Most popular dice sets to avoid a 7
Quote: befamous7I am curious to know what popular dice sets are to avoid rolling a 7? I'm heading to Vegas in a couple weeks and I'd like to try and use a consistent set and see how this works for me.
As a 2 year vet you should know whether it can be done or not is controversial.
I don't believe in it, but just for fun do try to do it. Do you know the basics? If not, check out the Wizard's page.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/
I've never seen any convincing evidence that set#1 on that page isn't the best for not rolling 7s. I set either the ones or the sixes facing towards me [forming the axis]. 2, 3, 4, or 5 as a pair can face up, doesnt have to be as shown.
Good luck!
possible.
In short if you cant get the number you want by setting for it, it makes sense
you cant avoid a 7 by setting to avoid one.
On the other hand since most of us cant get the number we want, atleast setting for
one particular 7 will take 1/3 third of them out of the game.
Hell set for a 6/1 you may never see one again
Dicesetter
Quote: dicesitter
Hell set for a 6/1 you may never see one again
Dicesetter
Now THAT'S control! ;-)
There are 8 sets that qualify as an answer to your question. They are collectively known as "hardway sets."
The hardway set has both dice with the exact same orientation. The six face and the one face are facing the same directions as the axis of rotation during flight.
All of my research actually supports evidence that the hardway set is the best set to avoid throwing sevens. This set is no better or worse than sets that have the something other than the six-one faces along the axis. But fewer six one faces, according to theory, and also backed up by my research, should be along the axis to reduce the occurrence of the hi and the lo when you have a come bet as well.
You do not want to use this set on the initial roll of the comeout.
Taking the hardway set and rotating one of the two dice 180' along the axis of rotation so that instead of having all hardways you have all sevens (continuing with the six faces and one faces along the axis) is the ideal set when you have nothing but a pass line bet.
Even the best influencers, in my opinion, will have the best results in the long term by making only a single pass line bet and a single odds bet in order to avoid the case of hedging the odds bet with a come bet. This is controversial and it is boring not to employ any come bets. It matters more if you don't take odds (which is a legitimate way to approach DI in my opinion regardless of the Wizard's believe that it is important to take odds if you want the best chance at success) the hedging between one bet wanting a hardway set and one bet wanting an all-seven set is more of a problem without odds bets.
This is a GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION of much of the theories behind DI. But this is the most popular approach to the game.
I also want to add in that a lot of people like the 3V set. I have zero evidence that there is any merit at all in this set myself. I haven't done a ton of work, but that set does not like my throw at all, and I haven't heard any evidence supporting that this approach has merit. I am not saying it doesn't work, but you'd think that if it did work I would know SOMETHING about it by now. It could just be my problem, though. But FWIW, I would not mess with the 3V set. I also advise against ICE-TONG grip as I doubt that this is an effective grip myself.
done a ton of work, but that set does not like my throw at all, and I haven't heard any evidence supporting that this approach has merit. I am not saying it doesn't work, but you'd think that if it did work I would know SOMETHING about it by now.
I apologise, i had take a break i was laughing so hard.....
If it does not work for Ahigh... it cant be any good and the craps world should not use it.
You cant make this stuff up.
Dicesetter
Quote: dicesitteri love this stuff
done a ton of work, but that set does not like my throw at all, and I haven't heard any evidence supporting that this approach has merit. I am not saying it doesn't work, but you'd think that if it did work I would know SOMETHING about it by now.
I apologise, i had take a break i was laughing so hard.....
If it does not work for Ahigh... it cant be any good and the craps world should not use it.
You cant make this stuff up.
Dicesetter
Oh, that reminds me, I don't think the WOV has seen your roll data you submitted to me.
http://forum.goodshooter.com/topic349-10.html
Quote: rollresults
You need to correct my data above. I have 185 rolls and a RSR (not srr) of 8.08.
Total rolls: 185
1) 74 20.00% - 16.67 = (+3.33)------------------------------------------------------------ 1
2) 29 7.84% - 16.67 = (-8.83)------------------------ 2
3) 60 16.22% - 16.67 = (-0.45)------------------------------------------------- 3
4) 54 14.59% - 16.67 = (-2.07)-------------------------------------------- 4
5) 72 19.46% - 16.67 = (+2.79)----------------------------------------------------------- 5
6) 81 21.89% - 16.67 = (+5.23)------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
X**2: 28.56 p: 0.00003
fw 74,29,60,54,72,81 74,29,60,54,72,81
11: --------- 2 (9)
12: ---- 3 (4)
21: -- 3 (2)
13: --------- 4 (9)
22: ---- 4 (4)
31: ------------ 4 (12)
14: ---------- 5 (10)
23: - 5 (1)
32: -- 5 (2)
41: 5 (0)
15: ---- 6 (4)
24: - 6 (1)
33: 6 (0)
42: - 6 (1)
51: ---- 6 (4)
16: ------- 7 (7)
25: - 7 (1)
34: ----- 7 (5)
43: --- 7 (3)
52: - 7 (1)
61: ---- 7 (4)
26: ---- 8 (4)
35: --------- 8 (9)
44: 8 (0)
53: -------- 8 (8)
62: ---- 8 (4)
36: ---- 9 (4)
45: ------ 9 (6)
54: --------- 9 (9)
63: ------- 9 (7)
46: ----------- 10 (11)
55: ------ 10 (6)
64: -------- 10 (8)
56: ---------- 11 (10)
65: -------- 11 (8)
66: ------- 12 (7)
X**2: 82.57 p: 0.00001
Killing -5140
2) 9 4.86% - 2.78% = 2.09% (+3.86)--------------- 2
3) 6 3.24% - 5.56% = -2.31% (-4.28)---------- 3
4) 25 13.51% - 8.33% = 5.18% (+9.58)----------------------------------------- 4
5) 13 7.03% - 11.11% = -4.08% (-7.56)---------------------- 5
6) 10 5.41% - 13.89% = -8.48% (-15.69)----------------- 6
7) 21 11.35% - 16.67% = -5.32% (-9.83)----------------------------------- 7
8) 25 13.51% - 13.89% = -0.38% (-0.69)----------------------------------------- 8
9) 26 14.05% - 11.11% = 2.94% (+5.44)------------------------------------------- 9
10) 25 13.51% - 8.33% = 5.18% (+9.58)-----------------------------------------10
11) 18 9.73% - 5.56% = 4.17% (+7.72)------------------------------11
12) 7 3.78% - 2.78% = 1.01% (+1.86)------------12
X**2: 40.03 p: 0.00002
4:7 ratio is 119.048% - 50.000% = +69.048% (+138.10% diff)
5:7 ratio is 61.905% - 66.667% = -4.762% (-7.14% diff)
6:7 ratio is 47.619% - 83.333% = -35.714% (-42.86% diff)
8:7 ratio is 119.048% - 83.333% = +35.714% (+42.86% diff)
9:7 ratio is 123.810% - 66.667% = +57.143% (+85.71% diff)
10:7 ratio is 119.048% - 50.000% = +69.048% (+138.10% diff)
X**2: 30.12 p: 0.00004
Observed: 21.0 sevens - 164.0 non sevens RSR 8.8095
Expected: 30.8 sevens - 154.2 non sevens RSR 6.0000
X**2: 3.76 p: 0.05239
Seven outs 19 (90.48%) - Seven winners 2 (9.52%)
Pairs 26 14.05% - 16.67% = -2.61% (-4.83 rolls)
Hards 10 5.41% - 11.11% = -5.71% (-10.56 rolls)
HiLos 16 8.65% - 5.56% = 3.09% (+5.72 rolls)
H2 9/0 ( 4.86% - 2.78% = +3.86)
H4 4/1 ( 2.16% - 2.78% = -1.14)
H6 0/0 ( 0.00% - 2.78% = -5.14)
H8 0/0 ( 0.00% - 2.78% = -5.14)
H10 6/1 ( 3.24% - 2.78% = +0.86)
H12 7/1 ( 3.78% - 2.78% = +1.86)
EZ: 159 (85.95% - 83.33% = +4.83)
X**2: 14.40 p: 0.02546
Check out those p-values.
