Beware, Caesars in AC is using shaved dice

With regulation almost non-existent now, I have noticed some casinos aka Caesars have been flouting the rules. When I played craps there this past weekend, I noticed a huge amount of 7's being thrown despite the randomness of the throwers and on multiple tables too. I'm well aware of variance and everything but when I see sevens or craps thrown on over 40% of the throws (no exaggeration) I have to wonder. This was further confirmed upon inspecting the dice as the edges were worn down. (They were whitish instead of the blue color of the dice)

Why didn't you play the Don't. You would have made a fortune.

Because many times, the 7 was showing up on the first roll.

Quote: Thundershock

With regulation almost non-existent now, I have noticed some casinos aka Caesars have been flouting the rules. When I played craps there this past weekend, I noticed a huge amount of 7's being thrown despite the randomness of the throwers and on multiple tables too. I'm well aware of variance and everything but when I see sevens or craps thrown on over 40% of the throws (no exaggeration) I have to wonder. This was further confirmed upon inspecting the dice as the edges were worn down. (They were whitish instead of the blue color of the dice)

That is a ridiculous claim and you should be smacked with a wet noodle for thinking the short time you played/watched would be sufficient proof of anything other than short term variance or selective memory.


ZCore13

I'm sure you have sufficient evidence to back up this serious claim like images of the dice, employees altering them, or shipments from an unapproved dice provider. Please post the pictures so that we can all see them. There is no sense in keeping them private.

I wish I could take pictures of the dice but somehow I doubt they'd let me do so. This is based on having watched over 1000 throws in my estimation, having played there numerous times in the past utilizing the same dice settings for myself from the same position no less, and visually having seen the dice looking worn. Like I said, variance doesn't really explain a huge divergence in the # of 7's thrown. All I'm saying is beware.

Why didn't you bet the 7 like crazy?

This is hilarious. No casino would want to use anything but perfect dice on craps because there are bets available to take huge advantage of any imperfection in the dice. The exposure to that would be far beyond any gains from squares betting their pass lines.

Quote: Thundershock

Because many times, the 7 was showing up on the first roll.

Why didn't you Lay the Point?

Quote: Thundershock

Because many times, the 7 was showing up on the first roll.

With any bias, a quick trip to the bar with a calculator and pencil and you can work out the optimum betting pattern to take advantage of these shaved dice.

More over, '7' is immaterial. Was it more 1's and 6's? As a seven can be made with any number on one of the dice, unless you are claiming the dice themselves are correlated with each other during the throw, and also knew when coming out, then 40% hits on 7's, 2's and 12's seems like money to be made

If you suspect the dice are flats,gaffed, shaved, or bricks alert the crew and they will switch out the dice for new ones. Or you can take advantage of them.

Quote: Mission146

Why didn't you Lay the Point?

yes, why?

maybe a Lay bet is too difficult to make when the dice are horribly biased, hehehe

just beware
trick or treat!
ha ha ha ha ha

another MLB OVER!!!

+$16,000 on the overs this year and they all still laugh at me!
ha ha ha ha ha
I am laughing too

Lay bets for all!
Sally

I am a big proponent of getting laid.

Lay every number with a 3-way 7 and a big red (if you max out on 3-way 7) every roll.

I assume you have no evidence (or else it'd be presented)....like dice combinations (5/2 instead of 7 for example).

Your best bet (if what you're saying is somehow true) would be to not tell people and go exploit their weak dice.

Quote: Thundershock

Because many times, the 7 was showing up on the first roll.

Oh, so the bias of a shaved die can show up on the first roll but moderate itself on subsequent rolls?

Sampling is complicated. Too many variables are involved. A robot making the same shots over 1 million times, that sounds more of an appropriate testing.

Quote: Zcore13

That is a ridiculous claim and you should be smacked with a wet noodle for thinking the short time you played/watched would be sufficient proof of anything other than short term variance or selective memory.

ZCore13

ZCore13, proof can be obtained in many ways. You don't need a million rolls to see a variance from the norm. Another way is to look at the New Jersey Tax Returns for profit margins on craps tables by casino. John Scarne and Frank Scoblete both tell us that the actual winnings at the craps tables should come in at 16-20 percent of the money wagered or else something unfair is causing the variance.

The Caesars Atlantic City craps Win % for February, 2012 was 32.2 % according to their signed NJ tax return.

The Bottom Line is if Caesars can double their monthly profits from 16% to 32%, which they did in 2/12, that is an extra $2 million profit a month just from Craps. So why wouldn't greedy corporations use unbalanced dice to their advantage over most unsuspecting casual craps players, especially those who read Heavy's or Wizard's board who mostly live in theory land and say there is no such thing as biased dice.

So where's the CP data?


Does anyone have even one or two thousand dice throws, so we can view the number of times each face of the dice showed???


Too much conspiracy nonsense and not enough real data.

Quote: Bohemian

John Scarne and Frank Scoblete both tell us that the actual winnings at the craps tables should come in at 16-20 percent of the money wagered or else something unfair is causing the variance.

Well that's odd. How did they arrive at that? Are you sure you understood it correctly? Because if that's so, then apparently something peculiar and "unfair" is happening to the dice all over Nevada. To everyone, players and casinos alike, depending on where you happen to go in any given month.

According to the most recent Gaming Revenue Report of the Nevada State Gaming Control Board (which is available RIGHT HERE) for August 2014 almost none of the geographic regions reported a win percentage that was neatly within that range, and neither did the State as a whole. For example in downtown Las Vegas the win was 21.31% and in Elko it was nearly 23%, while in Douglas County it was about half that at 13.06% and on the Strip it was only 13.52%. All these are aggregated numbers of geographic areas that include multiple locations and companies, so it can be expected that they will actually be closer to long-range expectation than smaller and therefore more highly variable samples limited to only one property or company.

Is there something very different about shooting dice in the desert than near the sea? Methinks there may be a significant misunderstanding of what is a realistic range of likely expectations for a given small sample size of a single casino or small group of them over a short single month time horizon.

A useful principle to bear in mind: Hanlon's razor

Quote: Bohemian

The Caesars Atlantic City craps Win % for February, 2012 was 32.2 % according to their signed NJ tax return.

Does NJ report casino revenue much differently than many other jurisdictions, including Nevada? Because I'm accustomed to looking at Nevada and some other jurisdictions' reports in which that property specific information is considered proprietary and is not released to the public in that form, except as aggregated among multiple licensees by geographic area as in the report I quoted from the NGCB linked to above.

I love caps player's. They know the dice are "obviously bias" yet they refuse to bet different then they normally would. They would rather complain than make money. Talk about commitment.

I assume that if a 7 and craps were being thrown that the dice were severely biased towards the 1-6.

So you bet a high-low and hop the 6-1.

And run for the bank.

One stupid whale can cause the craps win% to go out of whack or cause the Bac numbers to go negative. We've seen that.

If the dice are rigged you should be able to win a few million easy.

Take a photo of the few million you won from the crooked dice.

Otherwise shut up with the random fake accusations.

Quote: sc15

If the dice are rigged you should be able to win a few million easy.

Take a photo of the few million you won from the crooked dice.

Otherwise shut up with the random fake accusations.

exactly!
Any bias in dices is the same as bias in Roulette wheel. You should not complain it or make it public.
You just quietly make millions out of it before the casino takes it out.

I believe that this current post and this thread are just trollers (or the same person) trying to cause trouble. Classic controversial first post, which is very rare for an actual new member to dive into right off the bat. No follow up comments either.

ZCore13

misunderstanding


This is not the first time this nonsense has come up on this board... shaved dice, unbalanced dice and on and on
and then you should be able to make a million.....nonsense.... period.

First if the dice are shaved or unbalanced your not going to have to many sevens while at the same time have a
balanced distribution between 1/6 6/1 5/2 2/5 or 4/3 3/4.. not going to happen.

If your just seeing way to many 7's of all kinds you certainly can make money on the don't or lay the point as long
as that trends lasts. This has nothing to do with the dice.

Now a couple of things can happen if you have unbalanced dice... if you see lots or mostly 1/6 6/1, you will also
see lots of crap numbers ad not many 6 or 8 or 5 or 9. You can make this work for you, but playing the donts
may not be one of them because your not seeing more 7;s just one kind of 7.

If you seeing lots of 4/3/ or 3/4 your also seeing more 6 & 8 and hard 6 and hard 8. These are not properly balanced
dice but they can work in your favor with the increase in 6 & 8 and hardways. We had these type of dice tonight
and it worked well with a good many hard 6 & 8 . It was a fun night. These are not the best for playing on a ATS
table so I limit my bets some on them. We had number of good rolls tonight and not a single ATS win, but still
very nice win.

The hard part about playing with unbalanced dice is all the dice in the trey may not be the same, so different combinations
can produce different results. If the guy in front of you has a decent roll, you can say same dice....and it may help some.

unbalanced dice can be playable, but idea is it is a huge money maker for a don't player is not supportable.

Dicesetter

Sith lord was probably at the table or nearby. Possibly even Gary Loveman.

Was it the same KIND of 7 every time? I.E. Always a 6-1, 5-2, 3-4?

Quote: DrawingDead

Well that's odd. How did they arrive at that? Are you sure you understood it correctly? Because if that's so, then apparently something peculiar and "unfair" is happening to the dice all over Nevada. To everyone, players and casinos alike, depending on where you happen to go in any given month.

According to the most recent Gaming Revenue Report of the Nevada State Gaming Control Board (which is available RIGHT HERE) for August 2014 almost none of the geographic regions reported a win percentage that was neatly within that range, and neither did the State as a whole.

Quote: Bohemian

The Caesars Atlantic City craps Win % for February, 2012 was 32.2 % according to their signed NJ tax return.

Does NJ report casino revenue much differently than many other jurisdictions, including Nevada? Because I'm accustomed to looking at Nevada and some other jurisdictions' reports in which that property specific information is considered proprietary and is not released to the public in that form, except as aggregated among multiple licensees by geographic area as in the report I quoted from the NGCB linked to above.

DrawingDead, New Jersey used to report Craps gaming revenues much better than Nevada ever has, until December, 2013. See Caesars Atlantic City craps Win % for October, 2013 at 36.1 % according to their signed NJ tax return which can be found here:

Caesars Atlantic City October, 2013 Tax Return

Caesars Atlantic City craps Win % for November, 2013 at 27.2 %

Then (for all your conspiracy junkies), detailed Craps reporting by New Jersey disappeared in December, 2013.
See New Jersey Tax Returns by Casino by Month

Nevada State Gaming Revenue Reports

As for Nevada Gaming Revenue Reports for craps, they are about as useful as a cow's 5th teat or the office of the Vice President. According to the Nevada State Gaming Commission, Tax Revenue Reports are completed on a cash basis only and do not follow "generally accepted accounting principles" (or "GAAP"). Specifically, they ignore the Matching Principle and the Revenue Recognition Principle of basic accounting guidelines.

For instance, if Caesar's Las Vegas takes a marker for $50,000. from a customer in September, they "Drop" that marker into the slot but they do not have to report the $50,000.00 on their September Revenue Report. Caesar's Las Vegas may not report that $50,000. into income until 30 days later when that customer pays off that marker in a different month (October). However, let's assume in September that Caesar's Las Vegas customer lost $10,000. (20%) of his $50,000. marker.

Nevada Reporting - September
Drop - 0
Win - $10,000.
Win % = approx 1 million %

Nevada Reporting - October
Drop - $50,000
Win - 0
Win % = 0

Proper Accounting or IRS Reporting - September
Drop - $50,000.
Win - $10,000.
Win % = 20%

In addition to Nevada reporting apples and oranges with regard to win percentages on Craps for any casino that takes markers, they also combine many casinos so it makes it tough to analyze properly what any casino is doing on a craps table or within it's resort. When we asked the Nevada State Gaming Commission if we could have access to more detailed numbers per casino OR just a copy of their tax return like New Jersey provides, they said that would not be fair to each casino's proprietary information. I believe the Wizard or Michael Shackleford has had similar stonewalling from Nevada when it comes to more detailed numbers. Basically you can get more information from Wall Street, the SEC reporting in Annual Reports or even New Jersey regarding a company than from Nevada. Transparency in Nevada is non-existent. What are they trying to hide.

And now what are they trying to hide in New Jersey. As you referenced, "don't rule out malice."

In addition to what Bohemain stated .. it's not just markers .. depending on where a table is placed you could have a different proportion of players coming in with chips from other tables.

Plus another variable is duration of play and number of bets. Most tables theoretical wins are just a few % .. but that number is compounded because people take their wins and rebet .. so even if the theoretical win on a table is only 3% .. a player who bets $100 usually rebets his theoretical $97 .. and then his $94 .. $91 .. etc etc

AND ... lol .. there is a huge fluction of % on craps tables between the various bets ... and even on the main bets like the Pass Line .. those win % vary drastically depending on if a player plays full odds or no odds or something in between!

Also .. "theoratical win" and "Drop:Win %" are completely different! Shaved dice would affect theoretical win directly .. but Win % number would just be hidden amoungst the factors above!


Plus .. there is a big difference between "shaved" dice and "rounded" dice. If all corners are symetrically round and all sides of equal size, then even if they aren't perfect cubes they are still perfectly random! And some might argue even more secure as I'd think it would be harder to cheat evenly rounded dice than perfect cubes! ;)

This has been said already, but if you are seeing over 40% of rolls land on seven, then I would track which kind of seven. I don't think dice could be shaved to cause an equal distribution of 4-3, 5-2, and 6-1 sevens. So, gather some data to determine which which sevens are the most frequent. Then just make a hop bets on that seven.

Even if the sevens are equally distributed at 13.33% probability each, the expected return on each of the 1-6, 2-5, and 3-4 hop bets, assuming a win of 15 to 1, would be 0.1333*15 + 0.8667*-1 = 1.1333. In other words, a player advantage of 113%.

When is the next flight?

Nah, I think I'll just stay here and play 8-5 Bonus Poker and let Mickey besmirch my reputation.

Quote: Bohemian

What are they trying to hide.

Exactly what they told you:

Quote: Bohemian

they said that would not be fair to each casino's proprietary information.

Duh.

They have no business releasing proprietary property specific information, and you have no right to have it, which is why you don't, and won't.

Your entire response makes the point very well: You have absolutely no sensible basis to be making the assertion that they are
"using shaved dice." Here is a more likely conclusion: they are dice, behaving like dice do.

Quote: Thundershock

With regulation almost non-existent now, I have noticed some casinos aka Caesars have been flouting the rules. When I played craps there this past weekend, I noticed a huge amount of 7's being thrown despite the randomness of the throwers and on multiple tables too. I'm well aware of variance and everything but when I see sevens or craps thrown on over 40% of the throws (no exaggeration) I have to wonder. This was further confirmed upon inspecting the dice as the edges were worn down. (They were whitish instead of the blue color of the dice)

I've read this thread and I was wondering which edge(s) should be shaved to create an edge for the #7 being thrown.

Which edges were worn down? The edge(s) between 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 2/3, 2/4, 2/6, 3/5, 3/6, 4/5, 4/6, 5/6.

Were there more than one edge worn down?

Quote: FleaStiff

Oh, so the bias of a shaved die can show up on the first roll but moderate itself on subsequent rolls?

Oh my! :)

That made me laugh so hard tears came to my eyes. I really needed that.

Thanks!

You know, when I taught probability and statistics (at the graduate level) I used to give all sorts of interesting homework assignments to my students that they always thought I designed to drive them crazy (until they realized why I assigned them). One of my favorites (and fairly standard): I'd tell them to all take a regular coin, and flip it 100 times, and record the results on a sheet of paper and turn it in the next class. "H" for heads, and "T" for tails. I'd wait a few seconds for a look of despair at such a boring assignment. Then I'd say, "Well, okay, if you want, you can fake it instead of flipping the coin. Just hand in the paper, and please, everyone, write down on a separate sheet of paper whether you faked it or not: write "fake" or "flip" on it depending on what you did. But don't hand in that second sheet of paper to me -- just bring it along and don't show it to me unless I ask!"

They'd come the next class, hand in their papers with 100 letters on them (and their names, etc.), and I would (for a class of about 20 students) run through the pile of sheets in about a minute (2 max), sorting them into two piles. One big pile of faked results, and the smaller pile of real flips. I could spot the fakes right away. then I'd announce the fakes and real ones by name. I never got one wrong.

Anyone who knows advanced probability and statistics knows how I spotted the fakes vs. the real ones. Which allowed me to give a really nice lecture on the Law of Large Numbers which suddenly had their full attention.

Humans don't do very well with randomness. Our brains evolved to spot patterns so we could survive to reproduce: even where no patterns got generated. And even when the randomly generated patterns can in no way predict future performance.

A respected (by me) colleague asked me yesterday for my definition of "randomness" by the way (not pseudorandomness!). I suppose he considered me an expert on the subject for some reason. I can't tell you why he needed it, but it involves resilient computer systems for the U.S. Department of Defense, and if *he* got discombobulated by the subject then I think the average person at a craps table doesn't have a chance. (He doesn't know information theory though; most statisticians don't, but they should -- and I wish almost everyone would stop using "entropy" as a synonym for "random" but I digress.)

Hell, I've noticed that the average pit boss at a craps table doesn't understand basic probability! Long story involving my last trip when I won an awful lot; I don't want to bore you all.

Quote: Concinnity

Hell, I've noticed that the average pit boss at a craps table doesn't understand basic probability! Long story involving my last trip when I won an awful lot; I don't want to bore you all.

I'd bet on a "random" person pulled off the street over a craps pit boss on basic probability problems.

Quote: Concinnity

Oh my! :)

That made me laugh so hard tears came to my eyes. I really needed that.

Thanks!

You know, when I taught probability and statistics (at the graduate level) I used to give all sorts of interesting homework assignments to my students that they always thought I designed to drive them crazy (until they realized why I assigned them). One of my favorites (and fairly standard): I'd tell them to all take a regular coin, and flip it 100 times, and record the results on a sheet of paper and turn it in the next class. "H" for heads, and "T" for tails. I'd wait a few seconds for a look of despair at such a boring assignment. Then I'd say, "Well, okay, if you want, you can fake it instead of flipping the coin. Just hand in the paper, and please, everyone, write down on a separate sheet of paper whether you faked it or not: write "fake" or "flip" on it depending on what you did. But don't hand in that second sheet of paper to me -- just bring it along and don't show it to me unless I ask!"

They'd come the next class, hand in their papers with 100 letters on them (and their names, etc.), and I would (for a class of about 20 students) run through the pile of sheets in about a minute (2 max), sorting them into two piles. One big pile of faked results, and the smaller pile of real flips. I could spot the fakes right away. then I'd announce the fakes and real ones by name. I never got one wrong.

Anyone who knows advanced probability and statistics knows how I spotted the fakes vs. the real ones. Which allowed me to give a really nice lecture on the Law of Large Numbers which suddenly had their full attention.

Humans don't do very well with randomness. Our brains evolved to spot patterns so we could survive to reproduce: even where no patterns got generated. And even when the randomly generated patterns can in no way predict future performance.

A respected (by me) colleague asked me yesterday for my definition of "randomness" by the way (not pseudorandomness!). I suppose he considered me an expert on the subject for some reason. I can't tell you why he needed it, but it involves resilient computer systems for the U.S. Department of Defense, and if *he* got discombobulated by the subject then I think the average person at a craps table doesn't have a chance. (He doesn't know information theory though; most statisticians don't, but they should -- and I wish almost everyone would stop using "entropy" as a synonym for "random" but I digress.)

Hell, I've noticed that the average pit boss at a craps table doesn't understand basic probability! Long story involving my last trip when I won an awful lot; I don't want to bore you all.

Can you tell the difference between a Electronic Roulette and Live roulette set of numbers like EvenBob? Or is he just super special?

Quote: Concinnity

Oh my! :)

That made me laugh so hard tears came to my eyes. I really needed that.

Thanks!

You know, when I taught probability and statistics (at the graduate level) I used to give all sorts of interesting homework assignments to my students that they always thought I designed to drive them crazy (until they realized why I assigned them). One of my favorites (and fairly standard): I'd tell them to all take a regular coin, and flip it 100 times, and record the results on a sheet of paper and turn it in the next class. "H" for heads, and "T" for tails. I'd wait a few seconds for a look of despair at such a boring assignment. Then I'd say, "Well, okay, if you want, you can fake it instead of flipping the coin. Just hand in the paper, and please, everyone, write down on a separate sheet of paper whether you faked it or not: write "fake" or "flip" on it depending on what you did. But don't hand in that second sheet of paper to me -- just bring it along and don't show it to me unless I ask!"

They'd come the next class, hand in their papers with 100 letters on them (and their names, etc.), and I would (for a class of about 20 students) run through the pile of sheets in about a minute (2 max), sorting them into two piles. One big pile of faked results, and the smaller pile of real flips. I could spot the fakes right away. then I'd announce the fakes and real ones by name. I never got one wrong.

Anyone who knows advanced probability and statistics knows how I spotted the fakes vs. the real ones. Which allowed me to give a really nice lecture on the Law of Large Numbers which suddenly had their full attention.

Humans don't do very well with randomness. Our brains evolved to spot patterns so we could survive to reproduce: even where no patterns got generated. And even when the randomly generated patterns can in no way predict future performance.

A respected (by me) colleague asked me yesterday for my definition of "randomness" by the way (not pseudorandomness!). I suppose he considered me an expert on the subject for some reason. I can't tell you why he needed it, but it involves resilient computer systems for the U.S. Department of Defense, and if *he* got discombobulated by the subject then I think the average person at a craps table doesn't have a chance. (He doesn't know information theory though; most statisticians don't, but they should -- and I wish almost everyone would stop using "entropy" as a synonym for "random" but I digress.)

Hell, I've noticed that the average pit boss at a craps table doesn't understand basic probability! Long story involving my last trip when I won an awful lot; I don't want to bore you all.

That's interesting.

Do you think could do the same thing with a group of more astute forum members?

Or if one individual did all 20 sheets 10 real 10 fake?

Quote: Concinnity

You know, when I taught probability and statistics ...

In 100 flips you would expect a reversal of the previous result 50 times. I would imagine that fake results would have more such reversals, in an effort to appear random. Just off the top of my head, I'd suspect a number of reversals outside of 40 to 60 to be faked.

Quote: Wizard

In 100 flips you would expect a reversal of the previous result 50 times. I would imagine that fake results would have more such reversals, in an effort to appear random. Just off the top of my head, I'd suspect a number of reversals outside of 40 to 60 to be faked.

Not sure how many times he did this. I assume 98% of the students just made up fake results. Who wants to flip a coin 100 times especially when they can have a shot at fooling a teacher?

I'm surprised no one actually flipped "fake looking results"

I'm sure at least a few students lied and claimed they actually flipped the coin. So how does that affect the %100 accurate results?

Quote: AxelWolf

I'm sure at least a few students lied and claimed they actually flipped the coin. So how does that affect the %100 accurate results?

I thought the same.
The 100% accuracy only means that those caught by him were indeed fake. But he couldn't prove those not caught were non-fake.

re:

Quote: Bohemian

John Scarne and Frank Scoblete both tell us that the actual winnings at the craps tables should come in at 16-20 percent of the money wagered or else something unfair is causing the variance.

Quote: DrawingDead

Well that's odd. How did they arrive at that? Are you sure you understood it correctly? Because if that's so, then apparently something peculiar and "unfair" is happening to the dice all over Nevada. To everyone, players and casinos alike, depending on where you happen to go in any given month.

DrawingDead, I agree with your conclusion as does John Scarne on page 135 in his book Scarne on Dice when he states:

Quote: John Scarne

“…I have standardized a percentage that each bank craps table is expected to earn over a month’s period. This earned percentage is based on my study of daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly financial records of bank craps tables in a number of major casinos in Nevada and the Caribbean for over 25 years. The study of these reports shows that the expected earned percentage at Bank Craps over a month’s period amounts to about 20% of the gross amount of chips purchased.

… in the long run, the 20 percent figure is the approximate hold percentage of each and every craps table that is run honestly both from the inside and the outside.”

Also, The UNLV Center for Gaming Research recently published a study by Dr. David G. Schwartz. Nevada Table Games: Historical Hold Variations, 2014:

Quote: Dr. David G. Schwartz, UNLV Center for Gaming Research

The following table shows the average, maximum, and minimum monthly hold percentages for the period January 2004 through August 2014 for:

Craps Monthly Statewide Hold Percentages, 2004-2014

Average – 13.08

High – 17.56
Low – 8.03
Variation – 9.53

"Any monthly result that deviates significantly from … 13.06% (Craps) will impact monthly gaming revenues in a way that may distort the true level of play."

Craps Annual Statewide Hold Percentages, 1992-2013

Average – 12.96

High – 13.72
Low – 11.55
Variation – 2.17

http://gaming.unlv.edu/reports/nv_table_hold.pdf

Quote: Concinnity

...write "fake" or "flip" on it depending on what you did. But don't hand in that second sheet of paper to me -- just bring it along and don't show it to me unless I ask!"

"Flip-fake; flip-fake."

Quote: Concinnity

They'd come the next class, hand in their papers with 100 letters on them (and their names, etc.), and I would...

I'd probably have tried to screw with you, by doing something like flip 25, fake 25, then flip another 25, and make up the last 25. Just to see what that did to you. Because at twenty-something I was that kinda guy.

Quote: DrawingDead

"Flip-fake; flip-fake."
I'd probably have tried to screw with you, by doing something like flip 25, fake 25, then flip another 25, and make up the last 25. Just to see what that did to you. Because at twenty-something I was that kinda guy.

For that assignment, you could write a very simple program to generate 100 flips, and it would be just as random (if not more random) than a coin, as the basic RNG in most programming languages is pretty good nowadays (seeded with just the system time), and is less likely to be biased than a coin which may weigh more on 1 side than the other.

Quote: DrawingDead

"Flip-fake; flip-fake."
I'd probably have tried to screw with you, by doing something like flip 25, fake 25, then flip another 25, and make up the last 25. Just to see what that did to you. Because at twenty-something I was that kinda guy.

A smart teacher would probably already know what students would take the time to actually flip.


If you wanted to mess with your teacher, Just flip until it looks contrived and submit that one. However you wouldn't know exactly what he believes a non random set of flips look like. I assume he automatically puts anything that looks to balanced in the fake pile. IE H T H T T H T H T H H T H T H T H T T H H T T and so on. Perhaps a lazy student would record something dumb like HHHHHHHTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHTTTTTT

I doubt he could do this with that level of accuracy if he forced half of all his students to video record actual flips and forced the other half make a fake log. obviously he can't know or pick what half dose what.

I would take 25 coins shake them in my hands then gently toss them in the air, then log them in order closest to furthest from me.
Repeat three more times. I would be done in five minutes.

Quote: rainman

I would take 25 coins shake them in my hands then gently toss them in the air, then log them in order closest to furthest from me.
Repeat three more times. I would be done in five minutes.

Nice, however what kid has an extra 25 coins? If he's that tricky he will just use an coin flipper app or make his little brother do it.

Quote: Wizard

This has been said already, but if you are seeing over 40% of rolls land on seven, then I would track which kind of seven. I don't think dice could be shaved to cause an equal distribution of 4-3, 5-2, and 6-1 sevens. So, gather some data to determine which which sevens are the most frequent. Then just make a hop bets on that seven.

Even if the sevens are equally distributed at 13.33% probability each, the expected return on each of the 1-6, 2-5, and 3-4 hop bets, assuming a win of 15 to 1, would be 0.1333*15 + 0.8667*-1 = 1.1333. In other words, a player advantage of 113%.

When is the next flight?

Wizard, you don't have to grab the next flight, just wait for the next FIGHT Night in Las Vegas.

BTW, it doesn't matter what causes more 7s on the table (whether they are shaved or imbalanced), the fact remains that we see as much as 25% of rolls being 7s on a lot of Indian Casino tables and even in Las Vegas. Especially on promotional weekends when a lot of gambling $$ is in town like FIGHT Nights, Rodeo Finals, Super Bowl Sunday, Chinese New Years or even at Caesars when they invite High Rollers in with the bait of a $5,000. Forum Shopping Spree giveaway only to get it back at the tables with carnival dice.

You can easily determine if the dice are "shaved" at the table. When you use the term "shaved", you're implying that the dice have a short side.

Place one die with the number one on top.
Place the other die with the number 2 on top.
Place the dice adjacent to each other. Is one die taller than the other?

Repeat the process for the 3,4 face side of the die.


This is something that you can easily do at the table.

Quote: AxelWolf

Can you tell the difference between a Electronic Roulette and Live roulette set of numbers like EvenBob? Or is he just super special?

I've never even heard of "Electronic Roulette" (the name disgusts me by the way) so have no idea. Give me a good pointer to it and I'll let you know.

I presume that because it has the word "electronic" in it that it uses some sort of pseudorandom number generator. In that case, it would depend (but almost certainly not if the designers knew their stuff and seeded it periodically with a random source).

Quote: AxelWolf

That's interesting.

Do you think could do the same thing with a group of more astute forum members?

Or if one individual did all 20 sheets 10 real 10 fake?

Could I do the same with a more astute subject? OF COURSE NOT! The entire point of the exercise involves showing the student/victim our naive perceptions about randomness, coupled with how humans generally do a lousy job a faking random numbers precisely due to those naive perceptions. So give me a non-naive subject actively trying to fool me and I will certainly fail!

If one naive individual did half of the 20 assignments, 10 real and 10 fake? What an interesting question! That would depend on the perspicacity of the individual and their ability to learn. A smart one would notice, early on, that generating fake random results looked a bit different than the real ones and might change his generating behavior for that reason, which means we now wind up with an astute subject who can fool me.

You know. What Napoleon said. About not fighting your adversary too much, lest he learn from you.