CRAPS ~ DICE UNBALANCE MYSTERY ~ DICE PHYSICAL DATA
Quote: thecesspitJust to bring it back for old times sake - {facepalm}
"I can do Math, but I choose to do it wrong in case I get accused of being right?" What a complete joke of a response. MathE -> I'd just stop bothering if I were you, you can go to a Cirque show if you want to see unfunny clowns.
Yeah, that jumped the shark quickly, didn't it? I'm not sure what I was really expecting in the alternate. Someone who actually cares about evaluating their progress would keep better records and make a decent attempt at quantifying it. Our esteemed colleague is more interested in intuition than numeracy. I wish him success in the sportfishing tournament, though. He should have no problem especially if he uses the fish call technique:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUusX1Js6R0
I do admire the creativity in suggesting that he can influence the dice to roll sideways exactly 90+180*N degrees. That's new.
I slo-pitch. I'm not very good, but I have a enough feel to know a 'good' pitch when it leaves my hand, and not when it hits mat. I know I'm not consistent, and my pitch varies. I also know I am 200% more accurate than 3 years ago, just from the stats we keep on the team. So I get 'not being on your game' some days. But the excuses I hear from DIs are a joke, and nothing like the way other dexterity skilled performers talk. Or even Blackjack counters 'I was on top of my game, cards came out badly for me'.
I never hear DIs says "I was throwing well, but couldn't hit the point'. (AHigh may have made such a statement in the past, I just don't recall it). It's always being of their game. I can throw 6 back corner pitches in a row (sometimes). Doesn't stop a good batter hitting it deep into Centre Field... where it's the fielders problem :)
And you're right, if someone can't distinguish between a good throw and a bad throw, their records are useless. Jumbling everything together and looking at the overall results doesn't tell you the actual degree of influence (if you have one at all). It's not that complicated if you think about it clearly, but clear thinking seems in short supply with the sort of people who would spend years practicing dice tossing without being able to measure their results.
Quote: thecesspitI slo-pitch. I'm not very good, but I have a enough feel to know a 'good' pitch when it leaves my hand, and not when it hits mat. I know I'm not consistent, and my pitch varies. I also know I am 200% more accurate than 3 years ago, just from the stats we keep on the team. So I get 'not being on your game' some days. But the excuses I hear from DIs are a joke, and nothing like the way other dexterity skilled performers talk. Or even Blackjack counters 'I was on top of my game, cards came out badly for me'.
When you pitch is there a wall above the batter that when it hits it, it takes it off it's original line and pushed the ball randomly in another direction? :)
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13When you pitch is there a wall above the batter that when it hits it, it takes it off it's original line and pushed the ball randomly in another direction? :)
ZCore13
Nope. My point isn't that you could DI. My point is that a good 'throw' is based on the departure, and you should 'know' without seeing the result. In fact, yes, if you stuck a wall to bounce the pitch off and it randomised it, I'd still, after time, know if I was throwing against the spot I'd decided was the place I want to place the ball.
And have you seen cricket? Bounces of a surface that can cause the flight of the ball to change (though great bowlers will try to hit the cracks in the wicket to get that deviation, and change of flight). Guess what, those guys know a good delivery even if it takes an unexpected bounce... the right line and length.
I offered a challenge before. "Call it in the air" Said DI can call it in the air (or before any die comes to a stop) GOOD OR BAD. I will only count the rolls he believes to be good. This should significantly show results and speed up the process. Can someone explain why this wouldn't work? I can, because DI does NOT work. DIs balm variance when they think they had a good toss but get bad results, DI's say their shot was off when their numbers are not coming up. DI's claim skill when the dice come up how they wanted.Quote: thecesspitNope. My point isn't that you could DI. My point is that a good 'throw' is based on the departure, and you should 'know' without seeing the result. In fact, yes, if you stuck a wall to bounce the pitch off and it randomised it, I'd still, after time, know if I was throwing against the spot I'd decided was the place I want to place the ball.
And have you seen cricket? Bounces of a surface that can cause the flight of the ball to change (though great bowlers will try to hit the cracks in the wicket to get that deviation, and change of flight). Guess what, those guys know a good delivery even if it takes an unexpected bounce... the right line and length.
Sure if its obvious the dice went off track they will note it. That's just to make everyone believe they are being honest. They will only admit the obvious to make themselves believe they are being honest with themselves.
Either the dice stay on axis or they don't. If they don't, don't count the roll as "good."
With dicesitter's technique, he apparently wants the dice to turn sideways 90 degrees. I'm not sure how he expects that to happen, but the same test applies. How often does that happen when you throw the dice and how often does it not happen? What's the success rate? It has nothing to do with the outcome of the dice, nothing to do with the number of rolls between 7s, but everything to do with whether the dice physically move the way you intend. Can you influence the dice to move non-randomly some percentage of the time or can you not? It's that simple.
If you can't articulate a cogent theory of how you're going to make the dice move -- which ultimately will involve avoiding certain kinds of movement -- then you can't possibly keep track of how successful you are in achieving those results. The folks who are doing nothing other than looking at the final outcome on each die are wasting their time.
Their number is legion.
Quote: MrVAh, the innumerates.
Their number is legion.
But their numbers are absent.
Anyway the first day for walleye pre fishing went pretty good.. I sure as don't hell don't want to
tell you how we did it because you would find some fault with that as well, maybe want 50 hours of
on the water video. Laughing.... but then again you may not have invested $60,000 in a boat, to have a
clue as to what we are doing.
Hell you may not even have a craps table.
Anyway after reading your last post above I see this stuff is way over your head, You appear to still be talking
about keeping both dice on axis, you may have read to much about that on a GTC web site.
There are significant benefits to the stuff I showed you the other day.... if a player can control the axis finish on
1 die consistently, which I can do, the potential for certain bets is very good such as a 1,2,3 bet... With your
outstanding knowledge of the math of craps I am sure you know what that is. Even taking the first sample of
the isolation of 6/1/1/6 and a 40% movement to the x axis from z provides several opportunities for the come out
roll where certain bets in combination do not require the right die to show similar movement to still be a very good bet.
Now I understand your still back in the dark ages of dice control by asking a player to call his shot in the air. Fifty
hours would a long time standing shouting numbers. I imagine for fishing I would have to stand up and holler
24" walleye before my bait hits the water. But think about this, calling an axis finish while the dice are being thrown
with 40% accuracy is far better than you and others suggest is required to get an advantage.
You may well want to get a table and learn to throw to understand how this works. Maybe if you just worked
50 additional hours for a couple of weeks you could afford one.
In the mean time I will be out on the water again wasting my time.
Dicesetter
To be clear, I don't want you to call your shots in the air as you may be suggesting. You said that sometimes your shot is off( This is the only reason why your losing RIGHT???) When your on things happen, you have enough influence for +EV rolls? You pointed out that bowlers(or whatever the game or sport) have off nights or off shots, I get that.Quote: dicesitterMathextremist
Anyway the first day for walleye pre fishing went pretty good.. I sure as don't hell don't want to
tell you how we did it because you would find some fault with that as well, maybe want 50 hours of
on the water video. Laughing.... but then again you may not have invested $60,000 in a boat, to have a
clue as to what we are doing.
Hell you may not even have a craps table.
Anyway after reading your last post above I see this stuff is way over your head, You appear to still be talking
about keeping both dice on axis, you may have read to much about that on a GTC web site.
There are significant benefits to the stuff I showed you the other day.... if a player can control the axis finish on
1 die consistently, which I can do, the potential for certain bets is very good such as a 1,2,3 bet... With your
outstanding knowledge of the math of craps I am sure you know what that is. Even taking the first sample of
the isolation of 6/1/1/6 and a 40% movement to the x axis from z provides several opportunities for the come out
roll where certain bets in combination do not require the right die to show similar movement to still be a very good bet.
Now I understand your still back in the dark ages of dice control by asking a player to call his shot in the air. Fifty
hours would a long time standing shouting numbers. I imagine for fishing I would have to stand up and holler
24" walleye before my bait hits the water. But think about this, calling an axis finish while the dice are being thrown
with 40% accuracy is far better than you and others suggest is required to get an advantage.
You may well want to get a table and learn to throw to understand how this works. Maybe if you just worked
50 additional hours for a couple of weeks you could afford one.
In the mean time I will be out on the water again wasting my time.
Dicesetter
I can usually tell right when I strike the cue ball if it was a good shot or not. Sometimes ill turn around and head to my seat, before I see what happened, because I know immediately it was a bad shot. A basket ball player(even bad ones) usually knows when he releases the ball, if its in. The list goes on and on.
Oblivious before you roll the dice you should explain what your trying to do.
calling it in the air.I only want you to declare if you think it's a good shot or not. if you exclude all the shots you think were off. You should have fantastic results over a small period of time.
What if we have some dice or a way that the outcome is not known until after the the roll is complete. You should know if it was a good shot.
Lets take out all your bad shots (not results)and see if its anything other than random.
Quote: dicesitterThere are significant benefits to the stuff I showed you the other day.... if a player can control the axis finish on
1 die consistently, which I can do, the potential for certain bets is very good...
Calling an axis finish while the dice are being thrown with 40% accuracy is far better than you and others suggest is required to get an advantage.
40%? Do you have any idea what your edge would be if you could control one die so it had a 40% chance of landing on a particular axis? Because I do, and it's enormous. Over 8% player edge on certain bets, nearly 4% player edge on several others.
If you're telling me that you have the amazing ability to control the dice to that degree, yet after seven years of practice, hard work, and twice-weekly craps sessions you're still not an enormous winner, then you are quite possibly the world's worst gambler. With your ability, you should be making over $100/hour playing at Strip-minimum $10 tables. A green chip bettor with your alleged skill could make over $1000/day with very little variance. But you admit that you're still a net loser, and moreover you don't expect to ever become a lifetime winner? You clearly have no idea where to put your chips on the table in order to profit from your alleged dice-control abilities.
On the other hand, Occam's razor tells us that there's a simpler explanation for why you're still behind...
Remember how he always perplexed and tied "Money LA" up in knots?
He'd have a field day with "dicesitter."
Oh, the horror.
Gone, but not forgotten.
Just off the water, getting a little windy out there.
Thanks for the reply... finally a reply that makes sense and has no insults in it...
I don't think anyone can call anything prior to the shot and expect to be correct. However in
my data on axis starts and rotation clearly show that my left die will rotate from a starting axis
to a set axis 40% of the time... surely you understand it is not 40% every set, but close.
The problem is the right die.....making an adjustment there so I get a resulting axis shift which is
in my favor enough to bet on.
As I told the other knucklehead, there are certain combination of bets which I like to use on the
come out roll which can benefit by some control of the axis position, particularly when using
the 1/6 6/1.
All of this is fun and the progress we are making in understanding the dice is interesting, but it
all starts and ends with the throw... if your toss is not consistent, it really does not matter, and I
will be the first to say that when I go to the casino... this is not like my home table.
thanks again
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterwhen I go to the casino... this is not like my home table.
Nevermind. Happy 4th.
Quote: dicesitter
Thanks for the reply... finally a reply that makes sense and has no insults in it...
Yea, there really isn't any need to be insulting.
Quote: dicesitter
As I told the other knucklehead,
dicesetter
Actaully, nevermind.
Quote: AtGame7Yea, there really isn't any need to be insulting.
Actaully, nevermind.
lol +1
Quote: dicesitterAs I told the other knucklehead,
dicesetter
Uh oh, looks like an insult.
you just don't understand.........
If I had a dollar for every time my old man called me that, I would have
a much larger craps table in the den
dicrsetter
Quote: dicesitterno that is no insult..... that is a term of endearment for a person
you just don't understand.........
dicrsetter
Wow, what color is the sky in your world? You know, I used to really dislike people like you but the older I get the more I find myself jealous of your type. I wish I could convince myself to live in a world that reality was whatever I made it, facts (or lack of them in your case) don't matter, I knew things other didn't, etc...
Good for you finding a way to be right despite all evidence to the contrary. The problem for you is the casino is probably the last place on Earth to accept your type as they still aren't going to let you leave with more money than you came with simply because your shot was off, again.
Continue to fight the good fight.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not talking about an actuary's salary.
But I am.
You seem to be a very self-centered person, MathExtremist. Follows from the username?
No wonder a few of the members are abrupt with you. Could be what I would call the sustained vain "browbeatings" over the internet.
Quote: MathExtremistYou know the Wizard had an exit recently, right? It's because he turned his passion for gaming math into a profitable endeavor.
And this had what exactly to do with his first becoming and representing himself as an actuary of degree? A lot more than the average Joe gambler off the street who tried to convert similar questionable "passions" into something as sensational and exploitable.
A decent actuary would have made ten times the supposed sale of this site by then; and had still had something respectably mainstream to show for it. The word "exit" was a suitable choice. Should have, would have, could have. http://www.dwsimpson.com/salary.html
Quote: MathExtremistTo my knowledge, nobody has turned their passion for dice influencing into a profitable endeavor. How many craps APs do you know with seven figures in lifetime earnings?
To my knowledge, this awkward diversion has nothing to do with the mindset of "losing less" or avoiding losing, ie, what I commented on. Truly great accomplishment can't happen without much steady effort, and many surmountable mistakes. I see none of that here.
Furthermore, a lot of people who merely claim to earn a lot of money doesn't mean they end up with a lot. I see many examples of money, etc, lost here. Still little to no actual proof of anything else, let alone of the numerous claims of value.
A lot of people writing the equivalent of mini-novels in posts online, but no actual sales. Sorry.
Quote: MathExtremistTo my knowledge, nobody has turned their passion for dice influencing into a profitable endeavor. How many craps APs do you know with seven figures in lifetime earnings?
It depends on what you consider to be "dice influencing". Leo Fernandez and Archie Karas appeared to do quite well "influencing the dice".
http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/leo-fernandez-veronica-dabul-sued-by-wynn-for-allegedly-cheating-at-craps-20300/
Quote: DoubleOrNothingBut I am.
You seem to be a very self-centered person, MathExtremist. Follows from the username?
No wonder a few of the members are abrupt with you. Could be what I would call the sustained vain "browbeatings" over the internet.
.
MathExtremist is one of the more valuable posters here. He has also told us the funny story of his screen name. The wannabe DI crowd are abrupt with most who disagree with them.
Appeared being the key word.Quote: KeyserIt depends on what you consider to be "dice influencing". Leo Fernandez and Archie Karas appeared to do quite well "influencing the dice".
http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/leo-fernandez-veronica-dabul-sued-by-wynn-for-allegedly-cheating-at-craps-20300/
I had always heard some interesting stories about Archie from many hustlers, both good and bad stories. I know many hustlers looked up to him, so even the bad stories that hinted at cheating were told with aberration. Honestly I didn't know what or who to believe, but I knew something didn't seem right. I chalked it all up to mostly rumors and myths, because some of this stuff was coming from some very gritty hustlers. The kind of guys where you check for your wallet when they start walking away.
I'm not judging. I don't know all the facts, but now after hearing about the cheating scandal, I wonder if some of them stories were true. I don't think he's a good reference to use when discussing if DI.
Last year, Anargyros Karabourniotis, better known as Archie Karas, was arrested on suspicion of cheating at blackjack after winning over $6,000 at Barona Casino in eastern San Diego. On Wednesday, Karas was found guilty and sentenced to three years of probation.
According to the L.A. Times, Karas, 63, plead guilty to a single count of burglary for entering the casino with the intent to mark cards. El Cajon Superior Court Judge Daniel Goldstein also ordered Karas to pay $6,800 in restitution.
According to San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, the incident occurred in July 2013 when Karas was caught by surveillance cameras operated by the Barona Gaming Commission. Karas had been arrested by the Nevada Gaming Control Board on four other occasions over the decade on suspicion, but never saw jail time prior to his latest arrest. Karas spent 73 days in jail before making bail.
Should probably give the guy a little leeway. He's one of the last and only guys here defending DI on this forum. It must be exasperating and exhausting being a loan wolf especially when he's arguing with guys like ME. I'm surprised he's has held it together this long.Quote: MrVUh oh, looks like an insult.
Dicesetter at least admitted he's not winning, unlike many of the other crackpots. (Not calling dicesetter a crackpot)
IMO His shots look really good compared to most others I have seen.
Can you show me examples of where ME has been out of line?Quote: DoubleOrNothingBut I am.
You seem to be a very self-centered person, MathExtremist. Follows from the username?
No wonder a few of the members are abrupt with you. Could be what I would call the sustained vain "browbeatings" over the internet.
And this had what exactly to do with his first becoming and representing himself as an actuary of degree? A lot more than the average Joe gambler off the street who tried to convert similar questionable "passions" into something as sensational and exploitable.
A decent actuary would have made ten times the supposed sale of this site by then; and had still had something respectably mainstream to show for it. The word "exit" was a suitable choice. Should have, would have, could have. http://www.dwsimpson.com/salary.html
To my knowledge, this awkward diversion has nothing to do with the mindset of "losing less" or avoiding losing, ie, what I commented on. Truly great accomplishment can't happen without much steady effort, and many surmountable mistakes. I see none of that here.
Furthermore, a lot of people who merely claim to earn a lot of money doesn't mean they end up with a lot. I see many examples of money, etc, lost here. Still little to no actual proof of anything else, let alone of the numerous claims of value.
A lot of people writing the equivalent of mini-novels in posts online, but no actual sales. Sorry.
I can't remember seeing anything out of the ordinary. He's usually helpful, levelheaded and polite.
For whatever reason he chose his screen name, there's nothing wrong with being proud of something you are good at.
Fernandez "appeared to do quite well" by flagrant cheating and paid the price. Or at least some of the price.Quote: KeyserIt depends on what you consider to be "dice influencing". Leo Fernandez and Archie Karas appeared to do quite well "influencing the dice".
Quote: DoubleOrNothingYou seem to be a very self-centered person, MathExtremist. Follows from the username?
No wonder a few of the members are abrupt with you. Could be what I would call the sustained vain "browbeatings" over the internet.
Considering that you're making an ad hominem reply to a post I made a week ago, a better question is why are you so focused on me?
Quote:And this had what exactly to do with his first becoming and representing himself as an actuary of degree? A lot more than the average Joe gambler off the street who tried to convert similar questionable "passions" into something as sensational and exploitable.
A decent actuary would have made ten times the supposed sale of this site by then; and had still had something respectably mainstream to show for it. The word "exit" was a suitable choice. Should have, would have, could have. http://www.dwsimpson.com/salary.html
Your own statistics disprove the absurd theory that an actuary would have made $20M in the 18 years this site has been in business, but that's really beside the point. Are you actually going to criticize Mike for profiting as an entrepreneur rather than continuing as an actuarial employee? That's like criticizing Joshua Redman for throwing away his Yale law school acceptance so he could play saxophone professionally.
Have you built something from nothing but your intellect and creativity and sold it for millions of dollars? If not, justify your outrageous criticism of someone who has.
Quote:To my knowledge, this awkward diversion has nothing to do with the mindset of "losing less" or avoiding losing, ie, what I commented on. Truly great accomplishment can't happen without much steady effort, and many surmountable mistakes. I see none of that here.
Furthermore, a lot of people who merely claim to earn a lot of money doesn't mean they end up with a lot. I see many examples of money, etc, lost here. Still little to no actual proof of anything else, let alone of the numerous claims of value.
A lot of people writing the equivalent of mini-novels in posts online, but no actual sales. Sorry.
The negative tone of your words indicates you're looking to start an argument, but I have no idea what you're trying to debate (save that it's clearly not the question of dice bias). Start a new thread if you want to debate something else, mmkay? Rule 7.
I did not say I was not winning... I said I had been playing craps for 40 years
and had been setting the dice for 7...... I admitted I wont be a lifetime
winner at my age because of the first 33 years.
But, You have no clue how I am doing now.
The only thing I get frustrated about are the times when I can't delivery the dice
the way I want.... to old, not good enough.. what ever the reason is there are
times i don't have the shot i want.... but it is something i have to accept and
play accordingly.
You have no idea what i have done for a living, dealing with you and Math
is fun not frustrating...... i am glad your here
dicesetter
We do have some coy hints. But this would be a very good juncture to discuss that if it is more than 50 percent. If it isn't more than 50 percent, the lack of a clear response will speak out more loudly than necessary. A precise percentage wouldn't be necessary for me. Even a range would help.Quote: dicesitterBut, You have no clue how I am doing now.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWe do have some coy hints. But this would be a very good juncture to discuss that if it is more than 50 percent. If it isn't more than 50 percent, the lack of a clear response will speak out more loudly than necessary. A precise percentage wouldn't be necessary for me. Even a range would help.
Surely the investment in his own practice table, studying and thousands of practice rolls have enabled him to move the house edge by at least 4%, right? I mean even on the off days all that practice has to be worth at least half of that, no?
All that work, even on the off days has to be worth 2%, right? If so I will follow you to the end of the Earth to play just during your rolls. If not, then why are you wasting your time?
Quote: BohemianMathExtremist, now I know why so many in the real world have trouble reasoning with you. You actually believe:
1. That we can put a man on the moon and balance a car's tire everyday but not a cube of plastic.
Shaking my head.
I have managed experimental research programs for the federal government on high speed rotating equipment (such as gas centrifuges and turbines.) A key factor in the lifetime and operability of such equipment is the spatial distribution of residual imbalnce in the "rotor" of the system. I paid researchers for many years to analyze manufacturing and handling techniques for minimizing the imbalance of manufactured parts. This is a very very hard problem for both metallic and plastic resin systems and there is ultimately no way to acheive zero imbalance.
We balance tires to within a specification - until its level of imbalance is below a certain maximum value - but a tire is certainly not "perfectly balanced."
Plastics are not homogeneous in their density - the density of a solid plastic object will vary from point to point. For instance, when manufacturing a cubic "die", different parts of the die will be at slightly different temperatures and cool faster than the center of the die, thus affecting the local void fraction (or porosity) of the finished product -which means there are density and mass imbalances in the finished die. The real question is -are the levels of residual imbalance in the final manufactured die big enough to make a difference in the statistical outcome when the die is rolled. I have no idea -but this seems to me to be a legitimate question.
Quote: gordonm888I have managed experimental research programs for the federal government on high speed rotating equipment (such as gas centrifuges and turbines.) A key factor in the lifetime and operability of such equipment is the spatial distribution of residual imbalnce in the "rotor" of the system. I paid researchers for many years to analyze manufacturing and handling techniques for minimizing the imbalance of manufactured parts. This is a very very hard problem for both metallic and plastic resin systems and there is ultimately no way to acheive zero imbalance.
We balance tires to within a specification - until its level of imbalance is below a certain maximum value - but a tire is certainly not "perfectly balanced."
Plastics are not homogeneous in their density - the density of a solid plastic object will vary from point to point. For instance, when manufacturing a cubic "die", different parts of the die will be at slightly different temperatures and cool faster than the center of the die, thus affecting the local void fraction (or porosity) of the finished product -which means there are density and mass imbalances in the finished die. The real question is -are the levels of residual imbalance in the final manufactured die big enough to make a difference in the statistical outcome when the die is rolled. I have no idea -but this seems to me to be a legitimate question.
I'm pretty confident that a pair of drugstore or tabletop game dice thrown 1080 times on a regulation craps table would exhibit a distribution that is statistically indistinguishable from uniform face probabilities. And those drugstore dice are significantly more unbalanced than any precision casino dice should be (at least, those intended to be fair) because the pips are drilled and painted rather than drilled and filled with equal-density plastic.
Who wants to throw those on a craps table 1080 times, switching dice every 3-4 rolls? That should take just a few hours to record if all you're doing is tossing them against the back wall. 1080 rolls is equivalent to 135 rolls per hour over an 8 hour shift, the lifetime of a stick of precision dice and about the game speed at a half-full table (Kilby et al., "Casino Operations Management", p. 251). I submit any bias is practically undetectable if you can't distinguish it over 1080 rolls.
brush your teeth for just a few hours and tell me you are brushing them exactly the same way at the end as
you did at the beginning.
You don't have a clue how this stuff works.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterbrush your teeth for just a few hours and tell me you are brushing them exactly the same way at the end as
you did at the beginning.
You don't have a clue how this stuff works.
This has officially become inane.
Quote: dicesitterMath
brush your teeth for just a few hours and tell me you are brushing them exactly the same way at the end as
you did at the beginning.
You don't have a clue how this stuff works.
dicesetter
And the fact that you're on here arguing it day in and day out tells me that you do have a clue either!
Quote: dicesitterMath
brush your teeth for just a few hours and tell me you are brushing them exactly the same way at the end as
you did at the beginning.
You don't have a clue how this stuff works.
dicesetter
Wow!
Oh, I think that train left the station 60-something pages ago!Quote: AhighThis has officially become inane.
And as far as brushing my teeth for a few hours, I certainly have no clue how that works, but it sounds unpleasant.
Quote: dicesitterMath
brush your teeth for just a few hours and tell me you are brushing them exactly the same way at the end as
you did at the beginning.
You don't have a clue how this stuff works.
dicesetter
I certainly don't have a clue how your mind works. Not in a million years would I have ever thought to include oral hygiene in a discussion about throwing dice.
But I can work with it. How about a dice-throwing challenge? Spend two hours throwing the dice using your practiced technique, then another two hours throwing the dice while brushing your teeth. I bet the results from both sessions will be statistically indistinguishable.
It depends on the toothpaste. Colgate with Gardol should beat out Pepsodent.Quote: MathExtremistSpend two hours throwing the dice using your practiced technique, then another two hours throwing the dice while brushing your teeth. I bet the results from both sessions will be statistically indistinguishable.
Quote: MathExtremistI certainly don't have a clue how your mind works. Not in a million years would I have ever thought to include oral hygiene in a discussion about throwing dice.
But I can work with it. How about a dice-throwing challenge? Spend two hours throwing the dice using your practiced technique, then another two hours throwing the dice while brushing your teeth. I bet the results from both sessions will be statistically indistinguishable.
What dicesitter knows about random and probability could be written on the back of a very small post-it note. He'll protest he has real experience, but it's quite clear he couldn't tell the difference over 30 rolls between 'random' and 'controlled' dice. There's a reason for that... unless the rolls were hugely patterned, no-one could for the sort of shifts in probability dice-setters claim.
dicesetter you are retired right? You have been practicing your shot for 7 years now. Why not take the time and do the video of 1080 shots? That's nothing compared to the 7 years. Don't you want to know more? Perhaps you don't want to know the truth.Quote: dicesitterMath
brush your teeth for just a few hours and tell me you are brushing them exactly the same way at the end as
you did at the beginning.
You don't have a clue how this stuff works.
dicesetter
I said what I said because you keep going back to the same place...... you assume dice influence is a constant
that you can turn on and off like a switch.... sorry wrong.
Just standing and throwing for endless hours can prove nothing, just ask ahigh....
You can not go the table and throw for several hours at one time and think your
going to do anything but get tired... a regular guy cant go out and hit a golf ball on the
range for 3-4 hours, and not have his swing change.
That is my point, you have no respect for how hard it is to maintain a shot.
I understand Supperick does not like those misleading craps players with
gimmicks...... but ask him what he thinks can be proven by standing at your
table for 3-4 hours at a time.....
A reasonable test would be 40 rolls a day for 27 days.......that is a long commitment
by any one, and that is to you, some one who thinks I am really to dumb to be doing this in
the first place.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterI said what I said because you keep going back to the same place...... you assume dice influence is a constant
that you can turn on and off like a switch....
Apparently you assume that practicing one's dice throwing is as demonstrably effective as brushing one's teeth. If you had spent seven years not brushing your teeth, you'd have many cavities. If you had spent seven years not practicing your dice throwing, you'd be exactly as good at dice throwing as you are today.
And what you think I assume is wrong. The truth is that if you have any influence at all it should be quantifiable, like a baseball pitcher's WHIP or K/9. Pitchers have bad days, they have good days, they throw better against righties, worse on day games, etc., but overall a very good pitcher these days has less than a 1.2 WHIP (walks + hits per inning pitched). It's an average, and it's quantifiable.
But you don't know what your average is because in truth you have no idea how to measure and evaluate your efforts. You can't quantify whether your shot is "working" or not. To continue the baseball analogy, you can't tell whether your pitches are balls or strikes. You just rely on your intuition and folksy logic, the same folksy logic that led to the comparison with brushing your teeth.
Quote: dicesitterask him what he thinks can be proven by standing at your table for 3-4 hours at a time.....
A reasonable test would be 40 rolls a day...
Look, I'm sorry you have no stamina, but it's ridiculous to suggest that an average person could only throw something 40 times per day with any level of control. Have you ever watched a darts tournament? A football game? A baseball game? You've got professional athletes making far more than 40 throws per game with objects like baseballs and footballs that, you know, weigh a lot more than a pair of dice. By the time the finalists reach the last match of a big darts tournament, they've made well over a hundred throws. And they're still able to throw 26g darts into a bullseye or triple-20 spot with significant precision and accuracy. Do you know how much a pair of dice weigh? About 18g.
So yes, I think that if you have the ability to influence the dice, you would aim to be able to throw the dice more than 40 times per day. We're not talking about strenuous exercise here. Throwing an 18g pair of dice once every 30 seconds for an average hand of 8.5 throws and a break of 20-30 minutes in between hands should not tire anyone out. And respectfully, if your "precision throw" degrades after just 40 tosses, you really need to pick another hobby.
But it's a convenient excuse for why you're not able to win consistently. "I just threw the dice all the way from the other end of the table and boy are my arms tired."
Yup your right Math, you threw the dice from one end to the other and you still have a 6 SRR.
Maybe you need to try to do something different.
By the way, I noticed you did not offer to throw the dice on your table 40 rolls per evening for
27 days and compare them to mine...
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterBy the way, I noticed you did not offer to throw the dice on your table 40 rolls per evening for
27 days and compare them to mine...
You first. Throw the dice for 40 rolls per evening for 27 days and make a video recording. Post it on YouTube. Then I'll gather data for 1080 rolls and we'll do a statistical comparison.
I see!!!!
I will think it over....laughing.....
You know 27 days from now you will have nothing more than you have now...... but I did make a reasonable
offer, but you are the one holding up the test.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterYou know 27 days from now you will have nothing more than you have now...... but I did make a reasonable
offer, but you are the one holding up the test.
I guarantee that within 30 days from today I will have data for 1080 rolls. It won't take me more than a few hours total because I don't need to throw at a rate of 40 throws per day. If your "reasonable offer" was to videorecord 40 rolls for 27 days, what's your excuse for backing out now?
OK, what do you say your SRR is?Quote: dicesitterYup your right Math, you threw the dice from one end to the other and you still have a 6 SRR.
"Something different" is something that you cannot or will not describe even in the most general terms.Quote: dicesitterMaybe you need to try to do something different.
