Thread Rating:

dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
March 30th, 2016 at 10:13:02 AM permalink
Math



laughing.....

I have told you 100 times, I don't care about staying on axis, and my shot
does exactly what I said it does.... takes the alligator board out of the shot.

I played last night, I looked for you, I could not find you, how in the
world did you know how much I bet or what I won.

dicesetter
eclectic
eclectic
Joined: Jan 3, 2016
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 105
March 30th, 2016 at 3:23:52 PM permalink
How bad is it when you start answering your own posts? (:-) Confession time. I'm afraid I must report having tunnel vision. Apparently 7,500 rolls of the dice are not representative of an accurate sample size. Even 72-hours (the book) is not a representative sample size. I just ordered some material from Zumma and the vendor suggested (and was told by those who supposedly know the math) that 300-hours is more accurate representation. So, looks like the data is biased.
Sorry about that folks. The vendor stated that the 72-hours book is biased to the don't side and it appears so is the 7,500 craps rolls.

The reason I say that is that the charts show a long series of DP decisions. I have one more report to share with you. I looked at the charts where a long string of
DP decisions were recorded. These were DP decisions of 10 in a row, 14 in a row 16, separated by one Pass, etc. where the Don't bettor would have cleaned up.

I used the same rationale being the reading of the total number of rolls, and the number of 7's prior to those long, long, strings of DP. In this case I was looking
for a small number of 7's compared to the total rolls, thinking that the 7 was now due, leading to the probability of winning on the DP. Well, it didn't work out
that way: again.

There were 13 occasions where a string of very long DP decisions appeared. Well, only on 4 of those occasions did the math indicate to bet the Don't.
On the other 9 times, there were actually MORE 7's rolled than the math indicated! Speaking of the other 4, the numbers were 74%, 91%, 88%, and 82% less than
probability indicated.

Embarrassingly, looks like I need to start all over. I guess that's the price of a learning curve.

I'd appreciate any feedback or comments anyone might have on the material offered by Zumma? Thank you.
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 47
  • Posts: 5528
March 30th, 2016 at 3:36:47 PM permalink
Eclectic
Please dude...
Quote: OnceDear


You can chart past results till the end of time, but past rolls (That's all you can chart) give no indication of future rolls (That's all you can bet on)


Save your energy.
If you cannot answer the question "Past rolls predict future rolls because?" then why even set out to chart past rolls?

DiceSetter apparently believes that Past rolls might indicate some influence in the shooter
That MIGHT give some benefit to charting that shooter if it were true. But ask yourself if you can chart one shooter long enough to establish that he is having a statistically significant influence, and then live long enough to bet on that analysis before he leaves the table.
I recommend charting consecutive Yos. Wait until you see ten in a row, then have a small wager on the next, and the next.

Really guys, Give it up. Perlease.
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
March 30th, 2016 at 4:03:27 PM permalink
oncedear



Years ago I tried that with the yo's...... laughing, well all I can say is I think I got to
57 rolls before one hit, I had long sense got to the table max which means no matter
what happened I was going to get my butt kicked.

As far as charting one shooter for a long time, don't bother. Whether you or I like it ,or not,
craps is a game played in the shortest of times. Every time you go to the table, everything is
different, the dice, the temperature, the location of players at the table, as well as yourself.
You cant expect the same chart to apply. All I ever know is I have a couple of different
shots I can use and a couple of different sets that have worked for me. I then do what
makes the most sense based on the table I am playing on. If I can make it work I play
a few hands and get some profit and get the hell out. If I cant make it work, I limit
my loss and get the hell out.

Even if your dead on, you cant throw that shot for much more than an hour and it starts
to get off kilter, and then what ever you make goes right back to the casino.

dicesetter
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 30th, 2016 at 4:27:52 PM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

I have told you 100 times, I don't care about staying on axis, and my shot
does exactly what I said it does.... takes the alligator board out of the shot.


I don't particularly care about staying on axis either. However, I know what the math looks like if the dice actually do stay on axis with a given level of consistency. That's because the movement of dice that stay on axis can be modeled. If you were to explain how you expect your dice to move when you throw them, that could be modeled too. But you haven't ever explained that. Why not?

Now then, you say you're not attempting to stay on axis with your throws, but instead you're "taking the alligator board out of the shot." How often do you succeed in doing that? 100% of the time or less? How much less? Do you know?

And when you successfully avoid the alligator board, how does that change the die face distribution of your throws? Do you know? If not, why aren't you keeping track of this information? It's required to understand whether -- and to what extent -- you have the edge when you shoot. I just don't understand why someone would practice dice throwing for eight years without learning how to measure how effective that practice is. Can you explain that?

In other sports, athletes keep statistics like "percentage of fairways hit" or "batting average on balls in play" or "shots on goal" -- none are directly indicative of the final results but they are correlated indicators of how you're likely to do. A golfer who hits more fairways is more likely to win than a golfer who doesn't. What statistics are you tracking that are indicative of your success? If you're not tracking any, why not?
"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
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 325
  • Posts: 7159
March 30th, 2016 at 4:31:43 PM permalink
When he wins, his shot "works," and when he loses, his shot is "off."

By his logic, when I win at slots my button pushing is "on," and when I lose it is "off."
"What, me worry?"
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 30th, 2016 at 4:37:02 PM permalink
Quote: MrV

When he wins, his shot "works," and when he loses, his shot is "off."

By his logic, when I win at slots my button pushing is "on," and when I lose it is "off."

If that's what it is, that's a sad example of confirmation bias. I'm hoping there's more substance to it than that, because I can't imagine spending eight years pursuing a trivial fallacy. On the other hand, I've read Dostoevsky's "The Gambler."

As for your results, it's not your button pushing skills at all. When you win, it's because somewhere within 20 feet of you is a left-handed woman with brown hair. You lose when one of the elevators in the casino is carrying a luggage cart. I can't tell what will happen when you're on an elevator with a left-handed brunette holding a luggage cart though.
"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
eclectic
eclectic
Joined: Jan 3, 2016
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 105
March 30th, 2016 at 5:52:29 PM permalink
ME what about whether or not your bankroll is increasing or decreasing? Example, Iv'e been to LA on 15 occasions, just getting exposed to learning about the game, getting my feet wet so to speak.

Based on this limited data, Iv'e won on 57% of my trips, and am so many dollars ahead. Isn't that simpler? Why can't one's bankroll be the ultimate BS or truth detector?
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 325
  • Posts: 7159
March 30th, 2016 at 5:54:57 PM permalink
Quote:

I can't tell what will happen when you're on an elevator with a left-handed brunette holding a luggage cart though.



Maybe I'll get "lucky."
Last edited by: MrV on Mar 30, 2016
"What, me worry?"
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 30th, 2016 at 6:26:03 PM permalink
Quote: eclectic

ME what about whether or not your bankroll is increasing or decreasing? Example, Iv'e been to LA on 15 occasions, just getting exposed to learning about the game, getting my feet wet so to speak.

Based on this limited data, Iv'e won on 57% of my trips, and am so many dollars ahead. Isn't that simpler? Why can't one's bankroll be the ultimate BS or truth detector?

In a phrase, too much variance. There is a very good chance to be ahead after many sessions or even years based on pure luck, especially when you play the odds bets. Similarly, someone who has some skill may have losing sessions or years even if they have the edge (just ask any honest AP). In short, you can't distinguish skill from luck over a short timeframe by financial results alone. You actually have to look at the dice.

If you can observe that your dice behave a certain way every 3 or 10 or 25 rolls on average, such as not tumbling sideways or skidding to a stop face-up, then that's knowledge you can use to recompute the house edge on the bets you make, and then adjust how you bet to maximize your expected gain. Nobody who practices dice throwing ever seems to do this, though.
"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: