RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
October 11th, 2012 at 12:58:59 PM permalink
I hesitate to chime in here (best John Wayne voice..... "Like Hell, I do!").....

I was not expecting you to tie your rolls to any sort of 'betting strategy". I think that just overly complicates what we are trying to prove you can or cannot do.

Here is my simple vision. I just want to see if you can throw more hardways than what a normal distribution would indicate. I'm not worried about come out 7s or easy numbers, or anything else. Let's just keep it simply at hardways. Once we have a high confidence that you do in fact throw more hardways than is reasonable and expected, then, and only then, should we start looking at ways to profit from this.

Just use the set you use when you want hardways, ALL the time. Give me 108 rolls. Then take a break, and give me 108 rolls, again ALL with your hardway set. Even though the sample set is small, if you can always throw more hardways then expected, then you could be onto something.

Thank you for the rolls. I will plug them into my spreadsheet and see how this compares to the last roll sequence I did. However, I can already see one problem. I think you have some Come Out 7s, which you would view as a good thing, since you were testing a 'betting strategy' too. But in the way I am looking at the data, all 7s are bad. Given this, there is probably not much real value to be gained by testing your latest roll sequence, but I will plug the data in anyway.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
October 11th, 2012 at 1:06:05 PM permalink
Quote: superrick

There are table trends that allow you to win when playing craps, the game doesn't always follow the math of the game.



I don't think the phrase "math of the game" means what you think it means...

Unless those dice are biased, the game of craps always follows the Math of the Game. It might just be the observers can not follow the math of the game.
"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
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
October 11th, 2012 at 1:06:44 PM permalink
Here is my thought on how a profit could be made.

Suppose it does turn out that you can beat the number of hardways that was previously computed. If your easy numbers are in line, I 'think' we can probably just bet all 4 hardways, active on every roll, and still profit.
If it turns out you throw more hardways, but also more easy ways as well, we may have to hedge the hardway action with cover on the easy numbers to. This will work as long as your 7 count is low. (this would not be a bad hedge in the conventional sense, since we are dealing with DI here, not randomness.)
I am guessing the extra easy way bets would become a losing proposition though, if your 7 count is normal.

But back to first things first. Can you throw more hardways than normal distribution would expect?
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
October 11th, 2012 at 1:39:15 PM permalink
Simple question : Can you throw more hardways than normal distribution would expect?


Simple answer ; NO
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 5158
October 11th, 2012 at 1:56:06 PM permalink
Quote: buzzpaff

Simple question : Can you throw more hardways than normal distribution would expect?

Simple answer ; NO



In general, this is a correct answer. Thank you so much for contributing. I think you should have used a colon instead of a semicolon, and no space before that though for proper grammar. However, I think he was asking me, and not you.

For me, and generally speaking, my pairs and hardways tend to clump but not be significantly higher in frequency in the long run.

On the higher frequency in the long run, I believe I have more of whatever I put on the top of my set. Since this is a hardway set, I get whatever pair I put on top more frequently for the last 1600 rolls or so now since the beginning of August.

I'll point it out in the data, but briefly you'll see more boxcars in the first sets of rolls from August, and you'll see more hard eights in the data from around roll 1250 and further along.

I have the complete data at home and I will publish it in one place soon and explain what I believe is a possibility for bias towards what's on the top of my set.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
October 11th, 2012 at 1:57:32 PM permalink
" In general, this is a correct answer." On this we are in total agreement.


As for punctuation , I have taken ENG 090 and passed, but I do not consider my postings here

college essays.
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
October 11th, 2012 at 2:28:58 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

...
On the higher frequency in the long run, I believe I have more of whatever I put on the top of my set. Since this is a hardway set, I get whatever pair I put on top more frequently for the last 1600 rolls or so now since the beginning of August.

I'll point it out in the data, but briefly you'll see more boxcars in the first sets of rolls from August, and you'll see more hard eights in the data from around roll 1250 and further along.

I have the complete data at home and I will publish it in one place soon and explain what I believe is a possibility for bias towards what's on the top of my set.



Again Ahigh, I think you and I are also dancing in a circle.
I am interested in your question as to whether or not you are throwing more hardways than typical.
I want to concentrate on looking forward as to what you can do, with a specific goal in mind, for the upcoming series of rolls. ONLY

So, if you believe you have a correlation between your top set and the hardways you can roll, put that on a card, in front of the camera, and then roll 2 sets of 108 rolls.

An example might be your card says, "I am going to set the boxcars, 4s facing me, and this set will give me more boxcars."
Now throw 108 times. Now hold up the card in front of the camera, and do it again. 108 rolls.
NOW, we look at your data. You said you were using a 12 set to get more 12s. Did you do it once? Did you do it both times?
Perhaps we find that you rolled more hard eights. That's cool too. File that away. We may find that you roll more hard eights setting the 12s.
The key is, You have to declare ahead of time what you are trying to accomplish, and then test the results against that attempt."
Otherwise, I contend you are just plucking oddities from normal random data.

I get the impression you are interested in analyzing your data from the past. I believe that to be a colossal waste of my time, since I guarantee that you can find unique patterns in every monkey's roll, mine included. But that proves nothing, since we cannot place bets on history.
I have thrown 3 straight Come out Yo's a couple of times in the past. I threw 3 straight 1-3 rolls the session before last. I once threw each one of the horn numbers in straight succession, followed by the 7 out (what a crappy roll that was). All interesting looking backwards, but proves nothing about my ability - or inability.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
October 11th, 2012 at 3:22:42 PM permalink
" So, if you believe you have a correlation between your top set and the hardways you can roll, put that on a card, in front of the camera, and then roll 2 sets of 108 rolls. "


But that might actually prove something and bring this discussion to a close. Have you no shame ?
WongBo
WongBo
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2126
October 11th, 2012 at 5:43:02 PM permalink
If you are not calling which hard way you are going to shoot,
you really should be counting the 2 and 12 in your math.
Without calling for example, 6 or 8 only,
you are not exhibiting enough actual determined control to exclude all hardways,
Including the hi/lo...
Just my two cents, I am interested in your experiments,
though a bit skeptical and less obsessed perhaps.
Best of luck.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief. - Proverb.
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 5158
October 11th, 2012 at 11:41:55 PM permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVUJanQ0SFQ

Just in case you missed it, here's the video from last night.

  • Jump to: