What constitutes AP Craps play?
What does your research say is the average number of throws by a shooter? Bet that number and then go "off."
Quote: AhighThe chance of me getting the frequency from the top of my set is very very lucky if it's luck. There's a hypothesis for ya from my throw.
Under the assumption that this is all repeatable, you should be able to figure out how to optimally exploit it. I think you said 1 in 28? That's a 10% edge on a hop bet right there. The real trick is to figure out how else your dice are behaving and then determine the edges on all the bets so you can maximize your gain while minimizing variance.
Quote: FrankScobleteRalieghCraps is correct. I guess I didn't make myself clear. The 5-Count merely reduces how much you bet on random rollers.
I file the 5-count along with one of SuperRick's favorite topics from the Mad Professor, and that is the "MP204" betting strategy. Any strategy that is designed for other shooters, I prefer my own strategy which is to do my very best not to bet at all. And if I do have to bet, try to bet as little as possible.
I get a wild hair just like anyone else and I like to have fun.
But a system for any other shooter, whether they are supposed to be any good at all, just seems like a way to set myself up for failure where I end up saying "I should have known!"
I have bet on random shooters and made a profit after losing on my own roll. No doubt. But I don't have a "system" of any kind to bet on random shooters. I just bet a low edge bet and hope for the best and yell and scream with the other gamblers knowing I'm gambling and I hope for the best!
More recently, I have been VERY disciplined to not bet frequently at ALL on others.
Anecdotally, no less than 10% of my lifetime losses at the game of craps are exclusively on Super Rick's rolls. And he's supposed to be really good.
I once had a crystal ball which told me which shooters would hold the dice for a long time. Unfortunately, that crystal ball was smashed in the Northridge Earthquake of 1994. And ever since then I had to treat craps as a random game.
Sounds good.Quote: AlanMendelsonFrank, why not a "reverse five count"? Why not bet on each shooter for the first three or four rolls and then call your bets off?
What does your research say is the average number of throws by a shooter? Bet that number and then go "off."
Problem is that distribution you are talking about
(the length of a shooter's hand)
is not normal
The average being about 8.5 rolls (try that one on for size) useless?
The median is 6 (50.2789129579%)
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/gambling/1886-world-records-in-craps/4/#post154846
in other words,
about half go out by the 6th roll, the other half make it to 7 rolls and beyond.
so is the median more useful?
or still useless?
Sad part is
looks like Ahigh would have stood around for over 4 hours during Grandma's monster 154 roll hand in AC
waiting for his turn to shoot the dice.
He would not have wanted to jinx the shooter.
he does not like to bet on a random shooter and Grandma is as random as they come.
NOT!
At least Frank S with his 5 count would have made millions of $$$ from that one hand
and had another story to place in print to sell.
Quote: 7crapsSad part is
looks like Ahigh would have stood around for over 4 hours during Grandma's monster 154 roll hand in AC
waiting for his turn to shoot the dice.
He would not have wanted to jinx the shooter.
he does not like to bet on a random shooter and Grandma is as random as they come.
NOT!
At least Frank S with his 5 count would have made millions of $$$ from that one hand
and had another story to place in print to sell.
That's crazy freaking hilarious. You sound just like a, wait a minute! You ARE a dealer.
Quote: T.S.Eliot
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
http://youtu.be/-GE77vPYlPk?t=25s
I have also had 1 roll in Tunica that lasted for 1 hour and 10 minutes, and that is exact because my buddy and I had commented about the exact time when I started my roll. And after the whole table passed so the dice would come back to me, I had a 2 minute roll. Damn Randomness.
I have also had 2 rolls that went over 40 minutes.
I have had a half dozen that have lasted over 20 minutes.
For the most part, I generally have a decent roll, just like most every other random roller.
Unless you KNOW you are a DI and have an advantage, betting only on yourself just saves you in TOTAL bets made.
By the way, I met "grandma" and she was a very nice lady. That table dropped a mere $180,000 --- a packed 14 foot table with three players who had never played before and were being taught and slowing everything down. I wonder if they thought this is what usually happens at a craps table?
Quote: FrankScobleteAlan, since you don't know when "grandma" will roll, you have to be on every shooter. To be on every shooter, you will lose the house edge. You can't escape that in a random game.
This is why I like to play on "firebet" tables with a fire bet and a passline bet. Odds arent necessary. If you want to talk about the math, I can afford the pennies on each passline bet for each random shooter and $5 or $10 on the firebet can be very ENTERTAINING if hit.
The very first time I played craps the guy next to me held the dice for over an hour. There were so many people watching it was crazy. I made $600. I remember being happy at the time, lol. This was more than 15 years ago and I've never been on anything close to that since.Quote: AlanMendelsonJust once I would like to be at a table where a player had a one hour roll. The longest roll I've ever seen lasted just shy of 50 minutes. That happened one time. Next longest was about 40 minutes. I've been playing craps for about 20 years. Just once... once... I want to be in on an hour roll.
Edit: I have also been on many 20 minute rolls while on the DP. Since I limit myself to 1 or 2 losses per shooter on the don't I've spent a lot of time watching people make money on hot rolls.
I will do this sometimes on the small/all/tall. $10 DP to protect the bet and 4/2/4 on the small/all/tall. It's not a bad way to play random shooters while you wait for the dice. When nothing goes right you don't lose much money and many times it can be profitable.Quote: AlanMendelsonThis is why I like to play on "firebet" tables with a fire bet and a passline bet. Odds arent necessary. If you want to talk about the math, I can afford the pennies on each passline bet for each random shooter and $5 or $10 on the firebet can be very ENTERTAINING if hit.
Quote: JB85I will do this sometimes on the small/all/tall. $10 DP to protect the bet and 4/2/4 on the small/all/tall. It's not a bad way to play random shooters while you wait for the dice. When nothing goes right you don't lose much money and many times it can be profitable.
Exactly. And I have two examples of this being VERY profitable. Both times it happened at Harrah's Rincon which has card craps -- two dice are thrown to select two cards. NOTHING is more random than that. Both times I started with a buy in of $40 times with a $5 place and $5 fire and hit five numbers both times for $1250 each plus another small amount with passline passes.
Card craps at Rincon is the only craps game I have a profit on and the key is small buy ins that get lucky with payoffs on the fire.
Quote: MathExtremistB) 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.
This makes great sense because where the rubber meets the road is betting into any favorable distribution of results that may be realized so as to get the wins to exceed the losses.
ME, is there a standard definition of "on-axis"? No doubt it has been extensively discussed in other threads but I simply don’t recall what the commonly accepted understanding is.
I envision a vertical axis (X) that one die or both dice could revolve about (yaw), the straight ahead axis (Y) where there may be a roll to either side, and the through both dice axis (Z) where the intent is to keep the dice in synch whether they “roll” together or they fly flat and parallel to the table surface upon release from the shooter’s fingers. Intuitively it seems the last is most easily controllable but the first and second are greatly influenced upon landing, bouncing off the pyramids and other post-landing actions but my thinking may be completely off here. Are you saying all axes are controlled?
I think we all know by now that starting a roll like that, hardway set with the 6-1 on the sides
is not going to stay that way during the entire roll.
Having said that, so what, if your toss tries to limit the rotation as much as possible, or by hitting
the wall below the aligator board so that you end up on the axis you started with more than what
ever random would dictate, or even more than you used to, it should help with number
repeats.
That slow motion camera stuff used to discount axis control does not make any sense to me
because if you use on a random guy, or on a very good shooter there is a difference in the
amount of distribution after the dice hit the table.
I have seen the GTC guys and i have seen ahigh on his show. Now when i say this i am not
picking on ahigh, i am told he has a good throw and have no reason to question
that,but the shows he did where the dice hit and run all over the table have a much greater
distribution or randomness in the dice that his best rolls, or the rolls of Stickman.
To me atleast the more you limit the dice activity after they hit the table the better off you are.
dicesetter
Quote: chickenmanThis makes great sense because where the rubber meets the road is betting into any favorable distribution of results that may be realized so as to get the wins to exceed the losses.
ME, is there a standard definition of "on-axis"? No doubt it has been extensively discussed in other threads but I simply don’t recall what the commonly accepted understanding is.
I envision a vertical axis (X) that one die or both dice could revolve about (yaw), the straight ahead axis (Y) where there may be a roll to either side, and the through both dice axis (Z) where the intent is to keep the dice in synch whether they “roll” together or they fly flat and parallel to the table surface upon release from the shooter’s fingers. Intuitively it seems the last is most easily controllable but the first and second are greatly influenced upon landing, bouncing off the pyramids and other post-landing actions but my thinking may be completely off here. Are you saying all axes are controlled?
No, I'm just talking about the roll axis -- parallel to the table, perpendicular to the trajectory. If you actually roll the dice and they don't tumble, the faces on the sides never show. That alters the distribution in a significant way.
Of course, that's a very, very big "if".
Edit: In aeronautical terms, that's technically the "pitch" axis. But in this case, the (controlled) dice are rotating around the horizontal axis just as a wheel rotates around its axle.
That being said, I am no expert on axis theory aside from having the one video that shows a die staying on axis on a shorty.
Quote: chickenmanThen if the set is, say, threes on top then one doesn't want the dice to rotate 180 relative to each other except on the come out right? So it seems when the point has been established it would be favorable for one die to show a face from the side.
I used to have a comeout and non-comeout throw. I now have one throw and different ways to set based on where my bets are (including initial roll on come/DC).
My software tells me 3641 is my comeout set. So short answer is you never want 180 relative to each other.
If there ever is proof of DI, I am pretty sure it will involve some business from chaos theory.
I don't know much about chaos theory, but they draw some cool looking pictures based on that stuff.
I can imagine the domain of possible RELATIVE positions of the outcomes having patterns that are not in the independent faces of outcomes AT ALL.
Quote: AhighI think there are different interpretations of what "axis shooting" means.
I don't mean to criticize you about this Ahigh, but this could be a problem. We all need to have the same definitions to discuss things properly.
We all need to have a definition for:
dice influencing
dice controlling
on axis
even what the set names are -- remember the misunderstanding about cross sixes?
I raised this same question several months ago.
Now we are talking about "axis control" or keeping dice "on axis." Without definitions someone could be talking about apples and another oranges.
(From the DI world:)
Dice influencing means having the ability to skew the results of the dice away from the normal distribution
Dice controlling means having the ability to call your shot. I don't think there's really anybody who believes in this.
Set names are a big issue with everybody. There are arguments all over about what constitutes a set, how it should be named, yadda yadda.
I think the ones that the majority of people are familiar with are:
3V (3531)
2V (2321)
X6 (crossed 6s) (6564 / 6462)
hardways (2323)
all sevens (2354)
S6 (straight 6s) (6565)
and P6 (parallel 6s) (6363)
(numbers in parentheses are left-top left-front right-top right-front)
Quote: wudgedThe general consensus on other (primarily DI/craps-related) boards is that on-axis refers to how the dice start and how they finish - completely ignoring everything that happens in between. I think this is what (admittedly) leads to a lot of confusion among everybody. Those who believe that DI is not possible in any sense, wonder how you can disregard everything that happens in between. Those who believe it is possible try to find correlation between how the dice started and ended.
Either you're keeping the dice on axis or you're not. Similarly, either you can or you can't slide the dice. If you tried to execute a slide of two fives to hit a hopping hard 10, and the dice bounce all over the place but ultimately end up on a hard 10, you won your bet but you failed at sliding.
Someone attempting to quantify their ability to keep the dice on axis using, say, the 3V set should distinguish between the times hard six appears while the dice maintained the axis vs. the times hard six appears after the dice tumbled off axis. The latter may be a good result, but it is not a successful on-axis throw.
It's virtually impossible (without super slomo video) to tell when the dice stay on axis (just about never) vs when they don't, which is why only the start and end faces are compared. If you can continually repeat the same starting-to-ending face correlation, that's all you need to gain/calculate an edge.
I think we can all agree, none of us have the ability on ever roll to get the dice on axis the entire roll, i am
not sure if it can be done without sliding.
But who cares.... if we limit the distribution of the dice or randomness after they first hit the table
and end up on the axis enough that can be a measure of the influence of the roll.
If you are attempting the same roll over and over and if after many rolls your records indicate
some change from random... that is influence
If you change sets and find a change from random, but over difference numbers.... that is influence.
To me the idea that if you cant control all aspects of the throw from start to finish, then the outcome
no matter how seperated from random has to be luck is silly.
Dicesetter
"Even the strongest believers in dice control will admit that most throws, even of the best shooters, are still random.Quote: MathExtremistEither you're keeping the dice on axis or you're not.
However, it takes a small percentage only of precise throws to overcome the house edge.
What is happening on these successful throws?
There are two schools of thought, or types of shooters.
"The first type of shooter is what I'll call the "correlation shooter."
The second type of shooter is what I'll call the "axis shooter."
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/
"Stanford Wong writes in 'Wong on Dice' that most careful shooters he observed
were not keeping both dice on axis more than the random expectations, but were
achieving influence through correlation."
Quote: wudgedIt's virtually impossible (without super slomo video) to tell when the dice stay on axis (just about never) vs when they don't, which is why only the start and end faces are compared. If you can continually repeat the same starting-to-ending face correlation, that's all you need to gain/calculate an edge.
I think it's pretty obvious when the dice fly through the air whether they stay on axis or not, and similarly when they bounce. If there is consistent correlation despite the dice tumbling all over the place, you can definitely calculate the edge, but it's not "on-axis rolling." The reason that technique, whatever it is, may yield an edge is because the die faces are repeatably correlated between start and end positions. Again, that's a huge "if", but that correlation would be due to a different reason than because the dice stayed on-axis. Notwithstanding, if that's what "on-axis" means to the DI crowd, so be it.
On-axis is a breeze. All the faces around the dice are axis-faces; the two faces on the ends of the dice are not-axis faces. You see one or the other of the outside dice and that die or those dice are off axis. Now in my book "Cutting Edge Craps: Advanced Strategies for Serious Players!" I go into what really happens to dice when they hit the felt and bounce off the back wall. It isn't simple as we tend to assume. The dice make more movements than our eyes can see.
Quote: dicesitterI think we can all agree, none of us have the ability on ever roll to get the dice on axis the entire roll, i am
not sure if it can be done without sliding.
I didn't realize that was something you were willing to admit. I thought keeping the dice on axis was the whole point.
Quote:But who cares.... if we limit the distribution of the dice or randomness after they first hit the table
and end up on the axis enough that can be a measure of the influence of the roll.
But if the dice tumble and roll around, they virtually never end up "on the axis." If you throw with the 3V set and the dice come to rest next to each other showing a hard six with parallel 3s, the dice didn't "end up on the axis".
If all you're doing is comparing start and end faces, how do you know your observed correlations aren't just due to luck? What is the physical basis behind your alleged control, if you're not intending to eliminate certain faces due to axis control?
Quote: FrankScobleteOn-axis is a breeze. All the faces around the dice are axis-faces; the two faces on the ends of the dice are not-axis faces. You see one or the other of the outside dice and that die or those dice are off axis.
If you set the 3s up and the 1s to the side, and the dice come to rest with the 3s up and the 1s facing you (that is, the dice yawed 1/4 turn), then the dice were also off axis. (The pitch axis, anyway).
Quote: MathExtremistEither you're keeping the dice on axis or you're not. Similarly, either you can or you can't slide the dice. If you tried to execute a slide of two fives to hit a hopping hard 10, and the dice bounce all over the place but ultimately end up on a hard 10, you won your bet but you failed at sliding.
Someone attempting to quantify their ability to keep the dice on axis using, say, the 3V set should distinguish between the times hard six appears while the dice maintained the axis vs. the times hard six appears after the dice tumbled off axis. The latter may be a good result, but it is not a successful on-axis throw.
Very good and I agree with this.
In all of my years of going with the DI crowd the goal was to keep the dice on axis during the throw and the bounce and the hitting of the back wall. Then you hoped that the dice might stay on axis or rotate one face. When you had double rotations you got into trouble. Hence the belief that all "controled throws" must be soft and easy with minimal bouncing. And this is why I have questioned certain shooters who claim to have any ability to influence or control the dice -- they can't because their dice bounce around too much.
Quote: wudgedI gave the accepted definition in the DI world and there's still a disagreement over it.
I'm sorry but I never heard that definition. In dice influencing the end result alone does not mean you had dice control or kept the dice on axis. Either they stay on axis the whole time or they don't. As ME indicated, if you set a 3V and the dice bounce all over the place but end up on hard-6 it doesn't mean the dice were on axis or that you had control.
Granted, few can keep the dice on axis after the dice hit the table and the back wall. but with a soft, easy throw it becomes more possible to do that.
It is possible but it takes a lot of skill.
Quote: FrankScobleteI really see no difference between the meanings of dice control or dice influence
Here's we reach the great divide. I think everyone can influence dice to a certain degree -- and some have a lot of INFLUENCE on their throws. For some, the INFLUENCE stops at getting the dice to reach the back wall. I know of no one who can CONTROL dice to the point where they can hit their numbers on command.
This business about rhythm is best left to musicians and poets.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI'm sorry but I never heard that definition.
And how many DI boards do you frequent?
Quote: wudgedAnd how many DI boards do you frequent?
Isn't it amazing how many here wish to reinvent the wheel. Answers that already available elsewhere.
Quote: wudgedAnd how many DI boards do you frequent?
Tell you what, wudged, you cite the source(s) of your definition. I am sure it will be enlightening for all of us.
Be clear, be specific. Where does your definition of an on-axis roll come from?
Here's something I would like you to read: http://www.smartcraps.com/SmartCraps_theory.pdf
In particular read the section titled Z-Axis Rotation on page 29. The document starts with page 24. I think this is a pretty darn good explainer of what on axis control is all about. There is no mention of what you contend -- that the end position of the dice defines an on axis throw or roll. On the contrary, "on axis" means the dice move on axis.
If you have something different I expect you to post it, just as I posted this information.
And you might pick up a copy of Sharpshooter's book, too.
I've never used SmartCraps and don't know anything at all about it. But it looks like it was written in the days of Windows 3.1.
And wow, backgammon dice in the doc file? Hmmm.
Quote:On-Axis (OA): A term to describe a dice roll outcome in which both die have stopped with each of their top faces showing a Radial Face result. To determine an On-Axis result you must know the starting set (formation) of the dice prior to the toss which provides the originating radial faces and allows the comparison to the end toss result faces. On-Axis is understood to mean that the dice remain in radial face pitch throughout the process of dice toss, landing, bounce, and stop. For recording purposes it is accepted that simply tracking the end result is sufficient, regardless if the dice actually rolled and yawed during the dice flight/landing/roll-out process.
Quote:Radial Faces: The four Radial Die Faces that make up the starting dice set. Radial Faces are also described as the “non-axial faces” and “set faces”. Typically these four die faces are described as “top”, “front”, “back”, and “bottom”. Dice set permutations are often denoted by the Radial Set Notation form of “Left Top/Front – Right Top/Front” (e.g. 3/2-3/6 for the 3V formation). This form is used because it clearly denotes the one and only way the dice can be set to make the described permutation, whereas the Axial Set Notation leaves the 16 possible axial set permutations open to interpretation. A Radial Face is NOT equivalent to a Primary Face. A Radial Face applies to a single die whereas a Primary Face always describes the pair face combinations of two die in a given dice set.
Perhaps you'd like to check out Bone Tracker:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q3p3jqc02trlke0/BoneTracker_5.6.0.zip
2) http://www.axispowercraps.com/crapsforum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1318&start=60#p19145
Quote:One other thought, because I have seen this all over the internet lately... At least for me... On-Axis is a term used to describe the end result of a dice toss. NOT the behavior of dice during the toss-roll-out process. However, a controlled "on-axis" toss is what I strive to achieve in order to get an statistically improved on-axis result.
That might be a subtle distinction... but I disagree with the notion that the perfect in-flight cubes, perfect square landing, perfect gentle touch of the back wall and matched revolutions in the rollback is the only way to execute and achieve on-axis results. My thinking is that if your results are random, then your tracking will trend towards the expected distribution. However if your results consistently deviate from random, then regardless of how they got there, there is a form of "on-axis" influence in play.
3) http://www.axispowercraps.com/crapsforum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=477#p3961
Quote:Recently, on the Patrick board, there's been some discussion about whether it's possible to keep your dice "on axis."
The gist of these discussions is that if you view slow motion video of dice tosses, you will see that your dice do not in any way remain on axis. First, in most instances, I'm a "seeing is believing" kind of guy. And certainly, I've viewed slow motion video of both good and poor tosses. In the context of viewing dice tosses in this manner, in the purest sense of the word, no, your dice probably don't often remain on axis from beginning to end of a toss. However, let's zoom out a bit. Let's take 1000 tosses and let's say you're able to slow mo video each and every one of these tosses. Individually, for each toss, you may look at the video and determine few, if any, remained on axis. But, for those 1000 tosses, let's say the BT data indicated that the on axis percentage was 48% or greater. Which is telling the truth of the matter? The video or the data?
Though my intent is to maintain the axial relationship from beginning to end, I've seen the videos and I know that the dice often twist and turn a lot more than I like. If at the end of a 1000 toss book of rolls, I had a 48% or better on axis percentage, I'd be satisfied even if the slow motion video indicated that my dice weren't on axis. Why? Because BT only tracks how the resulting relationship to the original set. It doesn't care HOW the dice got there. And if a large enough sample of my data indicates something different than the slow motion video, I also do not care how they got there.
Let's take it a step further. Let's say you toss the V-2 with the hard 4 up. You toss the dice down the table, they hit the table, bounce, hit the bottom portion of the back wall, roll out a bit and end up 2-2. The likelihood that the dice reacted exactly in tandem is very slim. But would you still consider this a primary hit?
4) http://roncen.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=6548446#postcount_6
Quote:As I stated, what happens between the time the dice are set and tossed - and when they ultimately stop bouncing around and yield a final result - does not matter. Sure, you want to minimize the bounce and hit the base of the wall where there are no pips to further randomize the roll. But the answer as to whether DI works or not is in the percentages. What percentage of the time are the dice on axis? What percentage of the time to you influence the pitch and yaw? What percentage of the time to you get an on-axis result. It's the result that counts, not the other BS so many naysayers obsess on.
5) http://diceinstitute.mxf.yuku.com/reply/20940776/DiceToolUnlock-Your-Current-Potential#reply-20940776
Quote:The overall goal of dice-influencing is to improve your degree of influence over the dice.
Part of that influence comes from increasing your on-axis tossing while minimizing your double-pitched outcomes; as well, it involves minimizing the number of one-die and both-dice off-axis results.
Considered in the alternative, it involves the exploitation of any correlation that occurs between the two dice regardless of whether or not they both stay on-axis.
Simply stated, even though both dice are independent objects; your act of setting them together, gripping them together, throwing them together, and attempting to land them together…has the effect of hopefully having them end up in some sort of correlated outcome together.
DiceTool looks at the results of how you toss the dice regardless of your intentions. It is based on the premise that the dice themselves don't know or care what set you are throwing them in or what your axial intentions are, and therefore neither the dice nor DiceTool makes any pre-suppositions as to your intent.
Quote: AhighI've still not touched anything with SmartCraps. Maybe I should download and dissect that and take over his market. After reading that rtf I am rofl.
I've never used SmartCraps and don't know anything at all about it. But it looks like it was written in the days of Windows 3.1.
And wow, backgammon dice in the doc file? Hmmm.
LOL Those rounded dice with indented pips were the first thing I noticed as well.
Quote: AlanMendelsonHere's something I would like you to read: http://www.smartcraps.com/SmartCraps_theory.pdf
Quote: SmartCraps TheoryThinking in practical terms, how do we know if a throw has stayed on z-axis rotation for a given dice set? Or, how do we know how many face rotations or pitches occurred on those successes? While it is very clear with a hardway dice set, other sets will lead to ambiguous results unless the dice are clearly marked (or colored) and the starting dice set recorded. For the purposes of the Pro Test, we always use a hardway set, to eliminate this challenege.
Even the test used by SmartCraps itself is to tell the final resting position of the dice! Not how they traveled through the air.
Quote: wudgedEven the test used by SmartCraps itself is to tell the final resting position of the dice! Not how they traveled through the air.
Evaluating the final resting position of the dice -- only the upward face -- is wholly insufficient to determine whether the dice stayed on the pitch axis as they were moving. If that's all you're looking at, you have no way to rule out just getting lucky. Correlation does not imply causation. Is that what the dice-influencing crowd is selling?
On the other hand, if you actually observe (say) 10% of your rolls actually staying on axis, then you can reasonably determine what the resultant distribution should be and evaluate the new EVs accordingly.
The bottom line is if you're attempting to gauge your skill at keeping dice on axis, you should not count as good any throw that goes off-axis, regardless of how it ends up. If you're just keeping track of the starting and ending up-face results, regardless of how the dice are bouncing, it's not accurate to call that "axis control".
Quote: DeMangoHow does the house count it? How it ends up. The ends justify the means. Wudged hit the home run, deal with it.
Hitting a home run after moving the fences in 200 feet really doesn't count, now does it? There's a big difference between saying "I kept the dice on axis and, as a result, observed fewer 1s and 6s" vs "I had fewer 1s and 6s, therefore I must have kept the dice on axis." The post hoc fallacy is still a fallacy even if you don't want it to be.
that does not make any sense.......
What you are saying is the results dont matter, and therefore the statistical analysis no matter how
extended the trial and no matter how much the variance is from random, means nothing.
I am not going to buy that. You may as well be saying that if a guy hits 72 home runs in a year he can
only count the ones that land in the exact same place.
If a person throws the dice down the table and they hit half way and bounce 3 times and hit the back wall,
then tumble 4 more times before the come to rest in the middle of the table is not different than a player
that sets the dice down close to the back roll, they bounce up and come to rest in 1 or 2 bounces are not
different, i dont know what is.
i played tonight, i had 9 rolls .. 13,7,20,3,4,16,20,13,12, this was on a 6 person tub so you get the
dice back sooner than on a full table. The table was full all night i was there that means there were
54 rolls, only one guy had over 10 rolls other than myself and he had 14.
I am not suggesting these were good rolls or i made a ton of money, i did not, but if you have an srr of
8 or more for a couple of years , and the average is 6, no one can be lucky that long.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterWhat you are saying is the results dont matter, and therefore the statistical analysis no matter how
extended the trial and no matter how much the variance is from random, means nothing.
That's not at all what I said. What I said was that if your dice are bouncing all over the place, you're not exhibiting axis control. That's not the only plausible way of controlling dice, of course. I don't know how your throw behaves, and that's not relevant to me because I'm not betting on it, but you are. If it were me, I'd want to understand how my dice behaved so I could optimize my edge over the casino.
Quote:I am not suggesting these were good rolls or i made a ton of money, i did not, but if you have an srr of
8 or more for a couple of years , and the average is 6, no one can be lucky that long.
I've said repeatedly that RSR is irrelevant as a general measure of the purported player advantage, but if you're not making money with an RSR of 8, you're betting wrong. If your results yielding the RSR of 8 correlate with on-axis rolling, the 3V set would yield a >20% edge on seven different bets and >100% edge on the passline. Do you understand how incredible is the implication that you have +100% edge over the house, yet you're not making "a ton of money"?
That is why you need to understand not only what your allegedly-controlled results are, but how you're achieving them. I can model on-axis rolling, and an RSR of 8 corresponds to perfect on-axis control with the 3V set. As a result of this model, I would know where to put my money to extract the most profit if I could execute a perfect blanket roll each time.
But because you don't understand how your RSR was obtained, you're just guessing as how to bet. Observing a correlation, assuming causality, and then further assuming that the passline is where to put your money seems to be the status quo with a lot of adherents to dice setting techniques and lore, but there are all sorts of problems with that logic.
The invites he got were highly lucrative. His action got him drawing tickets, invitations to special events, and freeroll tournaments. This was where his edge came from. He especially knew how to work craps tournaments, but the total of everything gave him a big edge.
After a few years they invited him not to play anymore.
