What constitutes AP Craps play?
Quote: dicesitterWe all should have learned by now that when you argue with some one that just wants to argue,,
LOL. I could have sworn you said something about a full deck here. Wait let me check, yup.
Ahoy (yes not ahigh, Ahoy because I can't even get my name right)
Quote: AhighAre you talking about me here? Sounds like you might be projecting. Just a little maybe. Not sure. Just for shits and giggles, how about you share with us an image of your back yard before you talk trash about mine. No I mean literally, let's see the marble statues, Bob so I can understand how you feel sorry for me and my "troubles."
In the absence of anything real, this is the image I have of you FWIW, Bob. You can't expect me to think you look like Tom Cruz with an indoor pool and five hot babes begging you to go into the Sauna before a quicky.
I actually pictured EvenBob 30 lbs heavier. Where is Bob's butterfly collection?
Another image:
As far as maybe a little more weight:
Quote: AhighYeah, I think they photoshopped a web page onto the computer screen. .
I wish I was this cool in 1984. Sigh..
Quote: AhighAwesome
Ahigh, who was the girl in that poster you had on your wall? It looked like you got her autograph too. :)
Quote: AhighAlan isn't against me.
Correct. I am not against Ahigh. Ahigh could have accepted my invitation for dinner at Caesars. And when I was playing craps that weekend at Caesars and Ahigh was 20 feet away at another table and he had his friend Harley charting my throws, Ahigh could have come over to say hello. He could have even played at the table since there was only me and one other player and Harley who were at the table.
Quote: AhighAlan has built his own little house of cards all by himself. I'm not going to knock them down, I just want him to describe what the house of cards that he built looks like so we could all contemplate the structural integrity of the house.
But he isn't so good at responding to simple direct questions. If I ask him "what color is your house of cards" he would answer "it is the most beautiful color you could imagine!"
I don't know would have been a better answer than what he gave me; and I suspect he has no idea except that he knows a "true DI" when he sees one, and even though he has never watched me shoot in real life, he knows I'm not one and wants to inform everyone that he is the guy who gets to decide what is a "true DI" and I'm not one of them.
Ahigh, I was with real dice influencers in 1996 which might have been before you were old enough to be in a casino. Look buddy, you are not a dice "controller" and your fancy charts and statistics don't impress me. They never did. There are lies, damned lies and statistics and no matter how you massage your statistics you don't have a controlled throw and you never did. However, that doesn't mean you can't win playing craps. I wish you good luck and I hope you do win. But the king of craps is not wearing any clothes. I have watched your videos. When it comes to your claims about dice influencing and dice controlling you are buck naked.
Want to prove me wrong? Just put ONE video on you tube showing a controlled throw. JUST ONE. I don't think that is too much to ask. I am sure Frank Scoblete could as could any of the GTC regulars. It ain't hard to video tape ONE controlled throw.
I will take 2 to 1 my shot will have better results than any DI. Or if it's a day time game, my 6 year old granddaughter will sub for me
Roll them bones, Gracie !
Quote: AlanMendelsonCorrect. I am not against Ahigh. Ahigh could have accepted my invitation for dinner at Caesars. And when I was playing craps that weekend at Caesars and Ahigh was 20 feet away at another table and he had his friend Harley charting my throws, Ahigh could have come over to say hello. He could have even played at the table since there was only me and one other player and Harley who were at the table.
Ahigh, I was with real dice influencers in 1996 which might have been before you were old enough to be in a casino. Look buddy, you are not a dice "controller" and your fancy charts and statistics don't impress me. They never did. There are lies, damned lies and statistics and no matter how you massage your statistics you don't have a controlled throw and you never did. However, that doesn't mean you can't win playing craps. I wish you good luck and I hope you do win. But the king of craps is not wearing any clothes. I have watched your videos. When it comes to your claims about dice influencing and dice controlling you are buck naked.
Want to prove me wrong? Just put ONE video on you tube showing a controlled throw. JUST ONE. I don't think that is too much to ask. I am sure Frank Scoblete could as could any of the GTC regulars. It ain't hard to video tape ONE controlled throw.
I find this post very personally offensive. You need to get over this before it ruins you. My wife was unavailable when you wanted to meet her (and me). It really came across more that you wanted to meet my wife than me anyway. I would have said hello except Harley did not want you to see him and/or to know what he looks like. You realize he wore a mask to be on my show as did some other person who is concerned about that. Don't be projecting that this sort of paranoia has anything at all to do with me. I am really growing tired of your childish rants about what happened that day that have absolutely nothing to do with you and me and everything to do with my respecting my friends wishes. You should know, however, that we're not friends, and I couldn't care less about what you think about me, so you might as well keep it to yourself.
As far as your "true DI" versus what I am doing rant, what a joke! You are a journalist and a very casual observer when it comes to these topics. Certainly no expert. Hell Dicesitter has similar views to you as to what I am doing with charts and what not, but at least he admits that it is just way over his head.
Don't think for a second I'm going to lift my left pinky to TRY prove anything to you personally. I doubt you would appreciate anything I did anyway.
I find it offensive when you seemingly assign homework to me. Do your own work. But even aside from that, before you ask me to do stuff, maybe you could familiarize yourself with what I've already done. You have no clue what I have done. None. "Fancy charts and statistics" is your understanding of it as you reflect to the world your comprehension of it.
And then going off on all this public display of how little you grasp of how the theory of the whole thing works. It is really embarrassing, or it should be, how you reveal your inept perception of how it all works in theory. Proof or no proof, you are clueless of the building blocks of the theory.
Quote: AhighI find this post very personally offensive. You need to get over this before it ruins you. My wife was unavailable when you wanted to meet. It really came across more that you wanted to meet my wife than me anyway. I would have said hello except Harley did not want you to see him and/or to know what he looks like. You realize he wore a mask to be on my show as did some other person who is concerned about that. Don't be projecting that this sort of paranoia has anything at all to do with me. I am really growing tired of your childish rants about what happened that day that have absolutely nothing to do with you and me and everything to do with my respecting my friends wishes. You should know, however, that we're not friends, and I couldn't care less about what you think about me, so you might as well keep it to yourself.
