Has anyone ever seen a real study on dice control?
Any dice setting trial without a magician present is not a trial at all. Too many guys have magic fingers !
The fact that none of these guys will put their money up on a long trial says it all.
Quote: buzzpaffThe fact that none of these guys will put their money up on a long trial says it all.
Are we moving our goalpost? First, it was merely: "put their money where their mouth is." Now it is: "put their money up on a long trial."
This new condition involves the matter of practicality. A 500-roll test probably seems like a lengthy test when one is standing at that table. Most wouldn't want to spend more than one day trying to prove such assertions. Perhaps it would be best to combine the known trials and to statistically analyze the lot. A bunch of one-day tests is the same as one big trial.
Then, the question becomes: how many tosses are needed to satisfy the interested parties?
He would be low profiling his way to a fortune.
Quote: tupp
Then, the question becomes: how many tosses are needed to satisfy the interested parties?
It all depends.... on what the alleged dice influencer claims they can do...
If they claim they can lower 7's to 12% from 16.67% it will be in the hundreds of rolls...
If thye claim they can lower 7's to 16% from 16.67% it will be in the tens of thousands of rolls...
As I have always asked the numerous fly by nighters who have graced our forums, make a claim, and I'll design a bet to prove you can't do it, and I'll be willing to bet on it....
Quote: SOOPOOIt all depends.... on what the alleged dice influencer claims they can do...
If they claim they can lower 7's to 12% from 16.67% it will be in the hundreds of rolls...
If thye claim they can lower 7's to 16% from 16.67% it will be in the tens of thousands of rolls...
How many rolls would satisfy you if someone claims that they can roll 15.9% (or less) 7s?
... How about if they claim 14.8% (or less) 7s?
Next.
Quote: WongBoSample size too small to assign statistical significance. Next.
Issue already addressed in previous posts. Even gave two hard percentages of 7s with inquiry on number of rolls that would satisfy all parties. :)
Incidentally, a heated dice-influencing debate on another forum led to the second trial linked. Both sides agreed on all of the conditions, and 500 rolls was determined as the sample size (a long time on a craps table). Both sides attended the trial, and the shooters prevailed soundly.
You still have a 21% chance of throwing 159 or less 7s in 1000 throws. Not convincing.
Or I'd have to see what 7craps just posted about. That would convince me.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47/science-math-philosophy/statistics-question-calculating-required-sample-size-271828/
Do not put WongBo down.
It comes down to the degree of certainty and margin of error wanted.
If it is really all about just rolling less 7s than a certain acceptable range of outcomes,
and we know it is not...
For the range of a random shooter (DI would have to be outside that range more times)
The standard deviation for the binomial distribution is sqrt(Npq) = sqrt(N*1/6*5/6).
Say we want N such that 0.01*N = 3.09025 standard deviations.
This would be a CL of 99.9% with a error of 0.01(1%)
0.01*N = 3.09025*sqrt(N*1/6*5/6)
N = (3.09025/0.01)^2*(1/6*5/6)
N= 572,978.70
The error rate is about 1/sqrt(N)
The SD range and margin of error can be lowered. (lower the overall certainty)
a CL of 95% with an error of 0.01
1.959964 SD
N=230,487.53
Still too high?
a CL of 90% with an error of 0.01
1.644854 SD
N=230,487.53
Maybe just a .05 (5%) error rate instead
N=6,493.31
===================================
OK
How about a 50% CL and a 10% error rate
N=272.96
Nice!!!!
Last offer
An 80% CL with a 13.5% error rate
N=540.70
added: (cashed on the Jets $$$... got to love NFL home dogs!)
IMO,
Any DI that claims to roll less 7s should beat any random range consistently.
Not really sorry for all the math.
The numbers can be agreed upon, but are still only meaningful to a certain degree of confidence.
No one really wants to be confident in any DI claim.
Just have faith and bet with the DI.
Especially Ahigh, he IS 1 in a million.
Special talents with the dice.
Even if you have an edge as a DI, you better make the right bets,
or you are just as -EV as the rest.
Even blind Gorillas throwing the dice can do this.Quote: dwheatleyYou have a ~6% chance of throwing 148 or less 7s in 1000 throws. That's somewhat convincing, but not really enough.
You still have a 21% chance of throwing 159 or less 7s in 1000 throws. Not convincing.
