CHARTING A TABLE

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....

DS: welcome back. Sounds like suspension is kinda like a childish 'time out'. I continue to follow this thread with interest and would like more details on technique and mechanics. Apart from your experience with DI, would you have any recommendations as to someone who was adept at analyzing my throw to advise on pointers about the making adjustments? I remain skeptical about the seminars. Too pricy. If you have any simple pointers or tips please advise? I believe DI is certainly possible; BUT he would have to be someone like a Tiger Woods who started early and had a mentor. His dad might be a dealer who has a craps table in his home.
Practice, practice, practice, until he is of age to enter a casino.

I'm very surprised that Artemis associated a wad of cash from a few old-timers with AP.

Quote: dicesitter

Why the burning desire to convince us that DI is real? It makes no sense to argue and say basically the same stuff over and over on a forum that's full of people who refuse to believe. Until you actually can show something legitimate it's always going to go like this...
"No you cant"
DS, "Yes I can"
"Show proof"
DS,"I'm a lifetime loser but I have been winning constantly lately, so it must be skill"
ME,"I could show you how to actually make money if you can actually influence the dice"
DS,"I'd rather bun in hell"

Really, who are you trying to convince? It sounds as if you're really just trying to convince yourself.

Why sit and butt heads with everyone here and just wast your time?
I can imagine there are a few Crap(s) DI forums filled with like minded people who will contribute positively .

I want some baumkuchen. Now, even. Never heard of it before. I have to go look for some.

Rs


Thanks for the reply, I will provide something for you, not sure yet how I will do it, I have
two trials this week and have a very limited amount of time.

thanks again

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

Rs


Thanks for the reply, I will provide something for you, not sure yet how I will do it, I have
two trials this week and have a very limited amount of time.

thanks again

dicesetter

hopefully its fresh random data and not cherry picked.

Some of theses so called DI'so boast of incredible SRS number's then when you actually watch them shoot suddenly they are having and off day, and we'll you know. They always seem to have monster rolls when no one is around and all the witnesses seem to have disappeared.

Quote: AxelWolf

hopefully its fresh random data and not cherry picked.

Some of theses so called DI'so boast of incredible SRS number's then when you actually watch them shoot suddenly they are having and off day, and we'll you know. They always seem to have monster rolls when no one is around and all the witnesses seem to have disappeared.

It's not the freshness of the data that matters, it's the significance. I just dropped two casino dice onto my carpet six times. I got two sixes, two fives, a twelve, and a four. Look how skillful I am -- my SRR is zero. :)

Of course, six rolls won't tell you anything about anything. That's why the idea of "your shot is working" after just a few rolls is bogus if you're just looking at results. It's impossible to tell six slightly controlled throws from six random ones.

There are proper methods that could be used to gather statistically-significant data about dice rolls, but I don't think you'll find that any of the dice-throwing adherents are following them. Also, you'd need to establish consistent initial conditions in order to evaluate the results, but those initial conditions aren't at all consistent when dice are thrown by hand. In fact, dicesitter's theory is apparently that there is a relationship between the initial orientation of the dice and the final orientation. For example, if the final orientation has one die turned 90 degrees from a desired outcome, the initial set should be adjusted by 90 degrees in the other direction to compensate and yield that desired outcome. Except he's wrong -- that notion of predictability in dice throws based on initial orientation has been disproven when the dice are thrown by hand on craps tables. This has already been studied by dynamicists (those who study forces and motion):

Quote: Marcin Kapitaniak, "The three-dimensional dynamics of the die throw"

Practically, the predictability [of a die throw] can be realized only when the die is thrown by a special device which allows to set very precisely the initial conditions. ... In real experiment, the predictability is possible only for very small "e", i.e., an accuracy which in practice is extremely difficult to implement and that is why the coin toss, die throw, and roulette run can be considered as a random process.

Throwing two dice off the back wall of a felt-covered craps table by hand is nowhere close to the level of precision required to approach predictability. I'd be willing to bet that despite however many hours or years of practice, the dice-influence advocates on this forum can't even get the dice to come to rest consistently within a given spot on the table (other than "somewhere at the far end"). If you can't even affect where the dice come to rest, how can you possibly affect the results?

Try this as an experiment: take two casino dice and drop them from a height of 6 inches onto your carpet. Be as precise as you can be and use the same initial orientation, e.g., dice side-by-side, 1s up, 2s facing you. Are they distinguishable from random? Track the results and post them here.

You seem over involved in this discussion. Pls tell me you and Dicesetter are not 'one and the same' having a prolonged discussion between the two halves of you. If you are, don't admit it. It gives me something to read;-)

Axelwolf



Because of that comment you will get nothing.... period


dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

Axelwolf



Because of that comment you will get nothing.... period


dicesetter

Just share with the rest of us, we will not tell Axel, promise ;-) I might sell the info to him later, but I promise you a cut of the proceeds (after expenses of course ;-)

Quote: dicesitter

Axelwolf



Because of that comment you will get nothing.... period


dicesetter

Quote: MathExtremist

I just dropped two casino dice onto my carpet six times. I got two sixes, two fives, a twelve, and a four. Look how skillful I am -- my SRR is zero. :)

Wanna try that math again oh extreme one? Six divided by zero is.....

Quote: DeMango

Wanna try that math again oh extreme one? Six divided by zero is.....

...the ratio of rolls to sevens. The sevens-to-rolls ratio (SRR), on the other hand, is zero.

Funny, but I usually win at slots when I take the trouble to push the spin button exactly dead center, using 4 pounds of finger pressure, no more, no less.

I have practiced this for eight years at home, and am now finally in position to make the casinos my bitch.

Ah, secret skills!

Quote: MathExtremist

...the ratio of rolls to sevens. The sevens-to-rolls ratio (SRR), on the other hand, is zero.

No because you haven't rolled a seven, it is infinite.

Quote: DeMango

No because you haven't rolled a seven, it is infinite.

Sevens-to-rolls ratio

Sevens:rolls

0:6

0/6

0

not 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.

Quote: DeMango

No because you haven't rolled a seven, it is infinite.

RS already showed the calculation, but there are two other points to make:
a) x/0 is not infinite, it is undefined for any real number x.

b) Your lack of precision in both language and mathematics is hindering your ability to think clearly about this topic. You seem hell-bent on trying to make me look bad, but your latest attempt involves wrongly inverting a fraction in a futile effort to argue against a point I didn't make. When I say the ratio of zero to six is zero, that really shouldn't be a point of contention.

Before this, you were trying to redefine the commonsense notion of "keeping the dice on axis throughout the roll" to include any scenario where the dice tumbled off-axis but showed a desired result anyway. That this redefinition is incorrect also shouldn't be a point of contention.

If this lack of precision is prevalent among your dice-influencing compatriots, it is no wonder you can't quantify your theoretical edge.

Well you can call it what you will but the lowest possible SRR is 1. That is, every roll you make is a seven. It cannot be 0. Your example of six rolls without a seven may be undefined by your definition or infinity by mine. Your lack of understanding of dice math is improving but still not there.

Quote: DeMango

Your lack of understanding of dice math is improving

Wow. Everything you write is exactly backwards from what you actually mean.

Dice probabilities and outcomes.


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

DS. This is the kind of abject nonsense that stops me from reading your posts.

Quote: dicesitter

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.

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 . . .

Quote: dicesitter

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???
dicesetter

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.)

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

Quote: DeMango

not 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-inside

A 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: RS

Sevens-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.

Sure


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: dicesitter

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.

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: dicesitter

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.

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

Quote: dicesitter

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.

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:



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.

Quote: OnceDear

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote: dicesitter

You understood exactly what I said.

I did, perhaps better than you did yourself. That’s why I know what you said is incomplete and incorrect. There are an infinite number of ways the dice can come to rest if you’re 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, that’s entirely incorrect. I already posted an example of a dice result that didn’t align with any of your six axial arrays, and that happens basically every time the dice axes aren’t parallel. You ignored that before, perhaps you won’t this time:





None of the above images align with any of your six orientations. Here’s 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.

That’s 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.

You’re guessing and/or hoping, but there’s 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,

That’s exactly what I think. If you have quantifiable evidence to prove me wrong, let’s 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.

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

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.

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 ?

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.
:)

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

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.

eclectic


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

Quote: dicesitter

I have spoken to several experts in the field of probability, and they all indicate that the general balance
will be maintained over time

No you didn't. Someone who believes this is no expert in probability.

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: dicesitter

the 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.

Quote: dicesitter

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


dicesetter

Seriously ?

Quote: AxelWolf

Seriously ?

I think he's been taking lessons from Singer.

Quote: odiousgambit

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.

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?

Math



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

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

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?

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: Richard A. Epstein, "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic", p. 28

The 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.

math



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

Quote: MathExtremist

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:



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.

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 ;-)
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