Thread Rating:

MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 26th, 2016 at 10:39:34 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

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.

The answer there depends on exactly how the dice are being biased. The math for sliding is entirely different than the math for on-axis rolling, for example. That's another reason SRR is a useless measurement: it has nothing to do with measuring whether the dice were actually being influenced or whether the results were due to dumb luck. Seven-outs after 9 rolls happens all the time just by random chance. That doesn't mean the shooter has a 1:10 SRR, nor does it mean they had the edge, nor does it mean they demonstrated any skill whatsoever.

The dice-influence crowd needs to be less concerned with inventing their own fake math concepts and more concerned with learning proper ones. Step one should be distinguishing skill from luck. Counting sevens is an exceptionally poor way to address that goal.
"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
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 127
  • Posts: 13449
March 27th, 2016 at 12:07:27 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist



The dice-influence crowd needs to be less concerned with inventing their own fake math concepts and more concerned with learning proper ones. Step one should be distinguishing skill from luck. Counting sevens is an exceptionally poor way to address that goal.



I agree with everything that you just said.

SRR is, quite possibly, one of the worst methods for measuring the Influence (if any) one is having on the dice with respect to betting. For the sake of argument, we both know that if an individual had a SRR over a sufficiently large sample to indicate that he/she was very likely rolling fewer Sevens by way of something other than Variance, what the Sevens are being replaced with would be extremely relevant in just trying to figure out whether one had an advantage on just the Pass Line bet, let alone any other wagers.

For example, if by logging every roll one found that one had a strong SRR, but was simply replacing the Sevens with an inordinate number of Craps and Yos, then that is not going to do anything for that person on rolls after the Come Out roll. It is true that there are other bets in which a player would be better off than the random House Edge by rolling a ton of those numbers, (i.e. Any Craps, Yo, Hopping Midnight, Hopping Snake Eyes, Hopping Acey-Deucey) but the House Edge on those bets is so high that one would have to even more seriously manage to overcome random expectation in order to be playing at an advantage.

It's not even like you're demanding that the self-proclaimed DI's put their money where their mouths are, you're just asking them to put their time where their mouths are in order to create a set of results from which statistical meaning could potentially be extracted.
Vultures can't be choosers.
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
March 27th, 2016 at 7:01:07 AM permalink
math



You understood exactly what I said. You also know that while the house advantage applies to each and
every bet on the table, a casino would not stay open if every finish of the dice ended in a 10 no matter
what the HA is. In addition if I went to the casino and each shot I threw was a 10 I would not
be allowed to play anywhere.

The casino relies on probability, out of every 36 rolls extended into millions there will be so many
5's and so many 8's and so many 10's. They rely on that to the point that they place thousands of
dollars of chips on each table and low you to go for them.

Now even if you want to be difficult you understand that when the dice finish on an 8 or a 6
or even a 7, that finish was in one of the 6 axial arrays, three in group 1 and 3 in group 2.
That is as sure as 2 plus 2 is 4. If you think there is no order in that, or that you cant find order in
that, or you cant adjust your set to take advantage of that fact....well??? I am not sure what to
say.

Your not dumb enough to think I have spent all this time for nothing, nor that I go to the table
like this week two times for short sessions and have a 33, 35 27 and other decent rolls and don't
make any money....and your not dumb enough to think I will actually tell you what I make???

I am pretty old and don't always explain things as you would want.....but your attempts to make
it seem what I am saying is not correct does not change the facts.

I don't mind the conversation, I wish you would look at the possibilities.

dicesetter
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 27th, 2016 at 8:43:53 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

You understood exactly what I said.

I did, perhaps better than you did yourself. Thatís why I know what you said is incomplete and incorrect. There are an infinite number of ways the dice can come to rest if youíre looking at the angle of the axes, but you think there are only six:
Quote: dicesitter

Now even if you want to be difficult you understand that when the dice finish on an 8 or a 6
or even a 7, that finish was in one of the 6 axial arrays, three in group 1 and 3 in group 2.
That is as sure as 2 plus 2 is 4.

No, thatís entirely incorrect. I already posted an example of a dice result that didnít align with any of your six axial arrays, and that happens basically every time the dice axes arenít parallel. You ignored that before, perhaps you wonít this time:





None of the above images align with any of your six orientations. Hereís one that does:


That roll is aligned on the 1,3 axis, what you call 2v. But the vast majority of rolls do not align in the way you surmise.

Thatís only part of the problem, though. The bigger problem is that you believe there is a causal and exploitable relationship between the initial orientation and final orientation:
Quote: dicesitter

If you think there is no order in that, or that you cant find order in
that, or you cant adjust your set to take advantage of that fact....well??? I am not sure what to
say.

Youíre guessing and/or hoping, but thereís no evidence that altering the initial orientation and making exactly the same throw will do anything to alter the expected uniform probabilities.

Quote:

Your not dumb enough to think I have spent all this time for nothing,

Thatís exactly what I think. If you have quantifiable evidence to prove me wrong, letís see it. Show me any proof of your theory that there is a correlation between initial and final dice orientation, or that you have altered the uniform die-face probabilities at all. For example, I'd bet that if you set the dice on the 1,1 axis (what you call "1") with the 2s facing up, and threw 1800 times with as much precision as you can muster, your results would be statistically indistinguishable from setting the dice on the 1,2 axis (what you call "3v") with the 3s facing up and throwing another 1800 times.
"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 27th, 2016 at 9:14:48 AM permalink
math



Thanks for the reply.

You understand what I presented, that as far as I can go with this,

As for me, I have more information and evidence than I need to play the way I
play. You either accept or you don't.

dicesetter
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 27th, 2016 at 10:13:58 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

You understand what I presented, that as far as I can go with this,
As for me, I have more information and evidence than I need to play the way I
play. You either accept or you don't.

I don't. Your theory that the dice always end up nicely aligned in one of six axial orientations is trivially wrong, as amply demonstrated by the stock photos I found on the Internet. Or just drop two dice onto your carpet -- they will almost certainly not be aligned when they come to rest.

If that's as far as you can go with this then we're done.
"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
gsiyhz
gsiyhz
Joined: Mar 27, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 5
March 27th, 2016 at 10:31:56 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

I don't. Your theory that the dice always end up nicely aligned in one of six axial orientations is trivially wrong, as amply demonstrated by the stock photos I found on the Internet. Or just drop two dice onto your carpet -- they will almost certainly not be aligned when they come to rest.

If that's as far as you can go with this then we're done.



Does anyone believe this is done ?
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 5139
March 27th, 2016 at 10:32:29 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

If that's as far as you can go with this then we're done.



I'm sure it is.
Can't see you making any headway against DS's stubbornness. No doubt there will be more silly contributions to this thread. Hardly worth trying to counter them with sanity. I say let the DI's take solace in the fact that they have a skill that we mortals don't and we can take solace in the other fact that we recognise BS when we read it.
:)
Last edited by: OnceDear on Mar 27, 2016
Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed..
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
March 27th, 2016 at 1:51:48 PM permalink
math




I see you do understand what I am talking about, you know I asked that
very same question a long time ago, and have the answer.

It took hundreds of hours of work to answer that .

Crap, I am now back to doing the work again..

dicesetter
eclectic
eclectic
Joined: Jan 3, 2016
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 105
March 29th, 2016 at 3:07:56 PM permalink
In reply to my own post for this thread, I later purchased "7,500 Craps Rolls" by Thomas Midgley to see how this theory fared by calculating the total number of dice rolls, the number of inside numbers, and the total number of 7's rolled, for each shooter.

As an aside, I also charted an 'x' for each shooter who made his point (pass) and a 'o' for each shooter who didn't make his point, or don't pass.

My first analysis was to see if there was any predictive value to the charting theory by analyzing all rolls of 20 or greater, the charting number for that
shooter before the roll, and whether more 7's had been rolled than the statistical expectation. If a lot of 7's had been rolled, couldn't they then be
expected to 'stay away'?

I found 44 decisions where the shooter rolled at least 20 numbers or more before PSO. Of those 44 decisions only 12 exhibited the statistical expectation, whereas
32 did not!

As an example, here are the charting stats before this shooter reached 25 rolls before PSO: 829-383-175. 829 divided by 6 = 138 7's should have shown
but the actual number was 175, telling us that the 7 had appeared far more times that the stats would indicate. In this case the 7's did 'stay away' as
the stats indicated.

I guess this goes to prove the math assertions that while these statistical expectations exist, it has far less predictive value than one might have thought.

Here is an example where the shooter rolled 36 total numbers before PSO: 863-422-114. 863 divided by 6 = 143 7's should have been rolled whereas
only 114 appeared. More to come right? NO! The shooter proceeded to roll 36 numbers.

While there do appear to be opportunities where the stats are skewed to rebalance, and the shooter can bet accordingly, in these examples charting is not
an accurate predictor as one might hope.

I may post more of my findings later, if there is an interest. Thank you.

  • Jump to: