CHARTING A TABLE

I first came across this theory when reading Zeke Feinberg's books. The basic concept he sums up in the following two sentences.
"The inside numbers (5,6,8,9) ratio only comes into play when the 7's ratios are normal or higher than normal. The higher the ratio
of 7's above 1/6 average, the better the opportunity for earning profits".

I learned more about charting from the following article by Larry Edell.

http://edell.casinocitytimes.com/article/the-secrets-of-charting-the-tables-31931s

I was looking for feedback from anyone who has practical experience in applying this concept by tracking the rolls at a table?

It seems to me that a successful betting strategy could be exploited based on a quantitative expression of these ratios?

Thank you.

The dice odds don't change from one roll to another. Charting the table is just an expression of the Gambler's Fallacy. Don't waste your time.

I'd like to ask the author how the dice 'know' what they rolled before.

I talked to some and they were the dumbest pieces of plastic ever. They said nothing but must have thought they had rolled plenty of other numbers besides 7 after I talked to them. So they then rolled a bunch of 7s on me!

OK, that was sarcasm, but how do you think the author would respond? That the dice know?

Quote: eclectic

I first came across this theory when reading Zeke Feinberg's books. The basic concept he sums up in the following two sentences.
"The inside numbers (5,6,8,9) ratio only comes into play when the 7's ratios are normal or higher than normal. The higher the ratio
of 7's above 1/6 average, the better the opportunity for earning profits".

http://edell.casinocitytimes.com/article/the-secrets-of-charting-the-tables-31931s

It seems to me that a successful betting strategy could be exploited based on a quantitative expression of these ratios?
Thank you.

Your link is broken.

Should be http://edell.casinocitytimes.com/article/the-secrets-of-charting-the-tables-31931

But utter bunkum! That whole site is full of crap(s)!

You can chart past results till the end of time, but past rolls (That's all you can chart) give no indication of future rolls (That's all you can bet on)

UNLESS you spend your winnings on a time travel machine. *
'...a successful betting strategy could be exploited based on an ability to bet yesterday, based on tomorrows analysis of yesterdays rolls'.
But then you wouldn't need to chart the results, just bet on the exact outcome that you've already observed tomorrow.

*Nice little paradox there. 'Buy time machine today, from yesterdays massive winnings: Make massive winnings yesterday by using time machine to travel there.'

I hear ya', and MathExtremist too. The math is saying that results are based on independent trials.

Actually, I misspoke in my original post. I first learned about the discussion of charts (NOT the details of the charting concept) that Thomas Midgley wrote in "Craps: A Smart Shooter's Guide". Using actual rolls, the results appear in graphic form in Chapter 11. These must have been the basis of a later book: "7,500 Craps Rolls". I'll have more to ask about this book in a later post, though perhaps I am already becoming redundant with gamblers fallacy.

I also read about "qualifying a shooter" a while back when I wanted to analyze craps so I bought a book to learn about the game in general. Basically, qualifying a shooter meant see if someone 7's out right away, if not, bet on their throws! ...Yeah it's basically the gamblers fallacy and just something to make yourself feel more confident but in real mathematical terms it doesn't affect the outcome at all.

Quote: OnceDear

Your link is broken.

Should be http://edell.casinocitytimes.com/article/the-secrets-of-charting-the-tables-31931

But utter bunkum! That whole site is full of crap(s)!

You can chart past results till the end of time, but past rolls (That's all you can chart) give no indication of future rolls (That's all you can bet on)

UNLESS you spend your winnings on a time travel machine. *
'...a successful betting strategy could be exploited based on an ability to bet yesterday, based on tomorrows analysis of yesterdays rolls'.
But then you wouldn't need to chart the results, just bet on the exact outcome that you've already observed tomorrow.

*Nice little paradox there. 'Buy time machine today, from yesterdays massive winnings: Make massive winnings yesterday by using time machine to travel there.'

But wouldn't something bad happen if he seen himself at the table?☺ I'm not sure what they call that perhaps a temporal time flux or something?

Does he leave himself a note? Perhaps he needs to observe someone else shooting and tell them what to bet?

Thanks to Alan we now know the best time and location one should focus on. I'm not sure if a time traveler could sneak a bet in without messing up the string of 18 yo's or not, perhaps he could just make a deal with Alan prior. But wouldn't that affect the outcome?

Quote: AxelWolf

But wouldn't something bad happen if he seen himself at the table?☺ I'm not sure what they call that perhaps a temporal time flux or something?

Does he leave himself a note? Perhaps he needs to observe someone else shooting and tell them what to bet?

Thanks to Alan we now know the best time and location one should focus on. I'm not sure if a time traveler could sneak a bet in without messing up the string of 18 yo's or not, perhaps he could just make a deal with Alan prior. But wouldn't that affect the outcome?

If I had really big money against a yo, repeatedly, the odds of consecutive yo's goes up, repeatedly. Reality is reality, you can't fake it ;-( ..But no, I was not at that table that day. I did not influence the odds, this I swear ;-)

eclectic


Your 100% correct in saying a successful betting strategy could be exploited if you pay attention
at the table.

Now mind you, the kids on this site will insult your imagination and willingness to
actually put any thought into your bets. They being the brightest stars in the gambling
industry, understand that, dice setting does not work, that every set of dice on a table
is exactly the same and if for what ever reason the table is producing for more 4 or 10s
than would be a normal random outcome, for heavens sakes don't bet them, you need
to bet the 6 & 8 because that is what the math of the game tells you.

There are many things you can do at the table to increase your ability to do better
than the average player.... but you sure as hell don't want to talk about that on
here.

Of course that is just my point of view.

dicesetter

P,S, the kids are also very short on courage, the never want to compare
what they can do with some one else, or what their shot produces when
compared to some one else, and they sure as hell would not want to compare
a 6 months record of their table results... they will discourage you from
putting any effort in your idea.

the kids are also very short on courage

I'm assuming you are referring to people like Math Extremist, the Wizard, etc..? I'm guessing they prefer not to be addressed as 'kids'.

Quote: SOOPOO

the kids are also very short on courage

I'm assuming you are referring to people like Math Extremist, the Wizard, etc..? I'm guessing they prefer not to be addressed as 'kids'.

Soopoo , I did not address anyone by name as that could be seen as direct
conflict, and I surely would not want that.

But most adults don't mind discussing several sides of an issue even if you
do not agree with the other person because no one has all the answers. On
here if you don't agree totally your insulted or discounted by several and I
assuming they must be kids because adults really don't act like that.

Over the years I have been confronted with a number of ideas about craps I
did not agree with, or understand, but I gave them some time and space so
I could understand their point of view, even if in the end, I had not changed
my mind. I view that as both "adult like" and respectful.

If you entertain some ideas on here that a couple of the residents don't agree
with they are neither adult like or respectful. If no one replies then I assume they
don't feel my comments applied to them, and in that case I am sure they will
allow eclectic to further discuss his idea which is in fact very valid.

dicesetter

of all the hair brained things I read about gambling, charting is the hair brainiest of all.

Quote: dicesitter

the kids are also very short on courage

Quote: soopoo

I'm assuming you are referring to people like Math Extremist, the Wizard, etc..? I'm guessing they prefer not to be addressed as 'kids'.

Quote: dice

Soopoo , I did not address anyone by name as that could be seen as direct
conflict, and I surely would not want that.

But most adults don't mind discussing several sides of an issue even if you
do not agree with the other person because no one has all the answers. On
here if you don't agree totally your insulted or discounted by several and I
assuming they must be kids because adults really don't act like that.

Over the years I have been confronted with a number of ideas about craps I
did not agree with, or understand, but I gave them some time and space so
I could understand their point of view, even if in the end, I had not changed
my mind. I view that as both "adult like" and respectful.

If you entertain some ideas on here that a couple of the residents don't agree
with they are neither adult like or respectful. If no one replies then I assume they
don't feel my comments applied to them, and in that case I am sure they will
allow eclectic to further discuss his idea which is in fact very valid.

dicesetter

I'm replying. I don't think your use of a strawman/general argument to insult the forum as a group in order to attack those you feel are acting childlike gets you out of a charge of making personal insults. I happen to agree that this is a problem here. I don't agree that you get to insult us in return for it. Take 3 days and we'll see you then.

Quote: dicesitter

the kids are also very short on courage, the never want to compare what ... their shot produces when compared to some one else.

Most of us realized long ago that no matter what we do, in the end we're all just random rollers playing a negative expectation game.

Of course, there are always a few starry-eyed dreamers who think they've figured out an angle, but in the end they're just "kidding" themselves.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I'm replying. I don't think your use of a strawman/general argument to insult the forum as a group in order to attack those you feel are acting childlike gets you out of a charge of making personal insults. I happen to agree that this is a problem here. I don't agree that you get to insult us in return for it. Take 3 days and we'll see you then.

Thanks BBB. You sum it up and phrase it far better than I can. Dicesitter, I am pretty sure a few Vegas trips I offered to meet up with you, to watch you roll. I was going to bet with you, and hope to have a good time. And buy you a beer/dinner/whatever. You of course know my skepticism towards DI. But I watched Ahigh, and Nikolay at the craps lab (Aaron's house). I watched the masked weird guy just place the dice on the table without rolling them. Although I rarely play, I am fascinated by the game and concepts. My offer still stands. If you want to try and convince a skeptic pm me. I'll be in town Saturday through Friday, and will have a car so I could meet you anywhere. Beer/lunch/dinner on me.

beachbumbabs


Well back from fishing trip so now I can reply.

First if you agree you have a problem on here then going after to me will only
make the problem worse as you protect those that cause the problem.

But it is your play ground.

IT is also clear there is no sense beating around the bush so I wont, Since I have
been on here the folks like Math, Axel, Mrv and Ontarior have resisted any attempt
by any one to talk about anything that would help a player win more than the
average guy. Yet in reply they have offered nothing, not a single bit of information
on the subject. Their attack on Alan and the 18 yo's is a example. I don't know
if Alan saw 18 or 15 or 12 or 19, and I don't care, the point was there were a number
of them. Yet these guys attached to that like glue, not because they cared about the
number of the Yo's. but because Alan actually discussed a number of items which
could improve a players outcome.

Now just to educate you a tad, insults don't have to be direct to have the sought for
result, you can make fun or minimize or poke fun at any opinion or statement because
you really don't want to discuss what the statement actually said.

I can say one thing which is not an insult directed at you, but rather a statement
which I regard as truthful, you are doing a dismal job of building a craps forum than can
actually make a difference to some players, because you are protecting one point of view.

There have been a number of people which have came to this site only to be insulted and
made fun of and all you have left is the same characters that offer nothing. These folks
that have come and gone are no worse for this experience, but this site is.
If you still had Linaway, Superick,, Frank, Alan, and a couple of others, the average
player coming to this site would have a chance to learn from decades of experience, instead
you still have Ontario, MrV, Axel and Math..... hardly a fair exchange.

By controlling the trouble makers you would have had an incredible forum. And I said
controlling I did not say get rid of.

Now I understand I have just put you into an impossible position. You cant side with me
and protect your buddies, so I am the one that has to go. so be it, I think it was worth the
effort.



dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

beachbumbabs


Well back from fishing trip so now I can reply.

First if you agree you have a problem on here then going after to me will only
make the problem worse as you protect those that cause the problem.

But it is your play ground.

IT is also clear there is no sense beating around the bush so I wont, Since I have
been on here the folks like Math, Axel, Mrv and Ontarior have resisted any attempt
by any one to talk about anything that would help a player win more than the
average guy. Yet in reply they have offered nothing, not a single bit of information
on the subject. Their attack on Alan and the 18 yo's is a example. I don't know
if Alan saw 18 or 15 or 12 or 19, and I don't care, the point was there were a number
of them. Yet these guys attached to that like glue, not because they cared about the
number of the Yo's. but because Alan actually discussed a number of items which
could improve a players outcome.

Now just to educate you a tad, insults don't have to be direct to have the sought for
result, you can make fun or minimize or poke fun at any opinion or statement because
you really don't want to discuss what the statement actually said.

I can say one thing which is not an insult directed at you, but rather a statement
which I regard as truthful, you are doing a dismal job of building a craps forum than can
actually make a difference to some players, because you are protecting one point of view.

There have been a number of people which have came to this site only to be insulted and
made fun of and all you have left is the same characters that offer nothing. These folks
that have come and gone are no worse for this experience, but this site is.
If you still had Linaway, Superick,, Frank, Alan, and a couple of others, the average
player coming to this site would have a chance to learn from decades of experience, instead
you still have Ontario, MrV, Axel and Math..... hardly a fair exchange.

By controlling the trouble makers you would have had an incredible forum. And I said
controlling I did not say get rid of.

Now I understand I have just put you into an impossible position. You cant side with me
and protect your buddies, so I am the one that has to go. so be it, I think it was worth the
effort.



dicesetter

Dice,

I appreciate the constructive criticism. Thank you for taking the time.

I am not a fan of derisive jeering, including towards DI's and crooked dice conspiracy theorists. I think there are times when those debunking the systems or asking for proof go overboard into mocking the person. I also think that some of those propounding the ideas have very thin skin and take honest inquiry or factual math counterstatements as personal attacks.

I am on the side, not of my buddies, but of this forum's stated purposes, which include needing factual proof or a mathematical basis for advantage plays or better than average outcomes. I am also on the side of supporting vigorous debate on both sides of any of these questions, as those are opportunities for learning, not just for those debating/defending a concept or technique, but the many hundreds of people who read through these threads (a lot of times long after they've been active) as they observe or discover what appear to be opportunities for themselves.

People are continually rediscovering
1) Apparent patterns in past results that might be predictive of future trends.
2) Bet protection through Martingaling, both positive and negative
3) Possible control of dice through consistent routines before rolling
4) Bet combinations that appear to improve the house edge
5) Many other possible advantages more game-specific

There are things that work (counting, leveraging marketing promotions, hole carding, collusion, cheating), things that help (Kelly bet sizing, strict money management, knowing optimal strategy for that game, identifying the good bets vs. bad bets within a game, knowing the best pay tables available and only playing them), and things that appear to work but don't (just about everything else), especially those that succeed in the short run through variance but will tend towards the mean in the long run.

The issues with DI's seem to boil down to: can they reproduce their advantaged results at will? Can they show a significant return over time that can't be attributed to variance? Can their claims be independently reproduced? From what I've seen of those you name, (and I'm an interested 3rd party, cheering them on as I'd like to use an advantage at craps if one can be found) none of them can meet any of those thresholds.

OTOH, this site as built by the Wizard, has a reputation for only supporting or advocating that which can be proven, either through demonstration or mathematically, on all games, not just dice. So for those claims to be accepted on his forum without proof or repeatability would diminish his credibility, while lending some to those proponents, including those who seek to sell their concepts or anecdotes to other gamblers through classes/books/tutoring. But again, I think the record of the discussions both for and against are invaluable, sort of like snopes.com for urban legends. You play a part in that, and I thank you for it.

Beachbumbabs

Thanks for the reply





dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

Since I have
been on here the folks like Math, Axel, Mrv and Ontarior have resisted any attempt
by any one to talk about anything that would help a player win more than the
average guy.

What exactly will help a player win more than the average guy?

I'm all for a legitimate discussion, but "legitimate" doesn't include unverifiable anecdotes of practicing your dice throwing techniques. It's been over a year since you first said "I, dicesitter, am good at dice throwing because I've been practicing on my home table for over seven years." I subsequently asked for quantifiable data of your altered house edge. Do you know what that is yet or are you still guessing?

It doesn't matter whether you *feel like* you can control the dice. It only matters if you actually can.

Quote: dicesitter

Since I have been on here the folks like Math, Axel, Mrv and Ontarior have resisted any attempt
by any one to talk about anything that would help a player win more than the
average guy. Yet in reply they have offered nothing, not a single bit of information
on the subject. Their attack on Alan and the 18 yo's is a example. I don't know
if Alan saw 18 or 15 or 12 or 19, and I don't care, the point was there were a number
of them. Yet these guys attached to that like glue, not because they cared about the
number of the Yo's. but because Alan actually discussed a number of items which
could improve a players outcome.

Really?

What has Alan ever discussed "which could improve a players outcome?"

You claim I have "offered nothing."

I respond: "There is little of value to say. Just learn how the game is played, pick your preferred method of play, and have at it, hoping for luck."

Alan has also "offered nothing:" nothing of substance.

Cursed craps tables?

Three unknown (alleged) dice influencers?

18 yo's in a row?

Quote: MrV

You claim I have "offered nothing."

I respond: "There is little of value to say. Just learn how the game is played, pick your preferred method of play, and have at it, hoping for luck."

I think describing a rigorous methodology by which a claim of dice control can be analyzed, quantified, and either confirmed or rejected is far from "nothing." It may not be the naively-optimistic cheerleading or blind faith that was sought, but its worth is far greater.

Mrv



That is exactly my point, you have nothing to say except to cut down the work of
others.

One of the first days on this site Alan offered a list of items a good craps
player should pay attention to.... very good list and many were important
items having nothing to do with Dice setting....... where is your list?????

I will expose your mind set right now.....

I just went to my table and I used a set which exposes your finish to only
two ways to make a 7

10 rolls..... 9 box number finishes, no 7's

Then I used a set which exposes your results to 4 ways to make a
seven on each roll. ( one taught by a craps school)

10 rolls .... 3 box numbers 5 7's

Now any one that really understands the dynamics of the shot (Linaway
and Superrick would know in an instant) would understand what I did
with the set ( not an all 7 set)

And your worried about how many yo's Alan saw, or how many dice
setters he saw.

In my mind there is no excuse for any player to give money to a casino
with such little interest in what is possible.

You feel better about yourself because you can cut down Alan, or myself or Frank
or others, there is not a chance in the world that you would look at the two
10 toss sessions and say " interesting".

dicesetter

I enjoy playing craps and have participated in some profitable sessions and long rolls.

Unlike you, I attribute that all to chance, aka luck, as we are all just random rollers.

Nothing you or others do to manipulate or influence your dice throw has been proven to result in a demonstrable, mathematically quantifiable edge against the house.

You are correct: I would not say "interesting;" I would say "meh."

Quote: dicesitter

I will expose your mind set right now.....

I just went to my table and I used a set which exposes your finish to only
two ways to make a 7

10 rolls..... 9 box number finishes, no 7's

Then I used a set which exposes your results to 4 ways to make a
seven on each roll. ( one taught by a craps school)

10 rolls .... 3 box numbers 5 7's

Okay, let's talk about this. There are really three possibilities:
A) You're not telling the truth about these results;
B) You're telling the truth that these results just happened, but you recognize that they are not statistically indicative of dice influence.
C) You're telling the truth that these results just happened, and you believe this is statistically significant evidence of your future expected results;

Let's take those in turn.

A) If you're lying, I don't care. Neither does anyone else. I could say that I just rolled 10 hard 8s in a row by kicking two dice across the floor with my left foot. Do you believe me? You shouldn't because it's not a credible claim.

B) If you're telling the truth, but you recognize that 10 rolls isn't sufficient to provide evidence of anything, then I don't think you would have made the statement the way you did. The way you drafted your post is apparently an attempt to prove a point, so I don't think this is the case.

C) Finally, you apparently posted your anecdote because you believe it is evidence of your abilities. Here's the problem with that reasoning.
First of all, 10 rolls certainly isn't evidence of anything. Drop a pair of dice 36 times onto the carpet and you'll get a distribution that is not predictive of the future. I can virtually guarantee that with simply random rolling, you will not arrive at a distribution that matches the known distribution of fair dice. With 10 rolls, it's actually impossible: it's not even possible to roll all 11 distinct two-dice totals in 10 rolls, let alone all possibilities of two-dice combinations...

So there's the first issue, that what you *think* is proof of your abilities isn't actually proof because 10 rolls is not statistically significant.

The second and bigger issue is one of scale. Let's take your second set of rolls, the one where you say you were trying to roll a seven. 10 rolls, 5 7s, so you say. If those 10 rolls were actually representative of your ability to roll 7s -- that is, you could roll 7s with a 50% probability -- then you would have a 150% player advantage on the Any Seven bet, a bet that has the worst house edge on the table for us mere mortals. Put another way, for every $10 you wager on the Any Seven bet, with your alleged throwing ability, you expect to receive $25 back from the house.

Now, that's an absurd suggestion all by itself. But it's even more ridiculous when taken in the context of your own prior admissions that you don't expect to ever break even during your lifetime because of all the years you spent losing money at craps. If you could turn $10 into $25 every roll, it wouldn't take you very long to bust every dice table in town. At 100 rolls/hour on a private table, betting $100 per roll on the Any 7 bet, if you could actually roll 7s every other roll you would win $15,000 per hour (discounting the effects of the required passline bet).

If you could win $15,000 per hour, not only would you be able to prove it, but you wouldn't be complaining about how you'll never be ahead. I'm sure you haven't lost $15,000,000 in your life, but even if you had, you could win that amount in less than a year with the ability to roll a 7 every other roll.

The point is this: your attempt at using anecdotal examples to demonstrate your alleged abilities has only made your story less credible. Your most recent anecdote doesn't fit with your prior admissions.

In closing, you have also accused me of offering "nothing" to the dice setting discussion. I suggest that this post, among many others, lays out the framework for evaluating empirical results in the context of examining whether you have a statistical edge. In your case, throwing the dice 10 times and inferring a pattern from those results is not sound reasoning. It is not meaningfully different in inferential quality than throwing the dice once and inferring that every future throw will be the same result.

If you actually want to contribute to the discussion of dice setting, focus on collecting usable statistics, not useless 10-roll samples without sufficient information. It boggles my mind that someone would spend years practicing a technique designed to overcome the inherent house edge in a dice game and not be able to measure how well they're doing or even understand how to make those measurements, but it appears that is exactly what you have done.

math

I understand exactly how I am doing, this is not secrete to me.

What is interesting is I made this as simple as possible and you still got it wrong. The very reason I made it simple is to
indicate it does not have to be complicated to see..

NO where in my comments did I mention I was trying to make a 7...no where, I simply said one set (finish) exposes your
results to 4 ways to make a 7 and the other 2 ways.

First set this morning we had 9 box numbers and no 7's
second set we had 3 box numbers of 5 7's

I just went back to the table and used the same sets....

1 session 7 box numbers and no 7's
2 session 3 box numbers and 4 7's

No where in my comments did I say anything about my abilities.....none I spoke about difference in results. It should
be clear keeping this is as simple as I can that changing sets makes a difference.....end of story.

It has been my premise since the first day I got on here. If you can get your sets to change the results, you may be able
have a better than average chance of lowering the HA.

You have no idea how well I do or don't do I have never said and I wont, because it is none of your business.

My discussions here are to get people to think about the possibilities in craps... they are endless because each of us is different
and each person even is trained exactly the same will have a shot which is different. MY goal is not seeking some type of
perfection, the kind you are demanding, but rather understanding the shot you have and trying to see if you can make it
work for you.

Now I am sure you will find fault with what I just presented... I am 100% sure the results were not just luck or variance....

The truth is not the problem here, your inability to admit it is.

The most baffling part is you cant duplicate what I did on your table.... and your not even curious!!!!!

dicesetter

I watched a dice setter slowly piss away over 3 grand the other day.....it was painful and as he slowly lost and his mood soured it got tough to make my 8 hours....eventually he just threw randomly and played the don'ts. Of course to add to his misery he rolls for 20 min and makes 5 pucks.

Quote: dicesitter

NO where in my comments did I mention I was trying to make a 7...no where, I simply said one set (finish) exposes your
results to 4 ways to make a 7 and the other 2 ways.
...
No where in my comments did I say anything about my abilities.....none I spoke about difference in results. It should
be clear keeping this is as simple as I can that changing sets makes a difference.....end of story.

Under the presumption of randomness, changing sets does not make a difference at all. If someone throws the dice haphazardly, it makes absolutely no difference how they are set prior to the throw -- whether they're stacked, side-by-side, which faces are up or forward, etc. Regardless of the set, a haphazard throw results in a distribution of 1/6 per face per die. We know this because the game holds as it is expected to.

Therefore, if your own results are different based on how your dice are set, then the reason must be that you have the ability to control the dice and that your particular throw is able to diminish some of the randomizing impact of the bounce off the far wall. There is no other explanation as long as you're being truthful in the first place.

In other words, you're making an inherent claim about your abilities, apparently without realizing it.

Perhaps you're unaware that you have near-magical dice control abilities? Even if it's only with one particular set and throwing style, the ability to roll a 7 with 50% probability (or even 40% as in your second sample) is something that would make it nearly impossible to lose money. If you can translate the results you're reporting from your personal craps table into live casino play, you should be a very, very, very wealthy man.

But you're not. Why?

thanks for the reply.


Well the results I gave you today are the ones that I went to my table and threw...period.

I picked out the sets because I felt they would show a difference, and they did, and then I
repeated it and they did.

As far as my ability to show some influence over the dice, I would be very honest to say
I don't come close to many others, at my age I am not consistent enough to go to any
table and repeat exactly that....maybe some others are, I am not, but I am very happy
with my play.

But see that does not matter to me, I have proven to myself what can and cant be done
and I want others to try. I see dice setting and its limitations and potential as being
vital to the future of craps. If I did not feel I could not beat the table, I would never
play craps again..... as far as me doing very well and being rich.....

Well life is good.

The thing that brings a smile to my face is this.... for you to even mention the
thought that I may be lying when I noted the data of my 4 short sessions, means
if was worth mentioning.

I thank you for that compliment.

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

I am 100% sure the results were not just luck or variance.

What was the cause, the set?

Quote: dicesetter

The most baffling part is you cant duplicate what I did on your table.

Can you duplicate "what I did"? If so please let us know when you will be rolling the dice within 10 or 15 miles of northwest Las Vegas. It might just be worth your while.

Quote: dicesitter

I see dice setting and its limitations and potential as being
vital to the future of craps.

Why is that?

You've claimed that you have not been able to prove that your forays at dice setting have led to you having any semblance of control over the dice; this admission, made after many years of effort and practice seems to emphasize the "limitations" of dice setting instead of its "potential."

Exactly what "potential" do you see for craps, assuming a few bright-eyed new dice setters belly up to the tables?

Seems to me that you are suggesting that new blood will be attracted to the game of craps due to their belief that the game can be beaten through dice setting: is that your point?

Given that nobody has proven dice setting is worth a tinker's dam to date, you are betting on False Hope.

Or are you awaiting the arrival of the Unrolled Roller, the Gambling Messiah, the one who conclusively proves that it works and is able to show others how to do it?

MRV

If a low life old fart like me, a person not worth a tinkers dam, can show what I
did yesterday, what is your excuse???

I would much rather spend my hours working on what is possible than listen
to you tell me what is not.

We are now working on a world series of craps. A craps contest where the event is
based only on the results of "your" shot. I venture there are hundreds of players
in the country that would wager money for a shot to win or lose based on what
they can do. It is an exciting time to play craps....... at least for some of us.

dicesetter

Quote:

We are now working on a world series of craps.

Who is this "we" of which you speak?

BTW I never claimed the you are not worth a tinker's dam: I posted " that nobody has proven dice setting is worth a tinker's dam to date,"

I'm curious about the format of the proposed "world series of craps."

What are the rules, what is the goal, what is the buy-in, what is the prize, and how many rolls will a competitor be allowed?

I love the idea of a WSOC! My methodology would give me as good a chance to win as anyone else. I assume others would employ and identical strategy as me. How would ties be broken?

Quote: BasesLoaded

I love the idea of a WSOC! My methodology would give me as good a chance to win as anyone else. I assume others would employ and identical strategy as me. How would ties be broken?

Well, let's just see how other wannabe bone arrangers have done it:

World Series of Dice

Quote: MathExtremist

Okay, let's talk about this. There are really three possibilities:
A) You're not telling the truth about these results;
B) You're telling the truth that these results just happened, but you recognize that they are not statistically indicative of dice influence.
C) You're telling the truth that these results just happened, and you believe this is statistically significant evidence of your future expected results;

Let's take those in turn.

A) If you're lying, I don't care. Neither does anyone else. I could say that I just rolled 10 hard 8s in a row by kicking two dice across the floor with my left foot. Do you believe me? You shouldn't because it's not a credible claim.

B) If you're telling the truth, but you recognize that 10 rolls isn't sufficient to provide evidence of anything, then I don't think you would have made the statement the way you did. The way you drafted your post is apparently an attempt to prove a point, so I don't think this is the case.

C) Finally, you apparently posted your anecdote because you believe it is evidence of your abilities. Here's the problem with that reasoning.
First of all, 10 rolls certainly isn't evidence of anything. Drop a pair of dice 36 times onto the carpet and you'll get a distribution that is not predictive of the future. I can virtually guarantee that with simply random rolling, you will not arrive at a distribution that matches the known distribution of fair dice. With 10 rolls, it's actually impossible: it's not even possible to roll all 11 distinct two-dice totals in 10 rolls, let alone all possibilities of two-dice combinations...

So there's the first issue, that what you *think* is proof of your abilities isn't actually proof because 10 rolls is not statistically significant.

The second and bigger issue is one of scale. Let's take your second set of rolls, the one where you say you were trying to roll a seven. 10 rolls, 5 7s, so you say. If those 10 rolls were actually representative of your ability to roll 7s -- that is, you could roll 7s with a 50% probability -- then you would have a 150% player advantage on the Any Seven bet, a bet that has the worst house edge on the table for us mere mortals. Put another way, for every $10 you wager on the Any Seven bet, with your alleged throwing ability, you expect to receive $25 back from the house.

Now, that's an absurd suggestion all by itself. But it's even more ridiculous when taken in the context of your own prior admissions that you don't expect to ever break even during your lifetime because of all the years you spent losing money at craps. If you could turn $10 into $25 every roll, it wouldn't take you very long to bust every dice table in town. At 100 rolls/hour on a private table, betting $100 per roll on the Any 7 bet, if you could actually roll 7s every other roll you would win $15,000 per hour (discounting the effects of the required passline bet).

If you could win $15,000 per hour, not only would you be able to prove it, but you wouldn't be complaining about how you'll never be ahead. I'm sure you haven't lost $15,000,000 in your life, but even if you had, you could win that amount in less than a year with the ability to roll a 7 every other roll.

The point is this: your attempt at using anecdotal examples to demonstrate your alleged abilities has only made your story less credible. Your most recent anecdote doesn't fit with your prior admissions.

In closing, you have also accused me of offering "nothing" to the dice setting discussion. I suggest that this post, among many others, lays out the framework for evaluating empirical results in the context of examining whether you have a statistical edge. In your case, throwing the dice 10 times and inferring a pattern from those results is not sound reasoning. It is not meaningfully different in inferential quality than throwing the dice once and inferring that every future throw will be the same result.

If you actually want to contribute to the discussion of dice setting, focus on collecting usable statistics, not useless 10-roll samples without sufficient information. It boggles my mind that someone would spend years practicing a technique designed to overcome the inherent house edge in a dice game and not be able to measure how well they're doing or even understand how to make those measurements, but it appears that is exactly what you have done.

Math I have a new found respect for you as that may have been one of the best worded and credible responses I have ever seen to a post.... Thanks for continuing to post on here

Now that was funny! (reply to MrV post of the WSOD)

Quote: dicesitter

Well the results I gave you today are the ones that I went to my table and threw...period.

I picked out the sets because I felt they would show a difference, and they did, and then I
repeated it and they did.

As far as my ability to show some influence over the dice, I would be very honest to say
I don't come close to many others,

I still think you're missing the point. If you're seeing non-uniform results, it's not the set that makes a difference, it's your throw. If you set the dice exactly the same way, picked them up in a fist, gave them a good shaking, and then flung them down the table, your results would be indistinguishable from mine or anyone else's. However, regardless of the set, if your throw is effective you'll see a deviation from the expected uniform distribution. What that deviation is depends on the set, but only if your throw is effective in altering the distribution in the first place.

To demonstrate, here's a slightly different experiment you can do. It will take you exactly as long as the last two trials you performed:

a) Set the dice a specific way, then throw 10 times using your practiced throw.
b) Set the dice exactly the same way, then pick them up with your other hand, shake them, and throw 10 times.
If you see a difference between (a) and (b), it's clearly not the set that matters because that didn't change.

Quote:

But see that does not matter to me, I have proven to myself what can and cant be done
and I want others to try.

I disagree: you haven't acted like you want others to try. That would involve explaining what you're doing rather than simply describing your results with no discussion of how you attained them.

If you want others to attempt to replicate your alleged results, you must describe your methods. You've had ample opportunity to do just that, but every time you revert back to "I don't care what any of you think, I've proven it to myself and that's all that matters to me." So which is it? Do you actually want to have a discussion about, as you say, "the future of craps" -- or do you just want to tell tall tales about how wonderful you are?

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Math I have a new found respect for you as that may have been one of the best worded and credible responses I have ever seen to a post.... Thanks for continuing to post on here

My pleasure, and thanks for the compliment. In fact, offering a credible opinion is one of my highest priorities (and I don't mean just on this forum) so thank you for specifically choosing that adjective.

Math


I will go out of character here a second to agree with the Wizard guy. Your response
was very well thought out and there is no question your a very intelligent guy.

But in the end, there are only two things that really do matter.

1..... I was lying...

2.....what I did twice means it can be done.

Saying that I lied gives you a very easy way out. Admitting maybe I really did
what I said I did, and remember, this is not the first time I presented such
data. If I did what I said I did, it changes everything your talking about. All the
other stuff and reasons it cant be done don't mean a thing.

So it boils down to a question.. can you except the fact that maybe I was
100% honest....?????

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

Admitting maybe I really did
what I said I did, and remember, this is not the first time I presented such
data. If I did what I said I did, it changes everything your talking about.

Not at all. To show you why, I just did a quick sample with exactly as much information content as your own tests:

Set 1, ten rolls: 4 box numbers, 4 sevens
Set 2, ten rolls: 9 box numbers, 1 seven.
Set 1 again, another ten rolls: 7 box numbers, 2 sevens.

I'm not pretending that I'm doing anything skillful, I'm just dropping the dice onto my carpeted floor from a height of 3 feet. But the results are so variable with just ten rolls that it's impossible to make any credible conclusions from that vastly-insufficient data.

Except that's exactly what you're trying to do, not with just a three-foot drop but with an 8-foot throw against a bumpy surface. So let me clarify -- I don't necessarily disbelieve that you stood at your home craps table and practiced for seven years. That's not the sort of thing that someone would typically boast about if it were untrue. But having done so, you're still unaware of how to measure your dice throwing for any signs of improvement, and you think that a ten-throw sample is evidence of anything (good or bad). That's what I find hard to believe.

MathExtremist


See now we are talking, that is a start.

Couple things, I did not just go to the table and throw ten rolls, I changed sets
and threw ten rolls, then I later that day I did the same thing again with the same
sets and found the same result..... that is 100% different than your talking about.

Also you said you throw 8 feet against a bouncy surface....... again it appears
you did not watch my video.... I said I would show you can throw and limit the
bouncy affect of the table and the affect of the alligator board.. and I did.


We see things differently, perhaps you are a whole lot smarter than I am and if
you could do the same with the dice you would make a ton.. Well that's not
what I want, I don't need the money.... but on the other hand going to a casino, particularly
a craps table, and adjusting my sets and toss and winning is an incredible feeling for me.

You may not understand that, that's ok, but that's why I would
never lie about my numbers, I am not in this to impress anyone.
What I want is simple, for the craps world to understand craps can be a game of skill, with
incredible limitations, and to accept that and make it part of the game and not kick
us out of the casino for trying it. The world series of craps would bring that into play.

Look in fishing tournaments we pay $300- $1500 a boat per event, poker can cost us from
$35- $10,000 for each event. Both of these is a combination of luck and skill. You
cant win at either based 100% on skill or 100% on luck.

I think craps should have the same type of events. $1000 entry fee, first 100 players, double
elimination event. Each player gets $10000 in chips and has heads up competition. Each player
gets 5 turns at the dice, can bet only on your own roll, player with most chips advance.

I have casino's here interested, maybe not at the $1000 entry, that could vary. Interestingly
enough, the comment I heard most from casino people is idea of people betting only on
themselves.

The excitement you would have when down to the last 8 players would take this game
to another level.

that's my view of the game Math.

Dicesetter

Basically, what Mr. V said. And what Math Extremist said.

As far as the Craps Championship, there would certainly be a skill factor, which would be dominated by people like Math Extremist and the Wizard. Knowing how many players are entered, how many rolls you can get, how many people cash, a math whiz will be able to design a strategy that will maximize their chances of winning. Since all of the shooters will be randomly generating the numbers, as DI is a myth, it is the math boys who would be heavy favorites over a better who believes he is influencing the dice.
As a matter of fact, you define a tournament and I'll bet I can beat you! And I assure you (dicesitter) that I am as random a roller as there is!

Quote: dicesitter

Couple things, I did not just go to the table and throw ten rolls, I changed sets
and threw ten rolls, then I later that day I did the same thing again with the same
sets and found the same result..... that is 100% different than your talking about.

Again, no. I'm talking about how you think that throwing ten rolls is a reliable sample. You clearly do or you wouldn't keep saying things like "I rolled ten times, changed my set, rolled another ten times, there was a difference, therefore I can control the dice!"

Really, ten rolls -- even two or four times -- is just not remotely sufficient. I can't tell whether you actually don't understand this or whether you do and you're cherry-picking your results, but either way it's simply not credible in view of your other anecdotes. It just doesn't add up.

I wouldn't be confident unless there were a billion rolls.

Math


Sorry, your just going to have to live with that. I have been placing data on here for
a very long time, and every time I go to my table I show the same thing.

This is your loss not mine, I am very certain about my outcomes, 100% certain.
Your opinion is based on only one thing..... your opinion, sorry that's not good enough,
I have 7 years to back up my opinion.

Look I am not selling any books, or teaching any classes, or asking anyone to invest any
money in anything.... I have nothing to win or lose regardless what your opinion is.

If I argue with you about this I am not respecting myself or my work.

dicesetter

Dice ,you realize what your are claiming would make you millions as math said - I'm not sure what part of this you do not get/ I'm willing to put up any amount to 100k if you could accomplish in person what you really say in here

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Dice ,you realize what your are claiming would make you millions as math said - I'm not sure what part of this you do not get/ I'm willing to put up any amount to 100k if you could accomplish in person what you really say in here

Bull crap....... end of story.

What I am claiming is nothing more than setting the dice differently will produce
a different array of results.. I can go to the table right now and do it again.

Now I am not sure what in the world you don't get...... I go to my table, I set the
dice I throw 10 times ( I have done this hundreds of thousands of rolls)I look at the outcomes
on both dice, I look to see what axial array they finished on, I then change sets and do it again.

It appears this is so far fetched to you that I have to be lying.... so be it.

But it baffles me that a craps site would allow that a shot that bounces all over the table, hits the side
wall and high off the back wall, has the same potential as a shot that limits the bounce and takes
away all the effect of the alligator board.

Well my buddy and I are playing today....

have a good day
dicesetter.

Quote: dicesitter

I go to my table, I set the dice I throw 10 times ( I have done this hundreds of thousands of rolls)I look at the outcomes on both dice, I look to see what axial array they finished on, I then change sets and do it again.

That raises the basic question of why are you doing this at home and not in the casinos, where such results would reap truly handsome profits?

Quote: SanchoPanza

That raises the basic question of why are you doing this at home and not in the casinos, where such results would reap truly handsome profits?

He isn't, he has said so. Hopefully this thread will be locked down....... Tough to make real comments and not get suspended.

Quote: DeMango

He isn't, he has said so. Hopefully this thread will be locked down....... Tough to make real comments and not get suspended.

If DiceSetter can influence the dice even a tiny bit like he has described, then as WON and Sancho have pointed out, he has a hugely valuable skill. If he used Kelly betting with that skill, he could comfortably make millions of dollars quite quickly.
I don't suppose he will set about proving it, why should he. But I doubt he is doing so, which implies one of two things:-
1. He overestimates his skill. Or
2. Vast wealth ( by my standards) and immense kudos means nothing to him.

I'd stick my money on 1, but nobody seems to be taking bets.