Nothing special we can all agree
No convincing needed.Quote: dwheatleyI'd be convinced around a 1% chance, so 2100 throws for 14.8%, and 13'000 throws for 15.9%.
Or I'd have to see what 7craps just posted about. That would convince me.
My idea since large sample sizes are too large,
set the number of dice rolls to 36 per session.
Since 1 in 21 random shooters would roll 0,1 or 2 - 7s (EV=6)
The DI would have to do better.
or
Since 1 in 86 random shooters would roll 0 or1 - 7s (EV=6)
The DI would have to do better more times on average to win some confidence.
Maybe just back to back
Quote: 7crapsNo convincing needed.
My idea since large sample sizes are too large,
set the number of dice rolls to 36 per session.
Since 1 in 21 random shooters would roll 0,1 or 2 - 7s (EV=6)
The DI would have to do better.
or
Since 1 in 86 random shooters would roll 0 or1 - 7s (EV=6)
The DI would have to do better more times on average to win some confidence.
How can someone do better than rolling no 7s?
0,1 or 2 per 36 rolls
1 in 21 is an average as you know.
They would just have to do better than average per 36 roll session
I can't do it
Quote: tuppHow many rolls would satisfy you if someone claims that they can roll 15.9% (or less) 7s?
... How about if they claim 14.8% (or less) 7s?
I am not a 'math guy' anymore, but I'll bet any sum you want that 148 or fewer out of 1000 won't be acheived.
A 'math guy' here will probably say that 148 or lower would happen a few percent of the time by normal variance, but I'll take that chance.
The 15.9% would require too many rolls to be practical for me to get involved in, likely 10000 rolls...
Quote: SOOPOOI am not a 'math guy' anymore, but I'll bet any sum you want that 148 or fewer out of 1000 won't be acheived.
Still a lot of dice rolls.
The DI would just get tired too fast and the experiment would fail because of it.
if you just want to stay with percentages for the wager
instead of # of standard deviations
6% or 1 in 16.7
for 148 or less in 1000 is about equal to
here is the same 6% at lower rolls.
Most can calculate this easily in Excel or an online calc.
6 or less in 66 rolls (6.1%)
10 or less in 96 rolls (6%)
15 or less in 132 rolls (5.95%)
A DI to do these back to back
would be more impressive
Quote: MathExtremistYou're just making that up.
I'm not making up anything. What I wrote is how you accomplish dice influencing and dice control:
The definition of "dice control" and "dice influencing" has always been specific and that is a combination of the dice softly tossed to a pre-determined point on the table, a gentle bounce and roll to the back wall, a gentle bounce or drop off the back wall, with the dice remaining on axis during the entire trip from the moment they leave the shooter's fingertips.
What you wrote is the goal of dice influencing and dice control: To "influence" the dice simply means to alter the probability distribution of one or both dice such that at least one die face has p != 1/6.
Luck has nothing to do with it. Either you can "control" the dice and the throw and the toss and the roll and the bounce and the axis or you can't. It doesn't matter how the dice end up on the table. Anything can happen. Ahigh has shown us the effects of luck. His tosses and rolls and bounces show no skill. Ahigh is using the "ends" to justify his claims that he has the "means."
I'm ready to meet him at the casino of his choice with a camera. But if he does manage to hit a bunch of hardways without what is considered to be true dice control then he is one lucky son of a gun. Because he is not a dice controller. He doesn't even come close.
I never did read that page before, thanks for the linkQuote: tuppActually, the founder of this very web site once conducted a test with a dice tossing coach and his colleagues,
And you call that trounced???Quote: tuppThe shooters trounced the math expectations -- in 500 tosses,
they rolled only 74 sevens out of an expected 83.33.
Beating expectation by slightly more than 1 standard deviation?
added: It took 2 DIs.
Wong was just random (another joke)
and SOOPOO would have won his 6% wager from him.
The other DI did better, 8.53822%
and SOOPOO would have won his 6% wager from him too.
AND... The Wizard bet on this?
Well, IMO, When you have (had) money to burn...
They had close to a 1 in 3 chance of winning the wager just like random shooters have...
For the same win % (about 0.3278261)
they should have just agreed to roll 72 times and for 10 or less 7s.
Same thing.
Same SD ratio.
That was a total joke that is not even funny.
Quote: tuppActually, the founder of this very web site once conducted a test with a dice tossing coach and his colleagues, and they proved to be more successful than mathematical expectations. They won 76 times yet the math expected 74 wins. That performance beats the house edge of 1.41% for a line bet, and they might have done even better had they been placing 10x odds, bringing the house edge down to only 0.184%.
If you look further down the page linked above, you can read about another dice tossing test, on which the founder of this web site made a wager. The shooters trounced the math expectations -- in 500 tosses, they rolled only 74 sevens out of an expected 83.33.
Of course, with such short trials, we can't conclusively say that dice "influencers" will win in the long run, but, at the same time, we cannot truthfully say that dice influencers have never accepted the challenge to test their abilities.
What you saw were bets on dice influencing that won. You did not see any proof of dice influencing or dice control. NO ONE has yet to prove they can control the dice, or even influence the dice.
We know you are ready, is Ahigh ready... now?Quote: AlanMendelsonI'm ready to meet him at the casino of his choice with a camera.
Ouch!Quote: AlanMendelsonBut if he does manage to hit a bunch of hardways without what is considered to be true dice control then he is one lucky son of a gun.
Because he is not a dice controller.
He doesn't even come close.
But you and I will collect our winnings on those hardways,
especially when he calls out he is ready for 3 in a row winners.
Parlay Baby!
If they can control the dice, show us a controlled throw. And show us several times. Our friend Ahigh should show us this with his slow motion videos. He can't. NO ONE can. It's a dream.
But as soon as someone can do it, I will be the first to cheer them on!!
I can agree with this from spending about 20 hours trying to film the dice from birth to death.Quote: AlanMendelsonwith the dice remaining on axis during the entire trip from the moment they leave the shooter's fingertips and do this just a few times.
THAT is what a true dice controller or dice influencer is supposed to do.
Whether or not they hit or avoid certain numbers is secondary.
Got about 5 seconds of good video.
I think OLD school DIs (Frank and Co.) were under the impression of on-axis and stuff and just less 7s
where NEW school (Frank and Co.) still tries but knows certain numbers can roll more by their
"ends justifies the means" slogan to overcome the house edge.
But Alan,
Ahigh has data backing his claim,
and Dealers and other players that have witnessed his DI calls and skills,
as unorthodox as they may be.
What say ye
when you do film him,
and the dice do not stay on axis
but his results are always more than 2 to 3 standard deviations away from average
(in other (math) words, one lucky son of a gun)
Arm wrestle?Quote: DeMangoYou either increase or decrease the amount of 7s. Nothing else matters.
"To control the dice when you shoot so that you
reduce the appearance of certain numbers
and
increase the appearance of other numbers
- thus offsetting the house edge and giving the edge to you, "
http://www.goldentouchcraps.com/midastouch.shtml
"Our teachers are the greatest dice control specialists in the world, many with books and major publications to their credit, all with years of winning casino experience behind them!"
my 2 cents... one would think these guys would just never leave a casino.
Great team play and vacations galore.
added:
It should be a given that if there are less 7s at least one number has to be higher!
This is simple multinomial distribution at work.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI'm not making up anything. What I wrote is how you accomplish dice influencing and dice control:
The definition of "dice control" and "dice influencing" has always been specific and that is a combination of the dice softly tossed to a pre-determined point on the table, a gentle bounce and roll to the back wall, a gentle bounce or drop off the back wall, with the dice remaining on axis during the entire trip from the moment they leave the shooter's fingertips.
What you wrote is the goal of dice influencing and dice control: To "influence" the dice simply means to alter the probability distribution of one or both dice such that at least one die face has p != 1/6.
Do you think the only feasible way to influence the dice is to use a gentle blanket roll? Despite the fact that other dice bias methods have actually been used successfully in a casino?
Quote: 7craps
AND... The Wizard bet on this?
Well, IMO, When you have (had) money to burn...
They had close to a 1 in 3 chance of winning the wager just like random shooters have...
Even Money bet on a 2:3 chance to win, how do you not make the bet, in my opinion, should be the question. With exception to some opportunities in Poker, I don't think you'll ever see an opportunity like that in a casino. I wouldn't have plunked down $1,800, of course, but I'd have definitely put something down on the Over paying Even Money.
Quote: 7crapsBut Alan, Ahigh has data backing his claim, and Dealers and other players that have witnessed his DI calls and skills,
as unorthodox as they may be.
What say ye when you do film him, and the dice do not stay on axis but his results are always more than 2 to 3 standard deviations away from average
(in other (math) words, one lucky son of a gun)
If he is able to get the results he claims even though he has an unorthodox throw, and the dice do not stay on axis, then he is a super magician and the ultimate dice mechanic or he has telephathic powers. In which case I certainly would like to document his super abilities and I will help him market his skills and he will be my next multi million dollar TV infomercial client.
So, I'm ready. Is he?
I am not a super magician.
I am not the "ultimate dice mechanic"
I do not have telepathic powers.
I am doing fine documenting what I'm doing on my own.
The angle that you are approaching this, which is something along the lines of "if he won't let me video him he must be a fake" is a little disingenuous IMO.
I'm not a fake. I'm not claiming anything that isn't clearly documented on video already.
I haven't claimed to prove anything, just sharing what I can already do.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI will accept that someone is a true dice controller if they can take two dice and softly toss them to a pre-determined point on the table, with a gentle bounce and roll to the back wall, and a gentle bounce or drop off the back wall, with the dice remaining on axis during the entire trip from the moment they leave the shooter's fingertips and do this just a few times. THAT is what a true dice controller or dice influencer is supposed to do. Whether or not they hit or avoid certain numbers is secondary.
If they can control the dice, show us a controlled throw. And show us several times. Our friend Ahigh should show us this with his slow motion videos. He can't. NO ONE can. It's a dream.
But as soon as someone can do it, I will be the first to cheer them on!!
Hi Alan,
I think the limits you are placing on dice control are incorrectly placing artificial limitations, based only on the physics aspect. What a poorly worded sentence!
You have arbitrarily ruled out other dimensions of dice control that may, or may not, exist. If someone has the ability to control the dice faces with their will, or their mind, would you not consider them to be dice control experts ? I know the science/physics crowd are throwing up right now, but there are many people who would say amen brother.
The definition of dice control should be, can you consistently beat the stat of what random probability expects? How the DI gets to that result should not be a consideration. It sure would be great to know, but the how is not a requirement.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI will accept that someone is a true dice controller if they can take two dice and softly toss them to a pre-determined point on the table, with a gentle bounce and roll to the back wall, and a gentle bounce or drop off the back wall, with the dice remaining on axis during the entire trip from the moment they leave the shooter's fingertips and do this just a few times. THAT is what a true dice controller or dice influencer is supposed to do. Whether or not they hit or avoid certain numbers is secondary.
Your terms are useless. The result is what makes a dice controller/influencer.
The point spending the time to throw dice is to change the behaviours of the dice from random to biased. HOW you do it is immaterial for the end result. If you don't bias the dice, it doesn't matter if you do an on-axis throw or not.
You are confusing method with results. The dice influencing have tried to use the term for one and only one throw type. That's horribly limiting. If they COULD do what they claim, then it would be of interest, and maybe we can say that dice control matters and is "this way". As you yourself suggest, they can't do it, hence their method isn't better or worse than any other "dice control" method. In fact worse, as 'invalid' rolls have be shown to bias the result significantly...
You're buying into the their terminology, without realizing that their terms may not be useful.
Quote: RaleighCrapsHi Alan,
I think the limits you are placing on dice control are incorrectly placing artificial limitations, based only on the physics aspect. What a poorly worded sentence!
You have arbitrarily ruled out other dimensions of dice control that may, or may not, exist. If someone has the ability to control the dice faces with their will, or their mind, would you not consider them to be dice control experts ? I know the science/physics crowd are throwing up right now, but there are many people who would say amen brother.
The definition of dice control should be, can you consistently beat the stat of what random probability expects? How the DI gets to that result should not be a consideration. It sure would be great to know, but the how is not a requirement.
It's not just that, he appears to be ruling out even physical manipulations which don't conform to his predetermined conception of "the only way dice control can possibly work" (that being a gentle blanket roll).
I don't know that I'd immediately be looking for extra-sensory bases for influence, because there is no plausible model for how that would work, but there are plausible models for physical bias that aren't "roll the dice gently on axis". They've been discussed numerous times. Watch two game protection consultants kill 6s with a well-executed slide:
Bill Zender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdOQUWzPzKg
Sal Piacente: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Jz9UenEPg
Note that the 2x/3x Field has a +66.67% EV with a killed six, and the passline has a +11.63% EV if you kill the six on a comeout but roll randomly afterwards. If the shooter is playing one line bet plus a come-out field, they just need to kill three sixes per 30 come outs (about once every 20 minutes) to have a 2% edge over the house. Once every 5 comeouts (instead of once every 10) bumps the player edge to a combined 6.2%. I'm going to estimate that even at a full table, a slider can have the edge if they just execute the slide once (on a comeout) every time they get the dice, regardless of the timing. If they get the dice frequently, that means they're shooting more often and can pull the move more frequently. If they don't get the dice frequently that means there are other hot hands and they're winning on the passline anyway.
BTW, Sal did a session at G2E on catching dealer cheating which featured some fabulous surveillance footage. It's amazing how far a crooked dealer will go to steal from the house.
Edited to add: I do not actually advocate trying to slide the dice in a casino as that will get you booted and probably arrested. But it is a very clear demonstration that dice can be biased with a method that doesn't involve a gentle toss and keeping the dice on the horizontal axis.
i AGREE, BUT i HAVE YET TO FIND A CASINO THAT WILL JUST LET ME DROP THE DICE ON A PILLOW !
Quote: buzzpaff" there are plausible models for physical bias that aren't "roll the dice gently on axis".
i AGREE, BUT i HAVE YET TO FIND A CASINO THAT WILL JUST LET ME DROP THE DICE ON A PILLOW !
That's exactly the point -- if a casino discovers that you're using a successful method for dice control, they'll just make you throw the dice harder against the rubber pyramids. All that time and effort will be wasted. Game over.
psst, Buzz, your caps lock key is on.
But ahigh has convinced me to rethink my position on videos.
My Uncle Fred has a video of him knocking out Mohammed Ali and Joe Frazier both.
From now on, I will call him CHAMP !
Quote: buzzpaffI realized that but was too lazy to edit SORRY
But ahigh has convinced me to rethink my position on videos.
My Uncle Fred has a video of him knocking out Mohammed Ali and Joe Frazier both.
From now on, I will call him CHAMP !
I've been over this before with another person, but the videos are authentic.
I still have an open invitation to anyone who wants the original videos or who wants to inspect the camera or hard drive on the camera to verify authenticity.
Don't practice your throw and go to the casino to play for the HOPE of influencing the dice. That's what I used to do. I used to practice all the time, throwing into my couch. At first I thought DI was absolutely possible, because those that sell it warn how extraordinarily difficult it is, and despite that I always thought it sounded totally plausible.
Now I haven't played seriously for awhile, but here's another anecdote of why trying to play can really mess with your head.
Friday night I went to the casino and my first turn with the dice I rolled about 18 rolls, including 1 hard 10, 3 hard fours (2 back-to-back), a hard six and a hard 8. I hit at least one point, maybe two. I was using the Hardway set as well. I didn't make much money, but the next two turns I hit several sixes and eights on each turn, several hardways, and several points. I think I rolled into the 25-30 roll range each time.
These are the things that make me believe it's totally possible.
Quote: buzzpaffThis is like shooting arrows into the wall and drawing bulls eyes around them!
Thank you so much for your very insightful comment. Your contributions are among the most intelligent in the forum. Please continue with your illuminations for I had not considered such things before they were brought to light by your enlightened state of consciousness.
Quote: ewjones080To the OP:
Don't practice your throw and go to the casino to play for the HOPE of influencing the dice. That's what I used to do. I used to practice all the time, throwing into my couch. At first I thought DI was absolutely possible, because those that sell it warn how extraordinarily difficult it is, and despite that I always thought it sounded totally plausible.
Now I haven't played seriously for awhile, but here's another anecdote of why trying to play can really mess with your head.
Friday night I went to the casino and my first turn with the dice I rolled about 18 rolls, including 1 hard 10, 3 hard fours (2 back-to-back), a hard six and a hard 8. I hit at least one point, maybe two. I was using the Hardway set as well. I didn't make much money, but the next two turns I hit several sixes and eights on each turn, several hardways, and several points. I think I rolled into the 25-30 roll range each time.
These are the things that make me believe it's totally possible.
The OP was from more than a year ago. I doubt he's following this thread any longer.
Also, there is absolutely no question that people believe it's possible. I don't even have a firm belief that it's possible despite other people's claims that I am delusional for even entertaining the possibility in spite of other's firm beliefs that it is not possible.
I just want to do the work to prove that it is possible if it is. I'm not doing anything but sharing the results of my work, and yet some people's belief systems are so fragile, they consider that my finding that it is possible to be so hard to believe that I can't possible be sane by attempting to prove something true that they believe to be false.
Quote: thecesspitThe result is what makes a dice controller/influencer.
Unfortunately, for your argument a random shooter could come up with results that can beat the game of craps or the expectation of any sets of numbers rolled. Therefore, results by themselves cannot be a test of dice control.
the only true test of dice control would mean duplicating a particular toss of the dice along with the end results.
I've been at a table where a guy chucked the dice and he hit 18 yos in a row. The dice bounced all over the place. Would you call that "dice control" because he hit the 11 eighteen times in a row?
Before you claim dice control, you have to set a standard for it. Merely throwing them and beating expectations does not indicate dice control.
Quote: AhighI've been over this before with another person, but the videos are authentic.
I still have an open invitation to anyone who wants the original videos or who wants to inspect the camera or hard drive on the camera to verify authenticity.
I'm sure your videos are authentic. So let's do it again in a casino. I'll be your audience. I'm sure others will love to come watch and bet on you and bust the casino's bank.
When and where?
And to MathExtremist: I think we should limit the discussion to what are considered "legal throws" of the dice. Slides are not permitted, period. Except at the Wynn when the crew is distracted.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAnd to MathExtremist: I think we should limit the discussion to what are considered "legal throws" of the dice. Slides are not permitted, period. Except at the Wynn when the crew is distracted.
What constitutes a "legal throw" has always been changing. Slides weren't always disallowed. They only became so when it became clear that sliding was effective in altering the distribution. Even an accurate toss off the back wall used to work, back in the 1940s before the bumpers became commonplace. Have a look:
Like most other things, the game of craps has changed, and will continue to change, to keep up with the times. As soon as a new version of dice setting is demonstrated to work, it too will be disallowed. 30 years ago, nobody would ever have dreamed of 6-5 blackjack either.
So assuming your version works (and that's an open question), then the only difference between dice sliding and your version of "legal throwing" is the level of effectiveness in biasing the dice. Why would any casino allow one as "legal" but the other not?
Quote: AhighThank you so much for your very insightful comment. Your contributions are among the most intelligent in the forum. Please continue with your illuminations for I had not considered such things before they were brought to light by your enlightened state of consciousness.
Just be aware that in the future, I may have to bill you for my services.
Quote: AlanMendelsonUnfortunately, for your argument a random shooter could come up with results that can beat the game of craps or the expectation of any sets of numbers rolled. Therefore, results by themselves cannot be a test of dice control.
the only true test of dice control would mean duplicating a particular toss of the dice along with the end results.
I've been at a table where a guy chucked the dice and he hit 18 yos in a row. The dice bounced all over the place. Would you call that "dice control" because he hit the 11 eighteen times in a row?
Before you claim dice control, you have to set a standard for it. Merely throwing them and beating expectations does not indicate dice control.
Don't create a straw man, Alan. I was quite clear on the standard I set, and it wasn't merely "beating expectations", but showing a demonstrable bias on the dice.
Also "repeating the same throws" also completely ignores -bias- and suggests only called shots would count. That's nonsense as well. It's like saying any card counter who places a big bet when the count is positive, but loses the hand isn't actually a counter. Or the VP player who holds 3 Aces isn't playing perfect strategy when the fourth Ace doesn't hit.
Your example is saying a "high jumps only count if the jumper performs a straddle jump, those guys going higher with the 'flop' aren't actually high jumping". This illogical. If your position is actually "The only way you can control the dice is doing -this-", you can argue it quite successfully. But you've got it backwards, mixing cause and effect.
And personally, I don't think it matters either way, but there is a suggestion here about the starting position being the most important aspect:
http://www.insidescience.org/?q=blog/2012/09/12/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random
I'll buy that article over the 1001 other articles I've read about dice control.
"I don't know how to use it practically in casino," Kapitaniak wrote. Players would have to know everything so precisely--most importantly, the exact position of the die--to be able to predict the results with certainty.
THE DEFENSE RESTS.
