Dice Setting
Poll
 | 7 votes (23.33%) | ||
| | 19 votes (63.33%) | ||
| | 4 votes (13.33%) |
30 members have voted
If the dice where to be rolled by a computer robot with:
1. At the same table.
2. The dice set at the same point.
3. The same speed (slow and gentle) every roll.
4. Same Heights every roll.
5. Same landing spot every roll.
Basically, everything as the same as the first roll as possible.
Will the outcome be random?
What do you think?
Quote: MrCasinoGamesIn a Craps game.
If the dice where to be rolled by a computer robot with:
1. At the same table.
2. The dice set at the same point.
3. The same speed (slow and gentle) every roll.
4. Same Heights every roll.
5. Same landing spot every roll.
Basically, everything as the same as the first roll as possible.
Will the outcome be random?
What do you think?
If such a robot could be made, and if a few other factors which you did not mention could also be controlled, then the results would not be random. However, in the real world, lets examine each point-
1. The same table. After the first roll the table is NOT the same. The table has some felt material, which after being contacted by the mass containing moving dice, will be materially changed from before that roll. So although the table may look the same to you it is NOT the same table as before.
2. The dice set at the same point. This is easier to be closer... but using the word 'same' implies that it is not changed by 1/1000 of a millimeter. What is the limit of 'sameness' that a machine tooled object can be?
3, 4 and 5 have the same exact issues as 2.
Also, in the real world, there are other factors that cannot be controlled-
Atmospheric pressure, humidity, air currents, table jostling, seismic activity, smoke density, oils on the dice, etc......
So I would say that there is no robot that could be made to roll dice that hit the back wall in a way that a real craps dealer would find acceptable that can overcome the many factors leading to randomize results. I would absolutely bet that there is no human that can overcome those factors. If you can find such a human who thinks they can set up a bet and I'll put up the money. I believe this exact subject has been discussed previously and of course there is never anyone willing to 'put up or shut up'.
Quote: SOOPOOIf such a robot could be made, and if a few other factors which you did not mention could also be controlled, then the results would not be random. However, in the real world, lets examine each point-
1. The same table. After the first roll the table is NOT the same. The table has some felt material, which after being contacted by the mass containing moving dice, will be materially changed from before that roll. So although the table may look the same to you it is NOT the same table as before.
2. The dice set at the same point. This is easier to be closer... but using the word 'same' implies that it is not changed by 1/1000 of a millimeter. What is the limit of 'sameness' that a machine tooled object can be?
3, 4 and 5 have the same exact issues as 2.
Also, in the real world, there are other factors that cannot be controlled-
Atmospheric pressure, humidity, air currents, table jostling, seismic activity, smoke density, oils on the dice, etc......
So I would say that there is no robot that could be made to roll dice that hit the back wall in a way that a real craps dealer would find acceptable that can overcome the many factors leading to randomize results. I would absolutely bet that there is no human that can overcome those factors. If you can find such a human who thinks they can set up a bet and I'll put up the money. I believe this exact subject has been discussed previously and of course there is never anyone willing to 'put up or shut up'.
Hi SOOPOO, I am just asking a question, no need to be so excited About it.
Here is another question.
Do you think roulette tracking, with a computer works?
I believe, Roulette tracking is basically using a computer to track the speed of the roulette combined with the roulette ball speed at a certain starting point.
P.S. Even with the roulette changed by 1/1000 of a millimeter each spin.
Quote: SOOPOO1. The same table. After the first roll the table is NOT the same. The table has some felt material, which after being contacted by the mass containing moving dice, will be materially changed from before that roll. So although the table may look the same to you it is NOT the same table as before.
Oh, yes indeed. But chaos theory notwithstanding, the effect after one roll, or a few thousands, is negligible.
I wouldn't mind seeing a controlled dice influence experiment. Granted the claim by dice setters/controllers is that they can do it on the casino floor and win, but it's hard to set up an experiment with adequate controls and tens of thousands of rolls (at least) in actual playing conditions.
Here's my idea:
1) gather a number of dice setters, say 20.
2) get a regulation craps table and lots of regulation dice.
3) gather regular craps players who do not claim to be able to control the dice, again say about 20, to serve as controls
4) Have all dice setters throw 10,000 rolls each over as long a time as is reasonable, say over several days
5) The same with the regular players.
6) To make things easy, there will be no distractions (noises, jostling, etc) and the table will be clear at all times.
The purpose of the study is to see whether dice setters can manage to roll less sevens than a) probability suggests and b) regular players do. If they can manage under such conditions, then dice control under real-world casino conditions is possible. if not, it's purely impossible. We'd also get an accurate read of the player advantage if the method works.
Quote: MrCasinoGamesIn a Craps game.
If the dice where to be rolled by a computer robot with:
1. At the same table.
2. The dice set at the same point.
3. The same speed (slow and gentle) every roll.
4. Same Heights every roll.
5. Same landing spot every roll.
Basically, everything as the same as the first roll as possible.
Will the outcome be random?
What do you think?
Robot arm, and it would not look like a human or humanoid robot but some kind of arm, it would not produce a random result if you had most or all of the following:
same dice
same release point
same setting of dice
same force
same tabe conditions (ie: no cheques to hit)
no excessive outside interference (eg: HVAC kicking on or off right above the table)
and the biggie, has to hit the table in an area such that bounce is minimal.
I've said it before many times. I have seen the "Breaking Vegas" show and tried it on a closed, regulation craps table. It *is* possible to lightly lob the dice and "catch" the corner of where the alligator meets the felt and avoid having the dice spin on multiple axies. If set right this will keep the numbers off the other axies from showing as often. It is hard as I can do it maybe 1 in 5 tries. But it is possible.
So yes, a robotic arm I believe could throw in a less-than-perfectly-random way.
the proof I need. But health reasons are why I am considering selling my map to the lost Dutchman's gold mine
for $29.
The hand is quicker than the eye,
Quote: SOOPOONareed- you don't need any 'controls'. You only need dice setters and their claims. The control is the math.
No, you still need controls. Math is fine, but as we've discussed here interminably, real world rolls don't conform to the distribution the math predicts. I know it's due to the number of rolls and other things. But let's say you find a significant deviation from the math in the rolls of regular players. What then? I'm not saying you will, but I am saying you might.
Quote: buzzpaffJust make sure you have a magician monitor the test. Without telling the setter LOL
The hand is quicker than the eye,
No need. You can't control dice three feet away from you by sleight of hand.
BTW I'll trade you my deed to the Eiffel tower (Vegas) for your map to the Dutchman's mine :P
Remember that 'altering the randomness factor' in the context of dice shooting can mean one of several things. If one means altering the randomness as to each and every throw individually, that is one very unlikely thing. But, say, if a controlled setter/thrower of dice can maintain his intended axis on both dice to some degree every fourth or fifth throw - which I believe is achievable based upon my own experiences - then you have still achieved an effect that alters the game's percentages.
Quote: midwestgbDice setting as a term is meaningless. Setting the dice in conjunction with a controlled, practiced throwing motion is not. As in, you can grip a basketball well but you likely won't make many free throws unless your shooting motion is trained, repetitive and fundamentally correct.
Remember that 'altering the randomness factor' in the context of dice shooting can mean one of several things. If one means altering the randomness as to each and every throw individually, that is one very unlikely thing. But, say, if a controlled setter/thrower of dice can maintain his intended axis on both dice to some degree every fourth or fifth throw - which I believe is achievable based upon my own experiences - then you have still achieved an effect that alters the game's percentages.
Wanna bet? I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you?
You better check your deed. I bought that tower last week so your deed must be fraudulent. LOL
Quote: SOOPOOWanna bet? I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you?
There are a thousand casinos that will let you put your money where your mouth is !!
Contrast this with computerized roulette clocking, which we already know is possible from Thomas Bass. There is only one applicable model there, it's based on well-understood Newtonian mechanics, and all you need to do is apply it. The difference is that you're not influencing anything in roulette -- you're making a physical prediction and getting a bet down in the allowable window. There is no analog to dice since you can't book a bet during the few seconds the dice are in the air.
CASINO SECURITY: With arrest, a career dangles
Anti-cheating consultant suffers damaging blow to credibility
By ARNOLD M. KNIGHTLY
REVIEW-JOURNAL
In the big money world of casino security, Steve Forte played like a high roller.
Harrah's Entertainment, the world's largest gaming company, bought copies of his books and videos to give to employees.
Forte's Web site boasts of consulting work with gaming companies and law enforcement agencies around the world that would have made him privy to the gambling industry's most sensitive secrets.
"The rest of us are small change compared to him," said Bill Zender, a gaming consultant for Last Resort Consulting and a longtime friend of Forte. "There is nobody out there in the industry right now that you can put on the same level."
But Forte's reputation took a heavy hit with his June 7 arrest in Atlantic City for allegedly conspiring to scam high-stakes poker games in a private room at the Borgata.
The arrest sent shock waves from the New Jersey to Nevada and shook the close-knit casino security consulting industry.
"It completely destroys whatever consulting career he had," said Richard Marcus, self-proclaimed former casino cheat struggling to start a consulting business. "For Steve himself, it is terrible."
Forte did not respond to requests for an interview, but friends say he maintains his innocence.
A closer look at Forte's past reveals this is not his first run-in with the law in New Jersey -- or Nevada.
Quote: buzzpaffThere are a thousand casinos that will let you put your money where your mouth is !!
Buzz- my mouth says you CANNOT set the dice to beat the house edge. There is NO casino that will let me BE the house against all the skilled 'dice setters'. So there is NO casino that will let me put my money where my mouth is. Duhhhh..
http://www.magictimes.com/archives/2010/2010-06_07-spotlight.htm
Quote: MathExtremistYes, the same Steve Forte. He's an amazing mechanic with basically every form of gambling equipment. He was cleared of all charges in 2009.
I actually have Steve Forte's book "Casino Game Protection: A Comprehensive Guide" sitting on my night stand. My copy was published in 2004, but let me tell you it is still very comprehensive with over 600 pages of detailed reading. One of the most interesting books about casinos that I have read in a long time.
the odds change as the distribution of 10s to non 10's change. The right person and the right environment will not change the laws of physics in any meaningful way. The posters here are not picking on you. Just trying to ensure you do pay money to these charlatans.
Quote: gofaster87How can you say they are frauds if there hasn't been any concrete evidence for or against it? If there is concrete evidence against it can you share? I always believe anything is possible, just takes the right person and the right environment. Many people believe counting and advantage play vp is a fraud. There is evidence for and against each one.
I play golf with 2 venutians and one martian. They told me that on their planets there are no dice setters. Sadly, neither could show me the proof i wanted. Summary- I don't need proof for everything. Dice setting, and its implied ability to consistently beat craps, is a fraud.
Quote: gofaster87Why is dice setting impossible? Is it because you cant do it? There's nothing in physics class saying it cant be done. It seems possible to me that someone could accurately throw the dice, have them stay and rotate together and land in the niche at the end of the table from the closest throwing position to the wall(stick right or left.) There are people with extraordinary talents in this world and there may be a few out there that can toss the dice and get them to land the way they want. I never said it was an easy or common thing just that its possible a few people may be able to do it. I cant do it but if I could I wouldn't advertise it to the world anyway.
I've had maybe 3 or 4 rolls in my life where the dice simply stopped dead when they hit the back wall. That proves it can be done. It doesn't prove that I could do it repeatedly, but then I wasn't really trying to. However, if someone could do that regularly enough -- like once every 100 rolls or so -- they'd be able to beat the edge on several of the prop bets. I'm not suggesting that this is how the "dice influencers" attempt to control the dice because it isn't. But it does demonstrate that those who sell books and videos on the topic don't have a monopoly on the plausible mechanisms for doing so.
Yeah, and the dice setter who has put in hundreds of hours of practice and attended countless seminars will still be out all that time and money, but he sure will be happy that "it worked". Of course I once tossed the dice and they simply landed at the base of the wall. Didn't bounce at all and hadn't tumbled all that much in mid air either. I was going to say something about "your call, Box" but didn't. I don't think they liked it as a roll, but since it caused me to lose, they sure didn't think I had done it on purpose.Quote: PeteMAnd any alert Boxman will just tell him" no roll, sir. The dice must hit the back wall."
If you mean there would be zero correlation between the two rolls, then I would say no. The correlation wouldn't be one, as you need to take things like the air and what effect (no matter how small) previous rolls might have on the felt, the walls, and even the dice themselves, but it wouldn't be zero either.
Quote: MrRalphThe random shooter should see the seven once every six rolls if you can make that once every 6.5 or 7 rolls then you have an edge.
If there is any 'dice setter' that claims to be able to get 'seven ' as infrequently as one in 6.5 times I am willing to bet they are wrong. In a game with 3 - 4 - 5 odds that would be a huge player advantage. I assume that skilled setter would be able to achieve one in 5.5 times on the come out roll, too. Where are all those guys taking the casinos down time and time again? Lets have ONE come forward and put their money where their mouth is!!!!!
Sure there is. It's called a side bet between friend. You make the bet before going up to the table, and resolve it afterwards.Quote: SOOPOOBuzz- my mouth says you CANNOT set the dice to beat the house edge. There is NO casino that will let me BE the house against all the skilled 'dice setters'. So there is NO casino that will let me put my money where my mouth is. Duhhhh..
Quote: gofaster87You can be the house whenever you want at someones home. Its easy to get a table, buy or rent. Just need someone to deal it and you can bank it. It would be more comfortable and the session go as long as the two of you decide. I would think this would be favorable to the setter so if doesn't work out you can gloat all you want. Make it 2 out of 3 sessions. The only excuse I hear from opponents of setting is that short term is not going to prove anything so how do you want the setter to prove it? One 3 game session per month for a year?
My 'challenge' is to have a setter try and beat a 'real' casino in 'real' conditions. Let any setter make their claim about how good they can set, and i will devise a challenge to prove them wrong. If the setter says they can get a seven to appear 1 in 6.0002 times, then well, I will not be able to devise a challenge that will be able to prove or disprove it in a reasonable number of throws. But if they say 1 in 7, i can do that easily in one day.
Quote: ThatDonGuyDefine "random".
If you mean there would be zero correlation between the two rolls, then I would say no. The correlation wouldn't be one, as you need to take things like the air and what effect (no matter how small) previous rolls might have on the felt, the walls, and even the dice themselves, but it wouldn't be zero either.
Random would be a person shooting that does not set them or deliver them with any control. The effect on the dice by changes in the walls , felt and air during a roll would not enter into the end result enough to be figured in. The bigger problems would lie in the shooters ability to throw them at the same speed, height, distance and amount of finger contact with the dice. Also are your fingers dry, warm or cold. With all these variables makes you wonder if it can be done. But you lose nothing by trying except some time.
The random outcome would just not be distributed according to the standard 2-dice distribution. Non-random = deterministic, which means predictable.
I'm not sure what the term should be, it just bothers me for some strange reason to talk about dice not being random. Dice are random, even if they aren't fair.
Quote: dwheatleyI feel compelled to point out that dice thrown by a dice setter that had an advantage over the house still have a "random" outcome. The perfect dice throwing robot would also have a random outcome (air resistance & temperature possibly affecting the dice trajectory).
The random outcome would just not be distributed according to the standard 2-dice distribution. Non-random = deterministic, which means predictable.
I'm not sure what the term should be, it just bothers me for some strange reason to talk about dice not being random. Dice are random, even if they aren't fair.
The "standard 2-dice distribution" is just the sum of two one-die uniform distributions where p(i) = 1/6 for i = 1..6. The intent of dice setting/influence/control is to alter that uniform distribution to a non-uniform one, such as p(axis number) < p(non-axis number), assuming you can keep the roll on-axis. I guess you could call it "non-uniform", but that'd require an explanation similar to the above.
Quote: TIMSPEEDcraps is a game of 100% pure chance, exactly like Roulette, there has never been nor will their ever be any skill invovled.
The only skill involved is placing the best bets on the table. Of course this has nothing to do with what the dice do.
Quote: MrRalphStanford Wong has done some work on this question and believes that there is some validity to the ability of controlling the dice. The house edge in craps is very low as we all know so it would not take much to tilt the odds slightly in your favor. Most dice contollers will admit that a good percentage of their throws are random. Stanford Wong believes that they are not truly controlling the dice but by setting and delivering the dice with a controlled throw you are able to achieve face correlation where you will throw the point numbers more and the seven less. If you can throw the dice one or two more times before the seven appears then you have swung the odds slightly in your favor. No controller will consistently throw the dice in the teens before a seven appears. The random shooter should see the seven once every six rolls if you can make that once every 6.5 or 7 rolls then you have an edge. I know when I set for the 7 on the come out roll I now throw more 7's and 11's than I use to. It has not helped my overall game that much yet but I keep trying but I do feel like I get more longer rollls than I use to. Maybe I would have gotten those same rolls or longer if I would have just flung them down the table. The point is if a guy wants to set the dice who cares if it helps great if it doesn't he is no worse off than a guy who is not setting. The last thing is all the literature on influencing the dice, teach you to hit the backwall. If the casinos did not think there is some ability to control the dice then they would not care if you hit the back wall or not. I have not attended any seminars or classes but have read some books and there is some good info in there besides dice control. I think there are people out here that on the right tables could have enough skill that they could influence the dice enough to give them an edge and the times they don't well they are no worse off then the rest of us
This rather accurately represents my position on the matter.
On the issue of hitting the backwall. There are places on virtually all tables that are not dimpled, both at the base of the wall and at the upper rail area. A properly controlled throw aims to have the dice strike the wall in these locations. And the chips are the easiest things to avoid, in my experience. And finally, as Ralph notes, ANY DEGREE of control whatsoever represents a change in the odds... since you can never be worse than random with any throw.
Years back I did some in depth dice setting drop tests. I dropped the dice in a very controlled manner from 12". When the dice were dropped the same face was on top each time and two dice were dropped together. More than 20k drops were made.
I tested the number of times each face of the dice came up and then graphed the data onto a standard deviation graph and calculated the chi square. I did NOT add together the value of both dice. I only recorded the number that came up on each individual dice, even though they were dropped in pairs.
What I found was that the results were quite random. There isn't a chance in hell that the stationary dice drop could result in an edge because of the bounce. This means that throwing the dice over a live table would yeild absolutely no advantage to the player if your goal is to drop the dice side by side without any type of spin.
In other tests I have found that SPINNING the dice on either axis did produce results that were outside the expected norm. (Depending on the direction of rotation, the thickness of the felt, and whether a pad was present below the felt had a large impact on the results of the testing. How new and sharp the dice were was also very important)
The biggest surprise in the dice tests was the speed at which dice become damaged and biased. The edges dull and round rather quickly. Dropping just two edges (dulling two edges) appeared to have a significant effect on the results.
Consequently it's easy to see why some dice setters believe they can gain the edge.
1. It's because they are likely using the same dice over and over at home - causing the dice to become damaged, dull, and biased.
2. They aren't testing enough trials.
3. They are combining the results of both dice rather than testing the results of each cube.
I suspect the dice setters would find their testing results at home would dramatically improve if they:
1. Throw the dice very low and hard, causing the dice to skip on edge and tumble a great deal. Since their dice are likely already damaged and possibly biased, they may find that their "so called advantage" appears to increase because the edges of the dice are in more frequent contact with the felt.
2. Spin the dice with the dull edges facing downward. When the edges are dull, it's easier to control the spin shot.
In the long run, I believe that the dice setters would likely find that rubbing dice - dullings specific edges, and throwing a very low tumbling dice that are in near constant contact with the felt would yeild better results than dice setting.
-Keyser...(former dice junkie)
Quote: midwestgbAnd finally, as Ralph notes, ANY DEGREE of control whatsoever represents a change in the odds... since you can never be worse than random with any throw.
It's always random, but don't think you can't ever do worse than normal. If you can swing the pendulum one way, you can swing it the other. As just one example, anything you do to improve the odds on the pass bet will necessarily make the don't pass bet worse for the player. But what if your dice-control attempts move the house edge in the opposite direction from what you intend?
This is fascinating. I think I speak for everyone in that we'd like more details of your tests.Quote: KeyserIn other tests I have found that SPINNING the dice on either axis did produce results that were outside the expected norm
For the record, I'm of the belief that the dice setters / control shooters throw the dice together, in a manner such that they spin along their common long axis at the same speed, and bouncing in a manner that produces the least roll.
The goal is to have any of those four pairs of sides to be the result, or at worst, have a single 1/4 turn difference along that axis.
If that is dome properly, they will have achieved their goal - not to produce a specific result, but to avoid a 7.
I assume that on a come out, it is done the other way, to try to achieve a 7, but I may be wrong. At that point, there may be no specific desire.
Having said that, it would be helpful if you took that into consideration, should you ever get motivated to repeat the test. And thanks for the info provided so far!
Quote: MathExtremistIt's always random, but don't think you can't ever do worse than normal. If you can swing the pendulum one way, you can swing it the other. As just one example, anything you do to improve the odds on the pass bet will necessarily make the don't pass bet worse for the player. But what if your dice-control attempts move the house edge in the opposite direction from what you intend?
We can agree to disagree.
The setting of dice along a horizontal axis in order to, for example, decrease the probability of a seven appearing should the axis be maintained will not conversely operate to negate randomness if the intended affect is not achieved. It just ain't so... ;-)
Quote: midwestgbWe can agree to disagree.
The setting of dice along a horizontal axis in order to, for example, decrease the probability of a seven appearing should the axis be maintained will not conversely operate to negate randomness if the intended affect is not achieved. It just ain't so... ;-)
You base your conclusion on the assumption that if the throw is "unsuccessful" then the dice will tumble randomly with each face appearing 1 in 6 times. But what if the numbers on the axis appear *more* frequently than 1 in 6 as a result of your attempt at dice influence? Why should that be any less possible an outcome than the axis numbers appearing less frequently? For example, what if you keep the dice on-axis, but when they hit the back wall they do so at a slight angle and pitch 1/4 turn along the axis of travel? That would lead to a 100% incidence of the undesirable faces and a 0% incidence of the desired ones...
