What constitutes AP Craps play?
JB85,you see these "Swan lake" ballerina 's with their arm swings and soft touch think they control the dice, the only thing is missing is a victory dance around the table, perfect musical for Vegas "I'm in control". Each throw should be followed up by jumping and doing two turns in the air.Quote: JB85LOL. 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: AlanMendelsonFleaStiff, 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?
There's no debate about whether keeping the dice on axis will yield an advantage. That's quantifiable. The question is whether one's efforts toward that end are effective, and if so, to what degree. If you can understand how often you affect the distribution, and how, then you can compute the altered edges and determine how to bet. Armed with that knowledge, individual results won't matter. I refer you to the Wizard's signature.
Quote: dicesitterAhighWhat 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.
Actually, they are ALL part of the equation.
If you think that shit works then give up your job and put it all on the line like I do. Fuck the debate. Come on out and play. Give up your day job because of your belief in dice control. You dice controllers make me sick. Don't talk about it. Do it!!!!!!
Prove that you can make a living behind that shit. Anybody can run their mouth. Back it up. Until you can do that you have none of my respect. Name one person, and put up the evidence, who makes a living off of dice control. And this person must have no other income but dice control. Which one of you fellas want to try to jump through that hoop?
The Hardway set is for seven-avoidance. It is not a set geared to making points or specific numbers. Any individual session or even many sessions will see a scattering of numbers and a reduction of sevens. How and why this happens with this set I also cover in my book.
The 3-V (and other sets) are going after specific numbers. The reduction of sevens is not as important when using such sets since you are looking to repeat a number and the set you are using is geared to just that. You might even have a 1:6 SRR in these cases (give or take).
SRR's require many thousands of rolls to establish a real working edge. The more rolls, the merrier. It is a set geared to non-axis throws.
Then something could start to happen to some players (a very distinct minority). You'll note you are starting to seven-out a lot more (at home practice sessions!); that numbers (say six or eight) are diminishing quite a lot in frequency --- and it is really noticeable. It is as if you have lost your ability. At that point (if you get to that point), the time to test your on-axis ability has arrived. You use SmartCraps to see what is happening with your throw. This program can analyze if your increase in sevens and decrease in other numbers is coming about because your on-axis ability has kicked in. On-axis throws with the Hardway set can be dangerous. Most shooters don't realize this. If you do have on-axis ability the SmartCraps program will recommend a set for you that will take advantage of your skill.
For the overwhelming number of shooters, there is no on-axis ability and for them the Hardway set is ideal. Sadly, you can play sessions in the casino and due to a given good night begin to think you have on-axis skills but, in fact, you don't. You have to do the work at home to establish what is going on with your throw. If you do not have on-axis ability, using those "other" sets can kill you since they are not anti-seven sets. (Again I do cover all of this in my books.)
Once you know (or think you know) you have on-axis ability then you go into the casino and give it a try. Your skill level in the casino will probably be less than it is at home (home teams usually win more games at home than on the road) and the only way to clearly inform yourself of this is to see if --- over a decent period of time --- the money is coming your way.
The bottom line when all is said and done is how you do in the casino.
Now to some minor points. Dice hitting arms, legs, noses, or chips are random rolls, no matter how they appear once they stop their motions. Casino events --- singular events --- are really irrelevant since you aren't (or shouldn't) be worrying about arms, legs, noses or chips. You do your worrying at home. In the casino, you follow your set pattern. I tend to think worrying about what you are hitting in the casino is just a distraction. Just play mechanically.
Should you take a course or not? I never took a course. I played with three dice-controllers (at the time we called this rhythmic rolling) the Captain, the Arm and Jimmy P. who demonstrated what they could do over several years and hundreds of sessions. I mimicked the Captain, even though he was not the best of the three shooters but his shot was easier to learn. The Arm was the best (the best I have ever seen) but her eccentric throw just couldn't be duplicated.
So you could say I did my learning in the field with my instructors. There were also no books out about dice control so I got it all from these three people.
As a general rule of thumb, what if you want to become a doctor. Is it enough to just read the medical books? Or should you read the medical books AND go to school for instruction by those who know what they are doing? I'd say, the best way is to go to school. Sure, there are some people who can learn in the field without having a Captain, an Arm or a Jimmy P. to watch, but I would think those people are really rare --- I mean really, really rare.
Of course, taking a class can be a problem. Who should be your teachers? Are the teachers actually players? What are their throws like? What kind of betting do they recommend? Do they flirt with trend betting or, horrors, are they full believers in trend betting on random rollers? Do they recommend poor bets? What are their accomplishments in "real" life? Are they successful professionals, businessmen and businesswomen?
I am no longer teaching regular classes anymore and I have no monetary interest in any school. I've moved on to other things. I've been at dice control (and card counting) for nearly a quarter of a century and there is far more to life than these activities. I am traveling the country (and world) with my beautiful wife and my friend Jerry "Stickman" and his wife; we're seeing baseball games until we have hit every park in the country (http://frankscoblete.com/baseball/), writing non-gambling books and articles.
Should you take a class or not? Your decision. Those who have taken classes can state whether doing so was a good thing for them. Those who have not taken classes can't actually say anything. I mean, if you didn't attend, say, Harvard how do you know what it means to attend Harvard?
Quote: mickeycrimmI have a 10th grade education. Even I know this silly thing about dice control is shear gambler bullshit. The educated idiots of the world debate the axis of a stupid ass die, which has no memory, bouncing off a back wall. You guys go ahead and waste your time. I'm too busy making a living in gambling to listen to your horseshit about dice control.
If you think that shit works then give up your job and put it all on the line like I do. Fuck the debate. Come on out and play. Give up your day job because of your belief in dice control. You dice controllers make me sick. Don't talk about it. Do it!!!!!!
Prove that you can make a living behind that shit. Anybody can run their mouth. Back it up. Until you can do that you have none of my respect. Name one person, and put up the evidence, who makes a living off of dice control. And this person must have no other income but dice control. Which one of you fellas want to try to jump through that hoop?
I am now a mickeycrimm fan!
Quote: mickeycrimm
If you think that shit works then give up your job and put it all on the line like I do.
I have no doubt that it can work. But I admit I can't do it. Therefore, I keep my day job.
Mickeycrimm too bad you only have a 10th grade education. Physics is what's behind dice influencing. Physics is what's make dice influencing possible. Foul language does not affect the reality of it.
Quote: FleaStiffThat 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.
It's not that easy. It's one thing to keep the dice on axis. It's another thing if the shooter hits the numbers he bets on, or if he even knows which numbers he is likely to throw.
Winning at the craps table involves multiple factors whether you are a random shooter or a dice influencer. Again the biggest problem for right way bettors is simply this: you win one bet at a time, but you lose them all at once. The real key to winning is somehow knowing in advance which number you are going to throw next and bet only on that number. NO ONE can do that. Which is why even "pretty darn good dice influencers" can lose a bundle.
Quote: FrankScobleteThe Hardway set is for seven-avoidance. It is not a set geared to making points or specific numbers. Any individual session or even many sessions will see a scattering of numbers and a reduction of sevens. How and why this happens with this set I also cover in my book.
The 3-V (and other sets) are going after specific numbers. The reduction of sevens is not as important when using such sets since you are looking to repeat a number and the set you are using is geared to just that. You might even have a 1:6 SRR in these cases (give or take).
SRR's require many thousands of rolls to establish a real working edge. The more rolls, the merrier. It is a set geared to non-axis throws.
SRR doesn't correlate to house edge at all. I've already demonstrated several concrete examples of this. It may be easy to track, but it's not useful.
But you clearly have different assumptions than I do. You think the Hardway set is for avoiding sevens, so your assumptions are different than that the dice simply pitch forward about a common axis and thereby reduce the frequency of 1 and 6 faces on both dice. Under that model, having equivalent faces on the sides of each die yields an increase in frequency of sevens, not a decrease. So what are your assumptions?
Quote:The bottom line when all is said and done is how you do in the casino.
Here's where we disagree. If you're an AP, or pretending to be one, the bottom line when all is said and done is whether you are making a good investment. The way to judge that is whether you have the edge on a given bet, not whether you win it -- because over time, having the edge will ensure that your bankroll trends upward rather than downward. That is precisely the model used by the casino when they spread the game in the first place.
The question then is how to establish you have the edge. The answer, unfortunately, is not to simply track a bunch of roll totals on a practice table and, in hindsight, compute what your edge would have been on the passline or on other bets -- or what the edge would have been had you turned the dice 90 degrees in one direction or another. The way to establish the that you have an edge is to determine whether you expect to alter the typical uniform distribution of die faces via your throw. If you can keep the dice on-axis (and I mean actually keep them on-axis) even a small percentage of the time, the die face distribution will be non-uniform. If you can execute a whip shot -- again, even a small percentage of the time -- the die face distribution will be non-uniform. Same for a slide, or any of the other dice throwing techniques mentioned by Scarne, etc. From everything I've read about your proposed throwing technique, you recommend aiming for the corner of the felt and rubber wall so the dice don't bounce much (or at all) when they land. That's an even finer level of control than simply keeping them on-axis, but it is still keeping them on-axis. Regardless, if you can do that even a small percentage of the time, you can compute the level of non-uniformity in the die face distribution.
In short, if you can establish that you expect to successfully execute a controlled shot some percentage of the time, you can derive the die face distribution under that level of control and the adjusted edges. Then you can determine whether any of those edges are positive. If you have a positive edge, you are virtually guaranteed -- over time -- to come out ahead. Just like the casino is. The test should be whether you have that level of control, or any level of control whatsoever, and not what the end results are. Looking at end results is fraught with confirmation bias, because some people are just going to get lucky anyway, and there's no way to distinguish that luck from a skill-derived result over a short period of time if all you observe is the final result.
Quote:Should you take a class or not? Your decision. Those who have taken classes can state whether doing so was a good thing for them. Those who have not taken classes can't actually say anything. I mean, if you didn't attend, say, Harvard how do you know what it means to attend Harvard?
With all due respect, the difference between taking a Harvard course and a dice control course is that a Harvard course is (usually) based on provably-valid principles. Dice control courses are based on poor human comprehension of randomness, confirmation bias, and based on your continued reliance on SRR, invalid statistics. I could offer a coin-flipping course, enroll a bunch of students, teach them how to flip heads with a fair coin (it's all in the wrist), and pick the ones who had the longest streaks of heads to give testimonials. They'd come up with some reasons for why I was a great teacher and how much they learned about coin-flipping, but the fact is that variance happens. But it's bad form to charge people money and pretend to teach them a valuable skill when the results are indistinguishable from random, so I wouldn't do this.
Quote: mickeycrimmI have a 10th grade education. Even I know this silly thing about dice control is shear gambler bullshit. The educated idiots of the world debate the axis of a stupid ass die, which has no memory, bouncing off a back wall. You guys go ahead and waste your time. I'm too busy making a living in gambling to listen to your horseshit about dice control.
If you think that shit works then give up your job and put it all on the line like I do. Fuck the debate. Come on out and play. Give up your day job because of your belief in dice control. You dice controllers make me sick. Don't talk about it. Do it!!!!!!
Prove that you can make a living behind that shit. Anybody can run their mouth. Back it up. Until you can do that you have none of my respect. Name one person, and put up the evidence, who makes a living off of dice control. And this person must have no other income but dice control. Which one of you fellas want to try to jump through that hoop?
mickey,
Sorry, honey, but I laughed like hell all the way through this. Posting at 3am? I can just see you pounding the keys with a twisted grin on your face. Must've been a fun night for you earlier based on this rant! Not that I don't agree with you in principle....
I have a general question.
Lets just assume when you throw the dice you dont have any idea what will come next,
but you have bets on the table say on 3 numbers.
Do you think there is a better chance of hitting your numbers on 8 rolls rather than
6.
I know i sure would, just think back over the past year and think how much more you
would have won or less you would have lost if each hand only lasted 1 more roll.
You cant just ignor srr and say it is not revelant. If you have done enough
work to extend your SRR i think you have the ability to repeat some numbers,
Lets say we divide winning into 3 sections
1.... extended srr
2.... ability to repeat
3.... have a reasonable betting system
It is pretty hard to win if you take any of those away.
I surely like the idea of betting on a signature number.. however in actual play
i see that a signature number appears more within a roll than over time.
Dicesetter
Quote: mickeycrimmProve that you can make a living behind that s***. Anybody can run their mouth. Back it up. Until you can do that you have none of my respect. Name one person, and put up the evidence, who makes a living off of dice control. And this person must have no other income but dice control. Which one of you fellas want to try to jump through that hoop?
Just so we're clear, I don't think I can control the dice at all. My line of inquiry is into what my edge would be if I could. If someone could keep the dice on axis 10% of the time they would have an exploitable edge over the casino. Just one roll out of every ten; the average roll isn't even that long. That small required level of control, in conjunction with the amount one could make exploiting it, is strong circumstantial evidence that few (if any) people are able to pull that off.
Quote: dicesitterMATH
I have a general question.
Lets just assume when you throw the dice you dont have any idea what will come next,
but you have bets on the table say on 3 numbers.
Do you think there is a better chance of hitting your numbers on 8 rolls rather than
6.
I dispute your assumptions. The point of dice control is -- or should be -- to alter the die face distributions so your idea of what will come next is no longer "1/36 for every combination." If you've reduced the probability of seven, you still need to understand what probabilities have increased in order to know where to bet. Otherwise, betting "say on 3 numbers" is just guessing. That's not sound advantage play, that's just hoping for the best on the basis of unfounded assumptions.
Quote:You cant just ignor srr and say it is not revelant. If you have done enough
work to extend your SRR i think you have the ability to repeat some numbers
If you don't know what those numbers are likely to be, you can't profit from them. SRR -- by itself -- is useless. Unless you are aware of an improvement in the ratio of a given point number to seven, you don't know enough to make any conclusions. In order to tell whether the Place 6 bet is advantageous, you need to know the ratio of sevens to sixes, not sevens to total rolls.
It's only theoretically you can achieve it, I mean for most of us. You must be a mechanical engineer to understand the forces to be involved, plus you need a specific anatomy to perform the necessary task. One day you might see people like this. They are amazing. These people have nothing to do with one's you read on this website. They are unique.Quote: Sonny44I doubt dice control because dice are supposed to hit the back wall, which is designed specifically to knock dice off-axis and render the throw random. Yes, if the back wall were flat, I could see dice control being valid. I think the "successes" of dice control are completely coincidental because of this basic fact.
Quote: mickeycrimmI have a 10th grade education. Even I know this silly thing about dice control is shear gambler bullshit. The educated idiots of the world debate the axis of a stupid ass die, which has no memory, bouncing off a back wall. You guys go ahead and waste your time. I'm too busy making a living in gambling to listen to your horseshit about dice control.
If you think that shit works then give up your job and put it all on the line like I do. Fuck the debate. Come on out and play. Give up your day job because of your belief in dice control. You dice controllers make me sick. Don't talk about it. Do it!!!!!!
Prove that you can make a living behind that shit. Anybody can run their mouth. Back it up. Until you can do that you have none of my respect. Name one person, and put up the evidence, who makes a living off of dice control. And this person must have no other income but dice control. Which one of you fellas want to try to jump through that hoop?
LOL mickey. I went to college and have a nice career so I don't have to gamble for a living. I do it for fun.
each to his own, i am not with you on this...The idea of "dice control" is folly, and that is what
constantly makes this discussion such a waste of time.
The thought that you cant influence the dice unless you get to the table and
and say give me a $120 6 because that is what i am going to hit, and then hit it
4 times and take your money home... well???
If i get to the table and extend the roll on, and when that roll is over i have more
than i started with....i am happy.
The only difference between a random thrower and DI is you hope to leave the table ahead
more often.
Expecting 100% control..... you may as well stay home and watch "Wheel of Fortune" with your wife.
Even if you threw the perfect roll today, so what tomorrow everything is different.
Dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterExpecting 100% control..... you may as well stay home and watch "Wheel of Fortune" with your wife.
Who said 100%? I think you added a zero -- you can have a solid edge over the house if you only alter 1 out of every 10 throws (10%), and even then the influence only has to eliminate two out of six faces on each die. "Control" doesn't mean calling your number and hitting it. Using a slide/whip/Greek shot is the only way to guarantee that, and those shots will be no-rolled by the dealers.
Can you influence 1 out of 10 throws?
Is it a record that shows you have an 8 srr
Is it a record that shows you throw 10% more 6 and/or 8s than random
Is it a record that shows with an outside set you will record more 4,9,or 10s than normal.
Is it a roll that some slow motion camera shows is a perfect as the last.
Is it a roll that is low enough to hit below the aligator board
Is it a roll that is high enough so you high enough so you hit the back wall on the way down.
NO person can influence the dice in any way well enough to satisfy just the people on this forum.
It surely cant be the data i sent to ahigh because he thinks i made it up, it cant be a 12 SRR some nights
or a 24 or 33 roll becasue J885 says that is just luck......
You tell me what the universal definition is and i will tell you if i can do it or i have seen anyone do it.
Dicesetter
Quote: beachbumbabsmickey, Sorry, honey, but I laughed like hell all the way through this. Posting at 3am? I can just see you pounding the keys with a twisted grin on your face. Must've been a fun night for you earlier based on this rant! Not that I don't agree with you in principle....
You got me pegged, Babs! The hangover ain't to bad today.
Quote: JB85LOL mickey. I went to college and have a nice career so I don't have to gamble for a living. I do it for fun.
If it weren't for gambling I'd probably still be living under a bridge.
Quote: dicesitterIt surely cant be the data i sent to ahigh because he thinks i made it up
I didn't claim that you made it up. What I did was to publish the math suggesting that the chances were high that you did.
These numbers that you gave me were the result of my asking for more concrete proof that you had any abilities at all.
I would have preferred video in the native format of the camera it was obtained from.
That's what I have available to back up my roll data.
You give Ahigh the numbers and he wants a video..... why would want a video, simple
because if the dice bounce at all they are random, so there for any data you have is
random or made up..,
So Math i again will ask you give me a definition first and i will answer your question.
Dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterThat gets back to what a person thinks is influence , who is going to define it.
Is it a record that shows you have an 8 srr
Is it a record that shows you throw 10% for 6 and/or 8s than random
Is it a record that shows with an outside set you will record more 4,9,or 10s than normal.
Is it a roll that some slow motion camera shows is a perfect as the last.
Is it a roll that is low enough to hit below the aligator board
Is it a roll that is high enough so you high enough so you hit the back wall on the way down.
NO person can influence the dice in any way well enough to satisfy just the people on this forum.
It surely cant be the data i sent to ahigh because he thinks i made it up, it cant be a 12 SRR some nights
or a 24 or 33 roll becasue J885 says that is just luck......
You tell me what the universal definition is and i will tell you if i can do it or i have seen anyone do it.
Dicesetter
I think ME has given you a pretty good synopsis of how one would go about testing for influence and also trying to take advantage of it if it exists. Which interestingly enough is very similar to how ahigh is approaching this.
I think it is pretty obvious that it's impossible to keep the dice on axis throughout the throw often enough to have an impact. I do believe it can be done, but very rarely, maybe 1 out of a few hundred throws. Maybe 1 out of 1000, I don't know. That doesn't mean that you can't possibly have a higher on axis percentage but I wouldn't classify that as axis control. It would have to be through dice correlation. Or by pitch control where you are able reduce the appearance of certain faces and increase the appearance of others. Or maybe someway no one has thought of yet.
You will never be able to classify influence on here and you will certainly never ever be able to convince all the naysayers. But who cares, everyone has their hobbies, just enjoy it and have fun. From reading your posts, if you truly have an edge there is probably a better way to understand it and try and exploit it. That said, there is nothing wrong with the way you are playing, you are using smart bets, you seem to win your fair share and are having fun doing it. I just wouldn't call it advantage play.
Quote: dicesitterthere you have it
You give Ahigh the numbers and he wants a video..... why would want a video, simple
because if the dice bounce at all they are random, so there for any data you have is
random or made up..,
So Math i again will ask you give me a definition first and i will answer your question.
Dicesetter
He wanted video as that is the surest way to know that the numbers aren't cherry picked. But more rolls would have sufficed as well especially if you throw them with a random set. I tell you, I was very interested to see what a few thousand rolls of yours would look like after seeing that initial 183.
Quote: dicesitterSo Math i again will ask you give me a definition first and i will answer your question.
Simple: what bets do you make, and what's your edge on each one?
If you don't know, how do you know you have the edge at all?
You repeatedly claim an RSR of 8 (one seven per every eight rolls, on average). That is indicative of a very high level of influence. Do you bet the Iron Cross every roll? If not, why not? You could be making a ridiculous amount of money. There is no scenario under which you don't have a big edge over the house assuming you can actually avoid the sevens to that degree. Yet you don't make much money at the dice table, do you? A $44 Iron Cross ($10 Field, $10 Place 5, $12 each Place 6/8) is worth between $1.50 and $2.50 per roll if you have an RSR of 8*. Your average loss per $10 passline for a random shooter is $0.14. So why don't your financial results correlate to your recorded data?
*Evaluated by increasing the probability of each other outcome by the amount you decreased the seven and looking at the range of edges under that assumption. As I've been saying all along, you need to know the actual distribution, not just RSR, in order to accurately calculate the edge.
Quote: mickeycrimmIf it weren't for gambling I'd probably still be living under a bridge.
If you truly went from under a bridge to making a good living gambling that is pretty cool! I'm kind of knew around here. Have you written about your "journey" in prior posts? I think that would make for some great reading.
Quote: AhighI didn't claim that you made it up. What I did was to publish the math suggesting that the chances were high that you did.
These numbers that you gave me were the result of my asking for more concrete proof that you had any abilities at all.
I would have preferred video in the native format of the camera it was obtained from.
That's what I have available to back up my roll data.
I thought that the math showed a probability that the rolls [in a small sample] differed from random, not that the results were made up?
mickey is one of our most interesting and prolific writers, and has "walked the walk" for over 20 years. If you click on his name, you will see many posts he's made about transitioning from under the bridge to making a living gambling; go back about 2 months now and read forward. It's absolutely fascinating.
Quote: beachbumbabsJB85,
mickey is one of our most interesting and prolific writers, and has "walked the walk" for over 20 years. If you click on his name, you will see many posts he's made about transitioning from under the bridge to making a living gambling; go back about 2 months now and read forward. It's absolutely fascinating.
Will do and thanks for the info!
Quote:
MathExtremist
Just so we're clear, I don't think I can control the dice at all. My line of inquiry is into what my edge would be if I could. If someone could keep the dice on axis 10% of the time they would have an exploitable edge over the casino. Just one roll out of every ten; the average roll isn't even that long. That small required level of control, in conjunction with the amount one could make exploiting it, is strong circumstantial evidence that few (if any) people are able to pull that off.
Even if you could pull it off, with your dice staying on axis 10% of the time, you still would have a problem with that other 90% of the time, when they were off axis.
The one major problem, that all DI's have is hitting the points they have their money on! Some advise their followers to take the shotgun effect type of betting, and bet across, so they are getting paid on ever shot they make, that they hit a box number. The trouble with that kind of betting is these so-called experts never tell their followers about how many times it is going to take to recoup one loss. The other problem is what happens when the shooter is making nothing but crap numbers, and they have 6 box numbers bet that they are not getting paid on?
Quote:
FrankScoblete
For the overwhelming number of shooters, there is no on-axis ability and for them the Hardway set is ideal. Sadly, you can play sessions in the casino and due to a given good night begin to think you have on-axis skills but, in fact, you don't. You have to do the work at home to establish what is going on with your throw. If you do not have on-axis ability, using those "other" sets can kill you since they are not anti-seven sets. (Again I do cover all of this in my books.)
Once you know (or think you know) you have on-axis ability then you go into the casino and give it a try. Your skill level in the casino will probably be less than it is at home (home teams usually win more games at home than on the road) and the only way to clearly inform yourself of this is to see if --- over a decent period of time --- the money is coming your way.
Now I really do love to read some of the things that Frank writes about becoming a so-called DI, like this great quote.
Quote:FrankScoblete
Sadly, you can play sessions in the casino and due to a given good night begin to think you have on-axis skills but, in fact, you don't.
The same thing goes for shooting on your practice rig at home that all the DI on axis schools will tell you to buy, so you can practice on at home.
These things are a little box that you can’t put chips in your way, to try to avoid, they don’t mimic a real table, and your dice can’t even bounce the way they will on a real table.
So what you are doing at home is not the same as you do in a real casino playing with other players on the table with bets in your way, and all the distractions that go along with playing on real tables!
When you start taking about AP craps playing, the only thing that matters is what a player does in the casinos, it has nothing to do with what they do at home!
Any so-called DI has to have the ability to win, more then they lose., they are not only fighting the odds, but in real life they are fighting all the other players on the tables they play on. It's amazing to see how many players will not move their chips when you have some one that is shooting and making points. They will stack as many chips right were the shooter is landing their dice.
So that perfect shot that your so-called DI just made, is now totally random after hitting their chips!
..
Quote: dicesitterthere you have it
You give Ahigh the numbers and he wants a video..... why would want a video, simple
because if the dice bounce at all they are random, so there for any data you have is
random or made up..,
So Math i again will ask you give me a definition first and i will answer your question.
Dicesetter
I wanted the video before you gave me data.
It was in the first sentence of the reply where you started to preach about we needed to improve our shots because we needed to
Quote: dicesitterGet the feeling of a smooth level release, then do it for real, trying to get that same feeling
And again here's the link where I said "put up or shut up" on my forum that ultimately led to you being removed from my forum for lack of quality content:
http://forum.goodshooter.com/topic349.html
What I really wanted wasn't some made up numbers, but some actual believable evidence that you weren't just blowing a bunch of hot air. In the context of the challenge, it statistically is very likely that you simply made up the data. Nobody with any math background has told me that your data looks like regular craps roll data to me. Just like your posts, it appears to be complete garbage! But it could be real stuff. And you could be the next Dominator! I can't know for certain, I can only know what the math says about the chances of you making that data up being EXTREMELY REMOTE. But there is still that chance I suppose that I could be witnessing the most amazing shot ever.
Quote: petroglyphI thought that the math showed a probability that the rolls [in a small sample] differed from random, not that the results were made up?
No have a look at those p-values.
Quote: p-valuesYou need to correct my data above. I have 185 rolls and a RSR (not srr) of 8.08.
Total rolls: 185
1) 74 20.00% - 16.67 = (+3.33)------------------------------------------------------------ 1
2) 29 7.84% - 16.67 = (-8.83)------------------------ 2
3) 60 16.22% - 16.67 = (-0.45)------------------------------------------------- 3
4) 54 14.59% - 16.67 = (-2.07)-------------------------------------------- 4
5) 72 19.46% - 16.67 = (+2.79)----------------------------------------------------------- 5
6) 81 21.89% - 16.67 = (+5.23)------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
X**2: 28.56 p: 0.00003
fw 74,29,60,54,72,81 74,29,60,54,72,81
11: --------- 2 (9)
12: ---- 3 (4)
21: -- 3 (2)
13: --------- 4 (9)
22: ---- 4 (4)
31: ------------ 4 (12)
14: ---------- 5 (10)
23: - 5 (1)
32: -- 5 (2)
41: 5 (0)
15: ---- 6 (4)
24: - 6 (1)
33: 6 (0)
42: - 6 (1)
51: ---- 6 (4)
16: ------- 7 (7)
25: - 7 (1)
34: ----- 7 (5)
43: --- 7 (3)
52: - 7 (1)
61: ---- 7 (4)
26: ---- 8 (4)
35: --------- 8 (9)
44: 8 (0)
53: -------- 8 (8)
62: ---- 8 (4)
36: ---- 9 (4)
45: ------ 9 (6)
54: --------- 9 (9)
63: ------- 9 (7)
46: ----------- 10 (11)
55: ------ 10 (6)
64: -------- 10 (8)
56: ---------- 11 (10)
65: -------- 11 (8)
66: ------- 12 (7)
X**2: 82.57 p: 0.00001
Killing -5140
2) 9 4.86% - 2.78% = 2.09% (+3.86)--------------- 2
3) 6 3.24% - 5.56% = -2.31% (-4.28)---------- 3
4) 25 13.51% - 8.33% = 5.18% (+9.58)----------------------------------------- 4
5) 13 7.03% - 11.11% = -4.08% (-7.56)---------------------- 5
6) 10 5.41% - 13.89% = -8.48% (-15.69)----------------- 6
7) 21 11.35% - 16.67% = -5.32% (-9.83)----------------------------------- 7
8) 25 13.51% - 13.89% = -0.38% (-0.69)----------------------------------------- 8
9) 26 14.05% - 11.11% = 2.94% (+5.44)------------------------------------------- 9
10) 25 13.51% - 8.33% = 5.18% (+9.58)-----------------------------------------10
11) 18 9.73% - 5.56% = 4.17% (+7.72)------------------------------11
12) 7 3.78% - 2.78% = 1.01% (+1.86)------------12
X**2: 40.03 p: 0.00002
4:7 ratio is 119.048% - 50.000% = +69.048% (+138.10% diff)
5:7 ratio is 61.905% - 66.667% = -4.762% (-7.14% diff)
6:7 ratio is 47.619% - 83.333% = -35.714% (-42.86% diff)
8:7 ratio is 119.048% - 83.333% = +35.714% (+42.86% diff)
9:7 ratio is 123.810% - 66.667% = +57.143% (+85.71% diff)
10:7 ratio is 119.048% - 50.000% = +69.048% (+138.10% diff)
X**2: 30.12 p: 0.00004
Observed: 21.0 sevens - 164.0 non sevens RSR 8.8095
Expected: 30.8 sevens - 154.2 non sevens RSR 6.0000
X**2: 3.76 p: 0.05239
Seven outs 19 (90.48%) - Seven winners 2 (9.52%)
Pairs 26 14.05% - 16.67% = -2.61% (-4.83 rolls)
Hards 10 5.41% - 11.11% = -5.71% (-10.56 rolls)
HiLos 16 8.65% - 5.56% = 3.09% (+5.72 rolls)
H2 9/0 ( 4.86% - 2.78% = +3.86)
H4 4/1 ( 2.16% - 2.78% = -1.14)
H6 0/0 ( 0.00% - 2.78% = -5.14)
H8 0/0 ( 0.00% - 2.78% = -5.14)
H10 6/1 ( 3.24% - 2.78% = +0.86)
H12 7/1 ( 3.78% - 2.78% = +1.86)
EZ: 159 (85.95% - 83.33% = +4.83)
X**2: 14.40 p: 0.02546
I have never seen such low p-values in 180 rolls of samples ever. Period. That suggests either he is the most influential shooter ever, or else he just made the data up to me. Not one or the other.
A really good shooter might get those low of p-values on the seven to rolls ratio after 10,000 throws. But I've never seen those kind of numbers in 183 throws. Never.
I'm not the best math guy in the world, but there is also context to that data being given. And the context of the data being submitted was, "I think you might not be as great of a shooter as you think, show me some data that says you're any good before we listen to you."
So I think it's possible that he just made the data up, just like he makes up a lot of the other stuff in his posts. Just creatively spewing whatever he wants to get attention, and says, "here ya go!!!"
Not interesting to me. Bye!
Quote: dicesitterbefore 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
Here's the post in question. Maybe 7craps or another sharp math guy can come up with a suggestion for what are the chances that these are the results of actual craps throws in a casino environment.
The first problem I ran into was errors in the post. I corrected one formatting error already, but I'm not sure if his claimed srr/rsr matches the data. Maybe I made a mistake, I don't know.
I removed his account from my forum on purpose. His posts are generally the worst posts of anyone who posts on this subject that I know of. Just bad data in general all-around for about everything he types in.
Quote: AhighI have never seen such low p-values in 180 rolls of samples ever. Period. That suggests either he is the most influential shooter ever, or else he just made the data up to me. Not one or the other.
The reported probabilities for the 2-face on the first die and the second die are 9.2% and 6.5%. The expected figure for a fair die is 16.67%.
I'm not sure what physical motion would be responsible for such results (if the results are truthful at all) but it's noteworthy that reducing the 2-face from a die is not at all the right move if you want to obtain a player edge on the passline. It's far better to decrease the probability of the 1-face to decrease the odds of craps. This is an example of someone who has (allegedly) cultivated a talent but is squandering it by poor application.
Quote: MathExtremistThis is an example of someone who has (allegedly) cultivated a talent but is squandering it by poor application.
Indeed; and given that possibility, this person was rejecting the notion of finding out what is the best way to set the dice assuming you have a talent developed because, as he admitted, the math is over his head.
I have no patience for this guy. And the point in bringing this subject up is that he is extreme, but there are PLENTY of folks just like him who reflect their success with less than 100% accuracy, and refuse to deal with the reality of the situation. In other words, I'm not even just picking on this guy to pick on this guy, I'm just saying there are lots more (maybe to a lesser degree) of guys saying things like "don't bet the math" and "work on the feel" and other stuff that's just silly giving the whole notion of player edge on craps a sort of black eye for all these touchy feely kind of guys who really are just guessing and hoping.
As a general rule, if I see somebody betting crap checks, hop bets, and sometimes even more than one hardway, I just think to myself, "NO CHANCE" and don't give them much more thought that they are ahead.
They're all over the place these guys who think they have something that they don't or they report that they have something that they don't.
And trust me, it would be VERY EASY to report that I had lifetime wins if that is what I wanted to do, and plenty of people would believe me.
It just irks me when people misrepresent the truth about stuff related to advantage play in craps because it makes it more difficult to come across as credible for those who are being careful to get all the data correct.
I understand you got some problems... i cant help you with those, but
you when you call people liars that you have never met..... well
there is no excuse for that.
Since i dont understand nor do i give a crap what a "p" value is
i could never make up data because i would have no understanding
'of what to make it for...even you may be able to understand that,, or maybe not.
I just did 3 practice rolls before my wife called for dinner, i dont give a crap what they
indicate to you, because i would have no idea what they would represent to you.
What i look for at the casino when i start with the hardway set is can i get enough
rolls before i see a 3/4 4/3 to make any money or not, and am i repeating any numbers
enough to be on with out placing to many bets or using the come bet.
Here are those rolls... and i dont care what they tell you, if they tell if am the worst
player you have ever seen fine, if i am average fine. i really dont care, these rolls
are just that... the hard part is how hell so you bet to make money.
So go ahead knock yourself out,
Either their terrible and i am a fraud, or they are good and i am a fraud, really does not
matter , to you i will always be a fraud....
thats the great part of being 65, i not only can laugh at myself and feel good, i can laugh
at you and feel good.
dicesetter
rolls are hardway, set this is on my 10 foot table
10, 8,10,6,12,11,4,5,7(3/4)
8,10,8,7 (3-4) 8,5,6,3,6,5,9,9,6,8,9,8,3,8,10,5,9,4,7 (4-3)
5,9,8,10,8,8,7 (3-4)
Quote: dicesitterrolls are hardway, set this is on my 10 foot table
10, 8,10,6,12,11,4,5,7(3/4)
8,10,8,7 (3-4) 8,5,6,3,6,5,9,9,6,8,9,8,3,8,10,5,9,4,7 (4-3)
5,9,8,10,8,8,7 (3-4)
Sure, so in 39 rolls you would have made $52 betting the $44 Iron Cross, better than $1.33 per roll. It defies belief that you consistently exert this amount of influence over the dice yet, by your own admission, don't make much money at the craps table. If your talents were legitimate, there would be many people willing to pay your way to Vegas to shoot dice for them.
it is even better than the comedy club except that i save $32.
Ahigh wanted rolls so i shot with a new set and gave them to him, not understanding
in the least what a p value was but i set up the numbers on purpose to shock
ahigh.
Now i use the hardway set and throw three hands before dinner not understanding
at all what Math looks for and i made them up again.
You two have lost your frickin minds.
Dicesetter
You cant be that dumb, not to see these were the three rolls i did before dinner.,,,end of
story... my morning practice tomorrow may be 2,3,5,1 who the hell knows.
Is it impossible for the two of you to look at rolls and say, hey those were good or
bad and thats all. Why dont you roll some practice hands, i bet in the next week you
will have some that look just the same way mine all do, some good and some
bad.
Quote: dicesitterbut i set up the numbers on purpose to shock ahigh.
Now i use the hardway set and throw three hands before dinner not understanding
at all what Math looks for and i made them up again.
As I suspected. Carry on.
at home talents are legitimate.Quote: MathExtremistIt defies belief that you consistently exert this amount of influence over the dice yet,
by your own admission, don't make much money at the craps table.
If your talents were legitimate,
there would be many people willing to pay your way to Vegas to shoot dice for them.
at home craps table stats (nice)
vs.
real casino craps table stats (nicer)
each it's own universe
where are those real casino stats?
The dice rolls.
The heartbeat of the game.
30% +/- what%
thanks for sharing
