CHARTING A TABLE

Quote: MathExtremist

No, you can't change the odds at all. You can bet more intelligently, though -- that's what advantage play actually means. However, changing the odds is cheating:

Quote: NRS 465.015

  Definitions.  As used in this chapter:
1.  “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;

If you actually change the odds, you're a crook. If you merely identify when the odds are in your favor and bet accordingly, that's advantage play.

I'm quite familiar with actual prosecution of players who have won in casino, by changing the odds. And in every case I'm aware of, prosecution was only successful when GAME OUTCOMES WERE CHANGED. This is the context of the law in most jurisdictions.

Advantage play IS changing the odds FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PLAYER. But generally it is not considered "cheating" because game outcomes are not changed. For example, a roulette wheel bias player changes the odds (for him/her) because he discovers the game is already not random. He hasn't changed any outcomes. He hasnt changed the odds of the actual game. But he has changed his odds of winning. And that's what advantage play is.

I understand your point, but the law takes context into account. Advantage play is not illegal anywhere that I'm aware of. If you can show me where someone has been sent to jail for visual ballistics or bias analysis, then I'll retract my statement. But ultimately, gambling law varies between jurisdictions. What is true for one area may not be for another. But again, I'm not aware of any advantage players who have been imprisoned.

With the wording of the law you expressed, it could be argued that any winning system changes the odds, because after all, real winning involves changing odds. But do you really think the gambling industry wants players to think they could be imprisoned for using a winning system? People might be petrified to use the martingale.

Quote: RoulettePhysics

Why are you so hostile? Why cant you love me the way I love you? If you show some love, maybe you wont get suspended again.

Nah but seriously, why is my opinion so offensive for you? You CAN change the odds with "advantage play". That's exactly why casino staff call it "advantage play". It cant be done in all circumstances. It's not magic. But it does work.

I'm sorry I dont really want to argue with you about it. I don't see the need to justify simple logic about physics, odds and payouts. You can do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I wont be offended either way.

Because if you had a way to do whatever it is you're claiming, you wouldn't be selling or touting it.

ESPECIALLY ON ROULETTE. with an unlimited 5++ % advantage and 24/7 access to casinos all over the world.

MILLIONS TO BE MADE.

Quote: AxelWolf

Because if you had a way to do whatever it is you're claiming, you wouldn't be selling or touting it.

ESPECIALLY ON ROULETTE. with an unlimited 5++ % advantage and 24/7 access to casinos all over the world.

MILLIONS TO BE MADE.

1. Roulette computers use simple science. There's no denying they work in the right conditions. I could even point you to government lab tests, public testing. I could even give you free access to try it for yourself. But I'm not here to do that.

2. It is quite easy to achieve a very high edge on most wheels. The real problem is avoiding detection. You can't just win millions and expect not to join the Griffin database.

3. My focus is using the technology, where people pay me nothing up front. After they have tried it, they pay a fee they nominate to use the technology, and we work with the "highest bidders". If they pay nothing, we just work with others.

I do sell some things. So what? I keep the best technology for my private teams. Like selling the Toyota but keeping the Lamborghini. But can we not make this about me or my technology? We are talking about dice.

Quote: RoulettePhysics

1. Roulette computers use simple science. There's no denying they work in the right conditions.

They're also illegal cheating devices. What's your point? There are lots of ways to cheat, and many of them are far, far easier than using a hidden computer like the Eudaemons did. Just grease the palms of the roulette croupier and have him overpay you.

It's not "beating roulette" if you cheat. It's just cheating. Let's not be promoting criminal activity, mmkay?

Actually I've paid a lawyer to research where they are legal. My players have done their own research. It's legal in about half the world. You can check the laws for yourself. I'm sorry I dont have time to argue with you. We never break any laws and are very careful about this. Why do you think the Ritz team were never charged?

Quote: RoulettePhysics

Say a dice has 2 facing up, I pick it up and roll it, and then 3 is facing up. Now say if i rolled it again with exactly the same physical variables, would the outcome be 3? No. Because the same variables leads to a different number rolling (side of the dice). In this sense, the previous outcomes ARE CONNECTED.

I reject your casual, breezy illogic in favor of physicists who have actually studied the topic. Go read the Kapitaniak paper that demonstrated that dice rolls are only predictable by dynamics for a ridiculously high precision, far more precise than your human hand can achieve when throwing six or more feet down a felt-covered table with a rubber bumper at the end.

Quote: Marcin Kapitaniak, "The three-dimensional dynamics of the die throw"

Practically, the predictability [of a die throw] can be realized only when the die is thrown by a special device which allows to set very precisely the initial conditions. ... In real experiment, the predictability is possible only for very small "e", i.e., an accuracy which in practice is extremely difficult to implement and that is why the coin toss, die throw, and roulette run can be considered as a random process.

Your notion of perfectly-reproducible initial conditions doesn't exist. We're talking about craps games, not some impossible mental construct.

Quote: RoulettePhysics

Actually I've paid a lawyer to research where they are legal. My players have done their own research. It's legal in about half the world. You can check the laws for yourself. I'm sorry I dont have time to argue with you. We never break any laws and are very careful about this. Why do you think the Ritz team were never charged?

So your lawyer didn't advise you that offering to sell roulette computers is a felony in Nevada even if you don't use them personally?

Are you planning to ever visit Las Vegas?

"Paid a lawyer....my players have done their own research"....where do you nutjobs come up with this stuff. Be honest you probably rent out evenbobs basement.

Quote: RoulettePhysics

2. It is quite easy to achieve a very high edge on most wheels. The real problem is avoiding detection. You can't just win millions and expect not to join the Griffin database.

Pay me a fee and I'll show you how to avoid detection,There a Money back guarantee. (assuming your junk works as good as you say you'll make millions ). I want 15% of the profits each day(assuming you bet enough). I'll double the fee if you actually end up in griffin and you can't continue to play.

Quote: MathExtremist

I reject your casual, breezy illogic in favor of physicists who have actually studied the topic. Go read the Kapitaniak paper that demonstrated that dice rolls are only predictable by dynamics for a ridiculously high precision, far more precise than your human hand can achieve when throwing six or more feet down a felt-covered table with a rubber bumper at the end.

Quote: Marcin Kapitaniak, "The three-dimensional dynamics of the die throw"

Practically, the predictability [of a die throw] can be realized only when the die is thrown by a special device which allows to set very precisely the initial conditions. ... In real experiment, the predictability is possible only for very small "e", i.e., an accuracy which in practice is extremely difficult to implement and that is why the coin toss, die throw, and roulette run can be considered as a random process.

Your notion of perfectly-reproducible initial conditions doesn't exist. We're talking about craps games, not some impossible mental construct.

You didnt properly read what I wrote. My point was to illustrate there IS connection between games. Furthermore, I wrote:

Quote:

The real question should be: Can you use previous game outcomes as a valid variable to predict outcome of future games? It's really not a complicated problem. If I were investigating it, I'd just break down the components of a roll and cross reference variables and check for correlation.

As for Marcin's claim about roulette, he's wrong. He made an assumption, Im sure without experience. The predictability of roulette is well documented. I can send you government lab test results, a free computer or vb lessons. Really theres no shortage of proof. fyi I studied applied physics at RMIT, with intention of developing energy technology, but I quit because all the knowledge was from books I could and easily did read myself. And I concluded what I wanted to learn wasnt in any college book. The closest is Living Energies by Callum Coats, in combination with Tesla's papers. I also have over 20 years experience with roulette.

As for craps, without testing a significant amount of players, you cant assume what kind of precision is reasonable. In roulette, absolute precision is not required. In fact surprisingly low precision is needed for typical wheels. A skilled vb player can achieve an edge on many wheels just by the sound of the ball to estimate speed, not even seeing it, provided they can see the rotor.

In my limited experiment, I quickly saw a forward roll can favour an axis of the dice. Is it conclusive? I already said no.

Quote: MathExtremist

So your lawyer didn't advise you that offering to sell roulette computers is a felony in Nevada even if you don't use them personally?

Are you planning to ever visit Las Vegas?

Players sign an agreement to never use it illegally. Again they're legal in about half the world. No Im not interested in Vegas.

If the computers are illegal to sell to a resident of Nevada, thats US law, not my local law. And more likely Nevada state law, not federal. But say it is illegal, its my problem. I dont agree with some laws, but I still abide by them. Perhaps you can identify the precise law you're referring to. Im not aware of any law where the merchant is responsible for ensuring their customers are allowed to buy. Unless we're talking about drugs and firearms with international law, its the importer's responsibility. Moreover, many Vegas players have wanted a computer, but changed their mind once I explained it isnt legal there and theyd need to play elsewhere.

Quote: ontariodealer

"Paid a lawyer....my pltayers have done their own research"....where do you nutjobs come up with this stuff. Be honest you probably rent out evenbobs basement.

If I send you the written legal advice from my lawyer, with their contact details, and other legal advice from just one of my player's lawyers, will you apologize to me and add "Im the nutjob" to your signature?

And its not relevant although I do have an office in Melbourne city, but work from home. The office address is in public corporate records.

Quote: AxelWolf

Pay me a fee and I'll show you how to avoid detection,There a Money back guarantee. (assuming your junk works as good as you say you'll make millions ). I want 15% of the profits each day(assuming you bet enough). I'll double the fee if you actually end up in griffin and you can't continue to play.

Thanks but we know how to avoid detection. We just cant win $1m without being looked at. But what I can do, assuming you agree to play where its legal and are near suitable casinos, is give you free access to a computer. Then you can pay me later if you feel like having continued access. If not, no hard feelings. If you want to see how serious I am, contact me in private.

Its actually really easy to know the facts about my computers. You can attend one of my public demos, see a recording of one, see a private demo on your own wheel or one you hire, even spin it yourself. Or if you prefer, I can just give you a free test version, even you're merely curious to see if it actually works. I dont care because I keep the best techology for myself. The facts are easy to find so lets please not discuss them further. Its not why Im here.

Ive said my bit about craps, and if people dont agree, thats fine. But carefully read what I write before jumping.

RoulettePhysics




Laughing



I told you what this board was like. Not a one of them can win, but they are
damn sure you cant!!!!!


That is the main problem with folks that think their education or intellect
is so much better than the rest of us lowly mortals.

Now I think Axel is a nice guy, there is not a chance in world I could explain to
him what my years of working with craps or the tens of thousands of practice
rolls show me. When I talk about the adjustments at the table or if the shot
looks right or not he does not have a clue. Yet if I played with him 20 times
at the table, I bet he would understand with no problem at all.

Now I cant say he would agree with what I do, or would want to also do it, but
he would understand where I am coming from on this.

Others like Math and MRV are 100 sure you can't affect anything.... MRv was quick with
the prove it comment... Well I have a question for them, lay out the way you would
expect anyone to prove it, then go find a player that does exactly that and show us
where your method of proof works. They have not proven to anyone that an edge has
to be a constant edge to be valuable to a player....

I think they should prove that....

dicesetter

petroglyph




Hey the wife is heading out there next week. I went way out on a limb considering
I am retired and got a bank loan for $300 so she can gamble all she wants
without being broke the first day.

If you see her just make sure she takes it easy on the funds.

dicesetter

I'm pretty sure I know who RoulettePhysics might be.

Google "Steven Hourmouzis roulette computer."

If I'm correct, RoulettePhuysics is using this craps thread as an entry point to establish a presence here in order to flog / sell his roulette computer and system.

We're all consenting adults, I suppose: hello, due diligence!

Dicesitter:

One can blow 20% of that $300 "loan" just betting inside and passline when at a 10$ table
on one shooter. Add $15 for the ATS bet and it gets closer to $70.
I'm puzzled how you can play as frequently as you do and yet needed to borrow what amounts
to a one-session craps-outing from a bank. I sincerely hope you are not living that
close to the edge. You probably meant $3k and just ignore this post.

Quote: dicesitter

petroglyph




Hey the wife is heading out there next week. I went way out on a limb considering
I am retired and got a bank loan for $300 so she can gamble all she wants
without being broke the first day.

If you see her just make sure she takes it easy on the funds.

dicesetter

Tell her she doesn't have to bet the max on the penny machines, she can bet .01 at a time, and if she starts feeling Randy, she can go to the nickel machine, one .05 @ a time.

Quote: petroglyph

Tell her she doesn't have to bet the max on the penny machines, she can be .01 at a time, and if she starts feeling Randy, she can go to the nickel machine, one .05 @ a time.

Sumptin' weird 'bout that whole conversation. We swapping wives, robbin' banks, or casino gamblin? Or some combination ;-)

Quote: MrV

We're all consenting adults, I suppose: hello, due diligence!

Remember what I said about how easy its is to find the truth. Truth isnt on desperate sites and forum posts under fake names, designed to promote other peoples products. And Im not here to sell anything. Actually Ive offered free computers for anyone to test even if they're merely curious. Its very easy to establish facts that way.

Again lets not make this about me. I was offering experience and advice to help. But instead, what dicesitter said would happen, did happen. I was jumped on with hostility and childish stabs that shouldnt get past moderators. This forum is great, but a few people bring it down and drive productive members away. I wont be here much longer.

You are a roulette player.

What do you know about craps?

You just joined this board.

Why?

Quote: dicesitter

RoulettePhysics




Laughing



I told you what this board was like. Not a one of them can win, but they are
damn sure you cant!!!!!


That is the main problem with folks that think their education or intellect
is so much better than the rest of us lowly mortals.

Now I think Axel is a nice guy, there is not a chance in world I could explain to
him what my years of working with craps or the tens of thousands of practice
rolls show me. When I talk about the adjustments at the table or if the shot
looks right or not he does not have a clue. Yet if I played with him 20 times
at the table, I bet he would understand with no problem at all.

Now I cant say he would agree with what I do, or would want to also do it, but
he would understand where I am coming from on this.

Others like Math and MRV are 100 sure you can't affect anything.... MRv was quick with
the prove it comment... Well I have a question for them, lay out the way you would
expect anyone to prove it, then go find a player that does exactly that and show us
where your method of proof works. They have not proven to anyone that an edge has
to be a constant edge to be valuable to a player....

I think they should prove that....

dicesetter

Its natural for people to be skeptical. Actually its healthy provided it comes with an open mind. The problem is most people rely on other peoples opinions, other peoples experience, other peoples claims. Because its easier. And they expect it makes them an expert. Most people dont actually find out for themselves. I dont know enough about your methods except to say the concept is not outside thr realm of plausible possibility. But I know plenty about dealing with people that know nothing except from what others say. In your case its a bit different because people would need to see you in action. Its not like you can lend people your skill for a few days.

My advice is understand some people are more concerned with being right, than knowing the truth. You will never, never win against such people. But Im sure you already know this.

Quote: MrV

You are a roulette player.

What do you know about craps?

You just joined this board.

Why?

I do a lot more than play roulette. A lot more than anything related to playing. I joined the board initially to find my partner an additional player in AC. I contributed to this thread because I wanted to contribute my knowledge and experience. Even with limited experience in craps, I still have a brain with sound logic and understand physics very well. Ive studied all kinds of physics for well over 20 years. Im not just someone who reads books. Im someone who does practical reasearch. I think that counts for something.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Sumptin' weird 'bout that whole conversation. We swapping wives, robbin' banks, or casino gamblin? Or some combination ;-)

I spose we could talk turkey?

Quote: RoulettePhysics

. Ive studied all kinds of physics for well over 20 years. Im not just someone who reads books. Im someone who does practical reasearch. I think that counts for something.

It might, if you knew what to research and went about it in a methodical, scientific way.

You seem to be new to dice setting, and there is quite the learning curve.

I just wonder why you jumped on a craps thread and tried to steer the subject to roulette?

Your profile says you are from Melbourne: so is Stefano, the controversial roulette computer seller.

Coincidence?

Everyone in roulette knows who I am, unless you live in a cave. Again Im not interested in discussing my computers or rubbish from people with an agenda. Again its very easy for anyone to find the truth, for themselves. As for opinions on craps, I already said what I wanted.

What is "the truth?"

Without replicable, quantifiable measures to test it, dice setting will not be proven to be viable.

Anecdotal evidence won't cut it.

ME has set forth testing criteria, IIRC: you might want to explore that avenue with your background in "physics."

Maybe you'll crack the nut: I hope so.

As for DS: well, he's proven nothing.

His posts have the significance and probative value of a fart in a windstorm.

Again I know I cant possibly draw a conclusion at this point. In any case, I have an open mind on it.

Quote: RoulettePhysics

I joined the board initially to find my partner an additional player in AC.

Such a solicitation appears to be a crime in New Jersey:

The New Jersey Statute §5:12-113.1, which is not constitutionally infirm, reads:

A person commits a disorderly persons offense if, in playing a game in a licensed casino or simulcasting facility, the person uses, or assists another in the use of, an electronic, electrical or mechanical device which is designed, constructed, or programmed specifically for use in obtaining an advantage at playing any game in a licensed casino or simulcasting facility. A device used by any person in violation of this section shall be subject to forfeiture pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S. 2C:64-1 et seq.
Each casino licensee shall post notice of this prohibition and the penalties of this section in a manner determined by the commission. blackjackforum

Quote: RoulettePhysics

Everyone in roulette knows who I am, unless you live in a cave.

Under which name does everyone know who you are?

I recall you from Back In The Day, back when Mark Howe was active and the controversy swirled and the BS got deep.

But I never recall you using the name "RoulettePhysics."

Why not log onto this forum using the name you are known as, instead of creeping in on cat's feet?

Petroplyph



See that's the trouble with the world today, there is always someone at the casino
pushing a person to bet more than they can handle.....

Next thing you know I will have to sell my lake home just to pay for her gambling, then a
boat and hunting land, then I will have to borrow some money from Math...

your a bad influence


dicesetter

ps..... I got out of court at 11 and headed right to the craps table....it was a darn good day
all around.. .must be spring.

Quote: MrV

Why not log onto this forum using the name you are known as, instead of creeping in on cat's feet?

Looks as if it may be time to learn the ramifications of American laws. It should be noted that they are supposed to apply to all equally, even free-swinging high roller types.

Edit: Seeing as how editing my prior post in this thread is not allowed, I repost the corrected link here:
blackjack forum

Quote: MrV

His posts have the significance and probative value of a fart in a windstorm.

Depends on if I happen to be downwind!

Math



Here are some of the numbers I see at home. Now I am not suggesting this will
carry over to a casino, I am not suggesting this is a set in stone result, I am not
suggesting anything, just talking with you.

We have been trying to talk about the back wall, and on axis stuff and all. I feel there is
a difference one can see between sets and the affect of where the dice hit the table.

I am not very fond of the some of the dice schools because I feel they inadvertently set
players up to fail. Not all of us have the talent to be the very best, most are just what
ever we are. So using their shots and sets if your are just average is a death sentence
on the table.

Here are some numbers from my set and using my shot which I indicated does not get
affected much if at all by the alligator board.

6-2, 1-4, 4-3,4-2,6-2,6-2,5-3,4-6,3-1,1-3,2-4,3-1,6-1,5-3,5-6,3-1,3-6,2-2,6-2,4-4,5-5,1-5, 6-2, 6-6


now here are the same number of rolls using a set taught by a major craps school and using their
so called on axis shot

3-5,2-5,3-5,6-2,5-4,1-1,6-6,4-3,5-2,3-3,2-1,5-1,1-1,3-3,1-5,5-6,3-1,4-5,3-4,2-6,5-2,5-4,5-4,5-1

set 1 has 25 rolls, 21 box numbers and 2 7's

set 2 has 25 rolls 15 box numbers and 5 7's

Set 2 has the shot that does hit the alligator board and it is a set which can be affected by the
single and double pitch sevens which are built into the set.

Now I am not suggesting this is a 100% edge or that I can go to the casino and do this over and over,
I cant, this is my home table. But this type of thing which I have seen over and over the past two years
has changed my play from what is taught by these schools to something else.



dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

Math



Here are some of the numbers I see at home. Now I am not suggesting this will
carry over to a casino, I am not suggesting this is a set in stone result, I am not
suggesting anything, just talking with you.

We have been trying to talk about the back wall, and on axis stuff and all. I feel there is
a difference one can see between sets and the affect of where the dice hit the table.

I am not very fond of the some of the dice schools because I feel they inadvertently set
players up to fail. Not all of us have the talent to be the very best, most are just what
ever we are. So using their shots and sets if your are just average is a death sentence
on the table.

Here are some numbers from my set and using my shot which I indicated does not get
affected much if at all by the alligator board.

6-2, 1-4, 4-3,4-2,6-2,6-2,5-3,4-6,3-1,1-3,2-4,3-1,6-1,5-3,5-6,3-1,3-6,2-2,6-2,4-4,5-5,1-5, 6-2, 6-6


now here are the same number of rolls using a set taught by a major craps school and using their
so called on axis shot

3-5,2-5,3-5,6-2,5-4,1-1,6-6,4-3,5-2,3-3,2-1,5-1,1-1,3-3,1-5,5-6,3-1,4-5,3-4,2-6,5-2,5-4,5-4,5-1

set 1 has 25 rolls, 21 box numbers and 2 7's

set 2 has 25 rolls 15 box numbers and 5 7's

Set 2 has the shot that does hit the alligator board and it is a set which can be affected by the
single and double pitch sevens which are built into the set.

Now I am not suggesting this is a 100% edge or that I can go to the casino and do this over and over,
I cant, this is my home table. But this type of thing which I have seen over and over the past two years
has changed my play from what is taught by these schools to something else.



dicesetter

I won 10 hands of Video blackjack in a row the other day.
I have done that quite a few times.
then I played 3 session of 200 hands each and on 2 out of 3 sessions I came out ahead 4 units and 12 units lost only 5 units on the 3rd session. Does that mean im a button influencer?

Axel



Let me ask you a question, if I see the difference between the results of these different
sets and methods of throw at my home table, and I also see one is better
on average at the casino, should I go to the casino and use the one that appears to be
better or should I pay no attention to it and use the one that has given me the worst
results.

dicesetter

Fascinating discussion between two (?) scientists: ME and RP. A couple of observations and comments. ME stated his view on this to my original post on this subject. (Charting The Table) EG: independent trials which are random hence non predictable.

RP--in his attempt to explain that past results are somewhat? indicative of future performance in the area of casino craps--may be basing some of this logic on the concept of a dice shooter being a 'rhythmic roller'. Wouldn't that be a key variable in the equation?

Alternatively, please help me with the following math problem based on a hypothetical study of this variable. To wit: what are the possible total combinations
of the rolls of the dice for the first three (3) rolls? I'm seriously math challenged here knowing that there are eleven (11) possible outcomes on the dice: 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11 and 12.

So, if one is keeping track of only the first three (3) rolls what are the total number of possible outcomes? Example: 3-8-12, or 7-12-9, etc? I just pulled the number of three rolls off the top of my head: no rhyme or reason. One could use any number of rolls for this purpose. I would say that any study should consider only the
numbers rolled ON THE COME OUT OF A NEW SHOOTER in order the keep the variable constant.

I'm thinking this may be a way to test any hypothesis of the variable of one die roll having an influence on the next?

I know ME will find such an idea laughable, but I applaud his knowledge of the game and warning us about realities of what the gambler is up against. Not to
sound patronizing, but his explanations have served me to think carefully about any delusional strategy involving big bets. I especially found his explanations
about deviation and equipartition extremely helpful, which I proved to myself from the results contained in "7,500 Craps Rolls" and later posted to the forum.

Thank you.

Quote: Dicesitter

I feel there is a difference one can see between sets and the affect of where the dice hit the table.

I can't count how many times I convinced myself of having influence based on a tossing epiphany with better ostensible control, and/or on a monster roll at a live casino, only to find that that my swollen bankroll disappeared over subsequent sessions and my refined("I nailed-it") toss technique was also providing the opposite (PSO-heavy) effect.

If you slo-mo record your toss you will see not only the loss of synchrony at touchdown(spin de-synch'd, both die rotating and tumbling off axis, etc.) but the raucous effect of the bottom lip of the backwall against the dice when they fail to kiss the lip perfectly flat-sided. None of these but the last are visible, which is one of the reasons RP's experiment was so naive. I avoided the pyramids and THOUGHT I developed a highly skilled shot. But it wasn't even close and that info was only available via slo-motion camera.

Thus, the idea that what shows on the top plane of the dice could have any effect on a future roll is utterly fanciful. But see-a-horn bet-a-horn has "worked" enough times to become a rather frequent bet by some players at any crowded table.

Quote: dicesitter

set 1 has 25 rolls, 21 box numbers and 2 7's

That's one trial. You need to get out of the habit of seeing a dozen or two rolls and thinking "hey, this is working, I'm a good dice thrower." Two dozen rolls isn't enough data to make any conclusions about anything.

Instead, do 100 trials of those 25 rolls, with as precise control of the initial conditions as you can muster, and then see whether your results converge on the expected probabilities or whether you can maintain that frequency of box numbers vs. 7s. If you can and that skill persists when you go to a casino, it should be a simple matter of making place bets and scooping up piles of chips. Since that isn't what happens when you play for real money, it's not hard to work backwards and realize there's a breakdown somewhere. You need to find out where -- and then see if you can make the necessary adjustments so the skill actually does persist when you go to a casino.

Quote: eclectic

RP--in his attempt to explain that past results are somewhat? indicative of future performance in the area of casino craps--may be basing some of this logic on the concept of a dice shooter being a 'rhythmic roller'. Wouldn't that be a key variable in the equation?

No, because past results aren't at all indicative of future performance. The dice rolls are independent from one another. RoulettePhysics believes that the dice rolls are predictable if you start with the same variables, but that's not true at the level of precision that a human can muster at a craps table.

Quote:

I'm thinking this may be a way to test any hypothesis of the variable of one die roll having an influence on the next?

It doesn't, but if you want to test it, here's what you do:
a) Roll the dice 1000 times. Record each result.
b) Look through the records and examine the distribution of totals after the prior roll was less than 7.
c) Then examine the distribution of totals after the prior roll was greater than 7.

The answers you get from (b) and (c) should be nearly equivalent to each other as well as to the expected distribution overall. This is called a correlation test, and if dice rolls are independent then you'd expect not to find any correlation between rolls.

Math



Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it. I would just say this, I have been working with the shot
taught by the school for 8 years and ten of thousands of rolls, and I have been working with
the other shot for 1.5 years and have been comparing them for that time.

I certainly would not say the difference they showed the other day was exactly like that every time,
but it was a darn close representation of the difference. The shot taught by the school will give the
average guy a nightmare with the single and double pitch sevens shot from an on axis start
and expecting an on axis finish.

dicesetter

Quote: eclectic

So, if one is keeping track of only the first three (3) rolls what are the total number of possible outcomes? Example: 3-8-12, or 7-12-9, etc? I just pulled the number of three rolls off the top of my head: no rhyme or reason.

Thank you.

It would be 11 to the third power. 1331.

ME, thank you for that helpful advice and guidance on the 1000 rolls correlation test. Sadly for me, I don't understand the rules you outlined in your reply. Can I impose on you to provide an example of the first 3 + rolls where "the distribution of totals after the prior roll was less than 7", etc? If I can understand your instructions, I plan to conduct that test at a future date. ATM we are flooded in Houston, but I would I report back the the group on my findings.

I see where SOOPOO reported that there are 1331 total possible combinations for the first three rolls by a new shooter. (Thank you.) In this connection I wish I had the smarts to program this data and test it against the the Zumba dice rolls program.

One final thought about another explanation of the variable proposed by RP is the concept known in DI circles as a shooter possessing the propensity to throw
'signature' numbers'. Of course ME, I think you will say, this idea is simply nothing more than confirmation bias.

Quote: eclectic

ME, thank you for that helpful advice and guidance on the 1000 rolls correlation test. Sadly for me, I don't understand the rules you outlined in your reply. Can I impose on you to provide an example of the first 3 + rolls where "the distribution of totals after the prior roll was less than 7", etc? If I can understand your instructions, I plan to conduct that test at a future date. ATM we are flooded in Houston, but I would I report back the the group on my findings.

Suppose you have the following rolls:
2,7,3,6,9,12,11,5,8,3,7,4,9,9
You can do a frequency distribution of those rolls: 2 happened once, 3 happened twice, etc.
You can also filter those rolls by only looking at rolls that happened after the prior roll was less than 7. For that you get
2,7,x,6,9,x,x,x,8,x,7,x,9,x.
You can then do a frequency distribution of *those* rolls: 2 happened once, 3 didn't happen at all, etc.

The point is that for a large number of rolls, the distributions should be equivalent. That demonstrates there is no correlation between rolls based on prior rolls (or here, based on the range of prior rolls). If you want to be really thorough, what you'll do is break out all the rolls by what number they came after. So you'll have a distribution of roll totals where all rolls followed a 2, all rolls followed a 3, etc. All of those should be equivalent.

Quote: eclectic

. One final thought about another explanation of the variable proposed by RP is the concept known in DI circles as a shooter possessing the propensity to throw
'signature' numbers'.

This concept no longer has many adherents. The theory was that on your practice table, that number or numbers that were more prevalent than others was/were your number(s) that you should bet heavy on at the casino. Of course, at the casino table, with different bounce characteristics, that theory fell flat, crash and burn ensued. Of course no one ever apologizes for this feces.

Quote: MrV

Under which name does everyone know who you are?

I recall you from Back In The Day, back when Mark Howe was active and the controversy swirled and the BS got deep. But I never recall you using the name "RoulettePhysics." Why not log onto this forum using the name you are known as, instead of creeping in on cat's feet?

It appears that between this post and the one about his precarious legal position under the laws of the United States that RP has beat a hasty retreat.

My apologies for the sloppy grammar on the previous post. Tired, but need to proofread.

ME, would you be able to give me a jump start on this project, using the following data as examples from the first page of "7,500"?

The following is the data collected from the first four (4) shooters.

Shooter 1

4, 9, 6, 6, 4
9, 8, 4, 9
8, 4, 9, 10, 8
9, 6, 3, 7

Shooter 2

2
5, 7 (didn't get past 3 rolls)

Shooter 3

6, 8, 10, 5, 7

Shooter 4

9, 5, 5, 5, 8, 6, 7
===========

Seems like I'm asking a lot of you, but tks for any help or guidance you can provide.

Quote: eclectic

ME, would you be able to give me a jump start on this project, using the following data as examples from the first page of "7,500"?

Until you can influence the dice, your project is meaningless. And if you don't chart your own results you are again in a meaningless situation. Zumma has helped no one that I know of, whatever game that they had results published. There is no Holy Grail.

If you do chart your own results and your toss isn't fabulously consistent and under obvious influence via slo-mo, your charts will still be meaningless.

Quote: DeMango

There is no Holy Grail.

Infidel! There has to be a Holy Grail, there just simply has to be, even if it is an illusion. It still must be. Just 'cause you quit looking for it, don't you ruin my Easter egg hunt! Just 2F

Onebok



The entire thing is meaningless if you expect to get a set of results at your home table,
determine what your expected edge is and then go to a casino table and get
those same results....... it will not happen to day, it will not happen tomorrow.

To many things change from day to day. I have said since I was on here that your
shot and conditions change from day to day, so you use your practice sessions
so you can understand your shot and what happens with difference dice etc.

Now Math and Axel and others are right when they indicate that variance is always
there, and they also contend that each roll of the dice is an independent outcome,
no matter what comes before.... 100% correct.

However, there are only so many ways dice can land, only so many outcomes
they can have, only so many conditions you see at a table, and only so many
factors that affect the dice. the more practice you have with different dice,
different sets, different table conditions, you faster you relate to what
you see at the casino and the quicker you can make adjustments which
may improve your outcome.

the only certainty is that the other way , the constant edge theory that
everyone is looking for does not work, because no one can find anyone
that makes it work.

dicesetter

Quote: Dicesitter

The entire thing is meaningless if you expect to get a set of results at your home table, determine what your expected edge is and then go to a casino table and get those same results.... it will not happen to day, it will not happen tomorrow.

I entirely agree. The dynamics of the table are different enough to make the specifics of an expected edge change from what occurs at one's practice env. However, and this is the crux of the issue IMO, the person who can obtain the Golden Fleece(GF) of being able to so influence the dice that they may see upon slo-mo that they remain under influence throughout the traversal from hands to final resting after backwall contact, will still reproduce this level of influence at the casino assuming he is totally in control of his technique and not a bundle of nerves when he tries to perform live.

Quote: Dicesitter

To many things change from day to day. I have said since I was on here that your shot and conditions change from day to day, so you use your practice sessions
so you can understand your shot and what happens with difference dice etc.

I would disagree here in that someone with this level of control only gets better over time if he truly knows what he is doing and continues to work very hard at it. I agree that there will be better and worse days when trying to perform at such a level of precision.

Quote: Dicesitter

Now Math and Axel and others are right when they indicate that variance is always there, and they also contend that each roll of the dice is an independent outcome,no matter what comes before.... 100% correct.

Agreed for all but that GF person who really would have DI.

Quote: Dicesitter

However, there are only so many ways dice can land, only so many outcomes they can have, only so many conditions you see at a table, and only so many factors that affect the dice. the more practice you have with different dice, different sets, different table conditions, you faster you relate to what you see at the casino and the quicker you can make adjustments which may improve your outcome.

Totally agree with the caveat that they apply only to one with true DI for the simple reason that without the GF, those other things are really just tinkering around the edges of the big elephant in the room:real DI. IMO, tinkering around these edges may appear to be influencing the results but they really only appear to be having a beneficial effect when they result in positive bankroll results as well as even ostensible better "influence" of the way the dice avoid as much obviously random movements during one's craps outing/session to a particularly bouncy or difficult table.

Quote: Dicesitter

the only certainty is that the other way , the constant edge theory that everyone is looking for does not work, because no one can find anyone that makes it work.

I'd suggest that all of those so-called dice schools/gurus and their students believe that they can learn whatever they are teaching in order to practice and eventually attain that "constant edge theory" or true DI. I just wish that they were willing to trust their eyes enough to view some of the slo-mo videos out there by some of these self-appointed gurus before they started on their hapless and perhaps financially ruinous quest for the GF. But who knows, maybe I would have seen these and STILL gone on to work on this DI quest myself, in spite of what my eyes would have seen. But what people do in this regard is their decision and that is ok by me too and I respect what you say and your right to say it from both sides of this debate.

Onebok?
Who is that man behind the mask?
Seems familiar somehow.....