Thread Rating:

DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
March 21st, 2016 at 4:29:26 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

...you don't ask him to make baumkuchen for a treat. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumkuchen

[ _ ] Take out trash

[ X ] Learn something new

[ _ ] Do good deed
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
March 21st, 2016 at 8:49:22 AM permalink
Math


AS I said I am sorry we approach this stuff from opposite directions... you don't have a clue as to how to
do it and you well may be better than I in terms taking advantage of it. but...that's life.

As far as shot working, that is an interesting question, not only interesting, but one of the only
questions that causes me any pause in what I am doing.

I guess the only way to answer is just be honest and say if I use the Parr/GTC shot on a table that I
know ahead of time is to long ( 16' or to bouncy) the answer for me is never. I cant remember
winning where my dice are splitting or bouncing way to much. On tables that fit my shot I would
say way more than 50% of the time my shot is good enough to bet on.

My other shot is much harder for me to use, I am still working on that. It is used to keep the
back wall out of play and also to get less heat from a casino. Hard to use when there are to
many chips on the table. This shot is where the adjustments in set make a big difference and
you may need a few rolls to set it up. The problem area for this shot is bounce, if the dice
edges catch the table the dice bounce to much and what ever you tried to do in set is
lost. I know guys that get this right 80% of the time, I am probably at 40%. But 40% for
this shot I feel is still better than any other shot I have ever seen.


If you knew what I know you could make money, If I knew what you knew I could make more
money.... but you don't and I don't and we wont.

I am doomed to figure this out on my own.

dicesetter
Artemis
Artemis
Joined: Nov 20, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 441
March 21st, 2016 at 9:50:57 AM permalink
I redact out this post because of sensitive info, i.e., "MZ"'s brick of $100 bills.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Having a "brick of $100's" doesn't mean squat.



Quote: MathExtremist

Especially when you had three bricks of $100s before you started playing.



Quote: RS

...Hey! I have a brick of $100's......it may be a small brick.....a very small brick....but it does mean squat....I think....



Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I used to have a brick of $100s.
Apparently IBYA is correct, it didn't mean squat ;-)

Apparently my brick was used to re-tile one of the restrooms....

Last edited by: Artemis on Mar 21, 2016
I'm OK with Corps which pick and choose clienteles. Both insurance companies and casinos have the right to pick and choose customers. They may keep profitable ones and kicked out the rest. But, I'm not OK with a casino supervisor who says counting cards... is like stealing food from a buffet (a foodlifting offense), or video-taping a movie in a cinema (a piracy offense).
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
March 21st, 2016 at 10:23:38 AM permalink
Artemis


It probably takes longer to make that cake than learn a dice shot.

Here is the bottom line, I have no interest in nor do I feel I am good enough
to sell books or videos or certainly teach a class or nothing.

From the start, all I have ever done is just take information I get from my
practice and stuff and share it on here. When I make a change in set and
get something different I said that, when I go to the casino and one shot
did not work I tried another, when one set does not work I try another
and so on, the changes I make are based on data I get from thousands
and thousands of practice rolls. It is the guys on here that keep
suggesting what I say cant be true or I should be richer than I am
because of craps... I have never said I am better than anyone else
at anything, I am just doing what I do.

I like what I am doing, I see different affects of different sets and
shots... that is why I play.

This idea that craps is like BJ and all you have to do is determine
your win rate per hour and decide how much money you want
to make and play that number of hours.... is , well it shows a
complete and profound lack of understand of this subject.

dicesetter


back to the cake
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 21st, 2016 at 10:59:41 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

I guess the only way to answer is just be honest and say if I use the Parr/GTC shot ... on tables that fit my shot I would
say way more than 50% of the time my shot is good enough to bet on.

My other shot is much harder for me to use, ... I am probably at 40%.


Thanks for providing actual numbers. And so I interpret these correctly, you're suggesting that your on-axis shot yields on-axis results over 50% of the time, and your other shot (however that behaves) yields desired results 40% of the time.

As has been discussed previously, there is a dispute as to what "on-axis" means. I contend that measuring merely by the final result leads to inaccurate statistics, but I can also work backwards and know that if you are seeing 50% of throws that have both dice with on-axis numbers (where 44.44% is expected), that is equivalent to roughly 12.13% influence. That level of influence produces a strong player edge (over 2.5%) under several different initial axis sets. On the other hand, if you are actually keeping the dice on-axis 50% of the time, then you have either a >20% edge on the passline or hardways, depending on the set you choose.

Of course, I am assuming that your measurements of 50% or 40% are actually relevant to providing an edge. This is almost certainly incorrect: if you actually did influence the dice over 40% of the time, you could not avoid significant winnings. You would not be merely breaking even or winning a small amount. In my estimation, the statistics you have provided do not correlate to player advantage, much as SRR does not.

For example, you may be tracking how often the dice initially land in a certain area of the table, e.g., between the passline and the wall as opposed to in front of the passline. Or you may be tracking how often the dice bounce only once before hitting the back wall. Such measurements may be interesting but are not indicative of skill or player advantage.

So either the statistics you are tracking are not relevant to winning, or you are hiding the true extent of your riches from the forum. I'd put my money on the former.

In fact, I'd also put my money on the proposition that if we were to throw dice in front of an audience from this forum (or really, anywhere), after less than ten minutes of observation my throws and results would basically be indistinguishable from yours and, more to the point, neither of us would have an advantage measurable by any correct method.
"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 21st, 2016 at 11:21:07 AM permalink
Math




I never said anything about being on axis. I said my shot was good enough to bet on and by that I
mean good enough that I can win with.

Until you understand all the crap you think you know about this is wrong, you cant understand
anything about what I am working on. You keep indicating that everything has to have a certain
order to it , such as on axis, has to fit some slow motion video test and on and on.

Math you are incorrect in your assumptions. There is no such thing as control, all any of us can do
is try to throw a shot which limits something, whether that is the effect of the back wall, how much
it bounces, where it hits, where it ends up and so one. After the dice leave our hands, all control is
gone, there is a level of randomness that creates itself, and all that is left is the result.
You discount the result because there is no controlled order which produces it, I suggest to you
there is an order in results , one that can be associated with what came before, if you look for it.


We are not on the same page, and you can think I am off my rocker for as long as you want, but until you
question some of your assumptions, just like you want me to question mine, we will never be on the same
page.

thanks for the reply

dicesetter
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
March 21st, 2016 at 11:40:01 AM permalink
Having a "brick of $100's" doesn't mean squat.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 21st, 2016 at 11:57:43 AM permalink
You said you were using a PARR shot, the premise of which is to keep the dice on axis. If you're misusing established terms then of course we're not on the same page.

More generally, there is no hope for anyone to understand what you're talking about if you never explain yourself. You say you've spent eight years practicing, and you say you can tell within a few rolls whether "your shot is working" -- but you can't tell anyone what that means. You can't tell anyone what your edge is or how your technique alters the dice distribution. You haven't even said what your technique is, how you bet, or how you're allegedly beating the game. All you do is regurgitate cryptic suggestions like "there is an order in results ... if you look for it." You've provided nothing substantive or quantifiable, yet you're surprised when nobody understands you.

I'm asking questions and you're not answering. That's on you. Berate me if you want, but you've had plenty of opportunities to explain what you're talking about. You never have, and I doubt that will change in the future.

At this point, you should really prove that you're not just trolling the forum. Your position can be distilled to "I have a winning craps throwing technique, but I won't actually talk about it and you wouldn't understand it anyway because you haven't spent eight years practicing." That doesn't sound like the basis of an honest discussion, it sounds like baiting.
"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
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 21st, 2016 at 11:59:14 AM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Having a "brick of $100's" doesn't mean squat.

Especially when you had three bricks of $100s before you started playing.
"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
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
March 21st, 2016 at 2:13:40 PM permalink
can
you
please
just
post
a
spreadsheet/table
of
your
dice
roll
results
(ie:
frequency
distribution
of
each
combination)?

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Having a "brick of $100's" doesn't mean squat.



Hey! I have a brick of $100's......it may be a small brick.....a very small brick....but it does mean squat....I think....

  • Jump to: