CHARTING A TABLE

I will fly to whoever ever you are if you know a couple days in advance - I'll even buy you dinner- but there are so many variables that you aren't even taking into account .... No one has mentioned it but wouldn't any of this also be effected by the thickness of the felt and or in reality if there was a bent over the table -

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Sancho I make money at casinos but not through dice or a system just simple ap plays using games or some other method which mathematically has a certain predetermined edge in my favor

In other words, luck. And not a thing to do with craps in a thread devoted exclusively to craps.

Luck?????? So you think a plus ev play is luck hmmmmmm ok I'll let this one rest

Wizardofnothing


You are 100% correct, that is why this stuff is so hard, that is why you need to
only play on tables that fit your shot, that is why you need a couple of shots and
that is why you need to be able to read your dice to make adjustments in the
difference your shot may reveal from day to day.

I agree with one thing, if I were selling books or tapes or teaching a class, I should
have to prove that what ever I want money for is worth something...but i am not
asking for anything, I am sharing the results of my play.,... end of story.

But yes I would like to play some day...

dicesetter

Quote: DeMango

Let me help out the extreme poster here. You pick up a pair of dice and set on the 1/6 axis. The following results, out of 36 possible outcomes, are considered on axis: 22,23,24,25,33,34,35,32,44,45,42,43,55,52,53,54. I count 16 results. Help me out, oh extreme one, what is, in percentage, 16 divided by 36? But if, I'm thinking a Jordan-Byrd commercial, the dice bounce off a dealer, hit a stick, ricochet off the wood and land on a 4,2.......yup that's on axis. Happens every million rolls or so, but hey, it is what it is!

In bowling, rolling strikes usually means hitting the pocket between the 1 and 3 pins. I've thrown a few strikes where I miss the headpin but the ball knocks the 3 backwards and somehow later the 4 falls *forward* into the 2 and then into the 1, knocking it over from behind. Yes, that counts as a strike. But no, it's not a skilled shot, it's not what I was going for, and most of the time when you miss the headpin it's not a strike at all.

The same is true for dice but the probabilities are very different. Missing the headpin in bowling means you almost never strike, probably far less than 1% of the time. But missing the axis in dice throwing means that you still have a 44.4% chance of seeing both dice show one of the four non-axis faces. It's a matter of degree, and that's why making the distinction is so important. If you throw the dice carefully and they stay on axis throughout the toss and gently come to rest at or near the back wall, that's a successful on axis throw. (Have you ever done this?) If you throw the dice less carefully and they tumble sideways, hop off the table, or do anything else,, you didn't keep the dice on axis. It's really that simple. The dice may still end up on a desired result -- just like the accidental bowling strikes I rolled, but 44.4% of the time instead of less than 1% -- but that desired result wasn't due to your skill. That was due to sheer random luck.

Are you really saying that you can't see the difference between luck and skill, and that you don't understand why it's important to distinguish between an intentional result and an accidental one?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Methodology I think would prove something:

Start with noting exactly what sets you will use and what you intend them to do. Take a buddy you trust with you to the casino, because all tables perform differently; your results on your crap table don't matter in this.

Your buddy is your bookkeeper. Put him at the table where he can see your sets (and knows what he's looking at). He notes which set you're using on each roll.

As you release the dice (the LAST point you have any influence) you say "yes" or "no" immediately, before you know the result. You MUST be honest, as you're the only one who knows if you got the intended movement, loft, fingerspin, whatever. Your buddy makes the note. This would create both a control set (the no's) and a proof set (the yesses). Your buddy then notes the roll result by faces (including orientation of the face if that's pertinent to your roll set).

I think that's a good start, but it's also important to track the results of the throw according to the intended effect (not intended outcome). If the intended effect of the throw is to keep the 1s and 6s facing toward the sides of the table (that is, keeping the dice rotating on axis) and the 1s or 6s actually do that, it's a successful throw. Otherwise it's not -- regardless of the final numbers. Combined with the initial assessment of the throw as the dice leave the hand, you'll then have a dataset that you can analyze for non-uniform results.

math



Total nonsense

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

Now I can understand math here, he has a personal stake in this because if
anything I say is correct, nothing he says is. But you.... see now that is a different
story now, if you don't think the following is intended to be an insult

It's not an insult when I note that your methodology isn't sound. It's as if you said 0.5 + 0.6 = 0.11. It's just wrong. I'm not insulting you by pointing out that out.

But why is it that every time I ask you to quantify anything, you get huffy and start claiming insults? Babs is right -- the best way to shut me up is to prove me wrong. So do it. Unlike many of the dice-setting faithful, I'm perfectly willing to alter my opinion based on relevant new evidence. Show me some. Demonstrate that you've ever controlled the dice at all, ever. Why is this a hard question? "Have you ever actually kept the dice on axis?" When you throw the dice, what percentage of the time do the faces on the sides stay on the sides from the time the dice leave your hand until they come to rest?

If you won't answer this question, why not?

Quote: dicesitter

math

Total nonsense

dicesetter

Don't be evasive, answer the question. Quantify your skill vs. how often you're getting lucky. If all you're going to do is say "total nonsense" or "that's an insult" then I'll take it as evidence that you don't know the difference.

Unless the "nonsense" accusation was directed to my claim of having thrown those accidental strikes. I can't prove it happened, you'll just have to take my word for it, but bowlers call it a "garbage hit" so it's definitely a known entity. You should learn to distinguish between a garbage throw and a proper throw too.

Quote: MathExtremist

I think that's a good start, but it's also important to track the results of the throw according to the intended effect (not intended outcome).

I actually laughed out loud on this one. Riddle me this oh extreme one: Does the casino pay you on intended effect or or actual outcome?

Quote: DeMango

I actually laughed out loud on this one. Riddle me this oh extreme one: Does the casino pay you on intended effect or or actual outcome?

That's the mindset of someone who doesn't care whether they're skilled or just lucky. Millions of casual gamblers play like that, but not one of them is a legitimate AP. I thought you were trying to be a dice-throwing AP, no?

When you shoot, what's your theoretical player edge on the passline? If you can't answer that question, stop laughing and ask yourself why.

I can answer that question. It is table dependent. No two tables have the same physical properties. Each one must have it's own measurement from the same position using the same toss. Then you go with the software. Then it goes to chi square. Then......

That's not an answer, that's an explanation of how you derive an answer. It sounds like perhaps you're not doing it right but let's assume you are. What is your average edge over the past year?

Edit: wait a minute, you don't need to chi square test anything in order to know your edge. You're not trying to use math terms to bluff a mathematician, are you?

Math

Don't give that crap, you don't value anything I have done... and that is fine
I don't care. But to suggest people like myself that work as hard as we
think that a roll that goes off peoples chest, off the table and off every stack of chips
on the table is our idea of skill is meant to be an insult.

It does not bother me, but I don't mind pointing it out.

Here is the stuff I find amazing

"I think that's a good start, but it's also important to track the results of the throw according to the intended effect (not intended outcome). If the intended effect of the throw is to keep the 1s and 6s facing toward the sides of the table (that is, keeping the dice rotating on axis) and the 1s or 6s actually do that, it's a successful throw. Otherwise it's not -- regardless of the final numbers. Combined with the initial assessment of the throw as the dice leave the hand, you'll then have a dataset that you can analyze for non-uniform results".

What you are attempting to do is complete your bias, in other words you don't think any
type of influence is possible, fine I don't have any problem with that. But then you say
well if you could do this, something you know is not possible, then I will believe it. Just
how stupid do you think people are. Number 1 dice do not have to stay on axis to get
an edge, second, the dice shot does not have to be perfect to get an edge, and third
you don't need to get the exact results from day to day from your shot to get an edge.

See that's not good enough for you.... fine... say that and move on.

I surely don't need your help with my play, and what I do is not good enough for
your play... as far as shutting you up, there is nothing I can do, I sure as hell wont set
here and document several thousands rolls and provide them for your approval.

dicesetter

You've spent eight years practicing a technique that is designed to alter the probabilities of fair dice and therefore tilt the edge in your favor. Except you don't know how to measure the probabilities of your dice results and don't know how to measure the edge. You have only yourself to blame for that. Be mad if you want, but be mad at yourself, not the guy who's telling you how to properly quantify your results. I'm not the one that led you astray into thinking you could ignore the probabilities, and I *never* would have suggested exploring dice control without having a sound protocol for measuring results and distinguishing luck from skill.

If you can't answer the question "what's my edge when I shoot" with a number then you're just guessing. That may be good enough for you but it shouldn't be. Real APs can quantify their edge. You don't get to say "I'm a successful dice controller" if you can't measure your success, no matter how many years you spent practicing or how arduous those years were.

Math


Again with the insults....... I know exactly what I am doing.

The problem is yours and you are so arrogant you don't have the
ability to see it.

Like I say, I am doing pretty darn good and I don't have the ability
to help you.

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

Math...The problem is yours and you are so arrogant you don't have the
ability to see it.

Personal insult. As a second recent offense, seven-day suspension.

Quote: dicesitter

Again with the insults....... I know exactly what I am doing.

I disagree -- you don't know what really matters. You don't know your expected win per hour.

Every legitimate AP knows this figure for the plays they make. It doesn't matter what the game is, and craps is just another game. If you're going to be an "advantage player" at craps or any other game, you've got to know that "advantage" -- the value of your play.

What I find baffling is that the avowed dice-influencers on this thread are unable to even guess at an hourly win rate. I don't mean a precise number, I mean something simple like "I bet red chips on the pass and inside place numbers and I expect to win between $10 and $15/hour."

What I find more baffling is that you're unwilling to even consider this. Rather than thinking "Huh, I should probably learn how to figure my edge or win rate so I can tell if I'm getting better or if I've been wasting my time with all this practice," your reaction is to call me an arrogant idiot. That tells me you're not serious about winning money. You may be serious about spending years practicing your dice throwing, but you're not serious about finding and maintaining an advantage.

Quote: DeMango

I actually laughed out loud on this one. Riddle me this oh extreme one: Does the casino pay you on intended effect or or actual outcome?

This is not addressed to me, but I'd like to say something in response. Whether the casino pays you or not is immaterial to this conversation, which I understand is about whether you're influencing the outcome. You can have good or bad variance, along with winning at least some percentage of bets in virtually every session. That variance variable HAS to be eliminated to the greatest extent it can be.

As ME said the other day as an example, if your intent is to throw on-axis, and with every toss of that set, the 1 and 6 are only intended to face the walls outward, and the result is they do, whether the faces are 4-3 or 4-4 or anything else on the rotating axis is irrelevant; you have proved that you can control the dice to land on-axis beyond random results. If you've bet the 7, you'll win on 7's with 34/25/52/43. If you've bet the 8, you'll win on 44/53/35. But you've changed the odds of both bets (actually all bets on the layout, especially the field and any craps/eleven), because neither a 1 or a 6 will ever show as a face with your toss, and you can bet accordingly. THAT would be worth a LOT of money in the long run. The percentage of the time you can do this (beyond a random amount) I would consider DI. (Personally, I'd set the 3/4 to face the walls and bet the craps/boxcars/2-4-10-12 hardways and the field, I think).

All FWIW. But whether you get paid in that case is irrelevant to whether you kept the dice on-axis. So money results are NOT an indicator, in themselves, of DI.

Quote: beachbumbabs

But you've changed the odds of both bets (actually all bets on the layout, especially the field and any craps/eleven), because neither a 1 or a 6 will ever show as a face with your toss, and you can bet accordingly. THAT would be worth a LOT of money in the long run. The percentage of the time you can do this (beyond a random amount) I would consider DI. (Personally, I'd set the 3/4 to face the walls and bet the craps/boxcars/2-4-10-12 hardways and the field, I think).

Right -- but I'd argue that "a random amount" is actually "never" -- at least not intentionally. Have you ever tried to keep the dice on axis when you throw? Try it sometime. It's likely that over 100 tries, you won't manage to pull it off even once. It would be a significant and profitable level of skill to keep the dice on axis even 4% of the time (once out of every 25 rolls). Think about that for a minute - that's only one on-axis roll every three hands, on average. If you can do that, and you know how to bet properly, you've got the edge.

That's why it's so ridiculous when the dice-throwing adherents say only the result matters. The 44.4% random chance of seeing both dice land on one of the four "desired" faces means it's almost impossible to discern whether the shooter is exhibiting any skill or just seeing the typical variation in random results. An average shooter might throw 40 times over a two-hour session at a full table. You can't ever have 44.4% of those rolls be "good" -- only 40%, 42.5%, 45%, 47.5%, 50%, etc. Does 47.5% "good" rolls indicate skill? Does 40% indicate lack of skill? Of course not, we're talking about one or two outcomes in either direction. The data you care about is getting lost in the noise.

But more importantly, the fact that it really doesn't take much in the way of skill (from a frequency standpoint) to shift the odds in the player's favor means that (a) it's actually really hard to obtain any level of control at all, and (b) the folks who practice and pretend they can do it really can't. And the reason I'd never bother practicing is because any meaningful skill at keeping the dice on axis is visually obvious to anyone, including the casino. In other words, unlike card counting or other AP moves, on-axis dice control is impossible to camouflage. It's not hard for the boxperson to see the dice roll gently to a stop at the end of the table without tumbling and simply say "no roll." And then what? It's not like you can get your practice time back.

I can flip a quarter with skill..... I can make it land heads on average 51 out of 100 on heads- How can we prove this

I sometimes wonder why someone is put in time out for saying what they think about someone and they are not calling them names.

There are a lot of arrogant posters on any board, they think that they know more than anybody else that post there. Now is it a bad thing when you say that someone is arrogant? Or have you given them a compliment, where they think they know more than anybody else? I never thought the word arrogant was an insult to anybody, so I had to make sure what the definition was.

1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.
Well, when any of us make a post that is in disagreement with anybody else aren't we all a little bit arrogant? Don't we all think that we know more than the next guy?

Now, I say that there are no AP players in the casinos because they don't know when their superior knowledge is going right down the drain. Card counters can go through periods of time when everything they do turns out to be wrong.

On a craps table, there are many variables that change every few minutes, it's not like everything is going to stay the same, from the time that you walk up to a table and start playing. No, you have other players that will do every stupid thing they can. They will stack chips as high as they can get them they will throw in their buy-in as the shooter is shooting, therefore hitting the shooters dice in mid-air. You name it and they will do it.

Some on this board will say that the so-called DI's are all arrogant by saying they can do something that others can't do, well that is what they think right? I say they are all just getting lucky when they get on a good roll and are no better than what they call the random rollers.

Years ago there were no so-called DI's and the same thing goes for the random rollers, everybody was just shooters, before they coined the words, Dice Influencer to sell everybody on trying to become a so-called DI, so the guys that were running the DI schools could make money not on their shooting but on the classes they were putting on!

Am I arrogant for questioning the use of the word arrogant to describe somebody and do I deserve to be put in time out because I did?

Do the members on this and any other board have to fear a simple word that is used to describe what they are feeling every time someone expresses that they have superior knowledge on the subject that they are posting on?

Maybe a better word would have been supercilious!
supercilious
adjective scornful, arrogant, contemptuous, disdainful, lordly, proud, lofty, stuck-up (informal), patronizing, condescending, imperious, overbearing, snooty (informal), haughty, high and mighty (informal), vainglorious, toffee-nosed (slang, chiefly Brit.), hoity-toity (informal), uppish (Brit. informal) His manner is supercilious and arrogant.
modest, humble, meek, unassuming, unpretentious, submissive, self-effacing, deferential, obsequious

Wow, there is a huge difference , a supposed dice influencer that has no idea if it's real vs a card counter ----I can believe you even went there- you can have things go wrong in card counting but the mathmatical facts still remain- if I make a play based on a good count I know what my edge is- just like if I play red in roulette for a promotion where red pays 4-1 for happy hour. Clearly I may not hit red for 30 spins but the edge is the edge is the edge and it is quantifiable

Quote: Wizardofnothing

I can flip a quarter with skill..... I can make it land heads on average 51 out of 100 on heads- How can we prove this

Quote: Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss

Abstract:
We analyze the natural process of flipping a coin which is caught in the hand. We
prove that vigorously-flipped coins are biased to come up the same way they started.
The amount of bias depends on a single parameter, the angle between the normal to
the coin and the angular momentum vector. Measurements of this parameter based
on high-speed photography are reported. For natural flips, the chance of coming up as
started is about .51.

http://statweb.stanford.edu/~susan/papers/headswithJ.pdf

Quote: superrick

I sometimes wonder why someone is put in time out for saying what they think about someone and they are not calling them names.

There are a lot of arrogant posters on any board, they think that they know more than anybody else that post there. Now is it a bad thing when you say that someone is arrogant? Or have you given them a compliment, where they think they know more than anybody else? I never thought the word arrogant was an insult to anybody, so I had to make sure what the definition was.

1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.
Well, when any of us make a post that is in disagreement with anybody else aren't we all a little bit arrogant? Don't we all think that we know more than the next guy?

Now, I say that there are no AP players in the casinos because they don't know when their superior knowledge is going right down the drain. Card counters can go through periods of time when everything they do turns out to be wrong.

On a craps table, there are many variables that change every few minutes, it's not like everything is going to stay the same, from the time that you walk up to a table and start playing. No, you have other players that will do every stupid thing they can. They will stack chips as high as they can get them they will throw in their buy-in as the shooter is shooting, therefore hitting the shooters dice in mid-air. You name it and they will do it.

Some on this board will say that the so-called DI's are all arrogant by saying they can do something that others can't do, well that is what they think right? I say they are all just getting lucky when they get on a good roll and are no better than what they call the random rollers.

Years ago there were no so-called DI's and the same thing goes for the random rollers, everybody was just shooters, before they coined the words, Dice Influencer to sell everybody on trying to become a so-called DI, so the guys that were running the DI schools could make money not on their shooting but on the classes they were putting on!

Am I arrogant for questioning the use of the word arrogant to describe somebody and do I deserve to be put in time out because I did?

Do the members on this and any other board have to fear a simple word that is used to describe what they are feeling every time someone expresses that they have superior knowledge on the subject that they are posting on?

Maybe a better word would have been supercilious!
supercilious
adjective scornful, arrogant, contemptuous, disdainful, lordly, proud, lofty, stuck-up (informal), patronizing, condescending, imperious, overbearing, snooty (informal), haughty, high and mighty (informal), vainglorious, toffee-nosed (slang, chiefly Brit.), hoity-toity (informal), uppish (Brit. informal) His manner is supercilious and arrogant.
modest, humble, meek, unassuming, unpretentious, submissive, self-effacing, deferential, obsequious

no youre not arrogant, you're a retard.

Quote: ontariodealer

no youre not arrogant, you're a retard.

Really, OD? Did you have to?

14 days for several repeated offenses in the past. Mitigated for 10 months clean from 28 days.

Spiro Agnew had it right so many years ago: "Nattering Nabobs of Negativity"

Some more Agnew:

"Three things have been difficult to tame: the oceans, fools and women. We may soon be able to tame the oceans; fools and women will take a little longer."

---Spiro T. Agnew

Quote:

From MathExtremist: "Have you ever tried to keep the dice on axis when you throw? Try it sometime. It's likely that over 100 tries, you won't manage to pull it off even once. It would be a significant and profitable level of skill to keep the dice on axis even 4% of the time (once out of every 25 rolls). Think about that for a minute - that's only one on-axis roll every three hands, on average. If you can do that, and you know how to bet properly, you've got the edge."

Hypothetical for MathExtremist:

I'm curious how one could bet on that edge when you don't know which throw of those 25 hands will be the on-axis roll. The unfortunate dilemma with DI is that a technically precise toss is needed just to get the dice to travel in an axial controlled flight, regardless and before the effects at landing, back wall, excess force/velocity, spin that causes reverse-on-impact effects, etc. Therefore, the shooter unless perfectly precise each time, can only keep the dice intentionally on axis 4%, but WITHOUT knowledge of which of the 25 rolls will be the exemplary toss. Assuming this is the case in this hypothetical, is there any edge to bet on, even for this highly skilled but still imperfect shooter who CAN throw 1 in 25 shots with perfect axial skill and axial results? After all, he would have to be assumed to be random with 44% on axis RESULTS to begin with to profit from the extra 4% axiality added by his skill? I suspect that his skill would result in slightly more or less than random results which would cancel out those skilled shots in the wash and not be reliable for profitability (in practice at a real table betting, not after huge numbers of tosses)?

I'm assuming that the shooter, when he or she fails to make an on-axis throw, has the typical uniform (fair dice) probabilities. If that's not true then the numbers change. But at the end of the day, it's all just a probability distribution. You rely on the average numbers to compute the edge of the place-6 bet at 1.52%. You know that on average, 6 should appear 5 out of 36 rolls and 7 should appear 6 out of 36 rolls, but you don't know which throw of those 36 rolls will show which numbers. If the average probability of rolling a 6 changes relative to rolling a 7 -- whether it's because the dice are weighted or because the shooter has skill on certain rolls -- then the edge on the place 6 bet also changes.

OK, Math. In conclusion, it appears that craps is not a Skill-Based-Game, i.e., a shooter can't measure/demostrate his edge/+EVs on the game. Perhaps shooters should switch to the Guitar Hero, a Skilled-Based-Game.


http://ifrahonigaming.com/guitar-hero-for-cash-new-jersey-issues-temporary-regulations-for-skill-based-gaming/

Hey, what is a professional guitarist's edge on the Guitar Hero?

Quote: Artemis

OK, Math. In conclusion, it appears that craps is not a Skill-Based-Game, i.e., a shooter can't measure/demostrate his edge/+EVs on the game.

It's certainly the casino's expectation that craps is not a skill-based game. However, if a shooter actually did have any skill, it wouldn't be hard to measure it and calculate the edge. But that would take a lot more rigor than what's been displayed by the DI crowd thus far. Counting sevens, without paying attention to anything else, is hardly sufficient.

In other words, either the vocal proponents of DI don't have any skill at throwing the dice, or they don't have any skill at statistics. Maybe both.

Quote: MathExtremist

In other words, either the vocal proponents of DI don't have any skill at throwing the dice, or they don't have any skill at statistics. Maybe both.

There are dice programs out there. Seldom used.

That makes sense if, as you suggest, everyone's throw is different. There's no way software could be flexible enough to handle the various permutations for how someone might be attempting to control the dice without spending months or years working on it, and that'd never be a worthwhile investment for a software engineer. You're far better off just using a spreadsheet.

Is Bone Tracker of any useful assistance?

see: Bone Tracker download

That is exactly what I was talking about. Excell based.

Well my seven day suspension took awhile. I think the folks at the site hoped
I had just gone away.

See I learned a couple of things, first I can still count to seven, and second you don't
question the establishment on the site.

The first was useful in that it allowed time for play with 2 wins and one loss.

The second was useful as well because I now understand what the problem is here
and I feel a little bad about that. If you go over to your friends house for dinner
and you know he makes hot dogs or pizza you don't ask him to make
baumkuchen for a treat.

After math said he will never practice, I felt silly, you cant understand what the
results of 20,000-30,000 practice rolls tell you about your shot or your sets or
what one sets reveals differently from another set if you have never taken or
recorded a single shot. I was silly to expect a conversation based on common
understanding of events and that was my fault. I wont make that mistake
again.

On the other hand, what is rather important to this current discussion is the
idea that a spread sheet is all you need, and a few thousand rolls should do it.

This may be fun to do and I guess we have all ( well not all) done this. But in
terms of making money at the table, is not that helpful. First most of the
programs such as smartcraps and bonecracker instruct you to reveal "the"
results of each shot in terms of left die and right die and the results are
judged against your starting position of the left die and the right die.
The best shots don't use that type of set up, so that makes this data useless, in
addition you don't go to the table and throw 1000 shots. If you take
more than a few shots of your dice to determine whether your shot is
working properly or there is a need for something different, you better have
a large bank account.

I understand this point of view, a person says I don't have an edge, so don't tell me
you do unless you can prove it. Hey that makes sense to me, if the person was
trying to sell you something. On the other hand, I doubt if any serious person
would assume there is only one way to throw a pair of dice.




dicesetter

It doesn't matter how many different ways you want to throw the dice if they're all capable of altering the edge. You've claimed that you can influence the dice and play at least a break-even game. Above you appear to be claiming that you can "determine whether your shot is working properly" within just a few rolls.

If that's right, then how often does your shot work properly?

I find it funny every time ME asks dicesitter to quantify his edge, or to answer a simple numbers question dicesitter replies with a bunch of tldr that doesn't answer any question.

I'm still waiting for dicesitter to post a spreadsheet of his real-life rolls, with what the dice roll frequency/distribution is, what his edge is on the pass line or whichever bets he makes, as well as how many SD's the results (not win/loss, but dice distribution results) are from expected. That's really all I want to see. If there are multiple dice-sets or tosses or whatever they're called, make a spreadsheet with the same information for those tosses as well. At this point, I'd at least like to see if dicesitter knows what these numbers would mean and how to use them.

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

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

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....

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

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.

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

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

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.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

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

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

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....