Has anyone ever seen a real study on dice control?
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.
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!
October 11th, 2012 at 1:06:05 PM
permalink
Quote: superrickThere 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
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?
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!
October 11th, 2012 at 1:39:15 PM
permalink
Simple question : Can you throw more hardways than normal distribution would expect?
Simple answer ; NO
Simple answer ; NO
October 11th, 2012 at 1:56:06 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffSimple 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.
aahigh.com
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.
As for punctuation , I have taken ENG 090 and passed, but I do not consider my postings here
college essays.
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!
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 ?
But that might actually prove something and bring this discussion to a close. Have you no shame ?
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.
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.
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.
Just in case you missed it, here's the video from last night.
aahigh.com
October 11th, 2012 at 11:50:28 PM
permalink
Looking at the movement of the dice, I am convinced.
This is nothing more than luck, there is absolutely zero control.
That you think otherwise is nothing short of astonishing.
I still would like you to make a killing at the tables, but there is nothing on this video.
Best of luck, though.
This is nothing more than luck, there is absolutely zero control.
That you think otherwise is nothing short of astonishing.
I still would like you to make a killing at the tables, but there is nothing on this video.
Best of luck, though.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
October 11th, 2012 at 11:52:18 PM
permalink
No I understand what you're saying. But on the flip side, I'm rolling towards a specific goal of maximizing profit from multiple strategies in combination. It is analogous to when you want everyone at the table to make money and you're shooting. Sometimes certain people win while others are losing, but you're overall goal is generally to win as much as possible for the table (assuming you like everyone anyway).
I can also set up a strategy that only plots out the hard 8 instead of doing all the hard ways (which is the specific bias that I am exploring), it's just a little bit more boring. What I generally am doing to make profit with the strategies that I'm showing is to hit two hardways with no easy or no red in between.
I may put in some new software that will show specific outcomes and the net gain or loss from each specific outcome to sort of document that I am hitting what I am trying to hit and how much money that hit will make before the hit occurs. IE: if you don't understand the charts, it can be confusing, but I am absolutely putting in a strategy in software that defines a specific goal and I am always coming out profitable from the simulation of the strategies that I am charting from the beginning all the way through to the end in all of my sessions so far.
These strategies are effectively only making money on a one-two hit on a hardway with no easy, for which I did that twice in less than 100 rolls last night. But not three with no easy which is the bigger payday.
I can also set up a strategy that only plots out the hard 8 instead of doing all the hard ways (which is the specific bias that I am exploring), it's just a little bit more boring. What I generally am doing to make profit with the strategies that I'm showing is to hit two hardways with no easy or no red in between.
I may put in some new software that will show specific outcomes and the net gain or loss from each specific outcome to sort of document that I am hitting what I am trying to hit and how much money that hit will make before the hit occurs. IE: if you don't understand the charts, it can be confusing, but I am absolutely putting in a strategy in software that defines a specific goal and I am always coming out profitable from the simulation of the strategies that I am charting from the beginning all the way through to the end in all of my sessions so far.
These strategies are effectively only making money on a one-two hit on a hardway with no easy, for which I did that twice in less than 100 rolls last night. But not three with no easy which is the bigger payday.
Quote: RaleighCrapsAgain 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.
aahigh.com
October 11th, 2012 at 11:56:48 PM
permalink
Quote: WongBoLooking at the movement of the dice, I am convinced.
This is nothing more than luck, there is absolutely zero control.
That you think otherwise is nothing short of astonishing.
I still would like you to make a killing at the tables, but there is nothing on this video.
Best of luck, though.
If you watched the bytes changing in RAM as a result of my software working, would you be able to see patterns in that? Would you be able to tell if I had an error in the software?
That's pretty analogous to your statement of being able to tell there is no small bias in my roll in my opinion.
I think that people that don't understand how a very small percentage of bias _should_ look simply cannot say that they don't "detect" such a bias being present or not.
Are you sure that you know a single digit of bias in a specific outcome _should_ look like, or do you have to admit you have no experience in detecting the visual results of such bias?
Here is my position, and I do not think it is astonishing: the human eye, even a highly trained human eye, cannot detect a roll with such a small amount of bias.
I am very anxious for your explanation why bias that would result in 3.78% of a specific outcome instead of 2.78% would look remarkable different from a random roll.
Thanks for your perspective. And in response, I think it is nothing short of astonishing that you are expecting to be able to visually detect my bias that increases the chance of what is on the top of my set to come up 50% more often than random assuming that such a bias exists. I think you are giving yourself way too much credit from inferring much from how the dice bounce around.
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 12:05:07 AM
permalink
Considering there is no consistency to the impact, the hit on the wall,
the tumble is wild and variable in two directions, and there is no prediction or declaration of intent.
This is just like the religion threads, heavy on faith, light on proof.
Do your thing, man, I am not trying to attack you personally,
I just feel you should tighten up your game if you are going to try to really prove anything.
Can you explain why the 2 and 12 don't come up?
Please don't tell me that you are only "setting" for 22,33,44,55...
I want to believe, I really do!
Why are you not announcing each roll?
the tumble is wild and variable in two directions, and there is no prediction or declaration of intent.
This is just like the religion threads, heavy on faith, light on proof.
Do your thing, man, I am not trying to attack you personally,
I just feel you should tighten up your game if you are going to try to really prove anything.
Can you explain why the 2 and 12 don't come up?
Please don't tell me that you are only "setting" for 22,33,44,55...
I want to believe, I really do!
Why are you not announcing each roll?
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:07:24 AM
permalink
And in explaining some of these topics to another gentleman recently, everyone here needs to realize that even I do not purport to be the expert. I am looking to merely take a stab at proving something. I am absolutely not making a claim that I am the best shooter or that my roll is so magnificent that you can tell how amazing it is by watching the video.
I am doing the video for documentation. And as far as I know, and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, NOBODY has gone as far in the directions I am going in attempting to prove such a thing. So jumping in and drawing conclusions about whether there is bias or not based on how the dice are bouncing is just sort of ridiculous to me.
Everybody else wants to be the one to say "A-HA see just _look_ and you can _tell_ that it's random."
I think my point is, "uhm, absolutely not. You can tell that there is randomness, but you cannot tell me that everything is 100% random versus only 98.5% random."
If you could tell that it was 100% random by looking, you would be able to make a proof for that. And you would have to prove 100% randomness for every single roll, too. Not just one roll.
You could prove possibly that it bounced in a direction that YOU couldn't predict. You could even prove that it bounced in a direction that nobody could predict one out of 30 times. But that is still not 100% random.
Randomness is in there, and there is no doubting that fact.
But all I have to do is have a few rolls that aren't as random as others.
So keep it all in perspective guys. Proving that the edge can be overcome with a consistent throw is probably easier than many people think according to some of these comments coming back saying "just look and judge for yourself."
If only it were that easy, I could have judged myself and concluded the same thing.
But I do not think it is that easy. For anyone who thinks it is that easy, I think you are misleading yourself to avoid the conscious possibility that I may determine and prove this to be possible because it's something that you wish not to believe in for whatever reason it might be.
I am doing the video for documentation. And as far as I know, and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, NOBODY has gone as far in the directions I am going in attempting to prove such a thing. So jumping in and drawing conclusions about whether there is bias or not based on how the dice are bouncing is just sort of ridiculous to me.
Everybody else wants to be the one to say "A-HA see just _look_ and you can _tell_ that it's random."
I think my point is, "uhm, absolutely not. You can tell that there is randomness, but you cannot tell me that everything is 100% random versus only 98.5% random."
If you could tell that it was 100% random by looking, you would be able to make a proof for that. And you would have to prove 100% randomness for every single roll, too. Not just one roll.
You could prove possibly that it bounced in a direction that YOU couldn't predict. You could even prove that it bounced in a direction that nobody could predict one out of 30 times. But that is still not 100% random.
Randomness is in there, and there is no doubting that fact.
But all I have to do is have a few rolls that aren't as random as others.
So keep it all in perspective guys. Proving that the edge can be overcome with a consistent throw is probably easier than many people think according to some of these comments coming back saying "just look and judge for yourself."
If only it were that easy, I could have judged myself and concluded the same thing.
But I do not think it is that easy. For anyone who thinks it is that easy, I think you are misleading yourself to avoid the conscious possibility that I may determine and prove this to be possible because it's something that you wish not to believe in for whatever reason it might be.
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 12:10:43 AM
permalink
Quote: WongBoConsidering there is no consistency to the impact, the hit on the wall,
the tumble is wild and variable in two directions, and there is no prediction or declaration of intent.
This is just like the religion threads, heavy on faith, light on proof.
Do your thing, man, I am not trying to attack you personally,
I just feel you should tighten up your game if you are going to try to really prove anything.
Can you explain why the 2 and 12 don't come up?
Please don't tell me that you are only "setting" for 22,33,44,55...
I want to believe, I really do!
Why are you not announcing each roll?
Part of what I am exploiting is the relative correlation of movements between the left die and the right die.
The relative movements of one roll to the next roll are not important.
Maybe you weren't thinking about it this way and it might help.
If the inconsistent landing area is bothering you, contemplate the relative landing spot of the die on the right to the die on the left.
Also, understand that I have done more work that I am sharing as well. This is documentation of what I'm doing, but not a full explanation for all of the work that I have done to lead me to this point.
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 12:12:14 AM
permalink
I just see going into high speed photography to try to gain an edge, as counter productive.
Think of how many rolls you will need to win to "pay" for that.
If we cannot see bias with the eye at the speed you have now,
do you tthink you will be able to when you watch the dice tumble wildly in super slow motion?
I have to say that it is great that you have a hobby you like and
That you are trying to meet more scientific criteria,
And I am especially glad you are not making claims that you can teach others for $$$.
Think of how many rolls you will need to win to "pay" for that.
If we cannot see bias with the eye at the speed you have now,
do you tthink you will be able to when you watch the dice tumble wildly in super slow motion?
I have to say that it is great that you have a hobby you like and
That you are trying to meet more scientific criteria,
And I am especially glad you are not making claims that you can teach others for $$$.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:19:07 AM
permalink
Quote: WongBoI just see going into high speed photography to try to gain an edge, as counter productive.
Think of how many rolls you will need to win to "pay" for that.
If we cannot see bias with the eye at the speed you have now,
do you tthink you will be able to when you watch the dice tumble wildly in super slow motion?
I have to say that it is great that you have a hobby you like and
That you are trying to meet more scientific criteria,
And I am especially glad you are not making claims that you can teach others for $$$.
I am not making claims of being productive. And I am not expecting to be able to win money to pay for my investments.
People really want to focus in on money when they argue with me about these topics.
How many people who work to improve their golf swing have their buddies criticize them because they will never pay for it by going pro and beating Tiger Woods?
I'm not sure why just because people with dumb luck can win more money than what I am looking at everyone has to criticize me for focusing in on something that actually requires critical thinking and intelligence to approach.
Consider it the challenge that appeals to me. If and when I am able to be the first person to prove it, that will be something that I conquered in spite of comments from so many others who say they were convinced it was random just because they looked at one of my rolls and saw the dice bouncing in what were obviously 100% random directions on every roll they looked at and dismissed the entire possibility.
Here's what I am saying about that, "Okay. And that's your proof that it can't be done?" I wish it were so easy for me to dismiss it because I could be done. But that is absolutely not proof to me at all.
The other side to this debate is that I don't think anybody has any shots that look remarkably better than my shots in slow motion. At least not shots that are legal in the state of Nevada that hit the back wall and so on.
And anybody that thinks their shots demonstrate obvious bias visually to someone with less experience than me at looking at these kinds of things in slow motion, bring those shots over here and let me film them. I would love to see. But I look at plenty of shots in the casino, and my shots are absolutely fantastic compared to any shots I have ever seen anywhere no matter what anybody has to say about it on here.
Most of the people who I assumed were really good at doing this stuff, after I met them, I was like, "meh." And along those lines, even if you CAN bias the dice, unless you know what kind of bias you have you're just as likely to lose more from your bias than to win more from you bias in that long run. It's not enough just to have a bias, you need to be cognizant of what it is too!
Part of what I do when I meet these other guys who are supposed to be DI's is that I decide for myself, "what is the CHANCE that this guy knows what he is talking about." And I'm not out to make anybody look bad. But I'm telling you right now, that I don't know anybody .. I have never MET anybody who I thought "wow now that guy is the real deal and can shoot WAY better than me. THIS is who I need to learn from!"
Tonight, I saw an OBVIOUS random shooter go from $200 to $3000 at the Cosmopolitan. That's something I RARELY see from someone who believes they can control the dice. To win that kind of money, you almost need to be TRYING to lose and just FAILING at it. There's very few ways to get more than 10x your money unless you just throw caution to the wind and say "screw it let's go!!!!"
The best rolls I have seen are still random shooters .. because so many people .. even if they set the dice, are very obviously shooting random with no attempt at any influence other than spiritual or some other non-scientific influence over the dice. The numbers still favor the random shooters because most shooters are still random shooters regardless of what they think that they are doing to influence the dice.
The other thing is that you are successfully trying to grind on an edge, you will grind until you see an edge .. it's just there's a chance it's not your edge you will see. And there is another chance that you may combining their edge with your own edge in the WRONG DIRECTION if you are throwing consistently enough to have a bias, but the bias is working against you.
There are a couple of guys that have a lot of respect from me, and I'm not going to name them off by name, but let's just say there are maybe 5 guys that I have met who can possibly shoot better than me. But even still I have no conclusive evidence that they can since I generally don't spend much time with any of them and I have very little data to consider relative to my own.
But even with all of these self-assessments on shooting ability, it's the proof that controlling the dice is possible that I'm looking for. If I'm out to win, I'm more likely just to gamble with larger sums of money and take as few events as possible. If I want to test my own grind, I'm probably going to grind with 1/50th or 1/20th of how much I'd be betting to win on a gamble. And also betting 20 to 50 times as often on top of that to try to get my edge to show instead of being as subject to luck. And even then, I may have to come back and keep at it to get my edge to have a chance of showing. At the end, I could have gotten lucky much faster and have much more fun in the process. But it doesn't help me get closer to my goal of proof. And that's just what I'm interested in no matter what anybody has to say about it. It's just what I'm doing.
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 12:52:49 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighBut 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).
Variance.Quote: AhighI am very anxious for your explanation why bias that would result in 3.78% of a specific outcome instead of 2.78% would look remarkable different from a random roll.
Your continuing problem holding you back
is you still are not even considering the variance or standard deviation from the number of rolls for your success.
You need to make your tables show the expected number (ev) of successes and the standard deviation for N rolls.
One can just calculate the standard deviation for the mean (as a percentage)
as you somehow just want to work with %s instead of ev and sd like most others do.
You think so many things you do are so rare because of your incomplete and sometimes just flat out wrong math.
Your 3.78% instead of EXACTLY 1/36 (2.78%) is from EXACTLY how many dice rolls?
We can work from there.
Variance is everywhere.
Your 5% at say 200 rolls could look like this from my Excel
1.1620% IS the standard deviation of P (2.777778%)
Now take (1/36) as a percentage 2.777778%
and add 2*1.1620% to it. (For 2 standard deviations)
answer: 5.1018%
You are within 2 standard deviations from expectation for ONE set of 200 rolls.
Ain't nothing special !!!
Again
Ain't nothing special !!!
But if you can do this like back to back for 2 sets of 200 rolls, now we gots something.
Maybe even 2 out of 3 or 4.
sqrt N 14.14213562 (N = # of rolls)
n 200
p 2.7778% 1 in 36
q 97.2222% (1-P)
ev 5.555555556
var 5.401234568
bsd 2.324055629
p*q 0.027006173
1bsd 0.16433555
sd of P 1.1620% <<<<<<<<< This is the standard deviation of P (success)
3 6.2639% 12.52772244
2 5.1018% 10.20366681 <<<<<<<<<<<<
1 3.9398% 7.879611185
-1 1.6157% 3.231499926
-2 0.4537% 0.907444297
-3 -0.7083% -1.416611332
You really need to add and understand the standard deviation that applies to your results.
Most use mean (ev) and variance (sd) and not percentages.
Much easier.
That way all you want to know is how many SDs am I away from the mean (ev).
To get sd of P (using percentages)
calculate: 1bsd
(the binomial standard deviation for just one trial)
simply:
square root(P*1-P) the 1-P = Q
The formula to use is just
1/(sqrt N/1bsd)
As soon as you find out many things you have done are really just normal results for one attempt,
try to repeat the same experiment exactly with the same or better results.
You can easily just do 2 out of 3
instead of 2 in a row and still be a 1 in 100 or 1 in 200 or higher success story (as a blue sky example)
These 1 in 30 and
1 in 50 events are done every day, randomly.
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
October 12th, 2012 at 4:54:16 AM
permalink
Alot of this is reminiscent of the mental patient who kept snapping his fingers to keep elephants away from him. Whenever the asylum personnel told him there were no elephants around for hundreds of miles he replied "See, it works".
Those who build practice cages and put in hundreds of hours of practice and analysis ... ain't gonna say anything but "See, it works".
Those who build practice cages and put in hundreds of hours of practice and analysis ... ain't gonna say anything but "See, it works".
October 12th, 2012 at 5:37:33 AM
permalink
Quote: WongBoLooking at the movement of the dice, I am convinced.
This is nothing more than luck, there is absolutely zero control.
That you think otherwise is nothing short of astonishing.
I still would like you to make a killing at the tables, but there is nothing on this video.
Best of luck, though.
I've never been convinced that Ahigh has any sort of dice control. BUT, I also think there is more to this universe than science or math can always explain.
An example was my father-in-law. That man, God rest his soul, would find a front row parking spot everywhere we went. It was unreal. Let me know if anyone comes up with a formula to calculate that.
It could be the same with Ahigh. Perhaps he just throws doubles for completely unexplainable reasons. I could not care less. We should only care if he can reliably throw doubles, at more than an expected rate. If he can, there will be a way to profit from that.
It will be like card counting. The outcome won't be guaranteed, but the chances are greatly changed to make it more likely of a winning session, instead of a loss.
But first, we need to see if Ahigh can accomplish a simple 9 out of 10 controlled tests, in his home set up. If he can, then we head to the casino.
BUT, I would still not be betting on any patterns just yet. Can Ahigh repeat the results while in a casino?
If yes, NOW we can figure out the bet to take advantage of this.
Does beating the expected number of doubles in 108 rolls prove anything? Nope
Does beating the expected number of doubles in 108 rolls, and then doing it again in another 108 rolls? Nope
Does beating the expected number of doubles in 108 rolls, and then doing it again, and again, and again? Not really, but you are getting my attention
Does beating the expected number of doubles in 108 rolls, and then doing it 9 out of 10 times? This my friend I think is exploitable.
I would have to look to the math gurus to tell me the exact significance of being able to throw more doubles than expected, in 108 rolls, 9 out of 10 times.
Do I think this is probable? Not really. But, I am willing to watch with interest to see what comes out of it
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!
October 12th, 2012 at 6:58:57 AM
permalink
I am still waiting to know now the dice know he doesn't want 2 or 12.
They are doubles as well. The 16.67% chance of rolling doubles makes it fairly common.
Even were it to come up two or more rolls than expected per hundred, it would not prove or disprove anything.
Anyone who has played sic bo, can tell you that trips "seem" to come up a lot more than 2.78% (6/216)
luck is hard for the human mind to accept. We want an explanation and we want it now.
Has the entire data set been posted, just curious.?
Why 108 rolls, why not >720?
They are doubles as well. The 16.67% chance of rolling doubles makes it fairly common.
Even were it to come up two or more rolls than expected per hundred, it would not prove or disprove anything.
Anyone who has played sic bo, can tell you that trips "seem" to come up a lot more than 2.78% (6/216)
luck is hard for the human mind to accept. We want an explanation and we want it now.
Has the entire data set been posted, just curious.?
Why 108 rolls, why not >720?
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
October 12th, 2012 at 7:44:26 AM
permalink
Quote: superrickI know, I know Angela only rolled three hard ways in 14 rolls counting her 7 out on her second roll.
I confess that we did some creative editing and cut out some rolls from the footage.
Shameless insert of Angela picture.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 12th, 2012 at 8:43:06 AM
permalink
Quote: Ahigh
But all I have to do is have a few rolls that aren't as random as others.
I can agree with this statement.
October 12th, 2012 at 8:48:22 AM
permalink
Quote: WongBoHas the entire data set been posted, just curious.?
This is every roll that I have tossed at home with this particular throw and position since I began recording with my software in August. I have used various sets to record these rolls which were also noted.
This is a concatenation of the data from multiple files. If you have any questions, let me know. I have been trying to record left and right dice independently in the last couple of days, but in general there's no distinction between which die was on the left and which die was on the right at the beginning of the set for this dat. Otherwise as much information as I could capture is present.
The "s 6262" means that I am using a "hardway" set where the sixes are on top, the twos are on my thumb using my right hand, and the fives would be touching my three fingers on the other side on a three-finger overhand toss.
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Aug05-1245pm.txt
s 6262
a 11`55`32`31`51`51`43`65`62`21`41`41`63`11`55`32`62`63`32`64`62`61`42`21`54`21`21`64`53`64
a 22`44`11`42`52`43`63`51`42`11`11`52`41`41`42`21`64`63`52
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Aug07-0833pm.txt
s 6262
a 41`63`54`66`63`63`64`41`33`43`64`63`51`52`41`52`42`64`44`32`21`66`11`32`11`22`63`53`43`31
a 21`66`53`53`54`53`65`54`66`65`31`31`52`11`65`22`66`55`43`31`53`44`54`42`64`51`55`21`63`42
a 11`31`21`42`53`41`42`43`42`61`21`64`66`65`52`61`32`62`61`63`63`64`41`65`51`32`53`54`53`62
a 51`62`44`43
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Aug08-1006pm.txt
s 6262
a 64`42`62`21`22`62`54`42`42`32`62`42`51`51`44`62`65`43`65`33`66`51`33`64`62`55`54`43`32`55
a 51`55`22`62`21`64`41`61`11`62`44`51`63`21`64`52
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Aug13-0931pm.txt
s 6262
a 33`52`51`32`51`66`32`64`43`54`51`21`64`51`51`53`32`44`63`51`41`63`53`66`65`42`41`44`42`42
a 52`21`31`62`21`44`32`66`32`31`52`52`44`44`33`65`53`22`43`22`51`65`54`53`31`51`53`31`51`43
a 65`31`62`54`53`52`54`53`51`21`42`64`63`55`65`53`22`55`41`33`54`63`51`64`32`61`21`42`43`51
a 63`21`53`63`54`63`53`55`53`41
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Sep01-0207pm.txt
s 6262
a 53`62`32`42`42`53`61`22`66`61`54`22`43`52`54`43`54`52`61`21`51`42`43`62`41`21`41`54`21`44
a 22`31`32`66`31`64`55`55`65`62`33`33`54`51`54`31`66`41`32`42`42`21`21`22`21`42`11`32`31`11
a 51`42`65`21`42`54`41`52
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Sep08-0123pm.txt
s 6262
a 43`31`21`55`61`65`51`42`52`32`42`43`33`63`43`21`63`42`61`32`61`44`43`63`32`21`64`44`32`64
a 66`42`52`41`66`31`65`64`33`52`52`42`33`21`22`33`44`21`51`32`41`43`33`31`54`43`55`61`63`51
a 54`53`43`65`66`41`62`43`32`53`21`52`11`54`41`31`41`63`41`51`32`64`51`66`51`63`21`21`21`44
a 31`43`31`64`43`62`53`51`61`41`54`31`55`53`31`63`65`63`32`41`64`31`54`54`53`31`22`43`21`54
a 64`42`61`44`32`61`22`32`33`62`65`52`32`41`66`43`66`42`21`52`54`31`55`65`53`43`63`66`61`65
a 44`65`54`55`22`53`22`63`65`41`51`22`21`61`52`32`62`32`61`66`33`31`66`66`51`52`33`65`51`31
a 52`63`54`65`32`52`65`43`52`42`32`65`54`55`42`32`22`22`41`54`21`31`41`66`21`22`65`61`52`61
a 21`11`32`53`31`22`41`53`55`31`21`53`63`11`41`65`65`54`22`21`53`42`32`42`54`33`31`52`52`53
a 32`52`63`42`53`43`62`11`43`65`65`43`53`32`52
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Sep09-0307pm.txt
s 6262
a 41`32`11`44`51`61`44`61`21`66`61`53`31`21`64`44`51`54`63`41`64`52`65`54`43`64`21`43`61`52
a 62`63`32`31`54`42`52
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Sep09-0803pm.txt
s 6262
a 51`22`66`51`64`61`55`52`62`42`51`52`51`63`61`41`43`43`41`63`32`54`21`32`64`52`43`32`66`66
a 42`63`51`61`51`54`21`52`42`53`43`64`54`42`31`21`55`32`41`53`42`44`63`65`64`62`52`63`53`32
a 64`44`65`21`44`31`43`62`41`62`31`32`52`55`44`42`51`44`42`41`11`43`52`31`31`63`21`64`52`63
a 43`63`61`33`54`21`54`61`51`44`54`51`61`41`42`53`41`61`54`41`62`32`53`62`22`51`55`22`41`42
a 62`54`54`42`43`52`61`11`64`21`54`63`32`31`61`22`31`33`66`63`42`66`63`53`51`53`42`53`54`22
a 52`61`64`42`61`41`65`32`61`31`53`41`61`54`66`64`11`21`64`31`11`53`52`62`42`62`42`61`32`65
a 54`66`42`33`54`52`53`42`63`43`32`63`66`42`33`66`53`44`11`54`22`43`64`61`52`11`55`62`64`21
a 51`54`43`32`43`53`32`55`32`11`61`33`62`64`65`41`11`51`43`62`32`64`44`62`64`21`61`42`64`22
a 63`54`65`33`41`43`53`31`51`32`33`53`51`11`63`11
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Sep14-1011pm.txt
s 1236
a 51`63`54`51`54`51`42`11`53`32`55`53`54`52`62`43`31`22`11`62`64`65`44`53`52`64`31`21`31`53
a 63`42`64`51`51`43`66`63`51`11`66`66`62`51`54`51`65`51`21`42`22`54`32`31`52`43`64`64`43`32
a 54`64`64`55`51`33`53`51`52`51`51`53`65`52`63`54`51
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Sep18-1027pm.txt
s 6262
a 43`51`21`42`41`32`65`61`61`21`63`36`35`14`42`51`36`63`44`34`21`51`24`61`43`41`21`32`33`34
a 13`54`33`53`62`55`64`15`52`31`31`36`21`62`26`15`31`51`35`25`52`61`41`62`61`53`33`54`53`36
a 66`54`21`44`32`45`52`43`54`64`64`12`11`55`16`65`26`64`64`21`64`16`63`53`61`13`53`42`23`52
a 62`43`43`32`66`65`66`21`23`65`43`55`61`21`53`64`65`45`43`32`64`32`56`41`56`64`31`41`66`22
a 36`66`65`35`21`16`43`53`51`33`61`54`43`52`31`55`23`65`41`56`53`55`66`41`52`53`41`21`11`52
a 42`21`43`42`52`32`61`11`11`31`62`51`62`44`22`55`55`22`31`33`44`55`55`21`54`41`62`21`65`63
a 21`23`55`22`41`52`52`21`21`43`42`41`62`11`61`54`22`62`42`53`53`54`31`52
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Sep23-0629pm.txt
s 4242
a 11`23`16`53`15`22`12`32`26`35`44`13`14`25`45`64`31`31`46`22`34`42`45`14`35`34`46`13`54`32
a 42`46`42`21`46`11`31`53`45`21`26`25`21`65`61`34`31`55`12`15`54`35`16`12`25`24`33`23`16`64
a 44`31`51`31`33`44`54`62`53`56`51`31`15`65`61`16`31`14`36`61`15`52`13`26`51`11`63`12`62`61
a 15`65`24`12`41`31`56`36`35`32`12`26`42`46`43`33`54`24`11`22`25`14`66`44`33`32`62`63`11`61
a 22`41`13`61`24`51`42`63`22`56`52`53`31`42`25`64`56`22`22`31`46`14`44`45`63`45`42`45`62`46
a 65`24`61`61`52`31`11`62`33`51`21`22`63`26`51`11`43`31`56`11`42`51`35`56`61`46`23`26`42`61
a 14`51`32`33`25`12`42`45`61`33`32`21`66`42`56`32`25`24`53`33`23`54`63`65`44`55`22`42`55`14
a 63`65`25`53`44`15`45`42`55`33`13`45`42`43
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Sep23-0858pm.txt
s 4242
a 64`33`53`11`53`41`21`22`53`52`62`54`23`62`62`44`31`53`22`62`54`54`11`66`43`31`42`31`22`42
a 54`55`12`23`52`43`51`63`54`12`51`54`44`54`31`31`44`55`62`51`54`61`51`55`43`52`12`43`53`22
a 53`53`55`11`43`66`61`23`41`54`23`55`51`64`41`42`12`64`64`53`53`23`54`56`31`55`33`41`64`12
a 23`31`66`43`32`45`56`62`31`64`44`12`44`31`42`41`51`54`45`31`65`33`44`11`51`51`23`22`65`31
a 63`54`66`31`23`54`33`41`23
# Rolls
# aaron_sr1_2012-Oct10-0840pm.txt
s 4242
a 66`65`63`65`61`35`64`32`64`35`61`31`12`12`26`14`13`44`56`65`12`56`44`64`61`41`24`35`22`15
a 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`63
a 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`56
a 42`34`25`31
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 8:59:44 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffAlot of this is reminiscent of the mental patient who kept snapping his fingers to keep elephants away from him. Whenever the asylum personnel told him there were no elephants around for hundreds of miles he replied "See, it works".
Those who build practice cages and put in hundreds of hours of practice and analysis ... ain't gonna say anything but "See, it works".
I want to correct you because I believe that you are wrong. I am not claiming that it does work. I am merely stating that I am hoping to prove that it is possible.
You and many others are creating your own ideas about what I am doing and what my intentions are in doing it.
I am not claiming that I absolutely have bias and I am absolutely going to prove it.
I am claiming that it is POSSIBLE that I have bias, and even if it's not much bias, I want to be the first to prove it is POSSIBLE to have bias from a controlled throw.
Your comment and other comments like yours that summarily dismiss the hard work that I am doing comparing me to a mental patient are patently offensive to me, and I absolutely do NOT appreciate being compared to a mental patient. This is absolutely NO different from calling me a name to me, even if it abides by the rules, I think it's the same offense as calling me "mental."
This type of work (research into topics related to gambling) is what I do for a living.
The fact that I enjoy this kind of thing is a benefit to the work that I do.
However, I don't enjoy reading comments like the one that you submitted. Just so you know.
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 9:03:10 AM
permalink
After reading everyone's views about dice control, and their explanation of why it works or why it doesn't work, I have come to the conclusion that these explanations make about as much sense as the VP debates last night.
"I approve this message"
"I approve this message"
October 12th, 2012 at 9:09:43 AM
permalink
Quote: FatGeezusAfter reading everyone's views about dice control, and their explanation of why it works or why it doesn't work, I have come to the conclusion that these explanations make about as much sense as the VP debates last night.
"I approve this message"
And this is absolutely a pattern of the type of post that I see so much on this forum. Stating that conclusions that are made don't make much sense (to you) says more about you than the conclusions that are being made. Not to mention your statement is so broad that it adds very little value to the topic of conversation and very much to the noise level.
Just keep it to yourself is the suggestion that I have to those who want to make these comments without adding anything of value other than to say "I don't buy it." Or "I don't get it."
Anybody that has an easier proof that the dice are 100% random, that is my opposition.
And personally I think proving that dice are 100% random is something that NOBODY is going to EVER be able to prove.
I'm definitely picking the easier thing to prove. And as Math Extremist has pointed out, over the years, the tables have adapted to utilize things to prevent control from occurring whether it was proven or just feared, they have adapted to prevent things from happening. So really all I am trying to prove is that I can still have control on at least one table in Las Vegas in a way that is legal by current Nevada State laws. When you think about the specifics of what I'm trying to do, it's really not that difficult to realize that I have a good chance to do this.
The only control that is currently agreed upon that I am aware of is:
* Blanket rolls
* Loaded dice
* Shaved dice
* Short rolls
Short rolls aren't even illegal, they are just grounds for the casino staff to take the dice away or bar you from playing if you exploit them.
But let me say it again, keep the snide little comments to yourself. Is that really too much to ask? I mean it bothers me.
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 9:32:44 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighAnd this is absolutely a pattern of the type of post that I see so much on this forum. Stating that conclusions that are made don't make much sense (to you) says more about you than the conclusions that are being made. Not to mention your statement is so broad that it adds very little value to the topic of conversation and very much to the noise level.
Just keep it to yourself is the suggestion that I have to those who want to make these comments without adding anything of value other than to say "I don't buy it." Or "I don't get it."
Anybody that has an easier proof that the dice are 100% random, that is my opposition.
And personally I think proving that dice are 100% random is something that NOBODY is going to EVER be able to prove.
I'm definitely picking the easier thing to prove. And as Math Extremist has pointed out, over the years, the tables have adapted to utilize things to prevent control from occurring whether it was proven or just feared, they have adapted to prevent things from happening. So really all I am trying to prove is that I can still have control on at least one table in Las Vegas in a way that is legal by current Nevada State laws. When you think about the specifics of what I'm trying to do, it's really not that difficult to realize that I have a good chance to do this.
The only control that is currently agreed upon that I am aware of is:
* Blanket rolls
* Loaded dice
* Shaved dice
* Short rolls
Short rolls aren't even illegal, they are just grounds for the casino staff to take the dice away or bar you from playing if you exploit them.
But let me say it again, keep the snide little comments to yourself. Is that really too much to ask? I mean it bothers me. If you want to just make me angry and you enjoy acting like a child, just keep on doing it and I will do my best to ignore you. But I want everyone to know that this is not helping me at all to read these comments and it does affect me. So please stop annoying me. Is that an okay request? Please stop, please!
WOW!!!
I didn't know this was the AHIGH forum.
"your statement is so broad that it adds very little value to the topic of conversation and very much to the noise level."
I purposely made a broad statement so that I wouldn't offend anyone in particular. I could have named names, but I decided that rather get into a pissing contest with someone, I would just make a broad statement. I guess that you took it personally. Now that you did and started the pissing contest, let me say this, NOISE LEVEL? Your posts are nothing but noise.
Have a nice day!
October 12th, 2012 at 9:50:13 AM
permalink
Quote: FatGeezusWOW!!!
I didn't know this was the AHIGH forum.
"your statement is so broad that it adds very little value to the topic of conversation and very much to the noise level."
I purposely made a broad statement so that I wouldn't offend anyone in particular. I could have named names, but I decided that rather get into a pissing contest with someone, I would just make a broad statement. I guess that you took it personally. Now that you did and started the pissing contest, let me say this, NOISE LEVEL? Your posts are nothing but noise.
Have a nice day!
You are wrong. My posts have content. Your posts are vapid. And went back and looked for a post of yours that had anything of serious contribution, and I couldn't find anything in the last month or so. Maybe you could start, but so far, not so much!
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 10:10:40 AM
permalink
You mean the dice rolls you produce?Quote: Ahigh
Anybody that has an easier proof that the dice are 100% random, that is my opposition.
And personally I think proving that dice are 100% random is something that NOBODY is going to EVER be able to prove.
and that proof is only about a certain degree of certainty. Like Variance
| # | combin | ways | prob | EV | Actual | Difference | SD | #SDs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1-1 | 1 | 0.028 | 45.361 | 48 | 2.639 | 6.641 | 0.397 |
| 3 | 1-2 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 99 | 8.278 | 9.256 | 0.894 |
| 4 | 1-3 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 95 | 4.278 | 9.256 | 0.462 |
| 4Hard | 2-2 | 1 | 0.028 | 45.361 | 54 | 8.639 | 6.641 | 1.301 |
| 5 | 1-4 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 78 | -12.722 | 9.256 | -1.374 |
| 5 | 2-3 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 96 | 5.278 | 9.256 | 0.570 |
| 6 | 1-5 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 102 | 11.278 | 9.256 | 1.218 |
| 6 | 2-4 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 100 | 9.278 | 9.256 | 1.002 |
| 6Hard | 3-3 | 1 | 0.028 | 45.361 | 43 | -2.361 | 6.641 | -0.356 |
| 7 | 1-6 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 77 | -13.722 | 9.256 | -1.482 |
| 7 | 2-5 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 84 | -6.722 | 9.256 | -0.726 |
| 7 | 3-4 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 84 | -6.722 | 9.256 | -0.726 |
| 8 | 2-6 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 71 | -19.722 | 9.256 | -2.131 |
| 8 | 3-5 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 99 | 8.278 | 9.256 | 0.894 |
| 8Hard | 4-4 | 1 | 0.028 | 45.361 | 51 | 5.639 | 6.641 | 0.849 |
| 9 | 3-6 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 80 | -10.722 | 9.256 | -1.158 |
| 9 | 4-5 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 106 | 15.278 | 9.256 | 1.650 |
| 10 | 4-6 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 87 | -3.722 | 9.256 | -0.402 |
| 10Hard | 5-5 | 1 | 0.028 | 45.361 | 49 | 3.639 | 6.641 | 0.548 |
| 11 | 5-6 | 2 | 0.056 | 90.722 | 79 | -11.722 | 9.256 | -1.266 |
| 12 | 6-6 | 1 | 0.028 | 45.361 | 51 | 5.639 | 6.641 | 0.849 |
| 1633 | . |
chitest in Excel = 0.307006187
94 rolls from the other night
| # | freq | Prob | EV | difference | sd | # of SDs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1 | 0.0278 | 2.6111 | -1.6111 | 1.5933 | -1.0112 |
| 3 | 4 | 0.0556 | 5.2222 | -1.2222 | 2.2208 | -0.5503 |
| 4 | 10 | 0.0833 | 7.8333 | 2.1667 | 2.6797 | 0.8086 |
| 5 | 8 | 0.1111 | 10.4444 | -2.4444 | 3.0470 | -0.8023 |
| 6 | 10 | 0.1389 | 13.0556 | -3.0556 | 3.3530 | -0.9113 |
| 7 | 15 | 0.1667 | 15.6667 | -0.6667 | 3.6132 | -0.1845 |
| 8 | 14 | 0.1389 | 13.0556 | 0.9444 | 3.3530 | 0.2817 |
| 9 | 11 | 0.1111 | 10.4444 | 0.5556 | 3.0470 | 0.1823 |
| 10 | 11 | 0.0833 | 7.8333 | 3.1667 | 2.6797 | 1.1817 |
| 11 | 8 | 0.0556 | 5.2222 | 2.7778 | 2.2208 | 1.2508 |
| 12 | 2 | 0.0278 | 2.6111 | -0.6111 | 1.5933 | -0.3836 |
| 94 | 94 |
chitest in Excel = 0.798742456
conclusion. The above table results are well within random results for the number of trials
========================================================
A better test, like the Salk vaccine test,
you toss randomly, maybe with eyes closed 108 rolls.
Sling 'um wild!
Then do not look at those results. Save them to a file.
Do 108 rolls again but using your DI skills.
Now compare. Your random rolls vs your DI rolls
Use EV and SD.
How much of a difference are your random rolls from your DI rolls?
IMO, not much.
I say 2SD range will contain the most results and maybe one closer to 3SD.
Now duplicate your best DI 108 roll set.
But the real proof is at the casino
see you at the Craps table.
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
October 12th, 2012 at 10:48:04 AM
permalink
RC got it.Quote: WongBoWhy 108 rolls, why not >720?
Easier to toss 108 rolls in an hour than 720 per hour.
108 rolls produces EV as an integer. Easy math
It is NOT the number of rolls that matter, it is the distribution.
If one can, in 108 rolls produce just one value greater than say 2 standard deviations from the ev,
now that gives a target. And that target has a probability.
Do it again
or 2 out of 3.
The percentages can be the same for 108 rolls as 720 or 7,200 rolls.
108 rolls
11 or LESS 7s
0.0406059
or 1 in 24.6269819
720 rolls
102 or LESS 7s
0.0379546
or 1 in 26.3472489
7,200 rolls
1144 or LESS 7s
0.0389869
or 1 in 25.6496455
for binomial probabilities see:
http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
Doing the 108 rolls back to back is a 1 in 606.5 shot. You now have my attention!
Or 2 out of 3 times is a 1 in 207.8 shot. You still have my attention.
added: One can even do just 54 roll sessions.
4 or LESS 7s
0.0409881
or 1 in 24.3973014 ONE time
1 in 595 back to back
2 out of 3: 1 in 204
You want my attention for just doing a 1 in 26 shot ONE time??
South Park is back on
Again, The distribution is all that matters and how often one can duplicate the event.
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
October 12th, 2012 at 10:57:42 AM
permalink
Thanks for the analysis 7 craps. I will get around to learning a lot of what you're suggesting that I learn, and I don't want you to feel like I'm ignoring your suggestions. I appreciate so much what you're doing. Thanks.
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 12:12:59 PM
permalink
It is up to you if you really want to find out where you fall under the curve.
The famous Bell curve.
You may find you can beat a 1SD value but not 2SD.
If that is consistent, even that would be something to raise eyebrows.
Better than a kick in the groin.
EV and variance are very simple concepts to learn and to apply to craps data
try adding your dice roll data files to your Blog.
easier to find for those that would be interested to see them
The famous Bell curve.
You may find you can beat a 1SD value but not 2SD.
If that is consistent, even that would be something to raise eyebrows.
Better than a kick in the groin.
EV and variance are very simple concepts to learn and to apply to craps data
try adding your dice roll data files to your Blog.
easier to find for those that would be interested to see them
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
October 12th, 2012 at 1:36:02 PM
permalink
Quote: AhighThe only control that is currently agreed upon that I am aware of is:
* Blanket rolls
* Loaded dice
* Shaved dice
* Short rolls
Short rolls aren't even illegal, they are just grounds for the casino staff to take the dice away or bar you from playing if you exploit them.
No controlled shot is illegal, to my knowledge, even sliding -- I believe the dice have to actually be altered (e.g. shaved or loaded) in order to violate the cheating provisions in the NRS. I attempted to ask the DA in the wake of the Wynn sliding incident but received no reply.
For more on controlled shots, see Scarne on Dice, Ch. 14.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 12th, 2012 at 1:41:35 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistNo controlled shot is illegal, to my knowledge, even sliding
The policy at the Venetian is that a controlled shot is perfectly fine as long as the dice hit the back end. As far as I know, that is everybody's policy, except on the tubs.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 12th, 2012 at 1:42:40 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistNo controlled shot is illegal, to my knowledge, even sliding -- I believe the dice have to actually be altered (e.g. shaved or loaded) in order to violate the cheating provisions in the NRS. I attempted to ask the DA in the wake of the Wynn sliding incident but received no reply.
For more on controlled shots, see Scarne on Dice, Ch. 14.
Thanks and that is very interesting. I didn't read the big thread on this forum on that topic or spend too much time researching that case. But I inferred from the legal action that the actions that the gamblers took was against the law.
That's a very interesting bit of information, for sure.
And yeah, they have speed bumps now there at the Wynn. I have seen at least one other casino that has them too.
I have Scarne on Dice and it covers these clandestine topics better than any other book. It's surprising that there isn't a more recent book doing a better coverage of cheating and other shady practices associated with the game.
It's also equally interesting that so many of the books on the game of craps are of such a low overall quality. Especially when you consider them all not just the top 2 or 3 authors.
aahigh.com
October 12th, 2012 at 2:02:25 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardThe policy at the Venetian is that a controlled shot is perfectly fine as long as the dice hit the back end. As far as I know, that is everybody's policy, except on the tubs.
Right, but to be clear, "house policy" and "illegal" are worlds apart. The house has the right to call basically any shot "no roll", even if it does hit the back wall. Illegal is specifically related to the question of whether a controlled shot can possibly fall underneath the NRS definition of "cheating":
Quote: NRS 465.015
Definitions. As used in this chapter:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit.
One could make an argument that controlled shooting is "altering .. the criteria which determine .. the frequency of payment in a game". However, the public-policy problem with that interpretation is that it not only makes successful dice influencing a category B felony, but also attempted dice influencing (because "attempted cheating" is also a felony in NV).
And that would incriminate basically everyone: I didn't see a single player at the Aria last week who didn't at least set the dice and try to throw them in a semi-controlled fashion. Nobody was just shaking and flinging them. But the law makes no distinction between whether the attempt is successful, so the only reasonable interpretation is that attempts at dice influencing are legal, whether effective or not.
But let me ask the LV-based attorneys on the forum: Wynn apparently filed suit against the sliders, but the DA didn't. If so, what is the status of that case?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 12th, 2012 at 5:29:25 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI confess that we did some creative editing and cut out some rolls from the footage.
Shameless insert of Angela picture.
Look at all of those PLACE bets! It made me do a little happy dance. :-D But no 6?
Please get Angela back to the table and have Dan demonstrate what a short stick move is.
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!
October 13th, 2012 at 9:27:13 AM
permalink
Quote: AhighYou are wrong. My posts have content. Your posts are vapid. And went back and looked for a post of yours that had anything of serious contribution, and I couldn't find anything in the last month or so. Maybe you could start, but so far, not so much!
You couldn't find anything that I posted that was a serious contribution?
Well here it is again!!!!!
========================================================
Quote: FatGeezus
After reading everyone's views about dice control, and their explanation of why it works or why it doesn't work, I have come to the conclusion that these explanations make about as much sense as the VP debates last night.
==========================================================
You only went back a month or so. I didn't realize that everyone is required to post monthly.
Here's one of the posts that you missed if you went back a little further. Let me know if has enough content for you.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/9438-nj-viet-nam-veterans-memorial-in-holmdel/
And the reason I don't post that often is because:
YOU NEVER LEARN ANYTHING WHILE YOU ARE TALKING (POSTING).
Have a nice day.
October 13th, 2012 at 3:28:52 PM
permalink
Quote: FatGeezusYou couldn't find anything that I posted that was a serious contribution?
Well here it is again!!!!!
========================================================
Quote: FatGeezus
After reading everyone's views about dice control, and their explanation of why it works or why it doesn't work, I have come to the conclusion that these explanations make about as much sense as the VP debates last night.
==========================================================
You only went back a month or so. I didn't realize that everyone is required to post monthly.
Here's one of the posts that you missed if you went back a little further. Let me know if has enough content for you.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/9438-nj-viet-nam-veterans-memorial-in-holmdel/
And the reason I don't post that often is because:
YOU NEVER LEARN ANYTHING WHILE YOU ARE TALKING (POSTING).
Have a nice day.
Alright. Thanks for your contributions to this thread.
aahigh.com
October 14th, 2012 at 5:21:34 PM
permalink
Quote: AhighAlright. Thanks for your contributions to this thread.
You're welcome.
Good luck at the tables.
October 15th, 2012 at 2:49:13 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistNo controlled shot is illegal, to my knowledge, even sliding -- I believe the dice have to actually be altered (e.g. shaved or loaded) in order to violate the cheating provisions in the NRS.
Sliding is stipulated as an "illegal throw" by the Enforcement Division of the Nevada Gaming Commission. I did a story on the subject of dice influencing and dice control about six or seven years ago, and I was told then that "sliding" is not permitted -- period.
Dice setting, controlled throws, influencing are all considered to be legal as long as:
1. The dice fly in the air
2. the dice hit the table surface at least once
3. the dice hit the back wall
of course what is illegal is any alteration of the dice including shaving, applying glue or sticky substances, using loaded dice, etc.
I did an extensive interview with Keith Copher who at the time was Chief of Enforcement of the Nevada Gaming Control Board. His comments were confirmed by the Michigan gaming commission.
I don't think any of that has changed, and it's the same info I gave the LA Review Journal when they interviewed me about the Wynn sliding case:
Article: http://www.lvrj.com/business/couple-accused-of-dice-sliding-at-wynn-las-vegas-130900938.html
Unfortunately there are still casinos that still block setting and controlled throws. While setting and controlled throws are not illegal, setters and controlled shooters can be blocked. It is a similar situation with card counters. Card counting is not illegal, but the casinos can choose who they want to do business with.
At NYNY, MGM and Bellagio I ran into trouble from hostile dealers who didn't like that I was setting and using a controlled throw. Legally I was doing everything right, but you can't argue with the floorman when he says---
At NYNY: "You're through."
At MGM: "If Mr. Mendelson fails to hit the back wall with both dice, you are to take the dice away from him."
At Bellagio: "The dice must bounce off the back wall a minimum of six inches, sir." "But my dice are hitting the back wall, see?" "No sir, they must bounce off the back wall a minimum of six inches." (this came about after my dice with 5-4 showing came to rest against the back wall three times in a row. I used the cross sixes set with 5-4 in the front. Beat that Ahigh. LOL)
October 15th, 2012 at 5:53:14 AM
permalink
If they hit the back wall but do not bounce back that six inch (a minimum probably existing in the box's imagination) do you think that is due to your throw?
Couldn't you throw harder even if you use the same starting position?
Couldn't you throw harder even if you use the same starting position?
October 15th, 2012 at 6:52:46 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffIf they hit the back wall but do not bounce back that six inch (a minimum probably existing in the box's imagination) do you think that is due to your throw?
Couldn't you throw harder even if you use the same starting position?
Oh... what happened to me that night was nothing but luck. Yes, I was setting my dice. Yes, I threw them "just right" from the stick right position. But I will not kid myself... those three times in a row that the dice came to rest showing 5-4 with the dice leaning against the back wall was L-U-C-K and nothing else !!!
But listen to this: those dealers started yelling things to me like "you guys go to school to learn how to rip us off" and they were really convinced that I was some kind of dice mechanic.
Trust me when I say I'm not. I've had good rolls in my life but it's because I was lucky.
And I will say this one more time: the best, longest, and biggest money-making rolls I've ever been on at a craps table were by random rollers who picked up two dice and they flew all over the place. And while I have been at tables with TWO very skilled and very controlled dice throwers, and while they had nice rolls and money making hands too, they didn't come close to what the best of the best random shooters did.
October 15th, 2012 at 7:11:54 AM
permalink
The world record holder (5/23/2009. 4 hours 18 minutes, 154 rolls, 25 passes)
is a random rolling grandmother from Denvillle, NJ.
trivia: what was the approximate table win on her turn?
is a random rolling grandmother from Denvillle, NJ.
trivia: what was the approximate table win on her turn?
$180,000
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
October 15th, 2012 at 9:40:18 AM
permalink
Quote: AlanMendelsonSliding is stipulated as an "illegal throw" by the Enforcement Division of the Nevada Gaming Commission. I did a story on the subject of dice influencing and dice control about six or seven years ago, and I was told then that "sliding" is not permitted -- period.
I don't doubt that casinos can (and will) prevent you from sliding, but that's very different than it being a felony. According to the NRS, both cheating and *attempting to cheat* are equivalent crimes in the eyes of the law. And there is no carve-out in the law for dice throws which meet your criteria of flying in the air, hitting the back wall, etc. as opposed to sliding, in which the dice don't do that. In other words, there is no statutory basis for dividing throws of unaltered dice into "legal" vs. "cheating" based on the details of how they are propelled (sliding, on-axis toss, whip shot, whatever). That is why, when you use a throw of fair dice designed to alter the probabilities, it's not cheating:
Quote:(this came about after my dice with 5-4 showing came to rest against the back wall three times in a row. I used the cross sixes set with 5-4 in the front. Beat that Ahigh. LOL)
and therefore isn't a felony. For the same reasons, sliding or attempting to slide can't be a crime either. It's certainly grounds for trespass, and it makes sense that the NGCB would uphold that. But sliding can't be a crime without all other forms of controlled throwing also being a crime, in which case you've just copped to a felony. Whoops.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 15th, 2012 at 12:04:40 PM
permalink
Without getting into splitting hairs, the difference between successfully sliding the dice and any other roll that has both dice bouncing and at least one of the two dice hitting the back wall at all in any way, the casinos consider that if either dice hit the back wall even gently, you're going to be allowed to continue shooting here in Vegas.
If you successfully slide the dice, you are going to be in a whole different world, and a good box is going to recognize it immediately and you might not ever be allowed to touch the dice in that casino (if you're recognized) ever again.
Regardless of the laws.
A good boxman is not going to stand one second for a dice slide. I've never once seen anyone even try it, but just joking about it is enough to get them all in a tizzy.
95% of the people who set the dice have no idea how to perform a controlled throw at all. So they have no problem with that. For most people, it just gives them the appearance of knowing the game a bit more, and that's all they want.
The remaining 5% are trying.
And in my estimation it's a small fraction of 1% (and possibly 0%) of the people who actually obtain any bias aligned with their bets, and even those people don't bet enough to be a worry for the boxman.
A slider is in a whole different category. The edge for a slider is gigantic. And it's absolutely something that can be achieved. A good boxman could recognize a slider just by seeing how much money has been won and having surveillance go back to look at the tapes right away and stop him before he leaves the casino.
But it's news to me that the casino can't just file charges right away for a slider. That's surprising given that most casinos don't even have speed bumps.
But splitting hairs on the law, while interesting, I know I'm not going to be sliding the dice as that's what I would consider to be straight-up cheating as the edge is way too big and for me to try to exploit it and not be in trouble, if it is legal, it's absolutely fraught with moral hazard and I want to have nothing to do with that at all.
If you successfully slide the dice, you are going to be in a whole different world, and a good box is going to recognize it immediately and you might not ever be allowed to touch the dice in that casino (if you're recognized) ever again.
Regardless of the laws.
A good boxman is not going to stand one second for a dice slide. I've never once seen anyone even try it, but just joking about it is enough to get them all in a tizzy.
95% of the people who set the dice have no idea how to perform a controlled throw at all. So they have no problem with that. For most people, it just gives them the appearance of knowing the game a bit more, and that's all they want.
The remaining 5% are trying.
And in my estimation it's a small fraction of 1% (and possibly 0%) of the people who actually obtain any bias aligned with their bets, and even those people don't bet enough to be a worry for the boxman.
A slider is in a whole different category. The edge for a slider is gigantic. And it's absolutely something that can be achieved. A good boxman could recognize a slider just by seeing how much money has been won and having surveillance go back to look at the tapes right away and stop him before he leaves the casino.
But it's news to me that the casino can't just file charges right away for a slider. That's surprising given that most casinos don't even have speed bumps.
But splitting hairs on the law, while interesting, I know I'm not going to be sliding the dice as that's what I would consider to be straight-up cheating as the edge is way too big and for me to try to exploit it and not be in trouble, if it is legal, it's absolutely fraught with moral hazard and I want to have nothing to do with that at all.
aahigh.com
October 15th, 2012 at 12:33:43 PM
permalink
I don't know whether a casino would have a civil case against a slider. I'm not an attorney and don't know the legal theories there. But I don't think the State would file criminal charges.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 15th, 2012 at 1:26:00 PM
permalink
Quote: Ahigh...
But it's news to me that the casino can't just file charges right away for a slider. That's surprising given that most casinos don't even have speed bumps.
I was just getting ready to ask how the sliders get around the speed bump! As far as I know, every table I have ever played on has had it. You can tell when the stick gets careless sending the dice out.
I assumed every table had it these days......
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!