As far as your "true DI" versus what I am doing rant, what a joke! You are a journalist and a very casual observer when it comes to these topics. Certainly no expert. Hell Dicesitter has similar views to you as to what I am doing with charts and what not, but at least he admits that it is just way over his head.
Don't think for a second I'm going to lift my left pinky to TRY prove anything to you personally. I doubt you would appreciate anything I did anyway.
I find it offensive when you seemingly assign homework to me. Do your own work.
Ahigh, really? You think I am after your wife?
You really couldn't come over and introduce yourself and Harley couldn't have asked me to keep our meeting confidential? Why did you volunteer who he was here on the forum in public? If you hadn't identified him here on the forum, I would never have known who he was. He could have introduced himself as Jimmy Hoffa.
The point is this. I am a journalist and I know what goes into a controlled throw and dice influencing because I have reported on it. You have shown no evidence of influencing anything. You only showed results which can be attributed to nothing more than random throws.
I am offering you one more time to post videos of controlled throws or influenced throws or something by design that meets the criteria taught by Sharpshooter and GTC. I have told you that if you post JUST ONE video of such a throw I will be satisfied. You debate, you argue but you have not yet posted one video. Just one, bubbie. Just one.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAhigh, really? You think I am after your wife?
You really couldn't come over and introduce yourself and Harley couldn't have asked me to keep our meeting confidential? Why did you volunteer who he was here on the forum in public? If you hadn't identified him here on the forum, I would never have known who he was. He could have introduced himself as Jimmy Hoffa.
The point is this. I am a journalist and I know what goes into a controlled throw and dice influencing because I have reported on it. You have shown no evidence of influencing anything. You only showed results which can be attributed to nothing more than random throws.
I am offering you one more time to post videos of controlled throws or influenced throws or something by design that meets the criteria taught by Sharpshooter and GTC. I have told you that if you post JUST ONE video of such a throw I will be satisfied. You debate, you argue but you have not yet posted one video. Just one, bubbie. Just one.
How many times do we have to go over this? This has got to be the tenth time already. You keep bringing it up. Just like many other discussions, reporter or not, things just don't seem to sink in with you. They can be said over and over and over.
You didn't ask to meet me, you asked to meet me and my wife and my wife wasn't available. It's that damn simple.
And the next day, I asked Harley if he wanted to talk to you, and he snickered. I'm not going to respond by saying, "but he's on TEEE VEEE HARLEY PLEEEEZE????"
You need to get over yourself. I'm just one guy that has no interest in being your fanboy. You don't have to take it out on my by talking smack about my charts and demonstrating how you lack some of the basic knowledge of theory for how dice control allegedly works.
Even the guys who sell these classes often record rolls with just the sum of the two dice, and even MORE frequently don't record left die versus right die.
But you're a step beyond that and think you can just look at how the dice bounce and know if someone is legit or not. Adding to that because you REPORT on it, that gives you credibility. In my opinion, it gives you RESPONSIBILITY not credibility. And a responsibility for being knowledgeable on the subject is one that you simply choose to ignore.
And that pretty much sums up why I don't want to meet you. You just don't really seem to understand some of these concepts at all. It's just a waste of my time.
Quote: AhighHow many times do we have to go over this? This has got to be the tenth time already. You keep bringing it up. Just like many other discussions, reporter or not, things just don't seem to sink in with you. They can be said over and over and over.
You didn't ask to meet me, you asked to meet me and my wife and my wife wasn't available. It's that damn simple.
Yes, I invited you and your wife to dinner. (shaking head.)
You were twenty feet away from me and couldn't say hello.
Prior to this we had two other attempts to meet up and several phone conversations.
Your wife was not in the casino when you had Harley chart me... and you still couldn't come over to say hello?
(shaking head.)
Oh, did you figure out what the cross sixes set is yet, Mr King of Craps?
When will you post the video?
Quote: AlanMendelsonYes, I invited you and your wife to dinner. (shaking head.)
You were twenty feet away from me and couldn't say hello.
Prior to this we had two other attempts to meet up and several phone conversations.
Your wife was not in the casino when you had Harley chart me... and you still couldn't come over to say hello?
(shaking head.)
Oh, did you figure out what the cross sixes set is yet, Mr King of Craps?
When will you post the video?
Your posts are lame flaccid and ineffective as was your half-interested attempts to meet me in person. The truth is that you think you're too good to meet me, and that came across loud and clear the first three or four times you feigned an interest in meeting and set up dates only to cancel and then deceptively claim that it was me that cancelled. The truth is that you and your busy schedule of an LA TEE VEE guy takes priority over meeting with me, and that's fine. Just quit pretending that the first three or four times we had planned to meet that I cancelled. You did each and every time. You have no qualms denying responsibility and plenty of repeat attempts to try to blame me for how you treat others as less important people that you can just make appointments with and cancel.
There is absolutely an irony to the fact that you can't handle my lack of interest in meeting you. Just get over it! You are nobody special to me. Nobody special at all. Name the multiple dates that we had phone conversations. I can only recall a single one. And even that was simply to tell me that you had to cancel the meeting. There was no "conversation" as you describe. To me it came across as, "HEY AREN'T YOU EXCITED TO TALK TO ME THIS IS ALAN?" I'm all, "who?" And you're all "Alan the famous TELEVISION REPORTER. I'm sorry I have to CANCEL our meeting, but some important stuff came up in LA!!!"
I'm thinking "WTF? Who does this guy think he is." I say, "no worries, we can do it another time." <END OF CALL>
Hey, if that's a conversation, you got some serious coming down to earth to do my friend. And it was one call. There were no others. And certainly no "conversation" as you put it.
Move along!
But I still can watch your video when you put it on youtube. When will that be?
Quote: AlanMendelsonYes, I cancelled, because I could not drive up from LA to meet you because of business. Yes, I could not make the trip and had to cancel on two previous occassions. Gee Ahigh, it's not like I was driving five minutes and I don't have a company to run. And going to Vegas casinos is not my number one priority in life. Sorry to disappoint you. It will never happen again. I can assure you... it will never happen again.
But I still can watch your video when you put it on youtube. When will that be?
Yeah, I got that message. Especially the part about how your work is so important. Dude, I got a job too, and I was planning to take the whole day off, so what?!?!
I don't know what you get paid, but it's entirely possible that it is less than me. I think you operate assuming that everyone's time is worth less than yours. That sort of person (that thinks they are more important than "regular people") annoys the hell out of me.
I think I told you, but I used to live on Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. I recognize the culture, and I abhor it. I lived there for plenty of time to know what I'm dealing with.
I ran into producers and TV show guys every day in the elevator on the way to my pad.
You need to recognize.
Quote: AlanMendelsonLet me know when your video is online.
Why don't you let me know when you become a lifetime winner at craps and I'll do the same. How far away are you? Tomorrow could be the day for me if I made it a priority.
As far as me making a video for you, that's about as likely as my wife wanting to meet you and talk about discount prices on frying pans.
Maybe I can be on the undercard?
Anyway, I am still waiting for superrick to respond to my response to his response of my response. I noted in the past that when he is gently corrected he bows out of the conversation at hand or he might go into a rant about "fiction writers" such as the Mad Professor and Deadcat. I think on the outskirts of his lament I stand in that "fiction writer" category too.
I did read Mad Professor's book. I don't recall reading any of his website stuff (at least that I am aware of) and I was not allowed to join that particular web site when I asked to as I researched an article for Casino Player magazine. (By the way, the Wizard's web site was top of the list. I also enjoy Alan's and the Craps Forum's web sites. Those are the only ones I am still going to on a regular basis. I also post on my Facebook page. These are my breaks from my daily writing routines.)
As far as controlled throws? I've written hundreds of thousands of words about the topic in books, articles and on the web. The last stuff I have to say will be my personal story coming out in 2015. Plenty of players and readers have seen me in casinos shooting the dice. I've been a great shooter at these times --- and a good shooter and a bad shooter and an embarrassingly bad shooter. I've also written about my greats, my goods, my bads and my uglies in my books and articles.
Anyway, I will continue to enjoy the A versus A showdown and wonder about supperrick.
When life on here is not disrupted by some one that has never learned to play well
with others, we were talking about advantage play and some about dice control
as part of that.
I keep track of everything, here are my last 18 rolls.( over 2 trips)
7,14,11,13,2,16,3,1,1,1,3,2,16,17,11,3,18,20
series 1,1,1,3,2 is an example of not paying attention, iwas using the 3v
set and i was trying to avoid some chips and my landing was to far left and
the dice ran to the corner some. With that set you cant have your dice move
left or right much . i did not see this, i was to pissed that i had the short rolls.
My buddy came over and said thats not where you throw. i changed back to the
hardway set and dropped the dice just over the chips and had ok results.
To the average player or some one like Ahigh who expects any Di to be god,
these appear to be random rolls, but they produce an srr of 8.83 and if you
are repeating numbers, they give you some advantage. The results of these
rolls is about the same as the set of practice work i gave Ahigh, nothing special
at all just a slow grind with a little advantage, not thinking your going to break the casino,
or have your name in lights just working within your ability.
The advantage play is betting correctly and seeing a mistake sooner than i did
here.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitter
if you are repeating numbers, they give you some advantage.
And that is the key: repeating numbers, what is also called signature numbers with your sets and throws. If you're not repeating numbers a great SRR won't keep from going broke.
Quote: dicesitterAlan
When life on here is not disrupted by some one that has never learned to play well
with others, we were talking about advantage play and some about dice control
as part of that.
I keep track of everything, here are my last 18 rolls.( over 2 trips)
7,14,11,13,2,16,3,1,1,1,3,2,16,17,11,3,18,20
series 1,1,1,3,2 is an example of not paying attention, iwas using the 3v
set and i was trying to avoid some chips and my landing was to far left and
the dice ran to the corner some. With that set you cant have your dice move
left or right much . i did not see this, i was to pissed that i had the short rolls.
My buddy came over and said thats not where you throw. i changed back to the
hardway set and dropped the dice just over the chips and had ok results.
To the average player or some one like Ahigh who expects any Di to be god,
these appear to be random rolls, but they produce an srr of 8.83 and if you
are repeating numbers, they give you some advantage. The results of these
rolls is about the same as the set of practice work i gave Ahigh, nothing special
at all just a slow grind with a little advantage, not thinking your going to break the casino,
or have your name in lights just working within your ability.
The advantage play is betting correctly and seeing a mistake sooner than i did
here.
dicesetter
RSR's don't mean anything, p-values on the RSR's do. You gotta put in a roll count along with the ratio for it to mean something.
Your 183 rolls were some of the least random roll data I have ever seen in my entire life.
Ahigh NOT ME... but from what others say or have written, oftentimes have one main complaint about you and it is the same, in which you accuse Alan. of.Quote: AhighYeah, I got that message. Especially the part about how your work is so important. Dude, I got a job too, and I was planning to take the whole day off, so what?!?!
I don't know what you get paid, but it's entirely possible that it is less than me. I think you operate assuming that everyone's time is worth less than yours. That sort of person (that thinks they are more important than "regular people") annoys the hell out of me.
.
That is your basic problem, you have spent your entire craps life looking at the wrong thing.
I sent those numbers to a couple of the best craps folks around and they indicated the same thing
i found. these numbers reflect a set with an outside bias.... period, they are no different than
most of the other data i have in terms of SRR or on axis finish. If you break them down to
actual casino play , they would show a series of hands from 1 - 20 on average.
I dont question that your finding a P value with your data, i would suggest what your looking for
is not worth finding. I would suggest you do the some real testing on what your testing for. The question
is does it work...... It would appear it has not worked for you, and i dont see where it has worked
for folks your attempting to mold to your image. Every time you think you got it, you go to the casino
to try to bet a lot and you lose your butt, because your system has not produced any advantage.
Your (p) value means as much as making a determination that the grass seed by the fire hydrant must be
better than on your lawn because the grass is higher until you see your neighbors dog taking a pee on
it.
IN short the craps world is full of answers and your still trying to invent the question.
Dicesetter
PS i love your art work, your making progress
Quote: dicesitteraHIGH
That is your basic problem, you have spent your entire craps life looking at the wrong thing.
I sent those numbers to a couple of the best craps folks around and they indicated the same thing
i found. these numbers reflect a set with an outside bias.... period, they are no different than
most of the other data i have in terms of SRR or on axis finish. If you break them down to
actual casino play , they would show a series of hands from 1 - 20 on average.
I dont question that your finding a P value with your data, i would suggest what your looking for
is not worth finding. I would suggest you do the some real testing on what your testing for. The question
is does it work...... It would appear it has not worked for you, and i dont see where it has worked
for folks your attempting to mold to your image. Every time you think you got it, you go to the casino
to try to bet a lot and you lose your butt, because your system has not produced any advantage.
Your (p) value means as much as making a determination that the grass seed by the fire hydrant must be
better than on your lawn because the grass is higher until you see your neighbors dog taking a pee on
it.
IN short the craps world is full of answers and your still trying to invent the question.
Dicesetter
PS i love your art work, your making progress
What a horrible and horribly misdirected message. Quit pretending you know anything by writing such obvious nonsense.
The math in question implies a couple of possibilities:
1) You made a mistake in the recording of your data (this possibility jives with the mistakes in everything you type)
2) You recorded in an environment that was so much unlike the casino it was far from random (like throwing dice an a cat litter box)
3) You simple pulled numbers out of your head and didn't even roll them
4) You are the most amazing shooter I have ever received recorded rolls from
I apologize if I have a hard time accepting #4. But I do.
before you lose your cool completely i will provide this to you
just to see if you know what your doing.
Upfront, i already know what this set is designed for
thats why i use it. I provide this data because maybe
you can determine what set i am using.
the practice from last night and this morning
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
183 rolls
srr of 9.63
axis 51.1%
It should be clear what this set is for and what it is not for
dicesetter
For any other math people who want to give their opinion on what this data is, I am very curious to hear it. Maybe 7craps can tell you what he thinks about it.
By golly you got it..... i am just an ordinary thrower.... it is your data that suggested i was
not....see if you stick around these craps board your going to learn something.
great job
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterAlan
When life on here is not disrupted by some one that has never learned to play well
with others, we were talking about advantage play and some about dice control
as part of that.
I keep track of everything, here are my last 18 rolls.( over 2 trips)
7,14,11,13,2,16,3,1,1,1,3,2,16,17,11,3,18,20
series 1,1,1,3,2 is an example of not paying attention, iwas using the 3v
set and i was trying to avoid some chips and my landing was to far left and
the dice ran to the corner some. With that set you cant have your dice move
left or right much . i did not see this, i was to pissed that i had the short rolls.
My buddy came over and said thats not where you throw. i changed back to the
hardway set and dropped the dice just over the chips and had ok results.
To the average player or some one like Ahigh who expects any Di to be god,
these appear to be random rolls, but they produce an srr of 8.83 and if you
are repeating numbers, they give you some advantage. The results of these
rolls is about the same as the set of practice work i gave Ahigh, nothing special
at all just a slow grind with a little advantage, not thinking your going to break the casino,
or have your name in lights just working within your ability.
The advantage play is betting correctly and seeing a mistake sooner than i did
here.
dicesetter
Nice set of rolls, but there would likely be some winners and a couple come out 7's in there resulting in an RSR lower than 8.83.
Quote: dicesitteraHIGH
That is your basic problem, you have spent your entire craps life looking at the wrong thing.
I sent those numbers to a couple of the best craps folks around and they indicated the same thing
i found. these numbers reflect a set with an outside bias.... period, they are no different than
most of the other data i have in terms of SRR or on axis finish. If you break them down to
actual casino play , they would show a series of hands from 1 - 20 on average.
I dont question that your finding a P value with your data, i would suggest what your looking for
is not worth finding. I would suggest you do the some real testing on what your testing for. The question
is does it work...... It would appear it has not worked for you, and i dont see where it has worked
for folks your attempting to mold to your image. Every time you think you got it, you go to the casino
to try to bet a lot and you lose your butt, because your system has not produced any advantage.
Your (p) value means as much as making a determination that the grass seed by the fire hydrant must be
better than on your lawn because the grass is higher until you see your neighbors dog taking a pee on
it.
IN short the craps world is full of answers and your still trying to invent the question.
Dicesetter
PS i love your art work, your making progress
I'm now positive that you just don't get it. This is very simple....ahigh created a great program that will analyze throw data. It's better than anything else out there in my opinion. He is using it to see if he has an edge and how best to exploit that edge. So am I. That is it in a nutshell.....period. He is not doing anything different than you, except that I'm certain he understands his own throw better than you understand yours.
J885
I am not trying to be disprectful to you, you dont deserve that. but Ahigh, see that is
a different subject.
Ahigh has produced nothing...period..now i am not saying he had not worked hard, nor am
i saying he has not committed to finding something...he may well be
However.........when you are spending hours and hours going over random rolls trying to find
something that is a constant in that random roll.. now you need to explain to me what value
that has????? A roll that is by definition random.....has no constants that you can carry over
to the next casino session.
Ahighs problem is his ego.... he is more determined to string people along thinking he is giving
them something than he is in getting a throw himself that produces an advantage so he can
actually help people.
J885 i can tell you no one in the complete universe of craps, thinks those numbers i gave
ahigh were worth diddly squat other than showing some outside bias.....If ahigh is going
to look at them and suggest they have some other meaning, he is so off base with his
research he may as well be playing ping pong trying to predict where the ball was going to
go in the next game based on where it went in the last.
I know you like ahigh.... i think thats great, and your nice so he must be also, but i am not
buying what he is selling, and his attack on anyone that dares to question him is nauseating
and immature as well as revealing a complete desrespect for others.
J885 if you want to see if you have an edge, get smart craps or some similar program, do the work,
enter that data and you will see. There is no ego involved in math.
And again i am not trying to disgree with you, i am simply being honest in terms oy my opinion.
dicesetter
Quote: JB85I'm now positive that you just don't get it. This is very simple....ahigh created a great program that will analyze throw data. It's better than anything else out there in my opinion. He is using it to see if he has an edge and how best to exploit that edge. So am I. That is it in a nutshell.....period.
