Wow. Everything you write is exactly backwards from what you actually mean.Quote:DeMangoYour lack of understanding of dice math is improving

The house advantage is based on probability, a measure of what should happens time after

time which gives the casino an edge. It is said you cant beat this probability, it is a fact,

therefore you cant beat the casino.

Yet the interesting thing is craps is supposed to be a random game, so how in the world

can the casino bet millions daily on a random game, and yet expect to win???

This is simple, it is not random at all, not if you know what to look for.

There are 6 basic axial arrays possible, they have names some on here may understand

but to keep it simple I will call them 1,2,3. 3v 2v x6

And just like there is a casino edge based on the only things that can happen with a

pair of dice, these 6 axial arrays are made up of two groups of possible outcomes.

Any shot that ends in array 1,2,3 is in group 1. This happens in a 100% random game

at a rate of 33% of the time. The additional 3 arrays will happen 66% of the time

no matter if you stand on your head and throw. The house advantage is based on a

certain outcome over time.

The key is this, any shot that ends up in any array in group 1 exposes that finish to four

ways to make a 7....could be 3/4 4/3 and 5/2 2/5 such as your typical GTC hardway

set. Any shot that finishes in the 2v 3v or X6 array exposes that finish to only 2 ways

to end up with a 7 and still finish in that array.

Just because you finish with say a 3/3 doe snot mean you finished on a favorable

array .

The craps community is worried about only the top two numbers which they see on

a result. Not nearly enough.

When we see our roll at the start of a session, it is not to try to set or adjust the

set to get a specific number such as 8, but rather to finish in group 2. You finish

in group 2 more than 66% of the time, the numbers will take care of themselves.

this is an example of a practice session, last nights in fact.

6 hw 6 3v

10 hw 7 2

9 3v 2 1

10 x6 9 x6

7 hw 8 x6

8 2v 5 2v

9 x6 10 hw

5 x6 8 3v

8 3v 4 2v

5 x6 7 hw

6 hw 6 x6

8 x6 5 3v

12 1 7 x6

8 hw 12 x6

8 3v 8 x6

3 x6 8 x6

6 3v 3 x6

3 x6 6 2

6 2 8 x6

6 x6 7 2

8 3v 8 2

4 x6

9 x6

6 1

11 x6

5 x6

7 hw

8 2

7 hw

12 x6

8 3v

5 2v

6 2

8 3v

5 3v

7 2v

That is a 60 roll practice session.. It includes 19 from group 1 41 from group 2

8 7's out of the 60 rolls is decent and it fit very well into my 4 and regress

betting style.

If your playing and see closer to 50/50 group 1 and group 2... you better

go home, and that includes betting on random rollers. You can determine

who and when to bet on the same ratio's you see.

dicesetter

Quote:dicesitterThe house advantage is based on probability, a measure of what should happens time after

time which gives the casino an edge. It is said you cant beat this probability, it is a fact,

therefore you cant beat the casino.

The logic of that assertion of yours is totally flawed. read it again: Think about what you said! The house edge is based on the mismatch between probability and paytable. Doesn't everyone know that?

and . . .

Again. Whatever kind of logical argument is that? Most casino games are random. They can and DO expect to win simply by paying out at odds that do not represent the actual probability of the event. ( A bit like paying even money or even 5/1 on an imaginary game where the player has to roll a pair of Deuces.)Quote:dicesitterYet the interesting thing is craps is supposed to be a random game, so how in the world

can the casino bet millions daily on a random game, and yet expect to win???

dicesetter

Does the casino industry not expect to win at Craps? Does the casino industry indeed win?

Quote:DeMangonot 0 divided by 6, it is 6 divided by 0. Amazing how dice math escapes the extreme ones. 1 is the lowest possible answer, if on 6 rolls, 6 sevens occurred.

Hey DeMango. Care to check your facts?

To the entire human populace excepting Dice Influencers

Ratios are expressed x to y and we mathematicians don't swap those x and y around

http://www.math.com/school/subject1/lessons/S1U2L1DP.html

Bicycles to Bicycle Wheels ratio = (Total number of bicycles) / (Total Number of Bicycle Wheels) = 1/2

Dogs to Dogs Leg Ratio = (Total Number of Dogs) / (Total Number of Dogs Legs) = 1/4 (ish)

But I do see that in the insane world of DI definitions we sometimes see . . .

Sevens to Rolls Ratio=SRR

Where some DI authorities refer to

SRR as ( Number of Rolls)/(Number of Sevens Rolled)

Instead of the conventional

(Number of Sevens Rolled) / ( Number of Rolls)

DI language just defies convention, possibly because DI's can't get their heads around Fractions and conventional English Language.

It might be mathematically correct in DI speak. Just not in conventional English.

Quote:http://www.hittingpoints.com/craps-information/betting/68-22-insideA random roller will roll a 7 once out of every six rolls (Seven to Roll Ratio - "SRR" - 6). A controlled shooter can easily reduce the probability of a 7 showing to one roll out of nine (SRR: 9).

See also, how that site defies the conventional use of ':' and '-' symbols.

Quote:RSSevens-to-rolls ratio

Sevens:rolls

0:6

0/6

0

Hey RS, ME,

While I TOTALLY agree with you that 'Sevens to Rolls Ratio' is

(Count of Sevens): (Count of Rolls) is (Count of Sevens) / (Count of Rolls)

I took the time to look for a definition from DI's themselves.

It seems that DI's like to express the value in the form Rolls/Sevens. E.g rolling 1 seven in 9 rolls they would write as 'SRR is 1:9' But when they choose to quote it as a single number, they like to express it's inverse. So they would sometimes say SRR is 9

As an Englishmen and an occasional Mathematician, that defiance of convention falls somewhere between making me want to laugh and making me want to cry.

SRR is their term. If they want to define it so stupidly, let them get on with it.

We all know that, but my point is they expect a certain thing to happen, there is a house advantage

on every bet, and the reason they allow you to make a number of different bets is because the house

advantage is higher on some than others and they know people will make them.

Now I understand your point in this, it is to suggest you cant win at a craps table because there is

a HA on every bet. True and false. On any table over time there will be a certain number of 7's and

a certain number of 8's and so on, but that distribution does not mean that one player or two players

cant have more of them, and while there is an average roll length, that does not mean that one

player cant have a higher average roll than another.

If you don't want to read my posts that's fine, then I assume you already know about the 6 axial

arrays and the 2 groups that make up dice out comes. I assume you have already mastered the

task of keeping your dice in group 2 and not group 1. and I assume you already understand

how to understand which array it is as soon as they hit the table, and which adjustments help

keep the finish in group 2.

If you understand that great, the more people do, the less money the casino will take from

players. In the mean time it is off to the table, it has been a great week and I hope tonight

is as much fun.

dicesetter

Quote:dicesitterthe reason they allow you to make a number of different bets is because the house

advantage is higher on some than others and they know people will make them.

2+2 <>5

I thought the reason they allow you to make different bets was something to do with making it a fun experience for the player, such that the player continues to play.

Quote:dicesitterNow I understand your point in this, it is to suggest you cant win at a craps table because there is a HA on every bet. True and false.

Not so. Of course I believe there will be winners and losers in spite of the house edge. Random outcomes do not preclude that. You really should not deduce things, especially opinions of others.

Quote:dicesitter. . .then I assume you already know about the 6 axial arrays and the 2 groups that make up dice out comes. I assume you have already mastered the task of keeping your dice in group 2 and not group 1. and I assume you already understand how to understand which array it is as soon as they hit the table, and which adjustments help keep the finish in group 2.

There you go again with your assumptions. All without foundation. All incorrect. I don't give a damn about those things, let alone care to understand them.

I don't know if you have any DI skills and I don't know whether they are profitable to you. I do get the impression that your debating skills, as demonstrated in this thread, are insufficient to argue a good case

That's not right. As you've defined it, each of your "arrays" requires all the corresponding die axes to remain parallel, but that doesn't happen all of the time. Nowhere close, in fact -- the vast majority of throws end up with intersecting axes. For example, the following result is not in any of your six arrays:Quote:dicesitterAny shot that ends in array 1,2,3 is in group 1. This happens in a 100% random game

at a rate of 33% of the time. The additional 3 arrays will happen 66% of the time

no matter if you stand on your head and throw.

If your strategy relies on the notion that the dice always end up nicely aligned, you need to rethink that. The dice certainly don't behave the way your theory implies.

Edit to add: if your dice actually do end up nicely aligned more than once in a while, then that alone is evidence of dice control. You should be able to profit nicely from that skill -- if you knew how to bet to take advantage of it.

Agreed, but when I use a term, it means what it says. I've no need to adopt the inconsistencies of a group of non-mathematicians when discussing a mathematical concept like "ratio".Quote:OnceDearSRR is their term. If they want to define it so stupidly, let them get on with it.

What's worse than the inconsistency in the definition is the irrelevance of the statistic in the first place -- as I've noted many times, SRR does not correlate well with house edge. Unfortunately, I'm providing that analysis for free, while the dice-throwing coaches are charging hundreds or thousands of dollars to teach about SRR and the rest of their innumerate nonsense. Perhaps I'd find a less skeptical audience if I started charging to read my posts.

Quote:MathExtremist

What's worse than the inconsistency in the definition is the irrelevance of the statistic in the first place -- as I've noted many times, SRR does not correlate well with house edge. Unfortunately, I'm providing that analysis for free, while the dice-throwing coaches are charging hundreds or thousands of dollars to teach about SRR and the rest of their innumerate nonsense. Perhaps I'd find a less skeptical audience if I started charging to read my posts.

Exactly, even if it were meaningful and based on a meaningful number of Trials, the question I would want answered is, "What is replacing the Sevens?"

Despite your best efforts over a ridiculous amount of posts ME, unfortunately, we haven't even touched upon the rudiments of how Dice Influencing (if provable) affects the Math.