Thread Rating:

MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 8th, 2016 at 2:00:18 PM permalink
Quote: DeMango

I actually laughed out loud on this one. Riddle me this oh extreme one: Does the casino pay you on intended effect or or actual outcome?

That's the mindset of someone who doesn't care whether they're skilled or just lucky. Millions of casual gamblers play like that, but not one of them is a legitimate AP. I thought you were trying to be a dice-throwing AP, no?

When you shoot, what's your theoretical player edge on the passline? If you can't answer that question, stop laughing and ask yourself why.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
DeMango
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2554
March 8th, 2016 at 6:15:23 PM permalink
I can answer that question. It is table dependent. No two tables have the same physical properties. Each one must have it's own measurement from the same position using the same toss. Then you go with the software. Then it goes to chi square. Then......
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 8th, 2016 at 6:47:56 PM permalink
That's not an answer, that's an explanation of how you derive an answer. It sounds like perhaps you're not doing it right but let's assume you are. What is your average edge over the past year?

Edit: wait a minute, you don't need to chi square test anything in order to know your edge. You're not trying to use math terms to bluff a mathematician, are you?
Last edited by: MathExtremist on Mar 8, 2016
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
March 8th, 2016 at 8:04:59 PM permalink
Math

Don't give that crap, you don't value anything I have done... and that is fine
I don't care. But to suggest people like myself that work as hard as we
think that a roll that goes off peoples chest, off the table and off every stack of chips
on the table is our idea of skill is meant to be an insult.

It does not bother me, but I don't mind pointing it out.

Here is the stuff I find amazing

"I think that's a good start, but it's also important to track the results of the throw according to the intended effect (not intended outcome). If the intended effect of the throw is to keep the 1s and 6s facing toward the sides of the table (that is, keeping the dice rotating on axis) and the 1s or 6s actually do that, it's a successful throw. Otherwise it's not -- regardless of the final numbers. Combined with the initial assessment of the throw as the dice leave the hand, you'll then have a dataset that you can analyze for non-uniform results".

What you are attempting to do is complete your bias, in other words you don't think any
type of influence is possible, fine I don't have any problem with that. But then you say
well if you could do this, something you know is not possible, then I will believe it. Just
how stupid do you think people are. Number 1 dice do not have to stay on axis to get
an edge, second, the dice shot does not have to be perfect to get an edge, and third
you don't need to get the exact results from day to day from your shot to get an edge.

See that's not good enough for you.... fine... say that and move on.

I surely don't need your help with my play, and what I do is not good enough for
your play... as far as shutting you up, there is nothing I can do, I sure as hell wont set
here and document several thousands rolls and provide them for your approval.

dicesetter
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 8th, 2016 at 9:01:42 PM permalink
You've spent eight years practicing a technique that is designed to alter the probabilities of fair dice and therefore tilt the edge in your favor. Except you don't know how to measure the probabilities of your dice results and don't know how to measure the edge. You have only yourself to blame for that. Be mad if you want, but be mad at yourself, not the guy who's telling you how to properly quantify your results. I'm not the one that led you astray into thinking you could ignore the probabilities, and I *never* would have suggested exploring dice control without having a sound protocol for measuring results and distinguishing luck from skill.

If you can't answer the question "what's my edge when I shoot" with a number then you're just guessing. That may be good enough for you but it shouldn't be. Real APs can quantify their edge. You don't get to say "I'm a successful dice controller" if you can't measure your success, no matter how many years you spent practicing or how arduous those years were.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
March 9th, 2016 at 5:33:40 AM permalink
Math


Again with the insults....... I know exactly what I am doing.

The problem is yours and you are so arrogant you don't have the
ability to see it.

Like I say, I am doing pretty darn good and I don't have the ability
to help you.

dicesetter
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard 
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1343
  • Posts: 22216
March 9th, 2016 at 6:57:31 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

Math...The problem is yours and you are so arrogant you don't have the
ability to see it.



Personal insult. As a second recent offense, seven-day suspension.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 9th, 2016 at 7:48:47 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

Again with the insults....... I know exactly what I am doing.

I disagree -- you don't know what really matters. You don't know your expected win per hour.

Every legitimate AP knows this figure for the plays they make. It doesn't matter what the game is, and craps is just another game. If you're going to be an "advantage player" at craps or any other game, you've got to know that "advantage" -- the value of your play.

What I find baffling is that the avowed dice-influencers on this thread are unable to even guess at an hourly win rate. I don't mean a precise number, I mean something simple like "I bet red chips on the pass and inside place numbers and I expect to win between $10 and $15/hour."

What I find more baffling is that you're unwilling to even consider this. Rather than thinking "Huh, I should probably learn how to figure my edge or win rate so I can tell if I'm getting better or if I've been wasting my time with all this practice," your reaction is to call me an arrogant idiot. That tells me you're not serious about winning money. You may be serious about spending years practicing your dice throwing, but you're not serious about finding and maintaining an advantage.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14229
March 10th, 2016 at 4:37:19 AM permalink
Quote: DeMango

I actually laughed out loud on this one. Riddle me this oh extreme one: Does the casino pay you on intended effect or or actual outcome?



This is not addressed to me, but I'd like to say something in response. Whether the casino pays you or not is immaterial to this conversation, which I understand is about whether you're influencing the outcome. You can have good or bad variance, along with winning at least some percentage of bets in virtually every session. That variance variable HAS to be eliminated to the greatest extent it can be.

As ME said the other day as an example, if your intent is to throw on-axis, and with every toss of that set, the 1 and 6 are only intended to face the walls outward, and the result is they do, whether the faces are 4-3 or 4-4 or anything else on the rotating axis is irrelevant; you have proved that you can control the dice to land on-axis beyond random results. If you've bet the 7, you'll win on 7's with 34/25/52/43. If you've bet the 8, you'll win on 44/53/35. But you've changed the odds of both bets (actually all bets on the layout, especially the field and any craps/eleven), because neither a 1 or a 6 will ever show as a face with your toss, and you can bet accordingly. THAT would be worth a LOT of money in the long run. The percentage of the time you can do this (beyond a random amount) I would consider DI. (Personally, I'd set the 3/4 to face the walls and bet the craps/boxcars/2-4-10-12 hardways and the field, I think).

All FWIW. But whether you get paid in that case is irrelevant to whether you kept the dice on-axis. So money results are NOT an indicator, in themselves, of DI.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 10th, 2016 at 8:02:24 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

But you've changed the odds of both bets (actually all bets on the layout, especially the field and any craps/eleven), because neither a 1 or a 6 will ever show as a face with your toss, and you can bet accordingly. THAT would be worth a LOT of money in the long run. The percentage of the time you can do this (beyond a random amount) I would consider DI. (Personally, I'd set the 3/4 to face the walls and bet the craps/boxcars/2-4-10-12 hardways and the field, I think).


Right -- but I'd argue that "a random amount" is actually "never" -- at least not intentionally. Have you ever tried to keep the dice on axis when you throw? Try it sometime. It's likely that over 100 tries, you won't manage to pull it off even once. It would be a significant and profitable level of skill to keep the dice on axis even 4% of the time (once out of every 25 rolls). Think about that for a minute - that's only one on-axis roll every three hands, on average. If you can do that, and you know how to bet properly, you've got the edge.

That's why it's so ridiculous when the dice-throwing adherents say only the result matters. The 44.4% random chance of seeing both dice land on one of the four "desired" faces means it's almost impossible to discern whether the shooter is exhibiting any skill or just seeing the typical variation in random results. An average shooter might throw 40 times over a two-hour session at a full table. You can't ever have 44.4% of those rolls be "good" -- only 40%, 42.5%, 45%, 47.5%, 50%, etc. Does 47.5% "good" rolls indicate skill? Does 40% indicate lack of skill? Of course not, we're talking about one or two outcomes in either direction. The data you care about is getting lost in the noise.

But more importantly, the fact that it really doesn't take much in the way of skill (from a frequency standpoint) to shift the odds in the player's favor means that (a) it's actually really hard to obtain any level of control at all, and (b) the folks who practice and pretend they can do it really can't. And the reason I'd never bother practicing is because any meaningful skill at keeping the dice on axis is visually obvious to anyone, including the casino. In other words, unlike card counting or other AP moves, on-axis dice control is impossible to camouflage. It's not hard for the boxperson to see the dice roll gently to a stop at the end of the table without tumbling and simply say "no roll." And then what? It's not like you can get your practice time back.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563

  • Jump to: