bank with a forty-five and a wig. And just about as dangerous, in some places.

I don't know why these nonsense discussions persist. Please: No more about shaved dice and no more about ultra-pure, perfect dice either. These questions were definitively answered by Persi Diaconis long ago when his expertly manufactured but shaved dice lead to more errors in his graduate students recording the results than it lead to any sort of bias in those results. And ultra pure perfect dice? Heck ultra gorgeous women sometimes wander through a casino and cause quite a stir particularly at the craps tables ... it don't mean nothing. You are still left with average results and a cocktail waitress who although attractive is pretty much average too.

Flea can you direct me to the info about "his expertly manufactured but shaved dice lead to more errors in his graduate students recording the results than it lead to any sort of bias in those results. I have only seen one embarrassing video of a bias dice debunker using bias dice. BTW I think you may have a better chance making money finding biased dice but doubtful any biases would be significant. I wonder if big sixes have biased pegs. I do know for a long time at a casino they had a popular entertainer/dealer that entertained while dealing the big six he or she would let people bet VERY Very verg late during the spin. If I remember right he/she even walked out from behind the chip tray while spinning to joke with the crowd. occasionally you could spin as well. Believe it or not the casino had more interesting things to play. If anyone knows where this was at lets not post it they may bring it back or possibility still happening.

Quote: ahigh

My best advantage shot right now is shooting for a four with a 2323 set.
My 4:7 ratio is 60.829% instead of the expected 50.000% with this set from my 3398 rolls.

What set? Your roll data is using a 4242 set and a 6262 set in your blog.

In the 4242 set (2,212 trials), it is showing a mild bias towards the 4 (p value .97781). The Chi-Squared on this roll data by die is p = .519 = random.

Looking at the 4242 with each result, your best result is 4-4 (.9837) and your worse results is 1-1 (.04305). But the Chi-Squared on your roll data is p = .471 = random.

In otherwords, when you have 21 different possible roll results, you are going to have a results within your set that "look" unrandom. But the Chi-squared shows random.

If you want to fool yourself and believe that you have a special ability to throw hardways vs non-hardways, I would contend that it's just a "manifestation" of the randomness.

If you are creaing a new set by transposing your die from a 4242 set to a 2323 set, how do you transpose the die to a result? Inotherwords, how do you know how to transpose the result that you received to the new result (since you are not recording which die started on the 4 and ended on the ?).

much of what you say is correct. The only way to increase your number of hardways over what any random thrower
would find is to use a hardway set, and at the same time have very good access control.
This means that both dice act the same with the same number of revolutions before they hit the table, and both
react the same after that.

All dicesitters have seen this many times. the question is not whether axis control can exist or whether each of
us have done it, the only question is can you do it often enough to make a difference.

The truth is we all have seen hardways repeat, we all have seen numbers repeat, sometimes in manner that one
can not explain, however if the throw was completely random, the results were similar. You cant have a random throw
and then think you can control or influence the results.

good shooting


dicesitter

Persi Diaconis is well respected professor of statistics who has done a great deal of work involving coin tosses, perfect dice and intentionally non perfect dice, much of his work is published but his lecture on dice control was a lunchtime lecture that apparently was not published.

Big Six wheel... yeah, some casinos use newly hired but totally untrained (or somewhat nervous) Party Pit dealers on the Big Six wheel. They dont know to deal Blackjack yet and they don't how to deal the wheel either but they sure look cute and thats what brings the money in. Some of those little old ladies watching the big six wheel are clearly clocking it and noting which dealers are lazy or simply new.

Frankly anyone famous or simply stunning looking on the Big Six wheel probably brings in far more money than they give out by spinning it badly. Many people get a shift on the big six wheel as punishment for some earlier gaff.