buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
October 11th, 2012 at 7:19:53 AM permalink
" There were just tons of distractions as the family was making tons of noise and all kinds of other mayhem."

Well, you certainly won't have those distractions in a casino. There is an almost eerie wall of silence
at most crap tables.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
October 11th, 2012 at 7:21:28 AM permalink
" However, your response implies you agree that it is possible to influence the dice occasionally. And if it is possible occasionally, then it is also possible more often. "

What I meant is that sometimes the result are what you hoped for. Not that anything other than chance occurred !
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 5158
October 11th, 2012 at 7:33:46 AM permalink
Quote: buzzpaff

" There were just tons of distractions as the family was making tons of noise and all kinds of other mayhem."

Well, you certainly won't have those distractions in a casino. There is an almost eerie wall of silence
at most crap tables.



Only when you're there.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
October 11th, 2012 at 7:38:40 AM permalink
I would love to be there. Can I consider this a personal invitation ? I sure hope so. I promise to just quietly observe !
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 5158
October 11th, 2012 at 8:55:15 AM permalink
Quote: 24Bingo

All right - here's what you should do, then.

You think you've got it down to 3.78% - let's be on the safe side and say 1 in 30 (=3.33%).

That means that what we need is: 4134 rolls. That's right. Four thousand, one hundred and thirty-four.

Starting now, or at some declared future point, in a total of 4134 rolls, I would have to see you hit 136 times or more to be convinced you had some control over the dice. You have to have decided which rolls will count toward the 4134 before the fact, not counting any you hadn't planned to and not cutting any you had. If you're posting videos, I'd probably expect you to tell us in advance when it will be and what your condition for stopping will be, and to have some evidence in the video that you didn't shoot it before that post.

If you have that level of control over the dice, it's about a one in forty shot that you'll come in below that number; if the dice remain fair, it's about a one in forty shot you'll come in above. For that reason, I wouldn't be entirely convinced, but my interest would certainly be piqued. From such a high chance of a false positive/negative even after all those rolls, however, I think you can see pretty clearly why no one has anything constructive to say about your tests over a few dozen rolls, especially with the likelihood that there's selection bias afoot.



Thanks for the suggestions, and this all makes sense to me.

I wish I could do something faster like roll 6 in a row of a pair I was trying to hit that is a lot less work, but I can't currently even do four in a row.

I've done three in a row enough times from what's on the top of my set, so maybe I will get four in a row on video when it finally happens the first time.

To me, showing back-to-back pairs from the top of my set is much easier and takes less time to do and hopefully I can get some results like that on video.

I really don't want to record 4000 rolls and I'm pretty sure that very few people want to sit through that much video.

Just the amount of storage space for that much evidence is more space than I currently have. I already have 100GB of video from four sessions on 9-18, 9-23, 10-7, and 10-10. I think the total amount of time is less than 8 hours, but I'd have to go count. 4,000 rolls is going to be at least 80 hours and 1TB of storage space. It usually takes me about 3 or 4 hours just to put together 10 minutes of video too. And that is work, let me tell you.

But if there's agreement and interest, I could put it all together and make all the collective video available as evidence towards proof if it were agreed upon by the experts that this could be proof. It's exactly what I'm setting out to do is to prove it, and I 100% acknowledge and expected that nothing was proven with what has been done so far. That's why I'm here is to get help to actually prove it with the proper science to claim that it has been proven to be possible so we can move on and stop debating this forever.

I'm not on a quest to make so much money that I have a new basket of problems, and the sooner people understand that my quest is not about money the more likely I could get help and support rather than a rash of crap from people who assume that I can't do it because I haven't already won millions in the casino.

And to anyone who is fearful that my proving this will limit their ability to earn money, if that is the case and that happens, I apologize in advance. But I think there are more people who would like to believe they have a gravy train from being able to perform DI than actually exist. And those who can consistently profit, typically use a combination of betting strategies that increase bets and/or chase losses with increased bets in addition to how they throw the dice and don't separate the two from one another.

My goal is really to isolate and demonstrate that control is possible. And I have no idea what to expect. It will be a discovery for me as well. This could be a 1600 roll random thing where these pairs on the top of my set always stick out.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
October 11th, 2012 at 9:05:21 AM permalink
" And I have no idea what to expect.' EXPECT TO FAIL !
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
October 11th, 2012 at 10:02:36 AM permalink
You will need over 800 rolls. That's just not enough to prove anything, especially changing your "set" half way through.

You should just need to record the throws themselves on your set up. No need to publish every ten minutes, just record the lot, document it and the analyze and break down. IF you find an effect, you can then work on your evidence.

As stated, you need to decide on phenomena A, test for A and A only, then prove or disprove it. You might come up with a new theory at the end of your tests. But at that point it's a new theory B and will require a new set of tests B.... YOU CANNOT back propagate the new theory through the existing rolls... that's data mining and won't hold.

Heavy does this with his 720 roll "books". These are just window dressing, IMHO.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 5158
October 11th, 2012 at 10:37:18 AM permalink
Quote: buzzpaff

" And I have no idea what to expect.' EXPECT TO FAIL !



I think there might be a pattern to your comments too. But it could be my imagination.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
October 11th, 2012 at 11:03:08 AM permalink
Imagination is the lifeblood of creativity. But facing reality does not mean giving up your dreams.

No one would like to see you succeed more than I REALLY !
superrick
superrick
Joined: Jul 14, 2010
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 775
October 11th, 2012 at 12:15:00 PM permalink
Reality Check

I know, I know Angela only rolled three hard ways in 14 rolls counting her 7 out on her second roll. Damn she also had the Wizard bending her ear when she was shooting and talking about that damn 7, any other shooter would have been so shaking, that they wouldn't have been able to make those three hard ways she rolled. Talk about all the distractions she had to put up with while she was shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OP0W-keoBQ&feature=relmfu

Lets see she had a 11 roll with two hard-eights, she also made three 5's two of them were for her winning point. Then on her next little roll she hit the hard 10 before she sevened out.
So she rolled three hard ways in her 14 rolls.

Again did she beat probability, and would all you DI's out there be betting on her by now?
The Wizard must have this teaching thing down to a science. How much do you think he should be charging for his service?

Ahigh this is just a “Reality Check” it has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove, I love your videos, but I think it should be pointed out to everybody that everybody gets lucky, if that is how you want to describe what happens on a craps table when things are not falling into the probabilities of the game. There are table trends that allow you to win when playing craps, the game doesn't always follow the math of the game.

By the way I can’t wait till you get your new camera; I just love the slow motion you shoot. Your last video was a blast, I think you are missing your calling; you should become a cinema photographer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4-PGkDIO24&feature=related

Just one more video that you can find on the web, of real live play in a casino, this shooter made 3 points on a 21 roll, damn I hate those so-called random rollers, nobody should ever bet on them, they are just losers, that is what our writers that write about becoming a DI wants everybody to believe!
Note, all my post start with this is just my opinion...! You do good brada ..! superrick Winning comes from knowledge and skill when your betting and not reading fiction http://procraps4u2.myfanforum.org/index.php ...

  • Jump to: