good post.

I have spoken to several experts in the field of probability, and they all indicate that the general balance

will be maintained over time But they also indicated that there are many periods of unbalance

in between.

The problem with charting is that charting on your home table to see if you have an edge may not

apply at all to a craps table, then again it may. It is up to the player to make that determination in

terms of his level of bets.

The experts also indicated that there is no reason to think that some player may indeed be luckier

than other players, or some player may well be able to change the norm based on some type

of skill with the dice. The danger they see for players, whether that is a random roller or a so

called DI is that in their opinion, balance will be achieved. If a player has a SRR of 6 or 7.8 which

is way above random, the effect of a long roll or several long rolls will then produce a number of

very short rolls. For the random roller, this is just another day at the table, for a DI this can result in

a terrible loss if they bet as if balance will never be achieved.

A smart craps player plays the game in the short run.

it would be nice to see more data.

dicesetter

No you didn't. Someone who believes this is no expert in probability.Quote:dicesitterI have spoken to several experts in the field of probability, and they all indicate that the general balance

will be maintained over time

And why don't you believe the experts on this very forum when they explain things correctly? You do realize there are math professors and professional casino mathematicians here, right?

Quote:dicesitterthe effect of a long roll or several long rolls will then produce a number of very short rolls

just so you hear it from somebody you [possibly] aren't angry with, this is not what happens

I feel compelled to point this out whenever I see it

anomalies like long rolls before a 7 comes up clearly do get balanced by short rolls, but you can't claim that the dice know what previous rolls were or feel a need to make things balance, as you make it sound like here. All that happens is the dice 'just do their thing' and the larger number of rolls buries the significance of the short term anomaly. A player who bets that short rolls will happen next could easily get creamed, yet, should he collect data, find that in the long run the anomaly disappeared, no benefit to his plan, just because of large numbers. This can happen even if the data show that long rolls were somewhat more represented in that next set of rolls ... just not to the same degree.

Seriously ?Quote:dicesitter

A smart craps player plays the game in the short run.

dicesetter

Quote:AxelWolfSeriously ?

I think he's been taking lessons from Singer.

Wow! Someone said that the world returns to a balance when it gets out of balance? Play long enough and that is true, it has to be true. Long enough can be a very, very long time. But true is true, balance is where we are headed, but just how out of balance are we, and in which direction?Quote:odiousgambitjust so you hear it from somebody you [possibly] aren't angry with, this is not what happens

I feel compelled to point this out whenever I see it

anomalies like long rolls before a 7 comes up clearly do get balanced by short rolls, but you can't claim that the dice know what previous rolls were or feel a need to make things balance, as you make it sound like here. All that happens is the dice 'just do their thing' and the larger number of rolls buries the significance of the short term anomaly. A player who bets that short rolls will happen next could easily get creamed, yet, should he collect data, find that in the long run the anomaly disappeared, no benefit to his plan, just because of large numbers. This can happen even if the data show that long rolls were somewhat more represented in that next set of rolls ... just not to the same degree.

Math I guess that was supposed to scare me.

Well you are wrong again, I have spoken with several of them, and I

do that because I want to know how they think, not what.

You guys all think the same, no difference at all. If a player could get an

advantage it must be a constant advantage, one that shows up exactly

the same on the spread sheet of thousands of rolls. Pure nonsense!!!!!

You don't have to be an expert in probability to see that while its rules

will play out in the long run, things vary in the short run. The guy

next to me the other night had a decent roll, he had 7 4's in that

roll. The only difference between what you think and what I think is

that you say that is 100% variance. I say if you allow for variance, within

the laws of probability, why not variance caused by the shooter.

I say when I produce a decent shot, I win more than I lose, same thing

happened last night. I played on a 16 table I avoid like the IRS, but

last night there was no way around the effort. First time I tried my

tabletop shot on this table and first 5 rolls were terrible, then got the

bounce right and had two very nice rolls in a row and then a short roll.

If all that controls everything is variance, I should get real good rolls and bad

rolls no matter how terrible my shot looks. Your theory and those of the

experts would be just keep betting and rolling, sooner or later you will get

a good roll, hopefully before you are broke.

Not a chance in the world I would play like that, If I can improve the shot

I will.

You keep telling me I make this stuff up, I keep feeling pretty good

because if it is good enough to have to have been made up, it must

be something you cant do.

Dicesetter

This is a common fallacy, though. The idea of balance is just a misinterpretation of the statistical Law of Large Numbers -- in reality, the more you play, the further away in dollars you expect to get from the theoretical expected loss. The difference between wins and losses goes up, not down. Here's a repost of something I wrote on this last year:Quote:TwoFeathersATLWow! Someone said that the world returns to a balance when it gets out of balance? Play long enough and that is true, it has to be true. Long enough can be a very, very long time. But true is true, balance is where we are headed, but just how out of balance are we, and in which direction?

Quote:Richard A. Epstein, "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic", p. 28The law of large numbers has frequently been cited as the guarantor of an eventual head-tail balance. Actually, in colloquial form, the law proclaims that the difference between the number of heads and the number of tails thrown may be expected to increase indefinitely as the number of trials increases, although by decreasing proportions.

To give a coin-flipping example, over 10 flips there's a very good chance that you'll see 5 heads and 5 tails. Over 100 flips there's a much smaller chance to see 50 heads and 50 tails. Over 1,000,000 flips, it's almost impossible to see exactly 500,000 heads and 500,000 tails. However, in 10 flips, when you don't get 5 heads and 5 tails, you might get 4/6 or 3/7. That's a difference of 2 or 4, not a big number but a big percentage. In 100 flips, you might see a difference of 10 (say 45 vs. 55), which is a much larger absolute number but a much smaller percentage. In 1,000,000 flips, ending with 497,500 heads and 502,500 tails is an even larger absolute difference but an even smaller percentage.

The Gambler's Fallacy, on the other hand, is the misinterpretation of the above. It says that the absolute difference in heads and tails will shrink to zero as the number of flips increases. That's absolutely wrong.

that's great, does not make any difference at all. The only question that has to be answered by

you and every other expert on the subject is simple.

" if variance can and does happen, can that variance be influenced by the shooter"

That's it, that is all that has to be answered. Does not mean that it has to be constant

influence, does not mean it has to be on every table, it means is there a possibility

that a shooter can be a part of the natural variance you see on a table.

You find me an expert that will flat out say it is impossible for a shooter to cause

variance.... 100% impossible

Dicesetter

I don't want to Hijack DS's thread here, it has been interesting reading you two, and others, go at it for quite awhile now ;-)Quote:MathExtremistThis is a common fallacy, though. The idea of balance is just a misinterpretation of the statistical Law of Large Numbers -- in reality, the more you play, the further away in dollars you expect to get from the theoretical expected loss. The difference between wins and losses goes up, not down. Here's a repost of something I wrote on this last year:

To give a coin-flipping example, over 10 flips there's a very good chance that you'll see 5 heads and 5 tails. Over 100 flips there's a much smaller chance to see 50 heads and 50 tails. Over 1,000,000 flips, it's almost impossible to see exactly 500,000 heads and 500,000 tails. However, in 10 flips, when you don't get 5 heads and 5 tails, you might get 4/6 or 3/7. That's a difference of 2 or 4, not a big number but a big percentage. In 100 flips, you might see a difference of 10 (say 45 vs. 55), which is a much larger absolute number but a much smaller percentage. In 1,000,000 flips, ending with 497,500 heads and 502,500 tails is an even larger absolute difference but an even smaller percentage.

The Gambler's Fallacy, on the other hand, is the misinterpretation of the above. It says that the absolute difference in heads and tails will shrink to zero as the number of flips increases. That's absolutely wrong.

My point wasn't about the absolute difference, which is not my concern, but about the percentage difference which a whole different beast. You read my post, and responded. I am truly flattered (not a joke). Prolly wasn't your intention to flatter me, but I'm going about my day whistling a happy song now ;-) Just 2F