What constitutes AP Craps play?

According to Dice Tool, having a SRR of 8 means an advantage of 7.8%, on the pass line, using the hardways set. Hardly 100%.

I don't know anything about Dice Tool, but RSR is an output, not an input. If you're keeping the dice on axis and the pitch is uncorrelated, perfect on-axis control with the hardways set yields an RSR of 4, not 8: both dice have faces 2, 3, 4, 5 in play, so the chances of 7 are 4/16.

If Dice Tool is attempting to model something other than uncorrelated axis rolling, you need to understand its assumptions. If Dice Tool is suggesting that you can plug in an RSR as input and derive a house edge without any such assumptions, it is wrong.

math


I understand fully what your saying about the srr in general. Also Alan made a statement
the other day which was 100% correct and that is that an extended SRR means nothing
if you dont repeat numbers.

Having said that, two things are true
1..... an extended SRR provides more opportunities to repeat
2..... a person that can repeat numbers and lets say have a good portion
of those numbers being box numbers or numbers you would have a
decent chance of being on, will make you more money. A 12 roll is
is better than a 6 if you are hitting decent numbers.


I still feel your in the camp of nothing you can do can make any difference because nothing
you can do is perfect.I have been doing this to long to beleive that.

I am also honest to say at my betting level it really does not matter, i am not going to hurt the
casino. My reason for trying to influence the dice was 2 fold, first i love the game, i have played
it for 40 years.... and since Sue and I were retiring, i wanted to be able to take in a few casino
trips each year and play craps without feeling guilty about spending to much, and so far so good.
The other part, is many of us players had our own business and many played some type of
sports when younger, so your competitive, and trying to beat the table is fun for me.

I love the opinions of ( almost) everyone on here, and thank you for them.

dicesetter

There is time to think and there is time to bet. Grinders try to save, gamblers want to win as much as they can. Formula is simple: if you can not bet , you can not win.anything else is irrelevant.

Quote: Dicenor33

There is time to think and there is time to bet. Grinders try to save, gamblers want to win as much as they can. Formula is simple: if you can not bet , you can not win.anything else is irrelevant.

Corollary: You wanna win big?

Then bet big.

Quote: MrV

Corollary: You wanna win big?

Then bet big.

Unfortunately MrV is correct. Craps is one of those casino games (like blackjack) where you have to bet big to win big. There are no jackpot hands such as a royal flush -- with the exception of certain proprietary bets such as the Fire Bet which are not at all casinos. And for right way players the big problem is that bets on the table are won one at a time, but all of your bets are lost at once.

If there is a true advantage for dice influencers, it is the ability to know what their signature numbers are and to bet those numbers.

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't know anything about Dice Tool, but RSR is an output, not an input. If you're keeping the dice on axis and the pitch is uncorrelated, perfect on-axis control with the hardways set yields an RSR of 4, not 8: both dice have faces 2, 3, 4, 5 in play, so the chances of 7 are 4/16.

If Dice Tool is attempting to model something other than uncorrelated axis rolling, you need to understand its assumptions. If Dice Tool is suggesting that you can plug in an RSR as input and derive a house edge without any such assumptions, it is wrong.

Like SRR, axis shooting is about as descriptive as the name of the game, "craps." They don't call it craps because of feces. And any new player who asked, "what does this game have to do with taking a poo poo?" would get a similar head-scratch to someone saying "axis shooting would yield an RSR of 4" instead of thinking that the term axis shooting is just some confusing term that is associated with a set of distributions one could hope to get with a throw familiar to folks who study distributions of outcomes for a particular throw style given enough samples of data.

I'm not defending the terms, but all I am saying is that you can't take any of these terms literally and then suggest that because the words that were chosen in the terms imply that a certain thing is happening, and clearly that certain thing isn't happening, therefore it's not possible to accomplish is a little bit of a tangent.

I still don't understand axis "control" and I don't believe that I have the ability to perform it either. And a lot of the reason why I don't is because I don't really understand much about it.

But for an advantaged throw, I think you're generally expecting fewer 61 sevens than 52 and 43. And you expect fewer hi-lo pairs than hardway pairs. And you expect fewer sevens easy-ways than any other easy-ways. This all given a hardway set with the 61 on the axis. That's my best understanding of all of this stuff in general in terms of what it is supposed to do.

One theory for axis control may be that assuming you lack correlation, one die stays on axis and one die is random. That means the result is (using a regular expression) [2345][1-6] due to a short roll on one die or some other state that led to full axis control on only one die. This eliminates hi-lo and 6-1 seven out due to one die coming up short and the other die being random. Both dice coming up short and both dice staying on axis, you BETTER have some pitch control (aka avoiding double pitch via correlation), or you are right that you are looking at RSR of 1:4 instead of 1:6 due to axis sans correlation. This is all a guess on my part, and not due to any research, but maybe something a math person could follow up on what the 36 outcomes would look like in this case. Including full correlation with no axis control means more hi-lo not less because both dice don't stay on axis, but they are correlated.

So from a state diagram, here are the possible outcomes:

1) 100% random shot
2) full correlation zero axis control (RSR infinite)
3) zero correlation full axis control (RSR 4)
4) D1 full axis control D2 100% random (RSR 6)
5) partial correlation full axis control (RSR ???)
6) partial correlation partial axis control (1-6 faces less likely double pitch less likely RSR ???)

Most shots are going to fall state 6. It's important to note that full correlation partial axis control is not possible.

These are just guesses and thoughts, so not looking for an attack on this line of thinking. But if it can serve as a guide for a hypothesis, it might be helpful. By giving each state a distribution of expected outcomes along the 36 possibilities, then blending these distributions together, a hypothesis might allow one to match actual roll results with a blended theoretical expectation given a proper model.

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't know anything about Dice Tool, but RSR is an output, not an input. If you're keeping the dice on axis and the pitch is uncorrelated, perfect on-axis control with the hardways set yields an RSR of 4, not 8: both dice have faces 2, 3, 4, 5 in play, so the chances of 7 are 4/16.

If Dice Tool is attempting to model something other than uncorrelated axis rolling, you need to understand its assumptions. If Dice Tool is suggesting that you can plug in an RSR as input and derive a house edge without any such assumptions, it is wrong.

Math,

Thanks for keeping coming back, this has got to be frustrating for you.

Your posts in this thread for me have been like picking up a text book with all the salient points highlighted.

It would be easier for me personally if I didn't understand why some choose not to see. It isn't always a gift, is it.

Pet

I thought the original post was about srr, and i sure dont know anything about dice tool and do not use rsr
so i could be out in left field ( which would not be the first time).

I am not sure it matters, if you can have a decent SRR and repeat numbere with your throw, is there
anything else more important.

Why not keep it simple.

dicesetter.


Math... i dont mean to sound like i know what your talking about, it could be way over
my head, so sorry if i misunderstood.

Quote: petroglyph

Math,

Thanks for keeping coming back, this has got to be frustrating for you.

Your posts in this thread for me have been like picking up a text book with all the salient points highlighted.

It would be easier for me personally if I didn't understand why some choose not to see. It isn't always a gift, is it.

I appreciate the compliment, and I also get why -- especially if you've spent dozens or hundreds of dollars learning some theory about how to de-randomize randomness and you're invested. And if that theory seems to comport with your preconceived notions, it's hard to listen to why that might be wrong. Humans are not hard-wired to understand randomness, so it's very easy to fall into traps and use shortcuts that seem valid but aren't. RSR is a perfect example -- the ratio of total rolls to sevens is easy to count, so it would be very convenient if that statistic were useful, but it's not. If you can keep the dice on axis even 10% of the time (with uncorrelated faces), you have an edge on the passline and that's with an RSR of 5.97.

It is just not possible that someone has an RSR of 8 and doesn't have an enormous edge somewhere. That may not be the passline, however, and that's because "just minimizing 7s" isn't correlated with the passline edge. It may seem intuitive, but intuition and correct comprehension of probability theory rarely go hand in hand. As an example, under the assumption of 10% on-axis rolling efficiency (and no face correlation), the edge on the passline with the 3V set is less than half that of the edge with the hardways set -- even though the RSR is 5.97 with the latter but 6.01 with the former.

The point is that knowing the entire die face distribution is required to know how to bet optimally, because if you have an RSR of 8 (or some higher number), the twin assumptions that (a) the passline is the best place to put your money and (b) your current set is the right one to optimize your EV are most likely wrong. But you'd never know that if all you did was track sevens vs. non-sevens.

Let me put it this way: if I had an RSR of 8 or better, I would know how best to exploit it at the dice table and would have dice winnings in the tens or hundreds of thousands. It doesn't seem anyone else who claims such a high level of control ever reports that level of financial gain.

Quote: dicesitter

Pet

I thought the original post was about srr, and i sure dont know anything about dice tool and do not use rsr
so i could be out in left field ( which would not be the first time).

I am not sure it matters, if you can have a decent SRR and repeat numbere with your throw, is there
anything else more important.

Sure -- knowing where to bet. See my previous post.

FYI, SRR and RSR are inverses of one another, technically: "Seven-to-Roll Ratio" and "Roll-to-Seven Ratio". Neither are particularly useful, though. You should come up with a new way to gauge your throw effectiveness based on how it behaves (and how you intend it to behave).

Also, to address your prior comment:

Quote: dicesitter

I still feel your in the camp of nothing you can do can make any difference because nothing
you can do is perfect.I have been doing this to long to beleive that.

That's entirely the opposite of what I think. I don't know if anyone can really influence the dice, even you, despite your reported statistics. I certainly can't, though I'm not really trying (I don't own a "practice rig", etc.)

My point is that anyone who thinks they can exert influence over dice, or who considers themselves to be practicing their craft, should at least want to be able to measure their improvement in a way that actually does correlate with the house edge, and not one that doesn't (e.g. RSR or SRR). You don't have to be perfect at all -- nobody is -- but if you can measure how much different from uniform you are (uniform meaning equal die-face probabilities) then you can figure out what all the odds are for all the bets so you can bet on the spots with the greatest favorable edge. RSR doesn't tell you that.

math


You got that right, my SRR seems good, but i am happy to come out even or make a few hundred
at the table.

6-7 years ago it seems we made over a $1000 per night many times, ( also lost many times)

This year i did only a couple of times when i made a fire bet

dicesetter

Very well thought out and informative posts ME. It's nice to have the input of someone with your math knowledge without the condescending nature that often follows these dice control threads. While I do believe it is possible to influence the dice I've long held the belief that most DI's "edge" are nothing more than a nice streak of positive variance. Or exaggeration. Which is what led me to ahighs site as he had a different approach than anything I have ever seen and his "theories" made more sense in how one would approach craps if they did in fact have an edge.

And I fixed your sentence from above:)

Quote: MathExtremist

It is just not possible that someone has an RSR of 8.

Quote: dicesitter

Pet

I thought the original post was about srr, and i sure dont know anything about dice tool and do not use rsr
so i could be out in left field ( which would not be the first time).

I am not sure it matters, if you can have a decent SRR and repeat numbere with your throw, is there
anything else more important.

Why not keep it simple

Not to nitpick but the op was about ap.

ME reduces all the noise and chatter down to what is. What is, isn't anything else.

I see people listen [or pretend to] but they don't hear. What's been said above several times has been misconstrued either unintentionally or subconsciously.

Paraphrasing an earlier post, you [we] don't have to like it, but it is so never the less.

A shooter can have a 50/1 rsr and not make any money other than the passline bet. Inversely, a lousy rsr and do well.

Poster's have tried to instill words or meanings into what's been said and if you reread it literally, its just not there. He said it, correlation is not causation.


If the true [literal] meaning of on axis rolling can be changed to mean anything we want it to than we're all di's.

A person could have better on axis control with marbles, way easier. That's probably why they change out the dice.

I'm not saying di can't be achieved, but I would really like to photograph anyone's throw in slo mo. Especially those making a living off selling it. No insult intended. On axis can easily be drawn on a piece of paper or imagined. In real life however, I'd like to see it.

Ahigh said he had a video of a short roll on axis, cool. I actually made a throw and at the end, one die was stacked on top the other one. But that was one time out of many throws.

So the textbooks have been written, some for at least 15 years, but no one bothers to read. We have others that don't get that RSR and SRR are one and the same. We have others who should know that 100% on axis is impossible (end result, dipstick), and then they make wild assumptions about those impossible results. Some assume no correlation. Like I said before all sorts of people here trying to reinvent the wheel. Just because they can't throw a 95 mph fastball means no one can. And last, Stanford Wong wrote Dice Tool, it's not exact, but a good way to keep roll tracks at the table. Not that many do. Bottom line; there sure is extreme ignorance in this thread, and I guess I'm happy about that, they will never get that bell on that darned cat!

Quote: DeMango

So the textbooks have been written, some for at least 15 years, but no one bothers to read. We have others that don't get that RSR and SRR are one and the same. We have others who should know that 100% on axis is impossible (end result, dipstick), and then they make wild assumptions about those impossible results.

These are the same textbooks that preach the importance of SRR, despite the fact that it's uncorrelated with anything? You shouldn't believe everything you read.

Slop counts in craps, just like it does in bowling. If you knock down all the pins after you throw a bowling ball, it doesn't matter whether you had a smooth release, a nice line, and a perfect hit in the pocket, or whether you fell down before the foul line and your ball missed the headpin entirely but all ten pins went down anyway due to backwards action on the back pins (yes, I did this once). A strike is a strike as far as the scoreboard knows, but if you're trying to keep track of your technique and your improvement, you don't count the second one as a "good throw."

Similarly, a hard six pays the same regardless of whether you were trying to throw it and did by using a gentle on-axis throw where the dice didn't tumble sideways at all, or whether the dice hopped off the table, slid down someone's shirt, bounced off the rail, and fell back onto the table showing a pair of 3s. If you're trying to keep track of your technique and your improvement, you don't count the second one as a "good throw." But if you want to call both of those results "on axis" because your textbooks tell you to, be my guest.

Quote:

MathExtremist
These are the same textbooks that preach the importance of SRR, despite the fact that it's uncorrelated with anything? You shouldn't believe everything you read.

For all you guys that are infatuated with a SRR, that doesn't mean anything at all, when you are on a craps table. The so-called random roller didn't have a SSR when he just had a 50 roll, nor did Pat DeMauro when she had her 154 roll. An SRR is just a selling point that they coined to sell books and schools, the dice do not now that you have an SRR of 28, Oh damn that was proving to be a mistake on the fiction writes part,.. when he wrote about his SRR of 28!

When you are the shooter with a realistic SRR of 6.5 the guy that just throw in a late bet, that you hit,.. didn't know that you had that great SRR of 6.5, there is more to shooting craps then a stupid SRR of anything. When the dice know that you have a SRR of anything over 6.5 then it might matter, but then I'm sure that they won't say to each other, look this guy is a great shooter we better behave, so we don't mess it up his SRR!

Every time a shooter steps up to a craps table his or her SRR changes, that great SRR you had at home now become 5 POS's in a row! Your only at the table as long as your bank roll allows you to be there.
If you don't have the bank roll you great SRR will have no effect, if you have a few PSO's and short rolls!

It all comes down to what you walk out of the casino with, unless your a fool, and you are playing for the fun of it. I never thought that losing money was fun , but then some fools do!

Quote: AlanMendelson

What constitutes AP craps play?

Ain't seen any casinos closing or ripping out their craps tables. So I stick with the "ain't no such thing" as advantage Play craps. Now good no=nonsense players who enjoy a fast game at close to even... lots of those players, but the casino will gladly accommodate them due to the effects of booze and broads and fatigue making the house edge acceptable.

Quote: AlanMendelson

What constitutes AP craps play?.

The only way to beat craps is to own the table. But past that, if the joint offers major benefits for your action like freeroll tournaments, keno, blackjack, craps, slot tournaments? It also helps if the joint has strong drawings. If you can generate strong enough action giving them the slimmest edge possible againt you, and you know the minimum amount of action to qualify for the freeroll mailers, you got those assholes all trapped up.

The slimmest edge entails betting the passline and taking all the free odds. We all know that the don't pass is a closer bet. The problem is that you will gain the animosity of the pass bettors and make yourself stand out like a sore thumb to the house.

Look for a house that gives you major benefits for your action while you are giving them the slimmest of edges in the main game.

Quote: MathExtremist

Similarly, a hard six pays the same regardless of whether you were trying to throw it and did by using a gentle on-axis throw where the dice didn't tumble sideways at all, or whether the dice hopped off the table, slid down someone's shirt, bounced off the rail, and fell back onto the table showing a pair of 3s. If you're trying to keep track of your technique and your improvement, you don't count the second one as a "good throw." But if you want to call both of those results "on axis" because your textbooks tell you to, be my guest.

Well said. And I hope those who think it is the "end result" which defines an "on axis throw" will consider this and not merely dismiss it as static.

Let's be realistic for a moment: there may be no more than perhaps five people in the world who really can, with some regularity, throw dice on axis. Just as there are few golfers of the caliber of a Tiger Woods or pitchers like Sandy Koufax or quarterbacks like Dan Marino. Yet, the "schools" want you to believe that anyone with practice can throw dice on axis. And I will suggest that by saying how the dice come to rest defines throwing the dice on axis is nothing less than "changing the rules" in order to get money from students.

Everyone knows what throwing dice on axis means and how dice on axis perform on a table. Once the dice go off their axis you can't claim that the end result shows they didn't.

I will also suggest that the schools who says the "end result" determines if the dice were on axis are saying that thinking that there is no slow motion video capability to show whether the dice remained on axis or not.

So if you've got the video, please show it.

And for those of you who have the video be honest in your presentation. There are different levels of performance. A lot of people can throw two dice and keep them on axis until they hit the table surface. Fewer people can throw two dice and keep them on axis after the intitial bounce, and fewer still can throw two dice and keep them on axis till they reach the back wall. This is why the goal of dice influencing (as explained by the original advocates -- not the Johnny come lately advocates) is to have a slow roll so the dice come to rest against the back wall or to have the slightest of bounces off the back wall.

Now, if you want to operate by "different criteria" please state your criteria so others can decide if your "on axis throw" meets their criteria for an "on axis throw."

Quote: superrick

It all comes down to what you walk out of the casino with, unless your a fool, and you are playing for the fun of it. I never thought that losing money was fun , but then some fools do!

I went to the movies tonight. I saw Gravity. I was entertained. The movie was expensive because it was at an Imax 3D theater. Technically I lost money and I had fun. If I go to a craps table and lose money but also had fun I think it's the same as going to the movies -- only it's a different kind of fun with a different price point. Does that make me a fool?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: superrick

It all comes down to what you walk out of the casino with, unless your a fool, and you are playing for the fun of it. I never thought that losing money was fun , but then some fools do!

I went to the movies tonight. I saw Gravity. I was entertained. The movie was expensive because it was at an Imax 3D theater. Technically I lost money and I had fun. If I go to a craps table and lose money but also had fun I think it's the same as going to the movies -- only it's a different kind of fun with a different price point. Does that make me a fool?

You not only get fun, but also learn how to take risk and manage money.

Quote: MathExtremist

These are the same textbooks that preach the importance of SRR, despite the fact that it's uncorrelated with anything? You shouldn't believe everything you read.

In the beginning that was true. It all changed with Wong's book in 2004. He introduced correlation as a factor in winning throws. Gradually the rest of the DI world followed. A few Luddites remain that believe on axis is be all end all.

Quote: DeMango

In the beginning that was true. It all changed with Wong's book in 2004. He introduced correlation as a factor in winning throws. Gradually the rest of the DI world followed. A few Luddites remain that believe on axis is be all end all.

De Mango, I believe you confuse apples with oranges. You can achieve higher SRR by not throwing dice hard enough. "Ballerina's swing". Casinos want the dice to hit back wall hard enough to guarantee randomness. The only way to increase SRR and have dice enough force is to keep it on the axis.

I have to agree with Dicenor. When you keep your dice on Axis, as much as possible and for as long as possible, and use the correct set, then you have the best chance of limiting the appearance of a seven.

It doesnt hurt to try even if you believe craps is nothing more than a random game.

The ignorance here is astounding. Try throwing the hardway set. Have one die go off axis. On Axis = 0% Sevens? Zero! Read some books will ya!

There is some confusion about the Hardway set and other sets such as 3-V. The Hardway set will lose its power once a shooter becomes an on-axis shooter. That shooter will have to change his set. I do a complete analysis of this in "Cutting Edge Craps." As Macbeth said, "Nothing is but what is not."

It is easier to keep the dice on axis in the air than after they bounce off the table, touch the back wall and land. Give it a try.

Frank


I have been saying that for two years and no one beleives that, but my
records are very clear. The better my throw was the more 3/4 4/3
i would get and i would have to change to an outside set or 3v.

The alternative is also true, when i used the hardway set and half the
time or more i would have one die on axis and 1 off i could have good
average rolls, but switch to 3/v or outside i was dead.

Last night was an example, had two short rolls with hardway set, both ending
in 3/4 on decent rolls, switched to out side set and had a 24 and a 33.


dicesetter

Quote: FrankScoblete

There is some confusion about the Hardway set and other sets such as 3-V. The Hardway set will lose its power once a shooter becomes an on-axis shooter. That shooter will have to change his set. I do a complete analysis of this in "Cutting Edge Craps." As Macbeth said, "Nothing is but what is not."

It is easier to keep the dice on axis in the air than after they bounce off the table, touch the back wall and land. Give it a try.

Not to change the subject, but Frank, assuming you have lifetime wins, are they four, five, six, seven, or eight figures? Just looking for the order of magnitude and I hope that I am not prying.

One of the things that I think is happening with the work that I am doing is that people are being put in the position to be more honest about things. There are simply too many people believing things that are not true. My lifetime losses are still four figures. For three and a half years, that's about the cheapest hobby (playing the game) I've ever had. I have much more money wrapped up in equipment that I have purchased for my research than I have lost at the tables. But the point is that I am still losing.

Plenty of people like to chime in and criticize me that I am losing. But I am 100% certain that there is at least one other individual out there who has lost more than me and pretends (possibly even to themselves) that they are lifetime winners and that this stuff works. You lose so little money if you only bet the passline and take enough odds, that it's easy to write it off in your head.

But the flip side can also be true. Even if I was $30,000 lifetime wins in craps, my life would be no different.

Rick says he is the type of player who gets unhappy when he loses. I see these types of players all the time. I couldn't care less whether I win or lose because I'm 100% prepared to lose when I bring my (not the houses) money to the table. When I use money that I won to press a bet, guess what? That's my money too! Because I already won it. And when I have a big come bet that travels to a number and it's "locked up" I know that even that is my money, it's just not as much money as it looks like. And I generally ALWAYS have enough on the rail to unlock any big come bet.

But getting back to the point, a lot of folks out there have been sold a bill of goods that you can pay $1,000 to $5,000 in your lifetime for classes and expect to recuperate those costs in the form of winnings. And I am going to make the bold claim that the whole idea is BULL. Absolutely 100% I am certain that less than half the people recuperate their cost of taking classes. Stated another way, I could give a class that says to take the cost of this class on put it on the pass line at Caesar's when you go next time and you'll have a better chance of recuperating from the cost of anything you learned. Bold play is the best hope the average person who took a weeks worth of classes or less has get their money back.

And this position is based on everything I know about the AVERAGE craps player that TAKES A CLASS.

To put my honest opinion in another form, you have got to be a sucker to take these classes and believe that it's worth it. Buying a book is another story.

Now I will not disagree that the classes are good to socialize with other like-minded folks. And I have met a few of them and they are all great people. But I didn't pay to meet any of them.

I just think that there should be more non-profit groups of players, and there aren't. And one reason I think that this is the case is that there are more folks fooling themselves that they have an edge than there are that actually have a lifetime profit more than minimum wage. IE: you would be more likely to get money back from a class on how to get a job at Burger King.

Quote: dicesitter

Frank


I have been saying that for two years and no one beleives that, but my
records are very clear. The better my throw was the more 3/4 4/3
i would get and i would have to change to an outside set or 3v.

The alternative is also true, when i used the hardway set and half the
time or more i would have one die on axis and 1 off i could have good
average rolls, but switch to 3/v or outside i was dead.

Last night was an example, had two short rolls with hardway set, both ending
in 3/4 on decent rolls, switched to out side set and had a 24 and a 33.


dicesetter

Here's exhibit A of the player who thinks he's doing better than he really is. Who thinks this guy makes more than minimum wage playing craps? Now I have no idea how good this guy actually is myself. But I can guess. And my guess is that he's not as good as he portrays that he is. Lots of folks out there just like him too.

Quote: dicesitter

Frank


I have been saying that for two years and no one beleives that, but my
records are very clear. The better my throw was the more 3/4 4/3
i would get and i would have to change to an outside set or 3v.

The alternative is also true, when i used the hardway set and half the
time or more i would have one die on axis and 1 off i could have good
average rolls, but switch to 3/v or outside i was dead.

Last night was an example, had two short rolls with hardway set, both ending
in 3/4 on decent rolls, switched to out side set and had a 24 and a 33.


dicesetter

The 24 and 33 are an example of lucky rolls. Positive variance. Taking advantage of a Long roll is not necessarily playing with an edge. Simply switching the set was not likely responsible for both of these longer rolls. It's possible that the 3V set is better than the hard way set for your throw but switching between them after two rolls at the casino is not a good way to prove that.

Quote: DeMango

The ignorance here is astounding. Try throwing the hardway set. Have one die go off axis. On Axis = 0% Sevens? Zero! Read some books will ya!

Whoever said "on axis = 0% sevens"? I don't think anyone said that.

Quote: DeMango

The ignorance here is astounding. Try throwing the hardway set. Have one die go off axis. On Axis = 0% Sevens? Zero! Read some books will ya!

Your conclusion is based on a flawed premise -- that since any roll that ends with a specific four faces is "on axis", any roll that ends with the other two faces is therefore "off axis". That's inaccurate. Either you keep the dice on axis or you don't, even if the dice end up how you wanted them to. If the dice go off axis, you should not assume any level of control, therefore p(1..6) on that die = 1/6 (and as a result, p(7) for both dice = 1/6). In contrast, you apparently believe that if one die goes "off axis" using the hardway set, that means none of the four intended faces will show and therefore p(1) = p(6) = 0.5. That's a much higher level of influence than even keeping the dice on axis, and I don't think that's a plausible model.

Bottom line, your books have led you to believe that dice bouncing off someone's shirt and landing back on the table can still yield an "on-axis" result. That model (and everything that flows from it) should be rejected. Even if it's written down in a "textbook."

Quote: Ahigh

Here's exhibit A of the player who thinks he's doing better than he really is. Who thinks this guy makes more than minimum wage playing craps? Now I have no idea how good this guy actually is myself. But I can guess. And my guess is that he's not as good as he portrays that he is. Lots of folks out there just like him too.

I'm not aware of where dicesitter claims to be a lifetime winner at craps?

However on your own forum you said on several occasions that he was the best shooter you had ever seen.

In fact you went on incessantly about his fantastic Pvalues.

Do I sense some penis envy on your part?

Were his head to swell to multiple times it's size now maybe he will start his own dice show and load it up on the internet?

One possible benefit of DI would be in limiting the number of bets a DI makes, and having each bet of a higher denomination than it would otherwise be, had the DI bet on all other shooters.

By limiting play to only one or two individuals (DIs) and upping the bet size, the player would seem to come closer to the so-called mathematical "ideal" of making only one big bet, then wrapping it up, win or lose.

Same idea with the five count: limit the number of bets, increase the amount bet.

Money Mgt.

I suspect that in the real world it makes little if any demonstrable difference, but I could be wrong.

Is it me or it's the world which gone mad? People,you need millions of trials under various conditions performed by mechanical device to come to any conclusion. Stop reading children's books

Quote: MrV

increase the amount bet.

Money Mgt.

In a negative expectation game why would increasing the amount bet, even on fewer numbers, be good money management?

I've read somewhere that the ideal way to play would be to make only one big bet, then wrap it up, win or lose.

This better approximates the ideal than betting over and over on every shooter.

Ah, but is their in fact "an ideal" way to play?

Dunno, it is something I read.

Quote: MathExtremist

These are the same textbooks that preach the importance of SRR, despite the fact that it's uncorrelated with anything? You shouldn't believe everything you read.

It still comes down to the fact that your SRR changes every time you step up to a craps table, unlike playing basic strategy in video poker, or Blackjack. Where you can say that if I play this way with a perfect card count I have an advantage over the casino!

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: superrick

It all comes down to what you walk out of the casino with, unless your a fool, and you are playing for the fun of it. I never thought that losing money was fun , but then some fools do!

Quote: AlanMendelson

I went to the movies tonight. I saw Gravity. I was entertained. The movie was expensive because it was at an Imax 3D theater. Technically I lost money and I had fun. If I go to a craps table and lose money but also had fun I think it's the same as going to the movies -- only it's a different kind of fun with a different price point. Does that make me a fool?

Some married men love to pick up a hooker when they come into Vegas, they know the cost for the hooker up front, for their little bit of fun, what they don’t know is what it is going to cost them if they get caught by their wife, in the divorce proceedings.
When you and your wife go to the movies, you know up front what it’s going to cost you for your entrainment. You can’t say that because you knew up front that when you went to the movies that it compares to playing craps. At the movies you are not gambling on the out come. Like the guy picking up the hooker.

I get sucked into taking my wife to the movies all the time to see something that I know in my mind will suck, there is nothing worst then sitting through some chick flick to any guy, but we all do it, because we love our wives.

Taking a risk in live is good for you, it stimulates the mind and gets the adrenaline flowing, but you can’t say that because you took the risk there is AP craps playing! Most players that come into Vegas has a set amount of money that they are going to lose, just ask anybody that comes here, even you do the same thing, it still doesn't mean that there is AP craps playing!

Quote: DeMango

In the beginning that was true. It all changed with Wong's book in 2004. He introduced correlation as a factor in winning throws. Gradually the rest of the DI world followed. A few Luddites remain that believe on axis is be all end all.

Well DeMango I guess that you missed this interview with Wong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iWapKXDCH0&feature=youtu.be&t=25m30s

He is now saying that after seeing some slow motion videos he changed his mind on dice control!

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 http://procraps4u2.myfanforum.org/index.php ...

Quote: AlanMendelson

A lot of people can throw two dice and keep them on axis until they hit the table surface.
Fewer people can throw two dice and keep them on axis after the initiall bounce, and
fewer still can throw two dice and keep them on axis till they reach the back wall.
Now, if you want to operate by "different criteria" please state your criteria so others can decide if your "on axis throw" meets their criteria for an "on axis throw."

I ain't never heard no stick man call out: Hard Four and the dice were on axis 90 percent of their trip.

Whether on axis or not, when the dice come to evident rest, the stick man makes the call. And that call is the resulting number not anything about how they started out on axis and stayed on axis through the bounces against the frets or the player's hands or the bimbo's breasts. An announcer might call out a horse race that way, but the money is made or lost at the finish line!

"And there off! EAch die out of the hand, its neck and neck.... they are starting out on perfect axis but it looks like the left one is losing axis as it nears the backboard and right die is keeping axis but is heading straight for Bimbo's Boob.. and its an on-axis rebound off the boob, the fans are going wild as that left die makes its second bounce off the felt and the right die hits the felt on edge for a perfect triple bounce."

Sorry folks,,,, all you ever hear is the stickman, not the announcer. All that ever counts is the result of the roll, not the on axis factor.

Superrick, I for one am getting sick and tired of you confusing the issue with facts. NO FAIR !

I was in a phone conversation with my buddy, Al, this morning.

"Al, there's this thread on AP craps on Wizard of Vegas. Do you remember that craps play J.R. put down on the El Dorado in Reno?"
"Oh, yeah."
"What exactly was he doing on that play?"
"Well, he gave 'em a little edge up front. He flatbet the passline and took all the free odds. He would occasionally bet a $5 hardway for the boys so he didn't have to tip 'em. He knew how much action to run to get all the big freeroll invites. He played in all the freeroll tournaments, blackjack, craps, keno, slots. The drawings were strong too. On the comp end of it there's a lot of nice restaurants in the El Dorado. But he was also selling top shelf booze out of the gift shop to all his friends for half price."
"How did he get squashed?"
"He won the keno tournament four times in a row. He still plays in keno tournaments today even if he has to pay. The other players are so bad he still has an edge."
"He was using Stanford Wong's Casino Tournament Strategy, wasn't he?"
"Well, J.R.'s got a lot of books but Casino Tournament Strategy is one of them."
"That book is still relevant today."
"Hell yeah, it is."

Quote: petroglyph

I'm not aware of where dicesitter claims to be a lifetime winner at craps?

However on your own forum you said on several occasions that he was the best shooter you had ever seen.

In fact you went on incessantly about his fantastic Pvalues.

Do I sense some penis envy on your part?

Were his head to swell to multiple times it's size now maybe he will start his own dice show and load it up on the internet?

Read the whole thread. If you still think that I envy DS, respond and explain your logic for coming to that conclusion and we can talk further.

http://forum.goodshooter.com/topic349.html

DS doesn't make claims to be a lifetime winner, but he takes the position that other people need to do it his way. And specifically about taking classes.

My evidence is none regarding how good he actually is. But he WOULD have to be REALLY good to match the claims (including his roll data) that would lead someone to believe that he is AMAZING if they took what he said at face value without considering the possibility that there might be errors in his claims (including his roll data).

Ahigh


I never said i was good....ever...not a single time, what i have said is this is what happened that
night or this is what my records indicate. I have told you i am not a life time winner and never will
be....

Ahigh there is no ego in this stuff..... if i play with some one on here and i do ok i am happy if i stink,
i stink... this is a game. What you do with your family and work and friends is what defines
you as a person.,.... not how many rolls you have at a craps table.

I have also indicated that dice controll is the best thing that ever happened to a casino because
many of us bet more than we should thinking on many nights we were better than we
we were or after taking class going to the casino that very night playing opposite of what
we learned in class.

Having said that i have 100% belief that i have some influence over the dice, that as alan would
tell you has nothing what so ever to do with winning. Getting a longer SRR or finishing more on the axis you started
with is only the begining to making money, not the end, learning how to bet and what on, thats the hard stuff.

Now finally, what i am not going to do is look at other peoples rolls and tell them what to bet on
and i am not going start a web cast show saying i am the best i have ever seen and then go to a casino
and throw A 6,8,6 and pass the dice because i am afraid of roll 4...........


dicesetter

Quote: FleaStiff

I ain't never heard no stick man call out: Hard Four and the dice were on axis 90 percent of their trip.

Whether on axis or not, when the dice come to evident rest, the stick man makes the call.

FleaStiff, I agree that when your bets are on the table it doesn't matter what form was used by the shooter. But I don't think that is what this discussion is about.

I think the subject of discussion is if keeping dice on axis will give you an advantage... as in advantage play at craps.

Everyone agrees that random shots can make numbers and points.

The debate it appears is now expanded to cover two points:

1. Does keeping dice on axis help you make your numbers and points?
2. What is the definition of keeping dice on axis?

Quote: AlanMendelson

FleaStiff, I agree that when your bets are on the table it doesn't matter what form was used by the shooter. But I don't think that is what this discussion is about.

I think the subject of discussion is if keeping dice on axis will give you an advantage... as in advantage play at craps.

Everyone agrees that random shots can make numbers and points.

The debate it appears is now expanded to cover two points:

1. Does keeping dice on axis help you make your numbers and points?
2. What is the definition of keeping dice on axis?

Alan, I hope one day you'll come across a person who does control the dice. While you watch him shoot you'll question if 7 exists in nature. Also, by looking at the dice you'll see how it rotates around middle axis, you don't need to shoot the video to prove that dice indeed rotates around it's axis. Unfortunately, this whole idea has been hijacked by wrong people, that is why there are so much doubt surrounding DI.

Dicenor33 I am sorry but I don't understand your post?

We know that even when the dice are kept on axis there is the chance that the 7 will show up because of rotation on the axis.

The only way to deliver the dice and to prevent with certainty that a seven will not show is to slide the dice -- because with a slide there is no rotation.

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

Quote: Ahigh

Read the whole thread. If you still think that I envy DS, respond and explain your logic for coming to that conclusion and we can talk further.

http://forum.goodshooter.com/topic349.html

DS doesn't make claims to be a lifetime winner, but he takes the position that other people need to do it his way. And specifically about taking classes.

My evidence is none regarding how good he actually is. But he WOULD have to be REALLY good to match the claims (including his roll data) that would lead someone to believe that he is AMAZING if they took what he said at face value without considering the possibility that there might be errors in his claims (including his roll data).

OK, I will do this one time, but I'll do it in a pm, so as not to threadjack

ps, couldn't fit it all in the pm. I looked at ds rolls and to me looked like variance in a small sample, nothing extraordinary.

Quote: Dicenor33

Alan, I hope one day you'll come across a person who does control the dice. While you watch him shoot you'll question if 7 exists in nature. Also, by looking at the dice you'll see how it rotates around middle axis, you don't need to shoot the video to prove that dice indeed rotates around it's axis. Unfortunately, this whole idea has been hijacked by wrong people, that is why there are so much doubt surrounding DI.

LOL. Don't even know where to begin with this one. It's easy to have a nice looking shot where the dice correlate in the air. The question is, can someone keep the dice on axis throughout the shot? I say no, not often enough on purpose to make a difference. And there isn't a person on this earth that can, using skill, hold off the appearance of the 7 as you say "where one will question whether the 7 exists in nature" .

Quote: AlanMendelson

I think the subject of discussion is if keeping dice on axis will give you an advantage... as in advantage play at craps.

That is easy to figure out. Get someone what claims to keep the dice on axis ... and see if they leave the table with pockets empty or pockets bulging. Simple.