Dicesetter is the most accomplished shooter ever. Either that or he types in numbers about as accurately as he spells.
Quote: befamous7I don't know where I stand on the dice control aspect of craps but I am interested in maintaining consistency with my shot.
Since it has thus far proven impossible to prove the efficacy of dice influencing, I must confess that your question makes no sense.
Just pick em up and roll em: you will be consistently random, as are we all.
Now that i settled down, the 3v set is an excellent set.
Now there is alot of talk about axis control, and we all understand that if you use a slow motion
camera, it shows that dice go off axis on almost every roll.. i get that... so lets just for a period
accept that when dice end up they are either on the axis you started with or they are not. If you
started with say a hardway set 5/4 5/4 and the dice end up 5/4 they finished on the axis they
started on , no matter how they got there... if you started with a 3/v and ended up 3/6
they finished with the axis you started on.
My experience ( and for the sake of one of the members on here) when i say my experience that means
what i have seen when i play, it does not mean i think i am good enough to tell anyone else how to play....
When i use the hardway set, and i get 3/4 or 4/3 i have to switch to the 3/v or set or i get the 3/4 4/3
all night... and most times i do better, also changing to an outside set accomplishes the same thing.
Assuming an axis finish.... the hardway gives you the 3/4 4/3 5/2 2/5 as possibilities.
the 3 v gives 3/4 4/3 or some outside sets given you only the 5/2 2/5
if a person can not get an axis finish... the 3v set is an awful set for you.
IN terms of the throws above posed by Ahigh , that was a new set i was working with for outside numbers.... i really
dont know what a p value is nor do i much care... what i think is that set does produce a nice outside
bias and i have continued to use it and i like it. In truth i am pretty much scared to know what a p value is , because if
i knew, i might think i was as good as ahigh thinks he is.
dicesetter
Quote: MrVSince it has thus far proven impossible to prove the efficacy of dice influencing, I must confess that your question makes no sense.
Just pick em up and roll em: you will be consistently random, as are we all.
It makes perfect sense to me. He is asking what is popular.
Quote: MathExtremistIf you can keep the dice on axis, and all you care about is minimizing 7s, the best sets are those with different axial numbers on each die. It doesn't matter which: if 1 and 6 are on the side of one die, 2 and 5 or 3 and 4 should be on the sides of the other.
This thinking is new to me. I can't comprehend it.
In the example of 1,6 on axis paired with 2,5 on axis, and apparently no other conditions, then someone with influence would have less 1s,6s,2s, and 5s. That's all kinds of combinations. If 1,6 is on axis with both dice, though, without other consideration there are less 1s and 6s period. Less combinations totalling 7, 2, and 12 only.
Quote: MathExtremistIt doesn't matter which
It seems to matter to me.
I think somebody has p-value envy. ;)
Quote: odiousgambitThis thinking is new to me. I can't comprehend it.
In the example of 1,6 on axis paired with 2,5 on axis, and apparently no other conditions, then someone with influence would have less 1s,6s,2s, and 5s. That's all kinds of combinations. If 1,6 is on axis with both dice, though, without other consideration there are less 1s and 6s period. Less combinations totalling 7, 2, and 12 only.
Don't look at what's not on the dice, look at what is. Using the set where 1 and 6 are on the axis, and if you can control the dice so they always show one of the remaining 4 sides, you have 2,3,4,5 on each die. There are 4 ways to roll a 7 (2/5, 3/4, 4/3, 5/2) out of 16 possibilities, so p(7) = 25%. On the other hand, if you have different numbers on the axis, then you have different numbers on each face. Suppose you put 1/6 and 2/5 on the axis (the "flying V" set). You have 2,3,4,5 on one die, 1,3,4,6 on the other. Now there are only two ways to roll a 7 (3/4 and 4/3) out of 16, so p(7) = 12.5%.
Like I said, *if* you can control the dice and *if* all you care about is minimizing 7s, this is how to do it.
Quote: Dicenor33Befamous , hard way sets might help you to avoid 7 . Most shooters now days use parallel 3 . Yes , you will avoid 7 longer than average player . Do any of these people got any richer ? I don't think so . Ask yourself a simple question , if I have an edge than I must play table max , can I do that ? If you answered "yes" than bet $5000 across . If you loose , take Ahigh to court for false advertisement . You are at a mercy of luck like everybody else , that's why "controlled shooters" never bet big .
Wow so many lies in so few sentences. It should be known that I removed this person and all of their posts from my forum for lack of general content quality.
"If you loose..."
That alone should tell you something about the quality of content from this individual.
Quote: MathExtremistYou have 2,3,4,5 on one die, 1,3,4,6 on the other. Now there are only two ways to roll a 7 (3/4 and 4/3) out of 16, so p(7) = 12.5%.
Well! I would never have arrived at this on my own. Thanks.
Quote: AhighWow so many lies
A person can be assertive and uninformed at the same time, yet have no intentional mendacity.
Certainly in the post there is no concept of the Kelly Criterion, a torpedo for his main argument.
That is certainly possible, as soon as i know what it is i will let you know.
The only thing i know for sure about p is what my dad told me.
He said son.. " it is better to go when you have to go than not to go and
find out that you went"
Now Bee i have no idea what that has to do with craps, but then i have no idea
what "p" has to do with craps either.
Dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterBeethoven9th
That is certainly possible, as soon as i know what it is i will let you know.
The only thing i know for sure about p is what my dad told me.
He said son.. " it is better to go when you have to go than not to go and
find out that you went"
Now Bee i have no idea what that has to do with craps, but then i have no idea
what "p" has to do with craps either.
Dicesetter
One mistake deserves another. I present Exhibit "B."
There is no question that there were errors in this roll data. We came up with different rolls to seven ratios. There were also, literally, ambiguities in the roll data itself IIRC.
When questioned in an attempt to clarify the errors in the roll data, I said,
Quote: AhighYou need to correct my data above. I have 185 rolls and a RSR (not srr) of 8.08.
He originally said
Quote: dicesetter183 rolls
srr of 9.63
axis 51.1%
The response I got was
Quote: dicesetterwell let me be perfectly clear, i have no idea what your talking about.
Yet the results from this roll data should be considered as legitimate data and what he "actually rolled."
There are certainly errors in the data. I am 100% sure of that. I just don't know why I spend any time talking to this guy, and I imagine others might also waste cycles believing things that he says without the benefit of the review for how this went. It's pretty much what you should expect with him going forward: bold claims followed by "huh?!?!" when questioned about the details.
Maybe I made the mistake, but whatever the mistake was, all I could get when trying to clarify who made the mistake (him or me) I just got, again,
Quote: dicesetterwell let me be perfectly clear, i have no idea what your talking about.
Here is the data that he submitted:
Quote: dicesetters-data
3-1 4-6 2-6 3-1 6-2 1-6 6-5 3-1 4-5 3-5 4-1
5-4 6-4 6-3 6-1 1-4 6-4 1-4 4-5 3-1 2-1 1-5
6-6 5-3 6-6 3-6 4-6 4-5 3-5 3-4 1-6 5-5 3-1
3-6 6-5 3-2 6-5 3-2 5-6 2-4 5-5 6-4 1-1 2-6
5-1 2-2 4-3 5-3 4-6 6-1 1-5 1-1 5-4 6-6 1-3
5-2 1-3 2-1 4-3 5-3 4-1 6-3 3-4 1-2 4-6 3-5 1-3
1-3 5-6 2-6 1-1 3-1 5-6 1-1 4-6 5-3 6-5 5-6 5-4
1-6 1-5 2-2 1-1 3-5 4-1 3-5 4-1 3-6 2-1 4-5 5 5
5-6 5-2 1-3 6-6 5-4 1-1 1-5 6-1 4-6 5-3 4-3 2-2
5-1 2-6
1-1 6-4 5-5 2-4 5-6 3-2 6-5 3-6 3-1 5-6 6-6 3-1
5-5 1-6 3-4 3-5 4-5 4-6 3-6 5-6 6-6 5-5 5-3 4-5 6-6 2-1
1-5 3-6 3-1 1-1 3-5 4-5 2-2 1-5 1-4 1-6 4-5 6-4 5-4 5-6 1-4 6-1
4-6 4-6 6-3 6-4 6-5 5-3 4-6 6-1 6-3 6-4 5-4 4-1 3-5 4-5 3-1 6-5 1-6 6-2 3-1 2-6
4-6 3-1 5-6 3-1 1-1 2-6 5-6 1-3 3-5 4-6 1-3 3-4 6-3 4-1 5-3
4-3 2-1 1-3
Anyone else want to suggest how likely this is to be factual data from actual rolls?
If we assume that on a fairly rolled dice the numbers 1-6 are all equally likely. I might roll a sequence with 1-1-1-3-3-3. Now what's the probability of rolling a distribution that uneven (or more so) in those six rolls. For this, the p-value is 0.12. Which means 12% of 6 roll sequences will be as skewed as this list.
12% is far too high to make any sort of assumption on.
We can do this for huge data sets, like, say 1000 craps rolls. The null hypothesis is that your dice rolls are random. The p-value gives a way of testing this hypothesis. If it's very low (0.01% or less) it suggests the dice rolls are not evenly distributed (1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are not equally likely).
I've not checked the numbers calculated by aHigh, but he suggests that the p-value is so small, it's clear you are either a) making up the data or b) you show very high evidence of dice control (so high that it's unfathomable to him). I think aHigh over relies on the p-value for most cases (if it's greater than 1%, it doesn't matter what it is), but in this case it points to something worth looking at (from either your point of view or his).
All i can say is that is the rolls i made.... period.
What i look for is out of however many rolls i have did i have more 4 & 10's and or 5 & 9's than i should have had. Now
with 200 rolls it means nothing.. but it did indicate that i should practice more with the set and see what happens after
many more rolls, to see if there is a set that works better on outside than inside.
When you practice at home on your table, i assume most people try different sets to see if there is a different result.
That is what i do, i am comfortable enough with my toss that i do that.
Now in terms of Ahigh... ever since i have been online on this site or any other, he constantly tells people to feed
him data so he says he can help them, then each and every time he indicates that data is such that it may be made up.
The truth is simple it does not work for him, hundreds of hours by himself have produced nothing, zero no controlled throw,
no advantage and the only control he has is to take our data and try to tell us what it means or call others a iar.
I would rather be a friend to a person than not , ahigh has made that impossible in many cases and i think Alan
was about right.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterwell
All i can say is that is the rolls i made.... period.
What i look for is out of however many rolls i have did i have more 4 & 10's and or 5 & 9's than i should have had. Now
with 200 rolls it means nothing.. but it did indicate that i should practice more with the set and see what happens after
many more rolls, to see if there is a set that works better on outside than inside.
When you practice at home on your table, i assume most people try different sets to see if there is a different result.
That is what i do, i am comfortable enough with my toss that i do that.
Now in terms of Ahigh... ever since i have been online on this site or any other, he constantly tells people to feed
him data so he says he can help them, then each and every time he indicates that data is such that it may be made up.
The truth is simple it does not work for him, hundreds of hours by himself have produced nothing, zero no controlled throw,
no advantage and the only control he has is to take our data and try to tell us what it means or call others a iar.
I would rather be a friend to a person than not , ahigh has made that impossible in many cases and i think Alan
was about right.
dicesetter
I'm not calling you a liar. There is the possibility that you are actually as good as you say you are! There's also the possibility that the distribution you got is one of those things that happens very very rarely and you just got lucky. There's also the possibility that it's a combination of those two things (luck and good shooting).
The fact that this turned into a personal problem has just as much to do with your inability to correct problems (IE: communicate) as anything else.
I just don't have time for people who can't communicate properly.
You have problems communicating. You have problems spelling. Even your name you sometimes spell "dicesitter" and sometimes you spell it "dicesetter" and when people ask WTF you generally don't explain why you can't consistently even spell your own handle, much less better than 90% of the words in your posts.
It's just very likely, in my view, given the evidence that you have mistakes in entering your data, intentional or otherwise.
Looks like the grammar nazis are out to get you...haha
Anyway, I do remember somebody implying that you sent in fake data for your throws and that you were "full of sh*t". All because he doesn't want to admit that you're a better shooter than he is. lol
world's best dice setter title is at risk !
Quote: Beethoven9thDicesitter,
Looks like the grammar nazis are out to get you...haha
Anyway, I do remember somebody implying that you sent in fake data for your throws and that you were "full of sh*t". All because he doesn't want to admit that you're a better shooter than he is. lol
I wish it were more believable because I would love it if he could do such unlikely things. There's just no evidence suggesting to me that I should get my hopes up that he's really that good.
Quote: AhighThere's just no evidence suggesting to me that I should get my hopes up that he's really that good.
Didn't he send you the evidence?
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: AhighThere's just no evidence suggesting to me that I should get my hopes up that he's really that good.
Didn't he send you the evidence?
Surely you don't have a problem understanding it's not a lack of evidence, it's what the evidence is suggesting as the more likely possibility is that the evidence is simply not recorded properly.
So far in this thread, DS has still not corrected who has the correct seven-to-rolls ratio.
As long as we can't get past that little teeny weeny inconsistency, I'm going to assume that he is the one unable to present correct data. But it's possible I got the wrong RSR instead of him.
It's also possible that my software has bugs in it. That's probably more likely than the possibility that he rolled such unlikely outcomes. Of course, he could just be an amazing shooter. How would I know? It just sure seems more likely that he's not from my perspective. I would love to be wrong about all of this. I would also love it if he learned to use the built-in spell-check in Google Chrome.
Quote: AhighOf course, he could just be an amazing shooter...It just sure seems more likely that he's not from my perspective.
Dicesitter doesn't seem like a deceitful guy. Just give the man his due and admit that he's a good shooter. *sigh*
Quote: EvenBob
I'm one of them, big surprise. Whats stopping anybody
from joining under another name, he'll never know who
they are. He can't keep anybody out just because he says
so. In fact, I'll prove it. In the next 10 days I'm going to join
under another name and it will drive him nuts trying to
figure out which one I am.
Quote: Beethoven9th
That's a good idea. We should all do that and have some fun. ;)
BTW, does he know your location? If so, he might recognize your IP address.
Quote: Buzzard
I signed on as "tupp" because that name had not been taken
Yeah, he's nothing like some others in that category for sure.
BTW, you are very naive if you believe that WoV members are the only ones in the world who know about changing an IP address.
Anyway, getting back on topic, can you just admit that Dicesitter is a good shooter instead of making excuses to belittle him?
One question for Dicesitter or setter, what ever the hell it is. Do u make any substantial money from craps or believe you can? If you do why oh why for the love of god do you wast your time talking about it or arguing with Ahigh? If you have an advantage on craps then you have access 24/7 365 to make unlimited money.
Ahigh if your point is.... if he can't even spell is own name how can he record proper data? I get what your saying. Even if he was a spelling bee guru, that would not change anything.
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't get it, Ahigh. So some of the members here have a little kid inside that likes to have fun from time to time. Big deal? It's a far cry from posting a 500-word diatribe about your treatment of casino staff. (It's also a far cry from spying on someone at Caesars)
BTW, you are very naive if you believe that WoV members are the only ones in the world who know about changing an IP address.
Anyway, getting back on topic, can you just admit that Dicesitter is a good shooter instead of making excuses to belittle him?
I didn't say it wasn't childish. The word that you selected was deceitful. And this little plan of yours that is clearly outlined in this post is such. Not DiceSitter, you. I never said DiceSitter was deceitful. You used that word, not me.
You, however, are in fact deceitful. Your idea to post a message without a means for me to know that it was you as it was brought to the attention of the forum is a demonstration of your willingness to admit that you are deceitful. Definitely in a different class from DiceSitter. No matter how many people know how to do that, I have never done it myself as I have never had a reason to do it.
You seemed (and continue to seem) as if this is "normal" behavior to hide and pretend to be someone else.
I think that behavior is deceitful.
But hey, I can see how you would be defensive about the type of person you are by saying "all the cool kids are doing it."
Quote: AxelWolfAhigh if your point is.... if he can't even spell is own name how can he record proper data? I get what your saying. Even if he was a spelling bee guru, that would not change anything.
Yeah, that's exactly my point. He is not a credible source of information if, for no other reason, that he can't hit the right keys when he's typing in words. Why should I expect it to be different when he types in numbers?
In the post mentioning and/or challenging him to submit evidence, I specifically asked for video evidence. He never even responded to that request.
He just wants to be the guy who gets good results, and I think he's willing to do what he needs to do in order to make people believe that he can get the results that make him look better.
I don't expect he understands how p-values work. In this case as a measure of how likely these results were actually obtained.
But I'm really sorry to anyone who believes his data and thinks he's really that great of a shooter. I just happen to not believe that is all. With more proof I could believe it.
I document all my stuff very thoroughly, and people have doubted many of my performances which are all very real.
So I understand how it feels when you are doubted.
But my doubt remains very very high with this guy.
Quote: AhighI didn't say it wasn't childish. The word that you selected was deceitful. And this little plan of yours that is clearly outlined in this post is such. Not DiceSitter, you. I never said DiceSitter was deceitful. You used that word, not me.
You, however, are in fact deceitful. Your idea to post a message without a means for me to know that it was you as it was brought to the attention of the forum is a demonstration of your willingness to admit that you are deceitful. Definitely in a different class from DiceSitter. No matter how many people know how to do that, I have never done it myself as I have never had a reason to do it.
You seemed (and continue to seem) as if this is "normal" behavior to hide and pretend to be someone else.
I think that behavior is deceitful.
But hey, I can see how you would be defensive about the type of person you are by saying "all the cool kids are doing it."
Answered in the 'Ahigh suspension' thread.
Quote: Beethoven9thUm...I was posting to Dicesitter. YOU took the initiative to respond to ME. Remember?
Let's get back on topic. The 3V is a terrible set unless someone can explain to me the theory of how it works. Sorry for letting the thread get derailed by DiceSitter and Beethoven who have not done as much work on the topic as I have yet still feel their opinions are as relevant as mine and want to derail the thread as a result of, perhaps, their desire to interfere with what I am doing.
Just making a personal attack on me because I have no information for what makes the 3V set worth anything at all for a general newb to shooting is rather fitting for the two members who attacked me (DiceSitter and Beethoven9th).
Here's someone who teaches the 3V dice set.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46wWpStO3XA
Quote: Ahigh...by DiceSitter and Beethoven who have not done as much work on the topic as I have yet still feel their opinions are as relevant as mine
To the rest of the forum: Nobody's opinions are as "relevant" as those of the King of Craps. So I will now defer to him. lol
Quote: Ahigh
Let's get back on topic. The 3V is a terrible set unless someone can explain to me the theory of how it works. Sorry for letting the thread get derailed by DiceSitter and Beethoven who have not done as much work on the topic as I have yet still feel their opinions are as relevant as mine and want to derail the thread as a result of, perhaps, their desire to interfere with what I am doing.
Just making a personal attack on me because I have no information for what makes the 3V set worth anything at all for a general newb to shooting is rather fitting for the two members who attacked me (DiceSitter and Beethoven9th).
Here's someone who teaches the 3V dice set.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46wWpStO3XA
Incredible. If Ahigh cannot understand how it works, it must be terrible. What an egomaniac.
Quote: G71Incredible. If Ahigh cannot understand how it works, it must be terrible. What an egomaniac.
For a newb. There is context. Read the original message. He asked for "POPULAR" ..
All I'm saying is that I haven't found any evidence to support it.
Conversely, when I throw my throw, my own software independently comes up with the fact that the hardway sets are the best sets to couple with my throw.
This also happened for one of my forum members, JB.
That's never happened for a 3V set that I know of.
There is context to the discussion.
Lack of information simply means that the popular set is the hardway set and that is the set that I do have information that I came up with independently that says this is a good set to use with a GTC style throw.
I'll do some more work on this, but re-read the original post. The guy isn't asking for much more than "what the most popular set"
The short answer is probably random toss on the comeout and hard 8 set on after the point.
Beyond that is the all seven set on the comeout.
But the 3V set, all I'm saying is that it hasn't come up from my software and/or from my throws in a way that it bonked me over the head like the hardway set did.
Odiousgambit, I understand this topic is controversial. I've never tried anything like this and I simply want to maintain a consistent dice set during my trip in a couple weeks. The main reason I posted about this was like you said, "just for fun." I have a low bankroll ($500 or less) and I'm not looking for a set that will never lose and get me rich. It's purely something I'd like to try out.
I wasn't really posting to debate about anything, I just wanted to know what sets people like to use.
I pretty much explained the 3-v set and most people got it except one.
Most people understand what happens with a double pitch or single pitch
on a hardway set.... 5/2 2/5 or 4/3 3/4 you dont get the same result with
the 3v.
I tossed a set of each tonight, to show the difference.
hardway with 5/4/5/4
6,3,4,6,4,5,5,3,8,7,5,10,7,6,11,2,10,12,3,9,9,6,5,5,9,9,4,3,9,12,12,4,5,7,7,8,7
This was not a good effort with 5 7/s and 2 were 5/2 and other 3 were 3/4 or 4/3
3v
6,4,4,6,8,9,12,9,7,3,5,11,8,10,2,2,11,7,8,5,8,8,6,7,3,10,4,10,4,11,6,8,10,11,6,6
this set had only 3 7/s and there was 1 5-2 and the others were 6-1
this set gave me more 4,6/8/10 than random. the srr is 12 which we all understand
is just luck,,, no one can sustain a 12 srr..
This little data, 1 set of 36 with each set does not in itself mean much, but for me this
is about right with the hardway set,,,, to many 7's on rolls that end on axis. i can not use
it.
while this endless nonsense with ahigh takes all away from working to get better, this also
helps show a way for some people to avoid some 7's
Dicesetter.
Quote: dicesitterI can't believe i am doing this, but i will give it one more shot.
Sorry, didn't mean for you to repeat yourself. It was hard deciphering the information I was looking for in previous posts with all of the turmoil.
I appreciate the data you recorded. Thank you.
Quote: befamous7I just wanted to know what sets people like to use.
All Pandora wanted to do was take a little peek inside that box, too.
Oh well, now you know. [g]
Quote: Dicenor33Befamous , casinos require dice to be completely random , that's where their edge comes from . Anything you or anybody else does is illegal and the house reserves the right to stop you from shooting . This fact alone reduces your chances of winning to zero . I've seen people winning 50K or more , they had no idea about dice control and house could not do anything because they were 100% legitimate .
This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen anybody write.
Seriously,you have no idea.
The house can throw you out anytime they want to. It doesn't matter if you are legit or not.
Stop making new member like me look bad when you get on here and make these diahrea keybord posts.
KB1
