CRAPS ~ DICE UNBALANCE MYSTERY ~ DICE PHYSICAL DATA
Exactly. That's why the inquiry has to be on physical evidence, not numeric results. Numeric results are too variable. But observing that a die stays on axis, that's easy to do (especially with cameras). If someone can keep the dice on axis, or prevent some other type of movement after the dice bounce on the table, the frequency of being able to do that should be easy to count. Then you can look at how often you succeed, how often you fail, take the average, and recompute your house edge. It's really not hard to figure out.Quote: thecesspitWhat 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.
But nobody ever seems to look at it this way, at least not anybody who's crowing publicly about being able to influence the dice. All we ever get is "my SRR is 19" or "my shot was working really well last night, I made $20."
When I said you only need one in ten on-axis results to have the edge, I'm not kidding. Let's put it in more intuitive terms: if you can keep the dice on-axis only one time per hand -- from the time you make your first comeout to the time you seven-out, you will beat the casino in the long run. You only need *one roll* per hand to be successful to beat the game. Just one. Can anyone reach this bar or anywhere close to it?
Quote: dicesitterJust standing and throwing for endless hours can prove nothing, just ask ahigh....
Maybe you should stick to talking to the nice man.
I am sure in a couple of hours you will have 1080 rolls, and it will show nothing.
I don't mind presenting my data for the 1080 rolls, you cant video tape
me throwing..... I wont allow that. Even you should understand that,
But if you want to use that as an excuse so be it...
dicesetter
remember I have already presented lots of data and the two video's of
my dice landing..... I am not afraid to do that.
I was very willing to work with you and I provided some data and would have done
more, but it was you that called me a liar.
If you recall I complimented your dedication a numbers of times, but I also urged you
to get others to help and show you different ways to throw, not because I felt they
were better than you, but because they had different ways to throw and one of them
may have worked for you.
I know how hard you worked and I believe to this day you feel there is some
influence that can be gained.
What I have shown on here in terms of data and videos reflects also a lot of work
and shows some interesting results... Math and others may feel it was not enough
data...and I would provide more within reason.
dicesetter
this does not sound like the Ahigh we all know and loveQuote: dicesitterAhigh
I was very willing to work with you and I provided some data and would have done
more,
but it was you that called me a liar.
can you, dicesitter, link to that (those) events?
I have a short question for U
are you a liar?
just asking
I be in a North American casino tomorrow (should narrow down the choices) playing craps
remember my shoes and say "hi Sally" when you see me
Sally I am not worried about that answer, I think Ahigh is an honest guy
so he will be the first to admit what happened.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterI am sure in a couple of hours you will have 1080 rolls, and it will show nothing.
I agree. Remember, I cannot influence the dice. But I also expect my results will be indistinguishable from yours because ... wait for it ... neither can you.
Quote:you cant video tape me throwing..... I wont allow that.
I don't want to video tape you throwing, I have no interest in being part of your dice practicing lunacy. You assert you can influence the dice. Prove it. You're not willing to provide any verifiable, testable evidence of your claims so how do you expect anyone to believe you?
So what if you post some numbers -- how can anyone verify their authenticity, that you didn't just make them up? I have a pair of dice on my desk right now. Here are some numbers: 3/2, 3/4, 2/4, 4/3, 1/1. Do you think I made those up or did I actually roll the dice?
Prove it. Show us some video that demonstrates you have any quantifiable level of influence whatsoever.Quote:I have already presented ... the two video's of my dice landing..... I am not afraid to do that.
I have seen lots of people post excel spreadsheets on this forum.
I did watch the videos the eagle eye posted. It seemed that dice tend to fall to the 6 side of the dice.
I Assume this is because 6 pits with white paint weigh more. Do dice manufacturers take that into account and add weight to the other sides? Maybe the paint equals the amount of plastic removed so it mute.
Again - didn't read the whole thread (should be a rule against a thread longer 100 posts or something....) but I assume many people have said this - but man I wish I could play a table with biased dice (and now which way they are biased). How cool would that be?
Anyway, no way casinos do it on purpose, but as asked above, is it possible that all dias ARE biased towards the higher numbers?
I lay the 10. Maybe I should Lay the 4.
Profit.
So even with this 'limit' there's plenty of ways to make money... in the long term. Just like counting cards, it'll take time.
Just would take a little practice and work to discover what the edge and effect is. Pretty sure I could work on that for $1000/week... if I had the touch. I don't. Don't believe anyone does. It matters not what I believe though... the shooters know their own bankrolls... they just might not know their own edges.
Quote: slackyhacky
I lay the 10. Maybe I should Lay the 4.
I think since the "6 pits" along with the five and four would weight more, they would tend to be face(side) down more, therefore you should indeed keep laying the ten, not switch to the four.
If you're putting $500 out per roll, you'd be able to reserve your own table almost anywhere other than the Strip. Especially if you're only going to make 40 rolls and you're not playing during evenings/weekends. Wake up in the morning, have some coffee, go to the casino, play on your private $500 table for 30 minutes, make an average of $200, go about your day. Over $70,000/year in expected profit from working less than an hour a day, no need to wait for anyone else or make smaller bets on random rollers like me.Quote: thecesspitSurely even if you could only make 40 'good' shots per day, you could still play with an advantage and make a nice profit. 40 shots at a 1% per roll advantage would $40 if you had $100 out... and craps being what it is, you could have more on the table and not raise any suspicions. $500 at risk per shot, $5 EV per shot, $200/day EV. Plug in some variance numbers and you can work out ROR and all that good stuff. Only bet big when you have the bones, play at maintenance level until it's your turn to shoot.
If I was a mythical AP craps player who could control the dice, I'd never play at a full table and pay the house edge on other people's rolls. That'd be like playing for a +EV slot progressive and then staying at the machine after someone else hit it. If you could play +EV craps, why would you ever play otherwise?
Have you ever played craps????
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterMathextremist
Have you ever played craps????
dicesetter
Good question
Unfortunately don't understand the mentality of most craps players(Well, maybe you actually do). They love the excitement, the crowd and people watching them shoot. I see it all the time, so called AP DI's cramming into full tables next to the rest of the suckers on Friday night. Meanwhile there's a half table where you can shoot with limited people and get yourself inches away from the back wall.Quote: MathExtremistIf you're putting $500 out per roll, you'd be able to reserve your own table almost anywhere other than the Strip. Especially if you're only going to make 40 rolls and you're not playing during evenings/weekends. Wake up in the morning, have some coffee, go to the casino, play on your private $500 table for 30 minutes, make an average of $200, go about your day. Over $70,000/year in expected profit from working less than an hour a day, no need to wait for anyone else or make smaller bets on random rollers like me.
If I was a mythical AP craps player who could control the dice, I'd never play at a full table and pay the house edge on other people's rolls. That'd be like playing for a +EV slot progressive and then staying at the machine after someone else hit it. If you could play +EV craps, why would you ever play otherwise?
Assuming there's such as advantage craps play, ask yourself why they choose craps over the many other much more valuable PROVEN methods? Had someone like dicesitter put 7 years of effort into legitimate AP. I'm certain he would've gotten back all of his money and much much more.
Quote: superrickGood question
I think he's more a roulette player.
Quote: AxelWolfHad someone like dicesitter put 7 years of effort into legitimate AP. I'm certain he would've gotten back all of his money and much much more.
And if he had done others things, which after all he may well have, be way ahead of either. The either-or way of thinking of GAMBLERS.
I prefer half-empty tables because I like a quick game. I brought this up in the Wynn thread -- a full table with dozens of prop bets flying back and forth, people buying in left and right, and the shooters fidgeting with the dice leads to 60 seconds between rolls and boredom (for me). I'd rather play on a table with three or four line or place bettors with no middle action and nothing complicated. Lots of other craps players are satisfied being belly-to-back at the rail with strangers. I'd rather play higher stakes than squeeze in at a low limit table.Quote: AxelWolfUnfortunately don't understand the mentality of most craps players(Well, maybe you actually do). They love the excitement, the crowd and people watching them shoot. I see it all the time, so called AP DI's cramming into full tables next to the rest of the suckers on Friday night. Meanwhile there's a half table where you can shoot with limited people and get yourself inches away from the back wall.
I disagree that dicesitter has what it takes to pull off legitimate AP, but that's beside the point. If there were such a thing as advantage craps play, it would be far and away the most valuable AP method in the casino. It would scale linearly with bet size and there would be no heat. There's a limit to how often you can hole-card because not every dealer flashes, there's a limit to how much you can spread while counting, there's a limit to the bet size on a +EV slot game, etc. There is no practical limit on bet sizes for craps. If you could personally influence the dice, you'd never have to rely on another dealer flashing or making mistakes and you'd never have to count cards or rely on a fluctuating edge from deck depletion. Every bet you made would be +EV.Quote:Assuming there's such as advantage craps play, ask yourself why they choose craps over the many other much more valuable PROVEN methods? Had someone like dicesitter put 7 years of effort into legitimate AP. I'm certain he would've gotten back all of his money and much much more.
The best excuse dicesitter has put forward for not profiting from his alleged skill at dice influence is that his arm gets tired after 40 rolls. Perhaps it's true that he really doesn't have the stamina to throw a pair of dice more than 40 times a day. But if he is correct -- that *anyone* can learn how to influence the dice and beat the casino -- then he should be able to teach someone else his dice-influencing throw and then he wouldn't need to throw at all. He could just bet on his student's throws and not get tired. I wonder why that's not happening...
Quote: MathExtremist
The best excuse dicesitter has put forward for not profiting from his alleged skill at dice influence is that his arm gets tired after 40 rolls. Perhaps it's true that he really doesn't have the stamina to throw a pair of dice more than 40 times a day. But if he is correct -- that *anyone* can learn how to influence the dice and beat the casino -- then he should be able to teach someone else his dice-influencing throw and then he wouldn't need to throw at all. He could just bet on his student's throws and not get tired. I wonder why that's not happening...
More humor. What a great Saturday morning. The reason why that's not happening is he(and a few others) can sell their techniques to the naive and gullible. In addition I suppose, he could franchise it out and simply have the students bring/wire him a percentage of their winnings every hour/day. Ain't it great? Reminds me of the sports handicappers. Sell both sides of every game. You will for sure get repeat paying customers from something like half of them and the sample size is large. Plus, you can always change your name and do it again and again, year after year.
And you don't think I don't know that? (No Brainiac math genius needed, sayonara Pascal, hello Patrick Sinner).Quote: MathExtremistIf there were such a thing as advantage craps play, it would be far and away the most valuable AP method in the casino. It would scale linearly with bet size and there would be no heat..
Why do you think I am interested in this at all? I just want some real evidence. If someone can actually prove there's anything to DI, there's a fortune to be made.
It's obvious that even if it's possible, it's hard enough to discourage most people, but It only takes one guy. If proven it's worth the effort finding that person(while were at it we can find Bigfoot to).
Not one person is making money actually playing craps using only DI. I guess all the talented DI's are red chippers.
Quote: AxelWolfAnd you don't think I don't know that? (No Brainiac math genius needed, sayonara Pascal, hello Patrick Sinner).
Why do you think I am interested in this at all? I just want some real evidence. If someone can actually prove there's anything to DI, there's a fortune to be made.
It's obvious that even if it's possible, it's hard enough to discourage most people, but It only takes one guy. If proven it's worth the effort finding that person(while were at it we can find Bigfoot to).
Not one person is making money actually playing craps using only DI. I guess all the talented DI's are red chippers.
It seems to me that the DI myth is the same as the Roulette dealers myth that they can spin sections or numbers. This would be worth as much financially as DI... But i completely agree, until someone can prove it, it's all BS.
Ive dealt Roulette for years, and obviously have tried to 'section spin', or whatever its called, just because ive spun the ball thousands (possibly 10's of thousands) of times, so why not give it a go. But in my experience, its not possible.
Quote: ShineyShineIt seems to me that the DI myth is the same as the Roulette dealers myth that they can spin sections or numbers. This would be worth as much financially as DI... But i completely agree, until someone can prove it, it's all BS.
Ive dealt Roulette for years, and obviously have tried to 'section spin', or whatever its called, just because ive spun the ball thousands (possibly 10's of thousands) of times, so why not give it a go. But in my experience, its not possible.
I'm pretty sure that clocking roulette wheels is proven to work and casinos have since adapted (away from deep pocket and other areas that present exposure given the technology to be able to overcome the edge).
You can still find clockable roulette wheels if you want to do it for fun. I think Jerry's Nugget still has a $0.25 deep pocket roulette that should, indeed, be beatable with a sufficient effort and it is proven to work. You just have to do some research, and the max bet is small enough that you're not likely to make a haul before they cut you off.
Quote: dicesitterMathextremist
Have you ever played craps????
dicesetter
That question shows you don't even bother to read.
I think it is an excellent question and unlike math's continued comments it was not intended as an insult
His comments like I understand dicesetter may not have the stamina to throw for hours... shows his complete
lack of understanding of craps or what it takes to have a good throw. Anyone can throw for hours...that was not
the point.... throwing for hours is a far cry from having an effective throw for hours. Math can not or will not
use his head, that's why his roll is completely random, and will stay that way.
Any of the good classes today can teach you to have a fairly decent roll, but that only opens the front door to what
you have to do. It is because if people like Math that most people fail, they think throwing a long time is the same thing
as learning to influence the dice..it is not.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterthecesset
I think it is an excellent question and unlike math's continued comments it was not intended as an insult
It's a terrible question when the poster has repeatedly told you he plays craps, at what level, and how often.
It proves you are wrapped up in your own little truth.
Quote: dicesitterthecesset
I think it is an excellent question and unlike math's continued comments it was not intended as an insult
His comments like I understand dicesetter may not have the stamina to throw for hours... shows his complete
lack of understanding of craps or what it takes to have a good throw. Anyone can throw for hours...that was not
the point.... throwing for hours is a far cry from having an effective throw for hours. Math can not or will not
use his head, that's why his roll is completely random, and will stay that way.
Any of the good classes today can teach you to have a fairly decent roll, but that only opens the front door to what
you have to do. It is because if people like Math that most people fail, they think throwing a long time is the same thing
as learning to influence the dice..it is not.
dicesetter
Ah ha, we finally have an admission that dicesetter is selling training courses behind the veil of reasonable discussion. His/her sales technique is hardly original, saw it long ago in Daytona Beach under the boardwalk by a guy selling pens which you write with holding upside down. He remarked that his sales pitch was really for those serious about life, not those who could/did spot the scam right away and started throwing darts at him. Scam it remained. $20.usd for a pen with a pump made in China.
Quote: dicesitterMath can not or will not use his head
Your idea of "using your head" is spending seven years practicing your dice throwing on a dice table you have in your home, all the while knowing you can't maintain an "effective throw" for more than a few minutes per day on that home table and worse, your throw isn't effective at all in most casinos. I have no interest in using my head for such wasteful and ridiculous pursuits.
Quote: AhighI'm pretty sure that clocking roulette wheels is proven to work and casinos have since adapted (away from deep pocket and other areas that present exposure given the technology to be able to overcome the edge).
You can still find clockable roulette wheels if you want to do it for fun. I think Jerry's Nugget still has a $0.25 deep pocket roulette that should, indeed, be beatable with a sufficient effort and it is proven to work. You just have to do some research, and the max bet is small enough that you're not likely to make a haul before they cut you off.
Define 'clocking'; I'm referring to dealers that claim they can spin a certain section of the wheel at will (excuse the pun), not detecting where the ball will land after it's been spun using some kind of device.
Disclaimer; I know next to nothing about Craps, i've never dealt it or even played it. But from what i can gather from the DI debate, the comparison to Roulette dealers that claim to be able to spin sections of the wheel to people that claim to be able to influence the dice, seems valid.
