Dice Control -- for the 37th time.

Quote:
and wether dice control is possible.

That question has indeed been answered, By the casinos who do not bar dice setters. Just ask them not to delay the game too much as they set the dice. Or in other words, Money Talks and Bullshit Walks. Or tries to sell you a dice setting lesson!

The dice control comment was meant sarcasticly. I know the thread has been beaten to death and that I have observed that both camps will never agree. I have no opinion either way. Sorry I did not intend to change the thread.

Quote: MrRalph

The dice control comment was meant sarcasticly. I know the thread has been beaten to death and that I have observed that both camps will never agree. I have no opinion either way.

I knwo that. There's no way to reach an agreement by argument alone, either. But a study would be objective data, taking biases and other variables right out.

For example, I'd conduct measurements of dice setters over several days for each, in a quiet room with a regulation table but without distractions or obstacles. That would prove whether or not it's possible at all. If a dice controller can achieve results contrary to what the amth says are random results, then it's possible.

Next we'd have to test the same poeple in a casino under playing conditions, including all the sitractions and obstacles found there. That would show whether it's practical.

Of course, if the control study under ideal conditions doesn't prove any significant variation with respect to the math, then there's no need to proceed further.

In case you're wondering, this is a split-off from the thread What I Like about Catholicism.

nmnmnm

Persi Diaconis, a Stanford statistics professor specializing in probability of ordinary events such as coin tossing and dice tossing, delivered a lunch time lecture on the impossibility of predicting a cube bouncing off various surfaces bespeckled with frets. He found his graduate students had more errors in recording results than any "edge" given by professionally machined crook dice. And that a coin toss was actually a 51:49 proposition, not a 50:50 one. Not bad for someone who dropped out of school at 14 to become a magician's assistant and who enrolled at Harvard because he wanted to prove he had been cheated in a Caribbean casino.

I agree that ALL the box men and pit bosses in the world have never seen a professional craps shooter, but they've seen professional BS artists who sell dice-setting seminars.

My dice setting style is much admired by the crew and by other players. I pick up the two closest to me and those are the ones I use. After I pick them up, I throw them against the back wall (or try to at least). No incantations about chicken dinner or some baby's shoes. No calling out any numbers, I let the stick man do that. Its his job, not mine. I just pick them up when he pushes them to me and I throw them to the end of the table. I hate all the whooping and hollering that goes on these days. If the dice come to me showing four and three, I pick them up and throw them. If they come to me showing six and five, I pick them up and throw them. As a matter of fact, I rarely even look at what they are showing. The guy takes the stick away, I pick up the dice, I throw them.

That is what the game consists of. Sure a pretty girl can always be asked to blow on the dice. I've no objection to that. It only adds a few moments delay. But throwing them in some special manner is not anything but annoying.

There are two ways to go bowling. You can pick up the ball and hurl it and hope it goes into your own lane, or you can practice your approach and delivery and aim and spin to try for the 1-3 pocket.

There are two ways to pitch baseball. You can lob it letters high so the slugger from the other team can hit it out of the park, or you can practice so your fast ball clips the lower inside corner.

Even if dice setting and influencing does not work, wouldn't you rather at least try?

Of course, they didn't believe dice setting worked at all when I was told to leave the MGM, NYNY and Bellagio. Nah. They didn't like the cologne I was wearing.

Quote: Nareed

IFor example, I'd conduct measurements of dice setters over several days for each, in a quiet room with a regulation table but without distractions or obstacles. That would prove whether or not it's possible at all. If a dice controller can achieve results contrary to what the amth says are random results, then it's possible.

Let's mass mail the tv show that debunks or confirms such things.

They may have to blow up the craps table at the end to justify the exciting episode, but hey, whatever works

Quote: AlanMendelson

Of course, they didn't believe dice setting worked at all when I was told to leave the MGM, NYNY and Bellagio. Nah. They didn't like the cologne I was wearing.

Cologne or the time it took you to set the dice?

It must have been the cologne. I was wearing Kouros. It doesnt take long to set dice. Anyone who's ever played for more than 10 minutes can look at the dice as they are being pushed with the stick and figure out how to set them in less than two seconds to the desired combination.

But it's not the setting that got them on my case... it was what happened after.

MGM wouldnt let me throw again because my dice did not bounce off the wall far enough. I used a very light toss and roll. They demanded the dice bounce off the back wall a minimum of four inches. No such rule. But the next time I was in the casino, two suits came over with a security guard and told the floorman that "Mr M is welcomed to place bets but he can't shoot." Two years later I went back to the MGM on an early Sunday morning to meet my sister and brother in law and when we went to a craps table, as soon as I bought in two suits appeared again with a security guard and whispered something to the floorman. But I never got to shoot. My sister held the dice for over an hour-- she's a wild thrower and they bounced all over and on a $5 table I turned $100 into more than fifteen hundred. Hysterical.

Same thing happened about the "bounce" at Bellagio. They actually called no roll three times in a row when my dice came to rest against the wall. All three times the dice were leaning against the wall showing 5-4. It was only coincidence that that happened. The dealers demanded that my dice bounce back a minimum of 6 inches. A floorperson at a neighboring table heard the argument, came over and instructed the crew to pay the bets. The crew got into a fight with the floorperson and I was told to leave the casino. After I checked out two execs from the Bellagio called me to say they were sorry and the crew was being "retrained" because they had no such rule about dice bouncing back a minimum of six inches. They never made good on the previous two bets.

When I returned to the Bellagio about six months later it was to meet my inlaws for brunch. After brunch my wife and I are walking thru the casino and the craps tables were empty with $10 minimums. So I asked my wife if I could play a hundred bucks. I bought in for a hundred and went on to have a very good roll with $300 in my rack and green chips across. Thats when the floorman said "hey, youre having a great roll. Give me your player's card and we'll rate you." I told him I didnt have a player's card (I didnt want them to see it) but when the floorman insisted that I should be rated and suggested that I give him my license, I took the MGM card out of my wallet. Then, I went on to the next throw and another payoff. As the stick was pushing the dice back to me, and I was taking the dice in my fingers, my players card came back at me. It wasn't placed in my rail, it wasn't handed to me... the floorman threw it so it hit my hand. He threw it hard, it was no accident. So I looked at my wife and said "I think they want me to leave." And the floorman said "that would be a good idea, sir." I took my chips and left, leaving the passline bet.

NYNY didnt like that I was setting and already had a decent roll, and the floorman and boxman said "you cant set here." And I said "do you believe in that superstition?" And they said "yes we do." I had just made my point. So it was the come out, and I placed a bet for the cocktail waitress who was taking orders at the table, and for the porter who was cleaning the ashtrays at the table, and a bet for the dealers... and I rolled a winner 7. Then the floorman said, "you're through."

Took my chips and left.

Quote: Nareed

I'd conduct measurements of dice setters over several days for each, in a quiet room with a regulation table but without distractions or obstacles. That would prove whether or not it's possible at all. If a dice controller can achieve results contrary to what the amth says are random results, then it's possible.

Here's my idea: any test involving a human would be a test of the human's skill, and not of the concept of dice setting and a controlled throw.

So my idea is to have a robot set so that it shoots the dice the same way to the same exact point on the table using the same set. The test would be this: if you were able to have a controlled throw using the same set, with the same exact throw, can you determine the result of the toss? This is the only way to test the concept of dice setting with a controlled throw.

Every other test involving a human would be tainted by the individual skill or abilities of the human.

Do we want to test humans, or the dice setting and controlled throwing?

Alan- you seem to imply that YOU can set dice effectively, so why do you need a robot? How good do you think YOU are? I assume as a 'dice setter' you can avoid sevens? Do you think you are good enough to have less than 145 sevens in a thousand roll trial? If so, I have a proposition for you.....Only rules for me is that both dice must be tossed using one hand simultaneously, and must hit the back wall. I keep asking for a dice setter to put his money where his mouth is... but of course... that never happens... If there is some other number you are 'good' at rolling we can make a different proposition.....

Quote: SOOPOO

Alan- you seem to imply that YOU can set dice effectively, so why do you need a robot? How good do you think YOU are? I assume as a 'dice setter' you can avoid sevens? Do you think you are good enough to have less than 145 sevens in a thousand roll trial? If so, I have a proposition for you.....Only rules for me is that both dice must be tossed using one hand simultaneously, and must hit the back wall. I keep asking for a dice setter to put his money where his mouth is... but of course... that never happens... If there is some other number you are 'good' at rolling we can make a different proposition.....

Im no damn good at it. Im yet to turn a profit playing craps, but Ive had some rolls to remember.

As I said above...

do you have a style to go bowling? do you have a style when you pitch in baseball? do you have a style when you play tennis?

If it works, it works. if it doesn't, you haven't lost anything, have you?

Don't ask me to test the effectiveness with dice setting or dice influencing. At my age, and taking prograf after my transplants, my hands shake all the time.

edited to add: I'd be interested in that challenge however but not as an actual bet, but just to test myself. I do tend to throw more outside numbers than inside, but I can't tell you if I throw fewer sevens than expected, and I do know that most of my 7s are 6-1 because I use the cross sixes set. Honestly, I'd like to throw a thousand rolls to see the distribution I have.

Thank you, Alan, for your kind response. The answer to your bowling and pitching type questions are-- yes. When an action i take can reliably alter an outcome I do attempt to alter it in the way I want. When I have determined that an action can have no bearing on the outcome, or more properly phrased I have no way to 'control' the outcome by altering my actions, then I will not make the effort to alter my actions. And you are correct, that by trying to 'set dice' you lose nothing compared to a random throw, since setting dice is a random throw. But if you perceive that you are now playing with an edge you may bet more into a negative expectation game. Alan, you say that even with your hands shaking 'most of my 7s are 6 - 1'. Once again, I'd bet you that that is not true. I would bet that of your millions of 7's you've rolled about 1/3 of them have been that way. Soooo.... if you want.... I'd bet you out of your next 100 7's you cannot acheive more than 40 '6 - 1's. "Most" meaning more than 1/2 would be such a stunning outcome that you would have retired a very wealthy man with that degree of 'control'. If you live in Vegas I'd love to watch you 'rollem' when I come into town in a couple of weeks...

Quote: AlanMendelson

Do we want to test humans, or the dice setting and controlled throwing?

Both. The notion that a player can throw the dice in such a way as to alter the odds involves a human player. Whether a robot can do it or not isn't important.

Quote: rxwine

Let's mass mail the tv show that debunks or confirms such things.

By all means. Be sure to include other gambling myths, so they'll maybe want to do a Vegas edition of the show.

Quote:

They may have to blow up the craps table at the end to justify the exciting episode, but hey, whatever works

So include a myth that a burning craps table can blow up. They once burned a piano in order to find out whether it would.

Quote: SOOPOO

Thank you, Alan, for your kind response. The answer to your bowling and pitching type questions are-- yes. When an action i take can reliably alter an outcome I do attempt to alter it in the way I want. When I have determined that an action can have no bearing on the outcome, or more properly phrased I have no way to 'control' the outcome by altering my actions, then I will not make the effort to alter my actions. And you are correct, that by trying to 'set dice' you lose nothing compared to a random throw, since setting dice is a random throw. But if you perceive that you are now playing with an edge you may bet more into a negative expectation game. Alan, you say that even with your hands shaking 'most of my 7s are 6 - 1'. Once again, I'd bet you that that is not true. I would bet that of your millions of 7's you've rolled about 1/3 of them have been that way. Soooo.... if you want.... I'd bet you out of your next 100 7's you cannot acheive more than 40 '6 - 1's. "Most" meaning more than 1/2 would be such a stunning outcome that you would have retired a very wealthy man with that degree of 'control'. If you live in Vegas I'd love to watch you 'rollem' when I come into town in a couple of weeks...

I know all the arguments for why people say dice setting and a controlled throw cannot possibly work. And you are all 100% when you say every throw by a human is random, because no human can possibly duplicate the exact throw again.

This is why only a robot could prove the theory of dice control.

Think of it this way: dice are fixed objects. A table is also fixed. Every action has a reaction. So, take a robot that delivers a pair of set dice the same way to the exact same spot each and every time, and each and every time the dice should have the same result. That is the basis of the entire dice setting/dice influencing theory.

And the only way to test it is with a machine because I concede no human could do the same task twice. Perhaps over gazillions of random attempts you might get two exact deliveries of the dice to the table but that would prove nothing.

So without a robot testing the theory, you can have no valid test. That makes the theory unproven and at this point, unprovable.

And since it doesnt hurt to try, I try. Is it still a negative expectation game? You bet it is. And the longer you play, the more you bet, the more you'll lose until you can master the throw as a robot could.

During your test, be sure you don't let an extra molecule of air sneak into the path of the dice. It might introduce randomness.

Quote: Doc

During your test, be sure you don't let an extra molecule of air sneak into the path of the dice. It might introduce randomness.

And here Doc introduces another issue which is why the theory of dice influencing cant be proven.

Molecules of air, humidity fluctuations, temp changes, etc. all affect the dice - slightly.

Personally, I believe that such fluctuations are too slight to affect a repetitive perfect throw.


Nobody is expecting the machine to throw the dice and get the same result every time. We are just expecting the machine to throw and get results that are way outside the standard deviation of true random results.

That will show that, theoretically, it's possible.

Neon Dice gave so much publicity about an incident in Ellis Island with a Floorman in the dice pit that the Operations Manager replied that the offending employee had been fired.

Quite frankly the floor person intentionally throwing the card against your fingers is behavior that should have stopped the game right then and there.

The Robot experiment would definitely be worthwhile. The theory is that the robot should be able to produce the exact same throw every time (meaning that the initial axis, spin, angle and velocity on the exit would be the same) and then see how the randomness of the table takes over. In the end, you would also need to add in different throws at different angles in an attempt to minimize the random acting characteristics (such as air flow, the cubes on the back wall, the bounce of the table), and so on.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Think of it this way: dice are fixed objects. A table is also fixed. Every action has a reaction. So, take a robot that delivers a pair of set dice the same way to the exact same spot each and every time, and each and every time the dice should have the same result. That is the basis of the entire dice setting/dice influencing theory.

I can save you the trouble. No robot will throw exactly the same way and get exactly the same results time after time after time. There are too many variables that would affect the outcome.

Besides, whether a robot can do it or not is still not relevant. The claim is that some humans can do it, in a casino environment and well enough to beat the house edge. No casino will let you bring a robot arm to the table and let it shoot for you.

Prove it, Nareed. That's the point. Can the robot influence the roll of the dice. in 10000 tries, will a different number come up significantly more often than another.

Quote: boymimbo

Prove it, Nareed. That's the point. Can the robot influence the roll of the dice. in 10000 tries, will a different number come up significantly more often than another.

I still say it doesn't matter. a robot probably could do better than a human being, but so what? The point of dice control is whether a person can do it well enough and consistently enough to beat the house edge.

Consider card counting. When Thorpe tried ti experimentally, he did it himself. He didn't build a computer to see if it could count cards or not.

That's not the point. The first point is, is it possible at all. The only thing a human can control is velocity, angle, spin, and axes. A robot should be able to do this perfectly. The question that I think that needs to be pondered and answered is: "are the randomizing elements of the table good enough to overcome a perfect roll?". In otherwords, do the molecules of air, the pyramids in the back wall, and the bounce on the table sufficient enough to randomize a roll.

The house edge in craps is very thin that if someone could even change their sevens ratio to 1 in 6.333 they will secure a player advantage in the long run. That's being able to "influence" one roll in 38.

I'll start by saying that I think setting can work to a small degree for some who can deliver them consistently without them tumbling side to side after released from the shooters hand. The dice need to hit the table, pitch forward and strike the wall below the pyramids.

I think for a good test we need to hit up the folks at "Mythbusters" They would have the budget to buy or rent a craps table and build a robot to toss them in that manner. That should go to prove/disprove the setting part. Of course a human cant repeat a machines movement over 1000 tosses because of fatigue. I think a human could run a separate trial at say 100 tosses over 10 sessions in the same conditions.

I would like to see tests of sets for flying V, mini V, hardway sets and seven sets.

The other variables are chips on the table that dice can hit and those should be placed in a separate trial to see how results might get skewed for both the robot and human under more realistic conditions.... including a few drunks screaming about the Yo.

At the driving range I can hone in my pitching wedge and start consistently landing the ball 4 feet from the pin, on the course with my buddies it can be a whole different outcome.

The point is not whether a robot can or can't be a successful dice shooter.

The point is that a human isn't as good as a robot. And if a robot can't do it, then certainly a human can't either.

It's just that if a robot can, then it becomes possible for a human - even if it's still unlikely.

Quote: Nareed

I still say it doesn't matter. a robot probably could do better than a human being, but so what? The point of dice control is whether a person can do it well enough and consistently enough to beat the house edge.

Consider card counting. When Thorpe tried ti experimentally, he did it himself. He didn't build a computer to see if it could count cards or not.

The point Nareed is that some people say they can beat a negative expectation game (craps) by their skill at throwing the dice. They say that they can roll more of some numbers or fewer of others and therefore they will bet accordingly and win more money than they lose. If a robotic arm or some such contraption that delivers the dice exactly the same way (ok, there's no way the delivery could possibly be exactly the same, even using a robot but you get the idea) can't influence the outcome of the dice, then it should be obvious that a human would have no chance of doing it either.
Now, if we have a robot deliver 100,000 rolls and the robot CAN influence the rolls and the results are outside of the expected random results for that number of rolls and we duplicate this experiment 500 times with the same non-random results, perhaps a human could duplicate these results to some degree - but if a robot can't do it, there's no way a human could.
Regarding your Thorpe comparison, if he had run a computer simulation he would have seen that card counting for profit was doable. He might even have found a slightly better system. Had the simulation shown that counting would not work (just as it shows that no amount of betting and hedging and increasing or lowering of bets will win money at craps or roulette) we might never have heard of the man.

What do you think is the finest example of human control possible? Master violinist? Master engraver (I'm thinking miniatures)?

Anyway, whatever it is, I assume that's the finest level we could achieve from human practice.

Of course, even if you have that level to work with, based on these other occupations you couldn't sell it as a system -- as very few people in the world achieve that level in their professions.

Quote: TheNightfly

If a robotic arm or some such contraption that delivers the dice exactly the same way (ok, there's no way the delivery could possibly be exactly the same, even using a robot but you get the idea) can't influence the outcome of the dice, then it should be obvious that a human would have no chance of doing it either.

It's not obvious at all. Robot arms can do amazing things, and the 360 degree rotation on the wrist is very handy, but there are some motions humans take for granted robots can't yet match. Like walking on two legs, for instance. Would you say running 100 meters in 11 seconds is impossible because no robot ever built can do it?

I suppose we're all casually assuming a robot arm could replicate the normal human range of motion, but I'm not so sure that's the case. Therefore a robot may fail at dice control, yet prove nothing about whether a human could or not.

Quote: rxwine

What do you think is the finest example of human control possible?

A true Zen master.

see ... zen

Not 11 seconds, but pretty good jog.

I think dice control by robot would be easier in a non hand device. Much like assembly line machines it would be easier to make an ejecting device and a manner of rotating it, without actually duplicating a hand. A push rod, perhaps with a partial ridge to cause the the dice to rotate in a consistent manner each time.

Quote: Nareed

It's not obvious at all. Robot arms can do amazing things, and the 360 degree rotation on the wrist is very handy, but there are some motions humans take for granted robots can't yet match. Like walking on two legs, for instance. Would you say running 100 meters in 11 seconds is impossible because no robot ever built can do it?

I suppose we're all casually assuming a robot arm could replicate the normal human range of motion, but I'm not so sure that's the case. Therefore a robot may fail at dice control, yet prove nothing about whether a human could or not.

Are you smoking crack? How does running a 100 meter race relate to launching 2 dice 10 feet? Show me what a human can do as regards shooting dice and I assure you that a sufficiently well designed robot can replicate the movement, range of motion, velocity, arc, spin and any other factors involved in attempting to control the release and result of the throw. If a robot can't do it, a human can't do it. If a robot can do it there's no reason to assume that a human can as well.

No one has ever shown the results of a statistically relevant trial to prove that a human can affect the dice enough to overcome the odds of the game of craps under controlled conditions and under the standard rules of the game (standing stick left and shooting right or vice versa, launching the dice in the air and having both dice contact the back wall). Many have claimed to do so but talk is cheap.

Quote: rxwine

What do you think is the finest example of human control possible? Master violinist? Master engraver (I'm thinking miniatures)?

The thing that comes to my mind, which also involves throwing, is a professional darts player.

It's amazing watching how a player like 'Phil "The Power" Taylor' can throw a dart from around 9 feet and land it, with a high degree of consistently, in an area the size of a 1c coin.

Quote: Switch

The thing that comes to my mind, which also involves throwing, is a professional darts player.

It's amazing watching how a player like 'Phil "The Power" Taylor' can throw a dart from around 9 feet and land it, with a high degree of consistently, in an area the size of a 1c coin.

It is rather amazing to see this kind of control. I'd like to see how he fares though throwing 2 darts at once with no flights on the end of the darts, as that would be a closer approximation to dice shooting... not to mention all the other obstacles on the the craps layout.

Quote: Switch

The thing that comes to my mind, which also involves throwing, is a professional darts player.

It's amazing watching how a player like 'Phil "The Power" Taylor' can throw a dart from around 9 feet and land it, with a high degree of consistently, in an area the size of a 1c coin.

You beat me to it. If Phil Taylor can throw 180s with regular consistency -- and he can -- then there should be no question that a robotic device can influence the standard distribution of two six-sided dice.

It's not even clear to me why there's any question whether a human can influence the dice to some degree under lax conditions: there is a contemporary thread on this forum about a dice-sliding team at the Wynn who won a meaningful amount of money. They didn't do it by getting lucky, they did it by changing the distribution of the dice so certain bets were in their favor because the casino didn't enforce strict rolling rules. The distinction between throwing the dice in one method vs. another is merely one of degree, not of quality. I've seen Steve Forte (on tape) execute the whip shot and he's no robot.

The real question is whether a person (or a robot) can influence the dice under strict conditions: if (a) they both fly through the air, (b) they bounce on the table, and (c) they bounce off the rubber pyramids. When I say "bounce off", I don't mean just touching or coming to rest against the flat part at the bottom of the rubber -- I mean that they actually carom off the pyramids and come back a few inches. It's up to the casino whether to enforce that as a valid roll, but if they do, I don't believe any human or mechanical device can meaningfully alter the distribution of numbers. It'd be interesting to test that scenario with a robotic device, but otherwise, under less-than-strict conditions, I believe a robotic arm should have no problem executing any of the many types of influence throws. With sufficient practice, people certainly can.

I agree with ME. But WITH the rules that the dice must be thrown, hit the table, then the back wall, then dice influencing is a myth. If I am allowed to just place the dice on the table while the crew is not looking, well, then dice 'influencing' would be easy.

First my thanks to those of you who see the benefit in having a robot test the concept of dice influencing.

Let's take it a step further and let me propose the following conditions should a robot become available.

1. the robot is to throw two dice so they hit the table surface with sufficient force that they bounce three times before hitting the back wall, and there is enough force that the dice bounce off the back wall three inches. We would set the robot to do this.

2. the robot will use the same dice set for each and every roll. For example, my favorite which is the cross-sixes with 5/4 in the front, and the dice are thrown by the robot from the same position on the table (stick right-1) and are aimed to hit the same center section of the table.

What we are looking for in this test is to see that:

a. the robot can make the same exact throw and the dice will hit, bounce, roll and rebound accordingly.

b. for the purpose of our test, it doesnt matter what the number on the dice shows at the end of each roll. because what we are looking for is that the same number shows on each roll. in other words, it doesnt matter if the robot's repeated tosses result in aces, or boxcars or anything in between including 4/3. The result of the dice is not the objective here-- the only objective is to determine if a mechanical throw that is controlled, using a particular set on the dice, can interact with the table to alter the expected random results.

Even if the dice hit a pyramid or two pyramids, because the dice are launched the same way each and every time, the results should be the same each and every time-- because the pyramids and the table surface do not change-- there are no variables. To accomplish this, the test should be done where there are no wind currents, etc.

Now certainly there are several problems here for conducting this test in "real casino conditions" such as:

1. air currents
2. table variations because no two tables are the same
3. continued throws to the same spots on a table will cause wear and a change in table conditions

And perhaps there is a way to account for these outside forces.

I think the entire purpose of this is to determine IF dice influencing is POSSIBLE. I don't think we have to prove a human can do it. I will concede that no human has the "muscle memory" that a robot has. And even Sharpshooter who brought up the concept of the need for muscle memory in his book on controlled shooting I am sure will agree that no human has the muscle memory of a robot.

Quote: TheNightfly

Are you smoking crack? How does running a 100 meter race relate to launching 2 dice 10 feet? Show me what a human can do as regards shooting dice and I assure you that a sufficiently well designed robot can replicate the movement, range of motion, velocity, arc, spin and any other factors involved in attempting to control the release and result of the throw. If a robot can't do it, a human can't do it. If a robot can do it there's no reason to assume that a human can as well.

So you'd need to do motion capture studies of a human attempting dice control in order to design a robot to replicate the motion? So, again, why bother with a robot?

Quote:

No one has ever shown the results of a statistically relevant trial to prove that a human can affect the dice enough to overcome the odds of the game of craps under controlled conditions and under the standard rules of the game (standing stick left and shooting right or vice versa, launching the dice in the air and having both dice contact the back wall). Many have claimed to do so but talk is cheap.

Exactly. That's why a controlled study is needed. I just don't see the need for a robot.

Quote: AlanMendelson

... there are no variables.

If there really are no variables, then I suppose everything would indeed turn out exactly the same every time. You would only need to have the robot throw the dice one time, and (if you have tracked the faces adequately) you would be able to set the dice to get any exact result you wanted on each subsequent throw. However, I have just never observed a real, physical event in which there were no uncontrolled variables. Ever. The fact that you can't identify the variables doesn't mean they don't exist or do not have major impact on the results. A foam pyramid that has been compressed slightly by one die impact may exhibit different elasticity/damping the next time that it is hit in exactly the same manner. Plus a limitless number of other variables. This doesn't mean it is totally impossible to influence the dice outcome, but I think it is absurd to act as if you have removed all sources of randomness and are doing the exact same thing every time.

It would be a great joke on some of these dice controllers:
Give them strobe lights and high speed cameras let them control for foam-fatigue (modulus of elasticity?) in the various diamond-like frets, let them control for humidity, whatever they wanted. And after they've finally got things down to whatever they felt was their special dice toss .... turn them loose in a casino just after felt replacement day.

A robot cannot replicate a task perfectly. Friction is always minutely changing, mechanical wear, etc. That's why manufacturers need
inspection and quality control. That's why tolerance levels exist.

Quote: AlanMendelson

1. the robot is to throw two dice so they hit the table surface with sufficient force that they bounce three times before hitting the back wall, and there is enough force that the dice bounce off the back wall three inches. We would set the robot to do this.

There's no such rule. The dice merely have to bounce off the wall. If they bounce and stop half an inch away, that's acceptable.

Quote: AlanMendelson

b. for the purpose of our test, it doesnt matter what the number on the dice shows at the end of each roll. because what we are looking for is that the same number shows on each roll.

The goal is NOT to get the same number every time.

The goal is to get significantly less than 16.6% of rolls to be a 7.

You could probably test variation by dropping dice vertically on foam from a set distance and letting them bounce to the nearby floor or table. Um, unless you can figure out how to automate (advantage of robot), you'd have to do every drop manually.

(video opportunity Wizard, or someone)

Maybe not a perfect test, but you could cut holes the size of your cubes to drop through at the same point and distance. You wouldn't even have the initial roll factor to deal with, just whatever happens after they hit and bounce to a flat surface. If you can't get close to numbers you need for an advantage there, you're sure aren't going to get it in real dice throws.

You would need a hard enough surface for the bounce part, that they would actually bounce.

Couldn't you just use a ramp? I'm thinking one of those HotWheels type orange car ramps you see at ToysRUs. I mean, yeah, the throw is the wrong angle, most of us don't have a craps table at home, but doing something like this onto the kitchen table or floor, doesn't that kind of prove/disprove the theory? Maybe as a preliminary test to see whether to take it further?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

There's no such rule. The dice merely have to bounce off the wall. If they bounce and stop half an inch away, that's acceptable.


The goal is NOT to get the same number every time.

The goal is to get significantly less than 16.6% of rolls to be a 7.

I certainly don't argue about the rule... but I thought the test should determine if the same numbers could be shown with a "roll back" of several inches.

The reason for trying to determine if we could get the same number with each controlled throw with the same set is because this could possibly prove that a controlled throw can work. If we still get random throws, even though fewer than 16.67% are 7s, there would still be doubt that a "controlled throw" can actually be done.

rxwine wrote: "You could probably test variation by dropping dice vertically on foam from a set distance and letting them bounce to the nearby floor or table. Um, unless you can figure out how to automate (advantage of robot), you'd have to do every drop manually.

(video opportunity Wizard, or someone)

Maybe not a perfect test, but you could cut holes the size of your cubes to drop through at the same point and distance. You wouldn't even have the initial roll factor to deal with, just whatever happens after they hit and bounce to a flat surface. If you can't get close to numbers you need for an advantage there, you're sure aren't going to get it in real dice throws.

You would need a hard enough surface for the bounce part, that they would actually bounce."

###################

Im afraid that your test will prove nothing or disprove nothing when it comes to "dice influencing."

First you have to understand what the theory of dice influencing is all about. It says that setting the dice, and using a managed controlled throw will influence the dice to show certain numbers and to avoid certain numbers. What you describe is nothing more than a random throw with random bounces.

"Dice influencing" has a "formula" which involves an angle of release, hitting a certain flat section of the back wall, speed or intensity of the throw and even the number of times the dice will turn on a horizontal axis as they are released.

What I am suggesting is a test of the specifics written in the book by Sharpshooter. The book goes to great lengths to justify dice influencing based on science. So let's use a scientific method to test the purported science. This means duplicating the "science" of the book and testing the theory.

Quote: Face

Couldn't you just use a ramp? I'm thinking one of those HotWheels type orange car ramps you see at ToysRUs. I mean, yeah, the throw is the wrong angle, most of us don't have a craps table at home, but doing something like this onto the kitchen table or floor, doesn't that kind of prove/disprove the theory? Maybe as a preliminary test to see whether to take it further?

What will that prove to the advocates and critics of dice control? If you want to prove or disprove a theory, challenge the theory. We're not testing dice on a hot wheels ramp.