You cannot analyze a few hundred or thousand rolls and make a valid conclusion as to whether you have an edge without understanding why that edge should have been created in the first place. The correct methodology is to construct a plausible hypothesis as to why you might have an edge, and then specifically test to reject that hypothesis. It is a virtual certainty that over (for example) 3600 rolls, the distribution of dice totals will not yield exactly 100 2s, 200 3s, 600 7s, etc. That does not in any way indicate that there is a causal relationship between your particular throwing technique and the nature of the observed distribution.
Evaluating whether you would have had an edge on a set of throws is a good example of the post hoc fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. Until you change your testing methodology, your conclusions will be invalid.
Edit: Here's an example of a proper line of inquiry. Suppose you think you're good at the Greek Shot. You set the dice with 5s facing up and execute the shot on a table 120 times. Perhaps repeat for 3 or 4 more trials. You then test specifically for the question "did 5 appear face-up statistically more than expected?" You could also simply track the number of times the dice failed to tumble, which if that's greater than zero, indicates some measure of control.
What you shouldn't do is search through that data after the fact for patterns that are irrelevant to your theory. If you inadvertently threw 5 more snake-eyes during your trials than would be expected, you shouldn't conclude that you have an edge on the snake-eyes bet based on your attempt to use the Greek Shot to keep 5s face up.
Quote: MathExtremistYou cannot analyze a few hundred or thousand rolls and make a valid conclusion as to whether you have an edge without understanding why that edge should have been created in the first place. The correct methodology is to construct a plausible hypothesis as to why you might have an edge, and then specifically test to reject that hypothesis. It is a virtual certainty that over (for example) 3600 rolls, the distribution of dice totals will not yield exactly 100 2s, 200 3s, 600 7s, etc. That does not in any way indicate that there is a causal relationship between your particular throwing technique and the nature of the observed distribution.
I generally don't disagree with what you're saying. The plausible hypothesis is that if you have a player edge that is something that can be exploited, it can and will show up in a chi-squared test. By doing chi-squared tests on multiple expected distributions and honing in on those that seem more plausible to be the result of a method of throwing rather than pure random chance, you can test theory in the casino rather at home.
I understand what you're saying, and that seems appropriate when seeking a proof. But all you're looking for is guidance in order to attempt to get a profit in the casino, unproven theory that steers your sets and bets is better than luck.
But I invite you to uncover the spoiler of dicesitter's roll data and you tell me what you think of that data any way that you can analyze it. When I had 9 hardways in ten throws, I think the post-hoc analysis said 1 in 16 million or something like that. So I understand how you can look at any data and say "what are the chances of that data we already witnessed to occur again" when the chance that is has already occurred is 100%.
But just analyze dicesitter's data and you tell me what you think.
Nobody's saying that my software proves that dice control exists. It provides evidence that it exists for sure! But proof? No. What JB and I are using it for is to guide our bets and sets to hopefully have better results than luck and low-edge bets would allow for.
And I have to give JB a lot of credit. There are dozens of folks who aren't doing the work part of understanding what I'm doing. JB is at the top of the list of folks who understands it besides myself. The list of those who criticize it is much larger than the list that understands it.
Quote: AhighI generally don't disagree with what you're saying. The plausible hypothesis is that if you have a player edge that is something that can be exploited, it can and will show up in a chi-squared test.
That's incorrect. You can have false negatives on a chi-square test but still have a significant edge. I'm looking at an altered distribution right now that yields >5% player edge on 11 different bets yet generates a 0.94 chi-square relative to fair dice over 360 rolls. And depending on what/how you're testing, your chi-square results can indicate non-uniformity even in fair dice (false positives). Do some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing
Without knowing what to test for, and how to test for it, searching for post-hoc patterns in roll data is a useless exercise.
Quote:
Frank S
Anyway, I am still waiting for superrick to respond to my response to his response of my response. I noted in the past that when he is gently corrected he bows out of the conversation at hand or he might go into a rant about "fiction writers" such as the Mad Professor and Deadcat. I think on the outskirts of his lament I stand in that "fiction writer" category too.
Don’t you remember that I have posted before that I’ve been on the same tables with you before, while I never introduced myself to you, because I saw no reason to do so, and some of us prefer to stay under the radar (and you are a big target in the casino), I have seen you shooting before, so as I wrote before some days we all have bad rolls and some days we have great rolls, I’ve also played on many tables with you’re students.
I have not found that you tell you’re students a bunch of BS. They get out of it, what they put into it, now if you were to write that you have played craps with one of the great fiction writers that nobody has every seen in a casino, I would have to put you in the same category of a pathological liar, and that hasn’t happened so far! Are we clear on that part of all of my post?
You always write about your great five count, like it is the answer to everybody’s problem at winning at craps, and yes you did correct me when you wrote that most players will seven out before eight rolls of the dice, thanks for doing so! I wanted to make a point and you helped me out in making it, with your correction!
To start with most so-called DI’s have a problem with PSO’s when they are shooting, so you’re five count would save players chips by not betting on them, the problem with that statement is once they do get pass the first two rolls of the dice there are some paying box numbers that they are making, that you or anybody that is using you’re five count on will not make anything off their rolls.
Now comes the kicker, with your five count, you are waiting five rolls of the dice, the math of the game says that most shooters will not get past those four rolls of the dice, and when they do they will not get past eight rolls of the dice. So anything past the four rolls of the dice are on the downward side of the seven showing its ugly face.
You want everybody to start betting at a time when the seven is most likely to show up in those three rolls after your five count.
I’m only going by the math of the game, that is what all the books say and now you even pointed out to everybody, thanks for doing so! I’ve watched in amazement so many times with players that will use you’re five count go down in flame, because the seven came up right after they started to bet. The five count cost them money, now I know that you will do as any good writer will do and start throwing those figures that some how you came up with, but the reality is what I see on the tables in real life.
Quote:Frank S
I think my advice to only bet on yourself is solid advice or to use the 5-Count if you play at crowded tables. It’s probably solid advice even for random rollers if you think about it. One bet; one random roller after the 5-Count. It can only help you reduce your expected losses.
Frank,.. your five-count is what I would call a slow death at the tables. Waiting five rolls of the dice, cuts out any wins, that you might have, before a seven out does happen, most of the time, before the fifth roll, then you’re killing yourself when the seven out comes right after you get you’re bets on the table. So you’re cutting yourself out of profit. Some players think it’s a great idea, and they will follow you right into the line at the ATM, so they can get back into the game, when they lose their buy-in!
Frank you make you’re money buy selling you’re products and you’re books, I don’t sell anything, I know for a fact that you’re a real player, that is in a business to sell what you produce, you have every right to do so, I don’t cut down the schools, I say that everybody that wants to win at craps should take a good class, that teaches not only shooting, but teaches how to bet the game in a realistic way of betting, I don’t agree with using a five count on anybody, I myself will not bet on every player that picks up the dice, I play craps with some of the best DI’s in this country, but they can’t do as our great fiction writers on the game of craps say they can do. Yesterday I was on the table with a DI, but never wasted one bet on him, because of what I’ve seen with his shooting, there are times that he gets on some good rolls, but like everybody else, most of the time, it will cost you money betting on him!
Nobody wins all the time, we all have are good days and we some times should have stayed in bed, instead of going out and playing craps!
The great fiction writer The Madprofessor in case you didn’t know was always writing that he had a SRR of 28, way too funny if you ask me! There are so many outlandish claims by this guy, he makes anybody that writes about craps look bad!
Now,.. I know that he would never let you post on the site that he is part owner of, the DiceInstitue, because you would be laughing out loud, sometimes, I’m laughing so hard that I’m crying, on some of the things he posts. He couldn’t stand for someone to question what he is writing, and would lash out at you because, you had the nerve to question anything that he wrote!
Note, all my post start with this is just my opinion...!
You do good brada ..!
superrick
Winning comes from knowledge and skill when your betting and not reading fiction!
...
Quote: MathExtremistThat's incorrect. You can have false negatives on a chi-square test but still have a significant edge. I'm looking at an altered distribution right now that yields >5% player edge on 11 different bets yet generates a 0.94 chi-square relative to fair dice over 360 rolls. And depending on what/how you're testing, your chi-square results can indicate non-uniformity even in fair dice (false positives). Do some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing
Without knowing what to test for, and how to test for it, searching for post-hoc patterns in roll data is a useless exercise.
I will read up on it, and thanks for taking the time to share the links and advice.
Quote: MathExtremistYou cannot analyze a few hundred or thousand rolls and make a valid conclusion as to whether you have an edge without understanding why that edge should have been created in the first place. The correct methodology is to construct a plausible hypothesis as to why you might have an edge, and then specifically test to reject that hypothesis. It is a virtual certainty that over (for example) 3600 rolls, the distribution of dice totals will not yield exactly 100 2s, 200 3s, 600 7s, etc. That does not in any way indicate that there is a causal relationship between your particular throwing technique and the nature of the observed distribution.
Evaluating whether you would have had an edge on a set of throws is a good example of the post hoc fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. Until you change your testing methodology, your conclusions will be invalid.
Edit: Here's an example of a proper line of inquiry. Suppose you think you're good at the Greek Shot. You set the dice with 5s facing up and execute the shot on a table 120 times. Perhaps repeat for 3 or 4 more trials. You then test specifically for the question "did 5 appear face-up statistically more than expected?" You could also simply track the number of times the dice failed to tumble, which if that's greater than zero, indicates some measure of control.
What you shouldn't do is search through that data after the fact for patterns that are irrelevant to your theory. If you inadvertently threw 5 more snake-eyes during your trials than would be expected, you shouldn't conclude that you have an edge on the snake-eyes bet based on your attempt to use the Greek Shot to keep 5s face up.
First I like your posts ME.
I do have a couple of theories on how dice influence may be possible.
Let's say my goal is to throw the dice with the same energy and trajectory and try to land the dice with the same faces hitting the felt with both dice hitting the same distance from the wall. My theory, if I'm able to do this, is that it may be possible to have one face of each die show up more often. I have another one that I won't go into, but it involves a theory in how it may be possible to reduce the appearance of the 7, and it doesn't involve axis control. I believe I can test for both of these theories at the same time by logging throws and recording the results of each individual die. Is that not what you are telling me to do above?
Quote: JB85First I like your posts ME.
I do have a couple of theories on how dice influence may be possible.
Let's say my goal is to throw the dice with the same energy and trajectory and try to land the dice with the same faces hitting the felt with both dice hitting the same distance from the wall. My theory, if I'm able to do this, is that it may be possible to have one face of each die show up more often. I have another one that I won't go into, but it involves a theory in how it may be possible to reduce the appearance of the 7, and it doesn't involve axis control. I believe I can test for both of these theories at the same time by logging throws and recording the results of each individual die. Is that not what you are telling me to do above?
For most people who haven't been reading GoodShooter.com and what's happening over there, JB has graciously worked very hard to provide as many or more rolls than I have done myself. This is no small effort and it is something that I appreciate very much.
I don't claim to have every answer, and if I did it wouldn't be fun trying to keep learning. But it should be known that JB has done a lot of work to help me test the software that I'm working on and use the results in the form of best theoretical sets to hit specific bets on the felt given the collected data.
It's a little sad that more people aren't interested in doing the hard work that JB has done and are more interested in arguing and being defensive about their way of doing things. (Especially when their way involves betting bets with a 1.11% edge per roll or higher .. it gets very frustrating arguing about stuff like that).
But I want to take the time to specifically thank JB for all the work that he has done to help me. It's a ton of work diligently doing all the work to record your own throws, and with no proof, there is zero guarantee it will result in anything good. But he's distinguished himself quite a bit in doing the work; something that nobody else has done quite as much as he has.
I appreciate the help from ME, and it will take a while for me to absorb what he's saying. And JB I appreciate you helping me too.
Bottom line: work is not fun. Thanks for all who have worked so hard to help me! That's one form of payment that I accept! Cooperation!
Quote: JB85First I like your posts ME.
I do have a couple of theories on how dice influence may be possible.
Let's say my goal is to throw the dice with the same energy and trajectory and try to land the dice with the same faces hitting the felt with both dice hitting the same distance from the wall. My theory, if I'm able to do this, is that it may be possible to have one face of each die show up more often. I have another one that I won't go into, but it involves a theory in how it may be possible to reduce the appearance of the 7, and it doesn't involve axis control. I believe I can test for both of these theories at the same time by logging throws and recording the results of each individual die. Is that not what you are telling me to do above?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Start with the hypothesis -- that if you can throw the dice in X way, the dice will show distribution Y -- and then test by throwing the dice according to X and observing the distribution, then comparing it with both Y and the uniform one.
It doesn't actually take many throws to determine if you're influencing the dice, if the manner of influence is based on a sound physical premise. Consider the slide shot. Either you can execute the slide or you can't. If you can, you're influencing the overall probabilities. Same with on-axis rolling. Either you can keep the dice on axis more than zero percent of the time, or you can't. If you can, you're a DI. If you have that ability and you're not making money playing dice, either you can't execute the shot frequently enough, you're not betting properly, or both.
I have a question on testing for influence.
Suppose I have the following hypothesis:
If I set the dice the same way every time, and I throw the dice the same way every time, then certain numbers are more likely to show up, but I don't know what those numbers are yet.
So, I proceed to set the dice the same way every time, and start recording my rolls.
After 1,000 rolls, I notice I am seeing slightly more 4s, 5s, 9s, and 10s than I expected from a normal distribution.
After 10,000 rolls, the skew is still there. I am still seeing more 4s, 5s, 9s, 10s than expected.
Given the scenario so far, have I not established a hypothesis, an expected result, and tested for that result in an appropriate manner?
10,000 rolls is fantastic.... you have done the work.
I use smartcraps, others use other systems, but which ever one you use will
tell you alot about your throw.
I look at all the numbers, i look at my SRR and then i look at differences
with different sets. If you have an advantage as you say, then changing sets
will show you if you have a different advantage over different numbers. Some
call it signature numbers, but what ever you call it, if you have an advantage
your work will show that.
If you do the math, or if you use a service to do the math for you, it will tell
you the percentage advantage over different numbers, or different
numbers with different sets. That in turn tells you
where to place your money. If i have a 3% advantage, i cant place a 5 or 9
which has a 4% house advantage. Thats make sense.
Now for the folks that feel that have a signature number, and their advantage
on that offsets the house advantage, they can make money on any number.
The math of the game does not do you any good if you place the 6 & 8 because they
are the lower house advantage numbers if your records show you hit them less than
normal percentages dictate.
You have done a wonderful job getting 10,000 rolls, that should tell you alot.
dicesetter
Quote: RaleighCrapsME,
I have a question on testing for influence.
Suppose I have the following hypothesis:
If I set the dice the same way every time, and I throw the dice the same way every time, then certain numbers are more likely to show up, but I don't know what those numbers are yet.
So, I proceed to set the dice the same way every time, and start recording my rolls.
After 1,000 rolls, I notice I am seeing slightly more 4s, 5s, 9s, and 10s than I expected from a normal distribution.
After 10,000 rolls, the skew is still there. I am still seeing more 4s, 5s, 9s, 10s than expected.
Given the scenario so far, have I not established a hypothesis, an expected result, and tested for that result in an appropriate manner?
I'd say that's a good start. What I'd want to do along the way is be more specific (what kind of 4s, 2,2, 1,3 or 3,1) and be more quantitative (how many more 4s), all while determining relationship of the final outcomes to the initial set orientation. This is similar to what AHigh's software is trying to do, from what I gather.
Suppose in your initial tests, you were observing more hard 4s and hard 10s, and you started in the hardway set with the 6s facing left and the 2s facing up. What I'd want to do next is rotate each die a quarter turn clockwise along the roll axis, so the 5s were facing left and the 6s were facing up. Then repeat your testing. If you see more 12s and 2s in your new set of results in an equivalent proportion to the hard 4s and hard 10s you saw in your first tests, you can reasonably conclude that whatever you set, the top and bottom faces are more likely than usual.
ME,
In my hypothesis and testing, I was only interested in whether or not a bias may appear in any number(s) based on starting with a specific set.
What I believe you are suggesting is, once a bias is thought to have been found, to test again for said bias with a new test.
Rotate to a new set, and by using the correlation of the starting set, predetermine what the expected bias numbers should be.
With this test, I presume you would then be determining that the throw does have some degree of control in that the same correlated sides of the dice keep showing up as the result.
Your additional testing would help to determine if the throw has some amount of control, whereas my testing stopped with just the indication of some number bias without any more explanation or justification.
Quote: RaleighCrapsYour additional testing would help to determine if the throw has some amount of control, whereas my testing stopped with just the indication of some number bias without any more explanation or justification.
Exactly. Without confirming that there is control, you haven't really ruled out "just getting lucky." I said this in another thread, but if you throw the dice 3600 times, it's a virtual certainty that you won't see exactly 100 2s, 200 3s, etc. That's expected, so you shouldn't just assume that if you saw 585 7s (instead of 600) that you're magically controlling the dice because your RSR is 6.15. I've talked before about how RSR is useless because it doesn't correlate with house edge anyway, but my point here is that it's very easy to get such results simply by being lucky as opposed to being skilled.
I think you are mistaking averages for definites in your analysis. Even though eight rolls would be the average, most players will not roll eight times; indeed few will roll eight times. I think the average height of the American male is 5'10.5". How many Americans are actually that exact height? The 5-Count is also based on averages. It will --- without question --- eliminate 57 percent of the random rolls. If I play four hours a day and use the 5-Count and you play four hours a day and not use the 5-Count, my expectation (over time) is to lose much less than you. (We bet the same way of course but you bet those 57 percent of random rolls I don't bet.)
The 5-Count is not magical. But it works to eliminate wasting your money on random rollers. I would add this --- if you don't have to bet on any random rollers that's great. Most players have to play with other players at the tables; for these, the 5-Count protects them. Next, one small bet on those other shooters after the 5-Count is an intelligent move. Even if you are a random roller, saving money on 57 percent of other random rollers' rolls is a good thing.
Just to hammer this point in --- the 5-Count isn't saying each and every player will do thus and such; it merely says that on average you will not bet on 57 percent of random rolls and that will save you a lot of money. I also think one bet on one shooter is the way to go too. And make that a small bet.
Now some critics sarcastically say why not use a 6 count or 10 count or 1,000 count? Look, I agree, a 6-count is better than a 5; and a 10 is better than a 5 or 6 and a 1,000 count is better than all those others and never betting on any random roller in all the history of the universe is better than even a 1,000 count. Now, staying at a table using a 10-count would mean you might not make a single bet on any shooter (except yourself) on some sequences around the table. I just don't think such a thing would fly with most casinos. The 5-Count looks like any typical superstitious betting scheme where you are looking for a qualifying event. Since you will bet on 43 percent of the random rolls, you get into the action enough to make it look as if you are a typical gambler.
Now, if you are a dice controller (dice influencer) the 5-Count is a mindless, less energy-using way of figuring out whom to bet on. You don't have to stand at the table and do mental gymnastics. ("Should I bet on this shooter? Let me observe his throw and analyze.") Why waste energy with such thoughts? Use the 5-Count and if the shooter makes it through, bet as I recommended. It's a mechanical method. The best as far as I am concerned. As a dice controller, save your concentration and energy for shooting the dice.
Superrick: I would like you to explain how you decide what bets to make and who to bet on --- something you said in a post a few days ago. This kind of trend betting at a random game is just not possible. Can't be done. If it can be done, well, that would be amazing.
But I am happy I am not in the "fiction writer" category. I don't know the Mad Professor. I have no idea who he is.
FOR ANYONE ELSE:
Now to some other things that have been written about in this thread. I think some mistakes are being made here or, at least, over-analysis is taking place. The SRR (seven-to-rolls ratio) needs quite a lot of rolls to establish you have some influence over the dice. However, if you have a good SRR that is not indicative that you have good on-axis control. That is a different method of dice control. You can be a winner with on-axis control even if your SRR isn't very good. If you can hit repeating numbers --- specific repeating numbers --- you will win over time. SmartCraps will analyze your on-axis control (I have no monetary interest in Smart Craps). If you have on-axis control; you'll discover it and also what sets to use to make that control even stronger. It might recommend sets that are not so anti-seven friendly but will make you win more money because of what numbers you hit.
Certainly, each table is different, just as all baseball parks are different, and you might have to adapt your throw somewhat --- and maybe even go to the Hardways set if you really lose much of your on-axis control.
I think it is important to distinguish the difference between anti-seven dice control and on-axis dice control.
Quote: MathExtremistExactly. Without confirming that there is control, you haven't really ruled out "just getting lucky." I said this in another thread, but if you throw the dice 3600 times, it's a virtual certainty that you won't see exactly 100 2s, 200 3s, etc. That's expected, so you shouldn't just assume that if you saw 585 7s (instead of 600) that you're magically controlling the dice because your RSR is 6.15. I've talked before about how RSR is useless because it doesn't correlate with house edge anyway, but my point here is that it's very easy to get such results simply by being lucky as opposed to being skilled.
Okay, so by doing the second part of the test, that is rotating the dice 1/4 turn, AND predicting the expected result, then one could determine if a throw was really controlling the outcome to some extent.
Is it reasonable to assume this would greatly shorten the number of rolls that would be required to be somewhat confident that it was the throw , and not just random results on one end of standard deviation?
Quote: FrankScobleteFOR SUPERRICK:
I think you are mistaking averages for definites in your analysis. Even though eight rolls would be the average, most players will not roll eight times; indeed few will roll eight times. I think the average height of the American male is 5'10.5". How many Americans are actually that exact height? The 5-Count is also based on averages. It will --- without question --- eliminate 57 percent of the random rolls. If I play four hours a day and use the 5-Count and you play four hours a day and not use the 5-Count, my expectation (over time) is to lose much less than you. (We bet the same way of course but you bet those 57 percent of random rolls I don't bet.)
The 5-Count is not magical. But it works to eliminate wasting your money on random rollers. I would add this --- if you don't have to bet on any random rollers that's great. Most players have to play with other players at the tables; for these, the 5-Count protects them. Next, one small bet on those other shooters after the 5-Count is an intelligent move. Even if you are a random roller, saving money on 57 percent of other random rollers' rolls is a good thing...
Frank,
The reason you lose less, is not because of the 5-count. You lose less because the TOTAL amount of your action is WAY less, assuming of course that when you both are betting, that you be the same amounts, and press the same way, if at all.
Now betting less TOTAL amounts is probably a good thing, since the house has the edge on every bet, but if you change the rules so that you bet the SAME TOTAL amount using the 5 count, as the bettor who is betting on random shooters, you will lose the same amounts. Your volatility is going to be MUCH higher, because you will have fewer bets, but higher amounts in play on each bet, so you will lose more, or win more.
Quote: FrankScobleteBut I am happy I am not in the "fiction writer" category. I don't know the Mad Professor. I have no idea who he is.
If it weren't for SuperRick, half the people who know who he is wouldn't know who he is. Every time that I have met SuperRick, MadProfessor has come out of his mouth no fewer than five times on each visit with him. And I don't think one of those times was the subject brought up by me.
Quote: FrankScobleteI think it is important to distinguish the difference between anti-seven dice control and on-axis dice control.
But "anti-seven dice control" isn't sufficiently well-defined, and RSR isn't correlated with house edge at all. The house edge for most bets is based on an expected ratio of sevens to some other number, so just knowing the probability of seven has decreased isn't sufficient, by itself, to know whether you have the edge (or how much it is). You need to know the entirety of the altered distribution, not just the probability of seven, in order to know where to put your money.
Here are two examples of how RSR and house edge aren't related:
A) Suppose you can slide and kill a 6 with 100% effectiveness while the other die tumbles freely. Your RSR is still 6, but you now have a 66.67% edge on the field.
B) Suppose you can achieve perfect on-axis control (with uncorrelated faces) and you use the 3-V set. That gives you an RSR of 8, but the hard 4 bet now has a -100% house edge because you will never roll a hard 4.
The point is that RSR isn't useful by itself. You need to know more about the altered distribution in order to make any conclusions, and in order to know that, you must keep track of more than just the ratio of rolls to sevens.