Clocking is different than sector shooting. Clocking is done by players, sometimes in cahoots with dealers, by using orbital mechanics to identify the trajectory of the ball as it decays. This has already been proven to work in a casino using computers; that's one of the reasons you can't use computers in casinos. See Thomas Bass, "Eudaemonic Pie"Quote: ShineyShineDefine 'clocking'; I'm referring to dealers that claim they can spin a certain section of the wheel at will (excuse the pun), not detecting where the ball will land after it's been spun using some kind of device.
Disclaimer; I know next to nothing about Craps, i've never dealt it or even played it. But from what i can gather from the DI debate, the comparison to Roulette dealers that claim to be able to spin sections of the wheel to people that claim to be able to influence the dice, seems valid.
Sector shooting is what you're talking about. You only need to be able to avoid 3 pockets to turn the game positive for the players, assuming they know what those three pockets are. Are you saying that after 10,000 spins as a trained dealer, if you were to set the wheel in motion with a certain force and release the ball from the same spot with a certain force, you have exactly zero control over where the ball ends up? Here's a guy who gets the ball within 10 numbers of 0 three times in a row, the last exactly on zero. It's only three spins but if it's not a complete anomaly, you could make a killing with a confederate if you can target half the wheel and avoid the other half.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I6eFIDUYG4
Is someone telling me that he meant for that last spin to ride the rim like that?Quote: MathExtremistClocking is different than sector shooting. Clocking is done by players, sometimes in cahoots with dealers, by using orbital mechanics to identify the trajectory of the ball as it decays. This has already been proven to work in a casino using computers; that's one of the reasons you can't use computers in casinos. See Thomas Bass, "Eudaemonic Pie"
Sector shooting is what you're talking about. You only need to be able to avoid 3 pockets to turn the game positive for the players, assuming they know what those three pockets are. Are you saying that after 10,000 spins as a trained dealer, if you were to set the wheel in motion with a certain force and release the ball from the same spot with a certain force, you have exactly zero control over where the ball ends up? Here's a guy who gets the ball within 10 numbers of 0 three times in a row, the last exactly on zero. It's only three spins but if it's not a complete anomaly, you could make a killing with a confederate if you can target half the wheel and avoid the other half.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I6eFIDUYG4
there are some much better videos of a dealer doing this.
He's like a true believer who builds an arc in his living room and then rebuts his atheist critics with "yeah, but at least I have a big boat: what have you got?"
"What," indeed?
Quote: MrVIf DI really worked, dicesitter would be spending all his time playing and winning in casinos, instead of tilting at windmills nonstop on a math-friendly gambling board...
This goes for all of the believers. As I've said before, if I found a new proven way to beat a casino game, I sure as hell ain't telling anyone!!
Quote: MathExtremistClocking is different than sector shooting. Clocking is done by players, sometimes in cahoots with dealers, by using orbital mechanics to identify the trajectory of the ball as it decays. This has already been proven to work in a casino using computers; that's one of the reasons you can't use computers in casinos. See Thomas Bass, "Eudaemonic Pie"
Sector shooting is what you're talking about. You only need to be able to avoid 3 pockets to turn the game positive for the players, assuming they know what those three pockets are. Are you saying that after 10,000 spins as a trained dealer, if you were to set the wheel in motion with a certain force and release the ball from the same spot with a certain force, you have exactly zero control over where the ball ends up? Here's a guy who gets the ball within 10 numbers of 0 three times in a row, the last exactly on zero. It's only three spins but if it's not a complete anomaly, you could make a killing with a confederate if you can target half the wheel and avoid the other half.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I6eFIDUYG4
Not sure i'm buying that without further evidence. Has it been verified? Has there been controlled tests over hundreds or thousands of spins to confirm that this dealer (or others) can hit a section like that? It would be fairly easy to record a few spins where you hit the same section and then number, especially with editing.
If it is for real, consider my mind officially blown. And i'll also consider myself a complete failure of a Roulette dealer that i'm not a millionaire by now if this is possible!
Quote: MathExtremist
Are you saying that after 10,000 spins as a trained dealer, if you were to set the wheel in motion with a certain force and release the ball from the same spot with a certain force, you have exactly zero control over where the ball ends up?
I'm saying exactly that... you're arguing the same thing with the dice... does a player that has thrown the dice 10,000 times, with a certain force, and release the dice always the same with a certain force, have zero control over how the dice land?
If this has been proven, then apologies for questioning you...but same as you with DI, i'm gonna need to see some solid evidence. Unverified YouTube videos are not solid evidence.
Not at all. It is a confirmed fact that orbital mechanics can predict the decay of a roulette ball into the wheel with enough precision to predict at least the half of the wheel the ball will land in. The first roulette computer was built by Edward Thorp (of card-counting fame) and Claude Shannon, one of the fathers of computer science. A more well-publicized version was the subject of the book I cited. It's not a myth:Quote: ShineyShineI'm saying exactly that... you're arguing the same thing with the dice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemons
If a computer can predict the final location of the ball within a range on the wheel based on the wheel speed, the ball speed, and the release point, then it's conceivable that a dealer can practice and achieve some measure of predictability as well. Remember, you only need to eliminate 3 spots on the wheel to give the player the edge. 2 if it's single-zero.
On the other hand, the Kapitaniak paper I cited described how the behavior of dice is *not* predictable except over very short distances, far shorter than they need to travel in a dice game. Unlike roulette, which is predictable to a meaningful degree, dice throwing is sensitively dependent upon initial conditions and therefore not predictable. If it's not physically predictable, it's not reasonable to assume that a human could have any influence on the process.
In short, I'm not making the same argument because the physics is totally different. If you have access to a wheel in your spare time, it'd be an interesting experiment to see whether you could achieve any predictability. I'm assuming you were trained to vary the speed of the wheel and your release, but what if you intentionally tried to keep them as consistent as possible? Try a test: with the wheel moving at a given speed in the same direction (for consistency right now), do a few dozen spins and try to keep your release flick as consistent as possible. If you always release when your hand is above zero, what is the distribution of numbers? If there is a consistent 1/4, 1/5 or even 1/10 of the wheel where the ball does not land when you try to keep things consistent, then you have a signature. Or you have the ability to have one.
Quote: MathExtremistNot at all. It is a confirmed fact that orbital mechanics can predict the decay of a roulette ball into the wheel with enough precision to predict at least the half of the wheel the ball will land in. The first roulette computer was built by Edward Thorp (of card-counting fame) and Claude Shannon, one of the fathers of computer science. A more well-publicized version was the subject of the book I cited. It's not a myth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemons
If a computer can predict the final location of the ball within a range on the wheel based on the wheel speed, the ball speed, and the release point, then it's conceivable that a dealer can practice and achieve some measure of predictability as well. Remember, you only need to eliminate 3 spots on the wheel to give the player the edge. 2 if it's single-zero.
On the other hand, the Kapitaniak paper I cited described how the behavior of dice is *not* predictable except over very short distances, far shorter than they need to travel in a dice game. Unlike roulette, which is predictable to a meaningful degree, dice throwing is sensitively dependent upon initial conditions and therefore not predictable. If it's not physically predictable, it's not reasonable to assume that a human could have any influence on the process.
In short, I'm not making the same argument because the physics is totally different. If you have access to a wheel in your spare time, it'd be an interesting experiment to see whether you could achieve any predictability. I'm assuming you were trained to vary the speed of the wheel and your release, but what if you intentionally tried to keep them as consistent as possible? Try a test: with the wheel moving at a given speed in the same direction (for consistency right now), do a few dozen spins and try to keep your release flick as consistent as possible. If you always release when your hand is above zero, what is the distribution of numbers? If there is a consistent 1/4, 1/5 or even 1/10 of the wheel where the ball does not land when you try to keep things consistent, then you have a signature. Or you have the ability to have one.
Interesting... i'm not saying it isn't possible to predict where the ball will land, that's obviously been proved, in the link you provided, and other cases. Wasn't there a high profile case in London a few years ago where a team was using a device to track the ball?
So if that's possible, you're saying its logical to conclude that a dealer can achieve a predictable spin too... i'm no scientist, so ive no idea if this is a logical conclusion to make. Have there been any reliable tests done to prove it?
Maybe i'm just bitter that i havn't learnt this, and that's why i have a hard time believing it! :)
That's essentially it: it's predictable (per the meaning of "predictable" in dynamical systems) so there's a possibility that humans can get good enough at it to matter. Aren't you trained to vary your spin speed and release speed? What would happen if you didn't?Quote: ShineyShineInteresting... i'm not saying it isn't possible to predict where the ball will land, that's obviously been proved, in the link you provided, and other cases. Wasn't there a high profile case in London a few years ago where a team was using a device to track the ball?
So if that's possible, you're saying its logical to conclude that a dealer can achieve a predictable spin too... i'm no scientist, so ive no idea if this is a logical conclusion to make. Have there been any reliable tests done to prove it?
Maybe i'm just bitter that i havn't learnt this, and that's why i have a hard time believing it! :)
There are all sorts of interesting possibilities for study here, though none of it would be practical because if research demonstrated its success, the dealing policies would change. And to be clear: I am not advocating that you cheat, even if you learn how. But it would be interesting to study the relationship between the angular velocity of the wheel, the velocity of the ball, and the distribution of angular data reflecting where the ball came to rest relative to its release point when one of those variables was held constant.
One more log for the fire, a roulette wheel with a motor that alters the angular velocity of the wheel from a consistent slowdown and thwarts wheel-clocking computers:
http://www.cammegh.com/product.php?product=mercury360rrs
Quote: MathExtremistThat's essentially it: it's predictable (per the meaning of "predictable" in dynamical systems) so there's a possibility that humans can get good enough at it to matter.
Lol. Same as craps. The thing is kept predictably well random by the casinos. Moderately lengthy and open craps table equals long round and enclosed roulette table.
Such language. Next, we'll be talking about Bayesian explanations for quantum decoherence.
Eat it up because you ain't getting nothing at the casinos. If you have nothing to lose, than any loss hurts. And you're full of meaningless confessions.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's essentially it: it's predictable (per the meaning of "predictable" in dynamical systems) so there's a possibility that humans can get good enough at it to matter. Aren't you trained to vary your spin speed and release speed? What would happen if you didn't?
There are all sorts of interesting possibilities for study here, though none of it would be practical because if research demonstrated its success, the dealing policies would change. And to be clear: I am not advocating that you cheat, even if you learn how. But it would be interesting to study the relationship between the angular velocity of the wheel, the velocity of the ball, and the distribution of angular data reflecting where the ball came to rest relative to its release point when one of those variables was held constant.
One more log for the fire, a roulette wheel with a motor that alters the angular velocity of the wheel from a consistent slowdown and thwarts wheel-clocking computers:
http://www.cammegh.com/product.php?product=mercury360rrs
Just to be clear too, i would never cheat, even if i could somehow learn this.
I was never taught to vary my spin. Maybe some casinos have this policy, but none that i have worked in. I've been told to a few times by the pit boss, but i put this down at the time to them being superstitious (the same pit bosses would tell you to shuffle a different way if you were losing, or change dealers if you were losing...ridiculous).
I agree it would be an interesting study. Like i said earlier, and i imagine this is true of most dealers, i've tried to keep my spin the same and 'hit' sections, but i cant say i noticed any pattern. In fact, after a while, i reckon a dealers spin becomes pretty constant due to doing it so many times, it just becomes an unconscious thing, and you only vary it if the game requires it (i.e a stronger spin for a busy game). There are plenty of times when you get 'stuck' in a particular section (e.g spinning Tier 6/7 times in a row), so it would take more than a few dozen spins to establish and prove any true predictable 'signature'. Thousands, tens of thousands maybe.
If it is possible, would it be logical to conclude that it's been done by now by some dealers? So if that's the case, would it also be logical to conclude that someone would have published or proved it by now? If so, where are the memoirs, the 'tell all' books by retired dealers that have made their millions?
Quote: ShineyShineIf so, where are the memoirs, the 'tell all' books by retired dealers that have made their millions?
Only EB's? Lol.
That was excellent gibberish. Prove to me that you're not a Markov chain sentence generator.Quote: DoubleOrNothingEat it up because you ain't getting nothing at the casinos. If you have nothing to lose, than any loss hurts. And you're full of meaningless confessions.
Quote: ShineyShineJust to be clear too, i would never cheat, even if i could somehow learn this.
http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/cheating-gambling.html
Before ANYONE runs afoul of the law, please consider that even DISCUSSING things that relate to cheating can, in and of itself, be against the law.
I'm not sure what you're asking about being verified.Quote: ShineyShineQuote: MathExtremistClocking is different than sector shooting. Clocking is done by players, sometimes in cahoots with dealers, by using orbital mechanics to identify the trajectory of the ball as it decays. This has already been proven to work in a casino using computers; that's one of the reasons you can't use computers in casinos. See Thomas Bass, "Eudaemonic Pie"
Sector shooting is what you're talking about. You only need to be able to avoid 3 pockets to turn the game positive for the players, assuming they know what those three pockets are. Are you saying that after 10,000 spins as a trained dealer, if you were to set the wheel in motion with a certain force and release the ball from the same spot with a certain force, you have exactly zero control over where the ball ends up? Here's a guy who gets the ball within 10 numbers of 0 three times in a row, the last exactly on zero. It's only three spins but if it's not a complete anomaly, you could make a killing with a confederate if you can target half the wheel and avoid the other half.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I6eFIDUYG4
Not sure i'm buying that without further evidence. Has it been verified? Has there been controlled tests over hundreds or thousands of spins to confirm that this dealer (or others) can hit a section like that? It would be fairly easy to record a few spins where you hit the same section and then number, especially with editing.
If it is for real, consider my mind officially blown. And i'll also consider myself a complete failure of a Roulette dealer that i'm not a millionaire by now if this is possible!
I suggest you search Jafco roulette on You Tube. Here's one video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvKDHjucEaE
This makes guy makes that other guy look like an idiot. If IRCC Jafco has some amazing videos. Could there be trickery or major video cherry picking? Perhaps, but I suggest you watch some of his videos.
Roulette and DI shouldn't be compared.
It's been proven people can gain an advantage on roulette
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not a lawyer but I can't believe that's the case. There's a big difference between conspiracy and simply having a discussion. Discussing "Eudaemonic Pie" and potential improvements to the computer they used cannot possibly be a crime, even though such a computer could be used to cheat. I'm pretty sure that in order for that to be criminal, someone would need to not only build the computer but actually take steps to use it to cheat. Carrying a roulette computer through a casino is, by itself, not a crime. Neither is telling the roulette dealer that you have a roulette computer, though that may get you backroomed...
You don't want to learn this one the hard way!
http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-465/statute-465.085/
Specifically #3:
AND -- the penalties.
http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title41/chapter465/nrs465-088.html
Quote: AhighYou don't want to learn this one the hard way!
http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-465/statute-465.085/
"3. It is unlawful for any person to instruct another in cheating or in the use of any device for that purpose, with the knowledge or intent that the information or use so conveyed may be employed to violate any provision of this chapter."
I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a "specific intent" crime, where the only way you could be convicted is if the DA can prove that you intended your students to cheat or that they likely would at least try. So you and I can discuss building a roulette computer with a smartwatch without running afoul of any laws, even if we intend to test it out on your home roulette wheel and publish a paper about it. But if someone then contacts you about building their own because they want to use it in Reno, talking to that person would be problematic.
If it were otherwise, every author of books on cheating (or even game protection) would be guilty of many, many felonies...
A dice setter intentionally tries to alter the outcome to a non-random result.
I've wondered this for years. Cheating is a felony in Nevada, but so is just attempting to cheat. If you think dice setting alters the odds and you try to do it, why isn't that a crime? And under the same theory, why isn't it a crime to teach dice setting seminars?Quote: MrVJust as dice setting, if it actually worked, would be cheating.
A dice setter intentionally tries to alter the outcome to a non-random result.
