Can we just make this thread come to its long awaited finale so that we may conclude this thread with a definitive rejection or a willingness to simply demonstrate DI as quickly and respectfully as possible?
And while you are at it, please also have Jesus walk across a swimming pool!
Laughing, you just put in as much time on this as I do.
This whole thing is silly. The stuff math preaches wont work, has never worked and will never work.
I merely have suggested that if a player has a decent shot, there are times he or she can make an
adjustment in set and get some different results.... the other day I suggested with data, that the
hard way set can be a problem for the average player trained at certain dice schools. Nothing
strange about that, that is a fact. Of course some of the guys on here cant stand that.
This week I played at Wisconsin Dells, Keshena, Green Bay and Carter. 6 sessions, 4 wins, 1loss and
a draw. Funny thing was at the Dells my friend throws the GTC shot from SL1, and that is all. He has
no other shot. But he has had trouble with the single pitch double pitch seven more and more as
he took more classes. As I indicated 2 weeks ago he took another class (now I would not have
taken another class) and played once he got home and it was even worse... so Friday before we
played I showed him a simple quarter turn adjustment. After two short rolls with the same problem,
he made that change and had 4 rolls over 20, same guy, same dice, same table. I only shoot
4 times and was not to good with a 4,8,16,21.
The point I have been making is not that any adjustment works all the time or maybe not
at all, it is that if your results are bad, try something different that makes sense......If you
can find some problem with that, I would love to hear it. Since Math would suggest
that my buddy and I are poverty stricken, uneducated street sweepers, you would think
Math would assume an adjustment would be a natural thing to do since we are not
smart enough to use the same set two throws in a row.
By the way, my time of shot is 6-7 seconds.
I hope the Mrs. didn't have to hitch hike home, after you borrowed money from her ?Quote: dicesitter
my buddy and I are poverty stricken,
I am not sure, she called Friday and said she won $500 on some card game, but then said
that made her about even, so for a very small better she must have had a real bad
Thursday since she only had half a day there. She is supposed to be home here any
time so I will know soon enough.
I had a good weekend so I should be able to cover the bank loan.
PS being as poor as Math thinks I am is so hard you know.
I merely have suggested that if a player has a decent shot, there are times he or she can make an adjustment in set and get some different results
I, as well as ME, have clearly stated that we have no bone to pick with you or anyone trying toss/set tweaks when the current toss is not working. The big difference is that you attribute your set/toss tweaks with causing effects which we would attribute to simple variance. Since you can never know what would have been tossed if you had/hadn't made that tweak, it's simply your assertion of knowledge of your skills that lets you view the tweaks as having positive effects rather than variance.
My question is simple. You obviously know your shot well enough to win more often than not, which is how you describe your many recent sessions in various venues. Can you not WARM UP at a regulation table and figure out how your toss is running and simply toss a specified number of hands of dice such that they would be better than what would occur at random?
This is a fairly basic demonstration of craps throwing skill that should easily beat random when your toss is warmed up. After all, there needs to be some way that you or anyone who claims to have an edge at craps to distinguish their considerable skill from the average Joe's scatter shots. Just curious, how would you design a demonstration of verifiable skill from sheer random luck, prior to shooting the dice at a regulation table? I'm sure the math wizards on this site can take your suggestions and design a verifiable test of non-randomness. If you wanted to start each hand with a certain number of chips and then you and the random shooter would compete on winnings, etc. ---these details could be worked out relatively easily, I presume.
Would having two different sessions be better so if your shot is off on one session you would have another session several hours later or perhaps the next day to recover and throw better?
If there is no way you would objectively demonstrate your skills can beat random, then you must not have the confidence in your skills to expect an edge at craps(via sevens avoidance or winnings).
Some very good questions.
I don't think any of my answers will be good enough for you, not even close for Math.
I think I have said many times the idea of a constant edge is in my opinion a myth. I
'understand there are craps schools that preach that. I guess I have never been good
enough to do that.
What I find over and over is that the better I make the shot, the better my chance is to
beat the table. Not that the shot is that good, but it allows me to make a set change or
Now for me, that means I win, I don't give a crap how much I win. I have
more than enough money to last me my last number of years, and bragging rights
over large wins means even less than nothing to me.
Saturday I played on a tub, it is very, very bouncy. I watched two guys buy in for
$100 and lose quickly with 3/4 3/4 3/4 etc. I bought in and first three hands I
had 3/4 3/4 3/4. I changed sets and moved my landing spot about 18 inches
and began to hit some of the same numbers I hit at home with that set and actually
made my money back and a profit. I was happy with that and since I was going to
meet a guy at another casino I left. I did not plan this short visit, I had to put the dock in
at my lake cabin and thought this table would have been open earlier in the day.
That night I started out about the same ,but did not have to make any significant change
and ended with a small profit, ate dinner and was tired so I just went home.
I am not sure what you would consider a skill etc, but I think over 20 hands I will
zero in good enough that my average effect would beat random.
When I first took a class, I had hoped I could play craps after I retired and not have
it impact my retirement income. I related to Axel, that later, it had gotten to be a little
more than that for me. Be that as it may, I am retired and playing a lot of craps
and it has been a time since I actually went into my funds to get money to play.
So for me I am 100% sure that what I see is not all variance.