Has anyone ever seen a real study on dice control?

Oh You Got To Love Videos!

I'm sure some of you guys will like this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4MAp2Lowjw&feature=relmfu

I know from the look on the Wizards face he was enjoying given this craps lesson.

This was only 31 rolls where she rolled three hard ways, and three 7 outs and two winning 7's on the come-out rolls. She also had a 24 roll including her 7 out. May I also point out that she had five point winners on that 24 roll and hit four points to the fire bet on that roll. Damn I hate those so-called random rollers, doesn't everybody? It took her 17:40 minutes to roll 31 numbers, with all the instruction she was receiving from the Wizard.

Wow I think the Wizard should start teaching how to shoot, he could use this video as his promo, I can see what a copywriter would write. FIRST TIME SHOOTER HAS A 24 ROLL, MAKING FIVE POINTS! SIGN UP NOW TO RECEIVE YOUR DISCOUNT, FOR THE FIRST 25 STUDENTS!

Okay for all you math guys she rolled three hardways in 31 rolls, also on her 24 roll she made six 6's and four 8's. She only made one 4, three 5's, two 9's and one 10. For the crap numbers she made one 2 and two 3's, lets not forget about her two winning 7's and the one 7 out she made.

So was she above probability with her shooting, that's my question for the math guys! For all the DI's out there I want to remind you to never bet on a so-called random roller, you are going to lose in the long run, isn't that what out great writers on becoming a DI wants you to believe?

When you are only looking at a little snippet of time on a craps table anything can happen, everybody could be cheering you on, if you’re on a roll and everybody could be cursing you on your next roll, if you have a PSO, or short roll.

For all you DI's out there did we just see a trend that you shouldn't bet on or was it just great shooting on her part and the Wizards teaching skills that allowed her to have the 24 roll?

Craps7 on my last post you seem to insinuate that I was teaching how to shoot craps! You also had a problem with my writing.

Quote:

Craps7
IMO, your paragraph reads better this way

Please feel free to correct my spelling and grammar, and then please post the link to your forum on spelling and grammar so I don't give you anything to correct!

Also please note, I don't teach craps, I don't sell anything on or about the game of craps, I do help run a forum on craps that sells nothing. I do try to bring some reality about what we all read about the game of craps and that's it.

I've also stated that I've seen Ahigh shooting, and yes there are times when he is making hardways, but I'm sorry to tell everybody that I've also seen the so-called random rollers making hard ways every time they pick up the dice while I was at a table, anything is possible, when you are only looking at a little snippet of time on a craps table!

Also there are many times when everything I do on a craps table turns out to be just terrible, and I lose just like everybody else if I don't leave the table! I will be the first to tell anybody that sometimes my shooting sucks!

There are days that if you happen to be on the table with Ahigh and you are betting the hard ways you could very well become a winner, then you also have the days when you might be hitting the ATM, because you just lost your buy-in betting on him. That goes for anybody that is a shooter, not just him.

Quote:

Ahigh
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.

Ahigh what you have got to understand is when you post something that your claiming to be a fact, others have the right to question what you are doing, you after all are trying to prove to the world that you can influence the dice, ever time you are shooting.

The real proof would be a Win/Loss statement that is what really counts. There is a big difference between shooting at home on a practice table, and shooting in a real casino, with your money on the line and chips all over the table, and players making late bets, hands in the way and anything else that a shooter blames for that seven out! I have never seen one guy that will show you their win loss statements, if they play craps all the time. True as it might be, a lot of us will rat hole chips to show a loss, so that may not work!


THE TRUTH IS REALITY SUCKS!

Quote: AlanMendelson

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.

I 'think' this may have been what 7craps was getting at in one of his posts.

Anything can happen 1 time, even with the lowest of probabilities. But, if you can repeat that event over and over, then you have something.
So, if you rolled 18 yos in a row, that does not prove anything by itself.
However, if you told me you were going to roll 6 yos in a row, and you did that, AND, then you said you were going to roll 6 more in a row, AND you did that, AND then you told me your were going to roll 6 more in a row a Third time, AND you did it, NOW I AM IMPRESSED. Same 18 yos in a row, but WAY DIFFERENT circumstances.

But looking backwards at what has been done has no meaning. As you say, state what you are going to do, and then do it.

Superrick, we are having an intelligent discussion about dice setting. Please refrain from confusing us with facts.

Thank you.

Oh yeah... nevermind

Ahigh, just trying to keep this thread alive. Continue to defend your position, sir.

It is the fire that tempers the steel.

Quote: RaleighCraps

But looking backwards at what has been done has no meaning. As you say, state what you are going to do, and then do it.

That is a very good point, and that is precisely what the shooters did in the two trials linked earlier in the thread. In fact, in the second, most exhaustive trial, the shooters significantly exceeded the specified performance (although some here contend its significance).

Now, even though the number of rolls was specifically agreed upon by both parties in that second trial, some have said subsequently in this thread that there were not enough rolls in that trial.

One poster has indicated that he/she would be satisfied that dice influencing was possible, if the identical performance (14.8% or less 7s) was accomplished in 2100 rolls. I think that a good shooter could do this, if the trials were spread out over a few weeks, to avoid the effects of fatigue.

By the way, I am no "dice influencer" nor am I trying to sell any kind of instruction. I merely believe that the physical performance that it takes to regularly overcome the craps house edge is not an absolute impossibility. Furthermore, it seems that a lot of casinos have believed the same, judging from the pervasive rule of "no dice setting" at crapshooter tables.

Sadly, it appears that the last of the crapshooter tables in Vegas was removed from the Wild Wild West about three months ago.

I am currently picking 80% winners in the NFL contest on this forum. But 5 weeks is not a long enough period to
indicate the real results. I normally pick 85-90% winners. I have videos to back up my claims.

Quote: tupp

That is a very good point, and that is precisely what the shooters did in the two trials linked earlier in the thread. In fact, in the second, most exhaustive trial, the shooters significantly exceeded the specified performance (although some here contend its significance).

Only one DI did. Wong failed.
from an earlier post

Quote: 7craps

Quote: tupp

Actually, the founder of this very web site once conducted a test with a dice tossing coach and his colleagues,

I never did read that page before, thanks for the link

Quote: tupp

The shooters trounced the math expectations -- in 500 tosses,
they rolled only 74 sevens out of an expected 83.33.

Quote: 7craps

And you call that trounced???
Beating expectation by slightly more than 1 standard deviation?

It took 2 DIs.
Wong was just random
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.


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 ALL agreed to roll ONLY
72 times and for 10 or less 7s.

Same thing.
Same SD ratio.

Now they can easily repeat this (72 roll sessions)
many times and compare that to the binomial if that is what they would want.
Back to Back 10 or less 7s in 72 rolls
is more impressive than one time 74 or less in 500 rolls.

trounced
Now that's comedy

Tupp

Quote:

Sadly, it appears that the last of the crapshooter tables in Vegas was removed from the Wild Wild West about three months ago.

Well they still have one at the Tropicana, so you have been misinformed !

Quote: superrick

Sadly, it appears that the last of the crapshooter tables in Vegas was removed from the Wild Wild West about three months ago.
Well they still have one at the Tropicana, so you have been misinformed !

Really?! Great to hear!!!

Thanks!

Quote: tupp

That is a very good point, and that is precisely what the shooters did in the two trials linked earlier in the thread. In fact, in the second, most exhaustive trial, the shooters significantly exceeded the specified performance (although some here contend its significance)

This is where the confusion lies. The "bet" was over the results of the dice. It was not a bet over CONTROLLING THE DICE.

Remember, what was the bet all about? The number of 7s that would show. It was not about whether or not and how many times dice would remain on axis, or patterns of numbers would be repeated, or landing position of the dice, or any of the elements that would indicate "dice control."

You could have made and won a similar bet with a random shooter. in fact, most of us bet on random shooters all the time. Some random shooters even throw the dice to make six passes so the fire bet is won.

Again, results do not determine dice control. You have to decide in advance what the supposedly controlled dice and the dice controller are going to do. To say that they will lessen the appearance of the 7 or increase the appearance of hardways does not necessarily mean that there is any kind of dice control.

Our friend Ahigh can go to a casino and hit the hard 8 fifty times in a row, and looking at his throw I can't see how that can be because he had any kind of dice control. Sorry Ahigh, but your results don't prove anything except that the dice landed in a particular way. Any random shooter can have the same results.

Quote: 7craps

Only one DI did. Wong failed.

It only takes one to prove the point. Heck, I'd probably fail, too.

By the way, the other shooter rolled significantly better than the total -- 13.06% 7s (out of an expected 16.66%).

Quote: 7craps

Now they can easily repeat this (72 roll sessions) many times and compare that to the binomial if that is what they would want. Back to Back 10 or less 7s in 72 rolls is more impressive than one time 74 or less in 500 rolls.

Perhaps, but that was not the agreed-upon test.

Quote: 7craps

trounced
Now that's comedy

I guess it depends on one's perspective. According to the agreed conditions of the test, the shooters had to reduce the occurrence of 7s by a margin of 0.766% from the expected 16.66%. However, they more than doubled that margin to 1.866%. Even the founder of this web site congratulated Wong on winning "with five sevens to spare."

I don't know if it is comedy to use the term "trounce" to describe those results, but I would imagine that some of those who bet on the shooters chuckled inside just a little, when they collected.

Quote: AlanMendelson

This is where the confusion lies. The "bet" was over the results of the dice. It was not a bet over CONTROLLING THE DICE.

Remember, what was the bet all about? The number of 7s that would show. It was not about whether or not and how many times dice would remain on axis, or patterns of numbers would be repeated, or landing position of the dice, or any of the elements that would indicate "dice control."

Actually all of those elements can be readily revealed with any camera that has "high speed" capability. More and more consumer cameras are made with that feature, and the resolution is improving.

I would guess that the "slo-mo" look of a random shooter's toss should differ dramatically from that of someone who can regularly make a difference in the outcome.

Quote: tupp

Actually all of those elements can be readily revealed with any camera that has "high speed" capability. More and more consumer cameras are made with that feature, and the resolution is improving.

I would guess that the "slo-mo" look of a random shooter's toss should differ dramatically from that of someone who can regularly make a difference in the outcome.

I do a lot of research into cameras. Analysis in slow motion and sound trigger photography is some of the more entertaining aspects of this work. The Sony cameras have slow-motion at low resolutions even at the $299 price points.

Quote: Ahigh

The Sony cameras have slow-motion at low resolutions even at the $299 price points.

I have a Sanyo HD2000A, that shoots 240fps at 448x336, and 600fps at 192x108. It has a fast f1.8 lens (helps at high speed). If you are looking for a camera with high speed, I could give you a great deal on the whole camera package.

Quote: tupp

I have a Sanyo HD2000A, that shoots 240fps at 448x336, and 600fps at 192x108. It has a fast f1.8 lens (helps at high speed). If you are looking for a camera with high speed, I could give you a great deal on the whole camera package.

I have the XR550V Sony which does good 240Hz. I also have had the Casio FH20 for about three years now.

But my next camera is the Sony NEX-FS700U:



This is a shot of the camera at the G2E conference from a few days ago.

Quote: Ahigh

But my next camera is the Sony NEX-FS700U

Wow!

Are you sure that you need that rig? That's a very recent, moderately high-end cinematography camera. It's runs $8,000, body only (no lens). I was surprised at first glance to see in the photo that someone would be walking a trade show with such a robust camera, but I just noticed that the operator seems to be wearing a Sony shirt. What is he doing at G2E?

If you merely want a camera that can capture your tosses at very high frame rates, you would be better off finding a dedicated high-speed camera. There are probably several industrial high speed cameras that will do a better job (higher frame rates, longer clip capability, better trigger interfacing, etc.) for a lower cost.

By the way, is 240fps too slow?

No that's the camera I'm getting. I've considered a lot of them, and this is the only thing under $10,000 that does 1080p240. The next best thing that's cheaper that I know of is $1000, and does about twice the bandwidth of most 240hz recorders which isn't enough extra to warrant worrying about getting it. I paid almost $1000 for my XR550V about two years ago. By the time I am ready to buy this camera, it will probably cost me $7500 or less. You can already get one for $7700 if you do a little shopping. Plus they rent out for a couple hundred a day, so there might be a way for me to rent it out a couple times to shave a little off the price.

Shouldn't you learn the dice control first, and then the expensive camera to document it?
From what I have seen of your other videos, you are a textbook "random roller" with a little bit of luck.
;)

Quote: WongBo

Shouldn't you learn the dice control first, and then the expensive camera to document it?
From what I have seen of your other videos, you are a textbook "random roller" with a little bit of luck.
;)

No. The camera is a tool just like the table, the screen, the laptop, the software, and many other things that I have invested into my quest.

If I were anticipating to pay all of this equipment off with the results of my work, I might be more concerned.

This is a hobby of mine. If I fail to prove that I can control the dice, I am still doing quite well for myself financially.

I do appreciate your concern, however.

Reality Sucks

Lets take a look at one more of the Wizards teaching videos, when he was teaching Angela about the hard way bets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJwtLp4xDq4&feature=relmfu


Here she only rolled 13 times, and in those 13 rolls she rolled three hard ways back to back. I'm signing up for lessons from the Wizard, can't wait till he starts teaching shooting. He is the best there ever was, I'm sure that he can have Angela as one of his certified instructors!

As I said before, when you take something that happened when you are shooting, like rolling hard ways in one session and put up a video of rolling a sequence of rolls, from only the point that you started to roll the hard ways. You are now only looking at that little sequence of rolls and forgetting about every thing else that has happened on the table. Random rollers can and do roll hard ways that would make any shooter look good while it is happening.

The problem is what about all those other times when your shooter has nothing but PSO's or Short rolls. We all should know that the hard ways are nothing more then sucker bets, but when someone is hitting them they sure look like good bets to everybody on the table, then everybody is stacking up chips on the hard ways.

So again for the math guys did she beat probabilities? For the DI's was it a trend? Would you bet on her shooting? What if the next time she got the dice and started out making hard ways again, would you bet on her then?

The truth is Reality Sucks

Quote: Ahigh

I've considered a lot of them, and this is the only thing under $10,000 that does 1080p240.

Have you looked at all of the machine vision camera manufacturers?

Here is a product page of such cameras that are sometimes used in cinematography. The Flare 2M360-CL model shoots full HD at 359fps, and its list price is $2,755 ($2,495 for monochrome). To record a few seconds of that video, one also needs the proper PC video card and software ($500-$1,000 more?) and about 8GB to 16GB of memory.

There are many manufacturers of such cameras.

In addition, Full HD is probably unnecessary, making faster frame rates feasible and allowing for a lower res, lower cost camera and a lower-bandwidth/lower-cost video card.

It might be best to just rent (as you mentioned) until the next industrial tooling trade show comes to town -- probably lots of machine vision vendors exhibiting. If you reside in Vegas, the NAB show in April will have around 4-5 such vendors, plus all of the cinematography rigs.

Quote: WongBo

Shouldn't you learn the dice control first, and then the expensive camera to document it?

The idea probably is to use the high speed camera as a development tool.

No I didn't already know about those particular cameras. Thanks for the link!

I absolutely want at LEAST full HD. I've got all the stuff you can get for under $1000. And I really still want to go for the Sony camera, but maybe the machine vision cameras might make sense. I will learn more.

The nice thing about the Sony camera though is that processing the video using Sony Vegas is really easy and I don't want to get into a bunch of extra stuff, really. Price is important, but not the most important thing. Also the capture cards for machine vision cameras can be a hassle compared to a self-contained camera I can take and do slow motion anywhere.

There's lot of fun things you can do with slow motion in other places too, and I like being able to do very professional looking video other than slow motion as I am also into this kind of stuff.

Here's a shot I took with the Nikon camera on the way to work the other morning:



That's from the Nikon 5100. I got it at Fry's for just $549. The reason I picked it up is I needed a DSLR with trigger input for some stuff I'll be doing in another week or so. But it's awesome to have a nice camera for other stuff besides my little stuff going on at home on the craps table.

Quote: Ahigh

Also the capture cards for machine vision cameras can be a hassle compared to a self-contained camera I can take and do slow motion anywhere.

There are several self-contained high speed cameras. Don't know their price.

Quote:

... and I like being able to do very professional looking video other than slow motion as I am also into this kind of stuff.

Of course, "professional looking video" is mostly a result of the cinematographer's skill, not the sophistication of the equipment.

Quote:

Here's a shot I took with the Nikon camera on the way to work the other morning:

Nice shot! You get up early! Is that Black Mountain in the background?

Quote:

That's from the Nikon 5100. [snip] But it's awesome to have a nice camera for other stuff besides my little stuff going on at home on the craps table.

The 5100 shoots great video and stills. Honestly, unless you are planning to shoot footage that will be screened in a theater or that will appear on national TV commercials, you probably don't need the NEX-700.

Quote: tupp

Nice shot! You get up early! Is that Black Mountain in the background?

I think it's Sunrise. The Stratosphere is on the left and the Rio is visible so this was taken from west of the Strip. Black Mountain is further south. You'd need to be in the far NW to get a shot of Black Mountain behind the Strip, I think, but I never really got to that part of town when I lived there.

To continue my last thought, I believe without a doubt that any given SINGLE roll can absolutely be controlled or influenced. If someone sets the hardway, and the dice fly beautifully, and stick right to the felt and barely move, and roll a hardway, you can't tell me that was still just random. The problem is repeating results like that on a regular basis..

Quote: ewjones080

To continue my last thought, I believe without a doubt that any given SINGLE roll can absolutely be controlled or influenced. If someone sets the hardway, and the dice fly beautifully, and stick right to the felt and barely move, and roll a hardway, you can't tell me that was still just random. The problem is repeating results like that on a regular basis..

This is a great observation. I have had an occasional roll where the dice did not bounce at all. Either they both wedges into the location where the base of the wall meets the felt, or just fell flat onto a hardway mid-felt.

This is really rare, but as you indicate, I think just for the purposes of demonstrating that control is possible, this is very much something that could be argued to be a controlled shot as the bouncing is completely and 100% absent!

But agreed that you have to be able to do that often enough to make a statistical difference larger than the edge.

But if you just want to argue some amount of control, that's not a bad place to start. And a very good comment.

I got quotes on the cameras mentioned earlier.

$2617 color (2370 mono) for the camera
$495 for the sdk
$1295 for a framegrabber card
====
4407 total + a decked out PC .. total about $6400 (of course I have a PC already).

Only about $1400 shy of the other camera, really. But the SDK is nice.

Edit: also if you want to record anywhere without a desktop PC present, it's another $9,000+ for the DVR.

" The problem is repeating results like that on a regular basis.. "


Explain that to ahigh when you get a chance and spare us all !

I still like the idea of the NEX-FS700U in terms of spending a couple thousand on a camera.

http://vimeo.com/40369782

Say, Ahigh - can you put an estimate on how likely you are, with your technique, to roll doubles? One in five? Four?

If I were to bet on your abilities, I'd expect a test of (5/9 + 2p^2 - 2p + (4/3)*sqrt(5p*(1-p)))/(p-1/6)^2 rolls by you, with an over-under of n/6 + 2*sqrt(5n/36).

Of course, the only way I can think to keep track at a real money table would be to put a bet on each of the hard hops, and you'd need to get it up to one in five to beat the edge, on average... if I were to test for one in five, betting that way, I'd expect you to roll at least 1286 times and end up no more than 245 units behind. (Before the math geeks jump down my throat - that's the over-under, not the EV.)

Say, Ahigh - can you put an estimate on how likely you are, with your technique, to roll doubles? One in five? Four?

If I were to bet on your abilities, I'd expect a test of (5/9 + 2p^2 - 2p + (4/3)*sqrt(5p*(1-p)))/(p-1/6)^2 rolls by you, with an over-under of n/6 + 2*sqrt(5n/36).

Of course, the only way I can think to keep track at a real money table would be to put a bet on each of the hard hops, and you'd need to get it up to one in five to beat the edge, on average... if I were to test for one in five, betting that way, I'd expect you to roll at least 1286 times and end up no more than 245 units behind. (Before the math geeks jump down my throat - that's the over-under, not the EV.)

Quote: Ahigh

I got quotes on the cameras mentioned earlier.
$2617 color (2370 mono) for the camera
$495 for the sdk
$1295 for a framegrabber card
====
4407 total + a decked out PC .. total about $6400 (of course I have a PC already).

You don't need the SDK, and there are probably better deals on video cards. Also, you don't need a fancy PC -- just an up-to-date one with a lot of RAM (about 8GB to 16GB).

The RAM is what captures the high speed footage live, then you transfer it to a drive. I've seen some laptop rigs that do this. You can also get a fancy DVR, but some of those are expensive.

And, again, this is not the only machine vision camera manufacturer.

Quote: buzzpaff

" The problem is repeating results like that on a regular basis.. "
Explain that to ahigh when you get a chance and spare us all !

It doesn't have to be too regular -- only frequently enough to overcome the house edge (0.184% in the case of 10x odds).

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.

I spent a bunch of time making another video. I had two hard 8's with no easy in the first 25 rolls, then I had hard fours back to back a while after that.

I ended up being a couple hundred average in profit with the strategies that I loaded before I began.

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

Not the most ideal session, but it went okay.

But when I went to render out the movies, my system said "low on memory" when trying to render.

I did more video effects with slow-motion instant replay on the interesting shots. So it took more time to edit, and I'm sure that is why it ran out of memory trying to render too.

*sigh*

I can publish the roll data though. After I was all done, I looked at the line with odds and that strategy did not do well on my rolls. But the two hardways with no easy in about 100 rolls was enough to make about $700 after an initial $200 draw down.

I think I might have made the third hard 8 with no easy, but my girl started teasing me that she wanted a hard 10 and would I give her a hard ten. So hard to focus! LOL. I rolled a seven as soon as she started talking dirty to me. I was so set to get another three hard 8's with no easy all in my first 30 rolls or so.

Well I got it rendering out at 720p without complaining about memory, so maybe I will get it done tonight. But still the least impressive session so far, but still made money on all except the no-pressure strategies which didn't really lose much at all. There were so many distractions though that the video was very very long with lots of crap going on in between rolls and so on. So what I'm rendering is just two pieces .. the segment with two hard eights and no easy and a hard four back-to-back.

# Rolls
a 66`65`63`65`61`35`64`32`64`35`61`31`12`12`26`14`13`44`56`65`12`56`44`63`36`61`41`24`35`22
a 15`31`42`23`53`64`11`61`55`51`51`65`45`34`13`46`36`62`46`61`55`46`24`43`26`65`63`42`32`43
a 63`41`53`24`46`54`35`52`44`52`22`22`54`14`44`31`43`32`54`51`66`13`34`63`53`52`36`12`64`54
a 56`42`34`25`31

Total rolls: 94
1) 26 13.83% - 16.67 = (-2.84)------------------------------------------ 1
2) 27 14.36% - 16.67 = (-2.30)-------------------------------------------- 2
3) 30 15.96% - 16.67 = (-0.71)------------------------------------------------ 3
4) 38 20.21% - 16.67 = (+3.55)------------------------------------------------------------- 4
5) 32 17.02% - 16.67 = (+0.35)---------------------------------------------------- 5
6) 35 18.62% - 16.67 = (+1.95)-------------------------------------------------------- 6

11: -- 2
21: ---- 3
22: ------ 4
31: ------- 4
32: ---- 5
41: ---- 5
33: 6
42: ------ 6
51: ---- 6
61: ----- 7
52: ---- 7
43: ------ 7
53: ------- 8
44: -------- 8
62: --- 8
63: ------ 9
54: ----- 9
55: ---- 10
64: --------- 10
65: -------- 11
66: ---- 12

2) 1 1.06% - 2.78% = -1.71% (-1.61)- 2
3) 4 4.26% - 5.56% = -1.30% (-1.22)---- 3
4) 10 10.64% - 8.33% = 2.30% (+2.17)---------- 4
5) 8 8.51% - 11.11% = -2.60% (-2.44)-------- 5
6) 10 10.64% - 13.89% = -3.25% (-3.06)---------- 6
7) 15 15.96% - 16.67% = -0.71% (-0.67)--------------- 7
8) 14 14.89% - 13.89% = 1.00% (+0.94)-------------- 8
9) 11 11.70% - 11.11% = 0.59% (+0.56)----------- 9
10) 11 11.70% - 8.33% = 3.37% (+3.17)-----------10
11) 8 8.51% - 5.56% = 2.96% (+2.78)--------11
12) 2 2.13% - 2.78% = -0.65% (-0.61)--12

Total sevens 15 - Seven outs 13 (86.67%) - Seven winners 2 (13.33%)
Pairs 12 12.77% - 16.67% = -3.90% (-3.67 rolls)
Hards 9 9.57% - 11.11% = -1.54% (-1.44 rolls)
HiLos 3 3.19% - 5.56% = -2.36% (-2.22 rolls)
H2 1/0 ( 1.06% - 2.78% = -1.61)
H4 3/1 ( 3.19% - 2.78% = +0.39)
H6 0/0 ( 0.00% - 2.78% = -2.61)
H8 4/2 ( 4.26% - 2.78% = +1.39)
H10 2/2 ( 2.13% - 2.78% = -0.61)
H12 2/1 ( 2.13% - 2.78% = -0.61)



http://youtu.be/lVUJanQ0SFQ

Excuse me, Ahigh, I don't follow you.

Above, you wrote: "I spent a bunch of time making another video. I had two hard 8's with no easy in the first 25 rolls, then I had hard fours back to back a while after that.

I ended up being a couple hundred average in profit with the strategies that I loaded before I began."

With your report about a profit I got the impression you were doing this at a casino. Wow, I thought, we get to see Ahigh in action at a casino.

But then you wrote: "There were just tons of distractions as the family was making tons of noise and all kinds of other mayhem."

Are you saying that the family distracted your great roll at the casino? Or do we take this to mean this was another great roll at home?

I decide on strategies ahead of time and the computer keeps track of profits as I key in the rolls. IE: not real money. Sorry if you were confused.

Here's the moment when I failed to make the third hard eight with no easy along with a visual to go along with the voice in the background.



http://youtu.be/Ej-ZtwdEkbQ

Quote: 24Bingo

Say, Ahigh - can you put an estimate on how likely you are, with your technique, to roll doubles? One in five? Four?

If I were to bet on your abilities, I'd expect a test of (5/9 + 2p^2 - 2p + (4/3)*sqrt(5p*(1-p)))/(p-1/6)^2 rolls by you, with an over-under of n/6 + 2*sqrt(5n/36).

Of course, the only way I can think to keep track at a real money table would be to put a bet on each of the hard hops, and you'd need to get it up to one in five to beat the edge, on average... if I were to test for one in five, betting that way, I'd expect you to roll at least 1286 times and end up no more than 245 units behind. (Before the math geeks jump down my throat - that's the over-under, not the EV.)

All my data is published, and I'm only really consistently heavier on the pair that's on the top of my set.

The only complication in this is that I was using the 6262 set for my first 800 rolls or so, and after seeing the bias on the top of my set, the computer told me I was better off with the 4242 set, so I switched.

I changed my roll recording data to include the set I am using. I'll publish all of my rolls soon along with the sets, but I think all my roll data is already up here on this forum in various threads.

But as far as winning by hopping any pair every roll, the only chance you'd have at that would be to be the pair on the top of my set at the time that I am rolling. I think I'm still around 3.78% the pair on the top of my set instead of 2.78%. For a couple hundred rolls it was at 5% though (or 1 in 20 instead of 1 in 36).

I'm trying to really just focus on that one particular outcome and make it as extreme as possible by honing in one the outcomes that come up as what I have on the top of my set and see how it's bouncing to see if there's anything I can learn.

I really wish more people were helping more than to just say "wow that looks random and you sure are lucky!"

Another point about hopping, if you hopped every pair every roll, that's a $6 bet that you win $25 when you hit, and lose $6 when you don't.

I'm relatively scared of 2.78% per roll edges. I generally don't even bet hardways in the casino as the edge is so high.

I don't believe in sucker bets like any of the one-roll bets on the craps table. Even the field with triple on the 12 is a bet that I steer clear of.

I've explained this before, too, that I generally don't bet hardways on myself because I don't like the edge being higher.

Betting the hardways at home is a great challenge, but please don't misunderstand that I am thinking this is the ideal way to profit from my own bias.

I absolutely do not believe that at all.

But it is a good test of skills at home. And I have seen people win big on my hardway rolls at the casino.

A big problem with much of what I am writing up here on this forum is that many people have misinterpreted what I am doing. There have been many suggestions that I go to the casino and prove things by betting money.

I do go to the casino frequently, but I rarely have more than $1 on a hardway bet. The biggest hardway bet I've ever bet in my life was a $60 hard eight at the Cosmopolitan. I did win it. The biggest hardway bet that I've ever lost is $10. I've parlayed $1 to $100 probably a total of 20 times in my life. If I win a $10 hardway, I usually start at $10 after having some confidence in my throw rather than after I already hit one.

The biggest single bet that I've lost was a $750 come bet at the Silverton.

The most money I've lost in a single throw was probably about $1500. That throw was a seven and I have a lot of money on the felt at that time.

But I generally _never_ bet hop bets, except as a tip. For example, if I have $100 odds on a point number and it just isn't coming up and I feel like tipping, I might bet a hop bet for the boys on the point number instead of telling them to lock it up. This is just for "good luck" but not to win money for myself directly from a hop-bet. It's more of a show-off bet than an intelligent bet as you're sort of just ignoring the edges and saying "I'm going to hit it anyway, so who cares about the edge."

But betting a hop bet as a way to grind out on your edge is absolutely ridiculous.

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.

" 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.

" 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 !

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.

I would love to be there. Can I consider this a personal invitation ? I sure hope so. I promise to just quietly observe !

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.

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

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.

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.

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 !

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!