Dice Control -- for the 37th time.

Quote: AlanMendelson

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.

Just throwing it out there as a simple, cheap and easy first test. Placing the dice in the same orientation, having them travel identical paths, launching at the same velocity and vector and landing the same should show repeat results (or at least I would think). If a simple test like this doesn't pass, I would think one with felt and rods and pyramids would be impossible. Or maybe I'm a kook. I dunno. It just seems to be an easy test of simple theory (dice control) that could be extrapolated into a deep theory (dice control by human on table). Perhaps one has nothing to do with the other. It just kinda seemed like they did to me.

Back to lurking. Carry on ;)

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?

Good idea! Seems to me you could tip the dice slowly with a machine till they fell down a ramp. In these conditions I would expect certain results to be favored, but not be the same each time. If in fact this kind of tumbling showed random results, I for one would accept that any dice that tumbled could not be influenced by setting!

Quote: odiousgambit

Good idea! Seems to me you could tip the dice slowly with a machine till they fell down a ramp. In these conditions I would expect certain results to be favored, but not be the same each time. If in fact this kind of tumbling showed random results, I for one would accept that any dice that tumbled could not be influenced by setting!

If you really want a cheap and easy and simple test, take two dice with the sixes on top and drop them one half inch above a table and tally the results.

Unfortunately that does not test "dice influencing" as defined by the "dice influencers."

The defining book on the subject was written by Sharpshooter who actually lays out a formula for a controlled or defined throw. We have to test that.

Some of the points in that defined throw are (and I haven't got the book with me now to verify):

1. low angle toss
2. moderate speed so that the dice make 2.5 slow revolutions before hitting the felt
3. dice hit at the end of the come box, then dice have several small bounces or roll to the wall
4. dice hit in the flat, center part of the back wall
5. ideally dice hit under the pyramids, but even a soft bounce off the pyramids is okay
6. trained muscle memory so that the player can duplicate this controlled throw

This is why I suggest the robot.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Unfortunately that does not test "dice influencing" as defined by the "dice influencers."

Who says that what is defined by the "dice influencers" is the best way to influence the dice? It's not at all obvious to me that the throw you describe is optimal, especially given the recent demonstrated success of sliding, and the existence and demonstrated effectiveness of other known control-shot techniques (e.g. the whip shot). Why not just develop a skill at sliding or one of the other methods instead? In other words, if you want to control the dice, why do you insist on using a method that is less likely to be effective?

Quote:

1. low angle toss
2. moderate speed so that the dice make 2.5 slow revolutions before hitting the felt
3. dice hit at the end of the come box, then dice have several small bounces or roll to the wall
4. dice hit in the flat, center part of the back wall
5. ideally dice hit under the pyramids, but even a soft bounce off the pyramids is okay
6. trained muscle memory so that the player can duplicate this controlled throw

Sorry, but this just doesn't work. This is what I call seminar nonsense. The people putting on the seminar selling the method will make money, but not the players paying for the class.

Only 2.5 revs in the air isn't going to keep the dice on axis.
It's very easy to prove that this won't work by simply dropping the dice straight down. Track the numbers on each dice, not the cumulative total of both and you will see the results are just too random.

To keep the dice on axis you'll have to spin them more quickly - using a strong back spin, or a forward blanket type of roll, or by using a helicopter type of shot after having slightly dulled some of the corners of the dice. You could also try a push shot or slide.

What's the difference, and why would any DI want to prove it! I once thought that it would be a good idea to shut everybody up on dice influencing if you did prove that some players could beat the math of the game with their shooting. Then had second thoughts about it. If you were a so-called DI and could beat the math of the game, your name would be mud, when you tried to play at any casino if you did prove it!

So why try to prove it? Let everybody think what they want to. There are only a few guys in the country that can do anything on a consistent basis anyway. The casino should welcome anybody that sets the dice, they bring players to the table with the false hope of being a winner when playing craps.

The reason most players will never believe what they were told about dice influencing is the great fiction that some of the writers have written. I still say the best one is a SRR of 28. All the craps players should want to puke after reading that one!

Face facts casinos don't like to see winners, and if you are setting the dice and on a roll they will try to stop you at all cost. Then on the other hand I've even seen guys that were not DI's being harassed for not hitting the back wall, and the dice taking off them if the casino is sweating the money.

I think the casinos have more to fear of the so-called random rollers then the do of the DI's. The guy that just slings the dice down the table bouncing them off everything in the way of the dice,... they can't say anything to them! Just look at the 154 roll, that was all she was doing when she had that roll. So much for the DI thing!

I don't doubt for one moment that they asked Alen Mendelson to leave the tables before, but he only has some of these fiction writers to blame for that, after all they were the ones that coined the words dice influencers, and then you had one that had a ridiculous claims of a SRR of 28, what do you expect?

To prove or not to prove,... I say forget about it!

Quote: MathExtremist

Who says that what is defined by the "dice influencers" is the best way to influence the dice? It's not at all obvious to me that the throw you describe is optimal, especially given the recent demonstrated success of sliding, and the existence and demonstrated effectiveness of other known control-shot techniques (e.g. the whip shot). Why not just develop a skill at sliding or one of the other methods instead? In other words, if you want to control the dice, why do you insist on using a method that is less likely to be effective?

Why test what I would call "the Sharpshooter method"? Because sliding and all the variations of sliding are illegal.

Dice influencing, as described by Sharpshooter and the supporters of dice influencing, is legal -- though may be resisted by the casinos.

That's why.

Really? You believe that one way of influencing the dice is legal but another is not? Please cite caselaw or statute to support that premise. In Nevada, the gaming laws I've read make no mention of specific methods of throwing dice.

Quote: MathExtremist

Really? You believe that one way of influencing the dice is legal but another is not? Please cite caselaw or statute to support that premise. In Nevada, the gaming laws I've read make no mention of specific methods of throwing dice.

It's been a few years since I reported on the subject... actually it goes back more than 5 years since I reported on the subject when I was with KCAL in Los Angeles. But I've read nothing since then that said the rules have changed about what the NGC considers to be legal and illegal throws.

If you want to challenge it in court, be my guest, and I will happily report on your success.

In the meantime, I'll go by what they told me, instead of trying to interpret the law and their rules myself.

I just report, I don't create.

Here's my original article, updated, from years ago, on this page of my website, titled "Dice Control, Is it Legal? Is it Possible?" http://alanbestbuys.com/id139.html

When I wrote it I quoted the chief Nevada enforcement officer Keith Copher (article updated to show he retired) and I also interviewed Michigan gaming regulators. They both said the same thing.

Until someone can show me something different, I'll go by what they told me.

Quote: AlanMendelson

It's been a few years since I reported on the subject... actually it goes back more than 5 years since I reported on the subject when I was with KCAL in Los Angeles. But I've read nothing since then that said the rules have changed about what the NGC considers to be legal and illegal throws.

Did you bother to research and read anything BEFORE then on the subject?

Your "expertise" seems to be superficial and anecdotal at best, based on comments made to you by a couple of Reliable Sources from within the Casino Industry.

Really, Alan; you should do a little digging; dazzle us with something other than hearsay.

Look at the Nevada statutes and regs; they won't bite.

My googled research on the subject shows no reference to dice sliding.

It's ambiguous, at best.

I don't know about all these fancy randomness setups. One writer correctly said that we'll never agree. Perhaps not.

Yesterday, I was in a casino and noticed that one of the tables seemed particularly quiet - a good sign for a dark side player. So went over to lay down a bet. The dealer told that there was a big cash-out and it would take some time before I could place a bet. The guy next to me said that the last shooter was hot for an hour and forty minutes during which time he made over $2,000. He was very pleased. Of course, I would not make any negative comments to dull his happiness.

The shooter went on for an hour and forty minutes without missing a point! There's something wrong with that! No dice control - really?

Quote: AlanMendelson

It's been a few years since I reported on the subject... actually it goes back more than 5 years since I reported on the subject when I was with KCAL in Los Angeles. But I've read nothing since then that said the rules have changed about what the NGC considers to be legal and illegal throws.

If you want to challenge it in court, be my guest, and I will happily report on your success.

In the meantime, I'll go by what they told me, instead of trying to interpret the law and their rules myself.

I just report, I don't create.

Here's my original article, updated, from years ago, on this page of my website, titled "Dice Control, Is it Legal? Is it Possible?" http://alanbestbuys.com/id139.html

When I wrote it I quoted the chief Nevada enforcement officer Keith Copher (article updated to show he retired) and I also interviewed Michigan gaming regulators. They both said the same thing.

Until someone can show me something different, I'll go by what they told me.

I have no horse in this race; I can't challenge anything. But what the NGC considers legal and illegal is irrelevant -- they don't make the laws, and they certainly don't decide what activity is criminalized. That's the purview of the state legislature, which has already weighed in in the form of NRS 465. NRS 465 makes no distinction between one method for throwing dice and another. If dice sliding is actually illegal, it must be because it is cheating, and if dice sliding is cheating, then so is every other method of controlled throwing. Therefore, attempting a dice slide and/or any other controlled throw is also illegal, because NRS 465.088 says that cheating and attempted cheating are both category B felonies. In conclusion, under that interpretation of NRS 465, you are a felon. I've seen you attempt to control the dice firsthand.

So I think you were taking Chief Copher out of context -- when he says "illegal", he's clearly referring to "invalid" or "not allowed under casino rules" rather than "against some explicit provision of the Nevada Revised Statutes". You have shown no evidence of statute or caselaw that supports your contention that one form of throwing the dice is legal while another is criminalized. Do you have any?

I haven't seen any specific regulations promulgated by the NGC as to what constitutes a valid or invalid dice roll either, but in any event, as I understand the division of power in the relevant branches of the NV government, the NGC does not have the authority to criminalize specific activity. If a specific dice roll is deemed invalid, the house may call "no roll". But only the legislature can define the crime of cheating, and they have done so.

Quote: MrV

Your "expertise" seems to be superficial and anecdotal at best, based on comments made to you by a couple of Reliable Sources from within the Casino Industry.

You have to understand that Alan is not really a reporter, he just plays one on TV. His real business is to portray a consumer reporter and make infomercials that look like news reports to get people to buy the sponsor's products.

Quote: Alan's Website

We can produce a TV infomercial program quickly and efficiently and control costs. Our "news style" used to produce our infomercials adds to your company's credibility. We call our style "reality advertising" and we think it is very effective because of the news style that we use.

His website also promotes Rob Singer's system, so take anything he promotes with a grain of salt.

I've been aware of Alan's "business practices" for some time; self-aggrandizing, "puffing" and pandering is necessary when you try to support yourself through a net-based sales enterprise.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Keep in mind, though: at one time he actually WAS a TV reporter.

Setting the dice and then throwing them is not illegal. A casino that allows player after player to openly set the dice would have a very difficult time pressing cheating charges on the dice setters.

I can just hear the defense. "Why aren't you prosecuting everyone that is openly setting the dice in your casino? Why are you just singling out the defense?"

Casino manager says, "Because your client won!"

Quote: MathExtremist

That's the purview of the state legislature, which has already weighed in in the form of NRS 465. NRS 465 makes no distinction between one method for throwing dice and another. If dice sliding is actually illegal, it must be because it is cheating, and if dice sliding is cheating, then so is every other method of controlled throwing. Therefore, attempting a dice slide and/or any other controlled throw is also illegal, because NRS 465.088 says that cheating and attempted cheating are both category B felonies. In conclusion, under that interpretation of NRS 465, you are a felon.

I think you're getting a bit carried away, and that's fine.

There are many casinos in the state that don't allow you to set the dice. Most casinos in the state that insist that the dice hit the back wall. To most casinos, they truly don't believe that dice control is possible IF the dice hit the back wall as the randomizing elements of the pyramids sufficiently randomize the roll to even the most controlled thrower. Even though the thrower is trying to influence the dice (and cheat), any attempt to do so is counteracted by the back wall and the bounce. Dice setting to them is like card counting. They know that most dice setters will not be successful as much as most counters will not. Therefore they (mostly) allow dice setting to occur because they know that it will bring in more players who will succumb like everyone else to the house edge.

If the back wall had no pyramids or was made of a flat material the casinos might make setting an "illegal" move.

Sliding on the other hand is not subject to any randomizing factor, and that makes it a cheat.

My opinion anyway.

Quote: boymimbo

Sliding on the other hand is not subject to any randomizing factor, and that makes it a cheat.

Sure it is. It's almost impossible to slide both dice without it being glaringly obvious, so what you do is skim them across the table where one spins rapidly around the vertical axis but doesn't tumble, and the other does tumble randomly. If you slide the bottom die with a 6 showing, you can't make any number lower than 7, and p(7)=p(8)=p(9)=p(10)=p(11)=p(12)=1/6. If you slide the bottom die with a 5 showing, you'll hit a lot of natural come-out winners and never throw craps. In other words, sliding is still a percentage move. The only question is the degree, and I doubt that the Court or a jury would see a meaningful difference between one technique of skilled throwing and another when the end result is merely two different degrees of alteration in the standard dice odds. Does it make sense that altering the odds by X% would be legal but by Y% wouldn't be? That's certainly nowhere in the law.

If you altered the dice such that one die was always a six, then my bet would look like:

$60 on 8
$50 on 9
$35 buy 10 (for $36)
$5 yo
$3 box cars
$50 any 7.

This wins on every bet.

7 is rolled: win $200 - 153 = $47
8 is rolled: win $70 - $58 = $12
9 is rolled: win $70 - $58 = $12
10 is rolled: win $69 - $58 = $11
11 is rolled: win $75 - $53 = $22
12 is rolled: win $90 - $55 = $35.

In every case I win.

Dice control with a dice in the air and hitting the back wall will for 95% of throwers result in a random roll and isn't cheating. A court or jury i don't think would be able to prove, beyond a doubt that the accused's results were a result of cheating when the numbers end up random after the roll.

Okay, but if you altered the dice using the "standard" dice influencing technique, they'll rotate around a horizontal axis. If I do that such that they both rolled along the 1-6 axis then my bet would look like:
$1 each hop hard 4, 6, 8, 10
$1 each hop 5, 9
$1 each hop easy 6, 8
$1 hop 2-5
$1 hop 3-4

Bet is $10, I win either $15 or $30. In every case I win.

We can argue over which style is more effective or able to be mastered, but that's not the interesting legal question. The interesting legal question is whether attempting to slide is equivalent to attempting to use the axis-roll. I don't see anything indicating otherwise, and that means that if attempting a slide is attempted cheating, then attempting to use the axis-roll is attempted cheating -- and is a criminal activity. But the contrapositive is also true -- if attempting to influence the dice with axis-roll methods isn't attempted cheating, then attempting a slide isn't attempted cheating either.

Screw the place bets.

Even better, I would just hop every 6-1 through 6-5 number for $100 and bet the 6-6 for $50 and make $1,000 - $1,050 per throw.

Agreed, but the argument is that that dice control does NOT work. I agree with you that it is an attempt to cheat, but is overcome strongly by the influence of the back wall.

First, you're right about the hop bets. There may be other ways to profit, but those are the easiest. Of course, that's only if you have perfect control and can always avoid the axis number (or, in the case of sliding, keep the face-up number).

But I think you misunderstand -- I do *not* believe that attempted dice control is an attempt to cheat, because attempted cheating is a *felony*. Attempted cheating is no less a felony even if you never succeed. That's like saying the would-be bank robber has never successfully robbed a bank in 30 attempts, so he's not guilty of attempted robbery.

There are several gambling authors, including Frank Scoblete, who actively promote seminars and techniques to influence the dice. Are they just as guilty of a felony under the "conspire to cheat" provisions of NRS 465?

No, I can't imagine the law could be read to that end; but, by straightforward reasoning based therefrom, sliding cannot be interpreted as a violation of NRS 465. As a result, I will be very surprised if the DA in the Wynn sliding case files felony charges under NRS 465.

Quote: MathExtremist

There are several gambling authors, including Frank Scoblete, who actively promote seminars and techniques to influence the dice. Are they just as guilty of a felony under the "conspire to cheat" provisions of NRS 465?

Oh, if only it were so!

The mental image of Scoblete and his butt-buddy, "The Dominator," being *punked* in the showers at Ely State Prison
brings a tear of joy to my jaundiced eye.

blusteringnonsense

Quote: MrV

Oh, if only it were so!

The mental image of Scoblete and his butt-buddy, "The Dominator," being *punked* in the showers at Ely State Prison
brings a tear of joy to my jaundiced eye.

blusteringnonsense

I'd never heard Frank speak before. He sounds an awful lot like Ray Magliozzi from "Car Talk".

Quote: MathExtremist

Attempted cheating is no less a felony even if you never succeed. That's like saying the would-be bank robber has never successfully robbed a bank in 30 attempts, so he's not guilty of attempted robbery.

But do you believe it would be a felony to walk into a bank, silently stare at the teller from a far corner and give her a mental command to hand you ten thousand dollars in tens and twenties?

Or, how about making a little cloth doll, looking like your neighbor, and sticking a needle where its heart is supposed to be? Would that be an attempted murder?

Quote: weaselman

But do you believe it would be a felony to walk into a bank, silently stare at the teller from a far corner and give her a mental command to hand you ten thousand dollars in tens and twenties?

Or, how about making a little cloth doll, looking like your neighbor, and sticking a needle where its heart is supposed to be? Would that be an attempted murder?

No, and not unless you believe in voodoo -- we'll set that aside for now.

The distinction, however, is that both murder and robbery are crimes, so attempting them is an attempted crime (which is also usually illegal). The issue at hand in the Wynn case is whether dice sliding is, in fact, a crime. That doesn't appear to be the case or we'd all be guilty of attempted crimes every time we throw the dice.

Quote: MrV

Did you bother to research and read anything BEFORE then on the subject?

Your "expertise" seems to be superficial and anecdotal at best, based on comments made to you by a couple of Reliable Sources from within the Casino Industry.

Really, Alan; you should do a little digging; dazzle us with something other than hearsay.

Look at the Nevada statutes and regs; they won't bite.

My googled research on the subject shows no reference to dice sliding.

It's ambiguous, at best.

I suggest you take your information to the defense lawyers.

Quote: MathExtremist

The issue at hand in the Wynn case is whether dice sliding is, in fact, a crime. That doesn't appear to be the case or we'd all be guilty of attempted crimes every time we throw the dice.

Please explain this, I don't understand what you're saying? Are you suggesting that a throw of the dice that uses "set dice" that fly in the air, bounce off the table and hit the back wall is a crime just as sliding the dice is alleged to be a crime?

Quote: kp

You have to understand that Alan is not really a reporter, he just plays one on TV. His real business is to portray a consumer reporter and make infomercials that look like news reports to get people to buy the sponsor's products.



His website also promotes Rob Singer's system, so take anything he promotes with a grain of salt.

Whoa KP... I was a TV news reporter for 33 years before I went into the advertising business five years ago. So hold your horses, buddy.

Don't confuse my news reporting in the past, with what I do today.

Quote: MathExtremist

No, and not unless you believe in voodoo -- we'll set that aside for now.

Well .. if you set my argument aside, then I guess, I don't have an argument :)

Quote:

The distinction, however, is that both murder and robbery are crimes, so attempting them is an attempted crime (which is also usually illegal).

The crimes in this case would be attempted robbery, and attempted murder respectively. They are felonies.

Quote:

The issue at hand in the Wynn case is whether dice sliding is, in fact, a crime. That doesn't appear to be the case or we'd all be guilty of attempted crimes every time we throw the dice.

Only in the same sense as you'd be guilty of attempted robbery by thinking about how nice it would be for a teller to give you the money.
What you seem to be missing here is a distinction between a wishful thinking and an actual attempt. The legal definition of an attempted crime requires a notable progress to be made in the actual crime. To prosecute these felonies, it must be demonstrated, that the accused has come very close to committing the actual crime, and that the crime would have been committed if an unexpected circumstance beyond the perpetrator's control did not arise to prevent it.

Because it is commonly accepted, and never reasonably disputed that dice setting does not actually work, you cannot be prosecuted for practicing it any more than you could for practicing voodoo.

Quote: weaselman

Because it is commonly accepted, and never reasonably disputed that dice setting does not actually work, you cannot be prosecuted for practicing it any more than you could for practicing voodoo.

That needs qualification. It is commonly accepted that dice setting + controlled throwing does not actually work when the dice actually bounce off the rubber pyramids. But it is also well-known (or it should be well-known) that a short roll can be controlled with practice. That's why the pyramids are there in the first place. The blanket roll is one of the most basic manipulations known with fair dice, and it is grounded in precisely the same concept as the "dice influencing" systems: minimize or eliminate two out of six numbers on each die by rolling them about an axis.

Similarly, sliding only works if the die to be slid does not bounce off the back wall and tumble. If it does, the slide attempt fails. The other die usually bounces off the back wall to conceal the attempt, but only one die in a slide needs to remain face-up.

Now then: if dice influencing via a controlled short throw is effective, and if sliding via short roll is effective, then mustn't both techniques stand or fall together vis-a-vis legality? I'm not sure it makes sense to suggest that someone who uses a practiced controlled throw is a criminal only when they short-roll and not otherwise. And it's a very hard position to justify that someone who intends to use a controlled throw by having the dice stop just short of the back wall is a criminal if their throws often bounce off the pyramids. That would put you in the position of having to distinguish between someone who short-rolls "often enough" to be a cheater, vs. someone who is merely engaging in wishful thinking after attending someone's "beat the casino" seminar.

At a bare minimum, if controlled throwing is indeed cheating, then the providers of those seminars must be guilty of conspiracy to cheat, no?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Please explain this, I don't understand what you're saying? Are you suggesting that a throw of the dice that uses "set dice" that fly in the air, bounce off the table and hit the back wall is a crime just as sliding the dice is alleged to be a crime?

That's precisely what I'm suggesting. There is no distinction made in NRS 465 between one methodology for altering the dice probabilities and another. If sliding is a crime, so is "precision shooting". If precision shooting is not a crime, neither is sliding. If you have any basis for finding that distinction where I have not, whether in caselaw or statute or regulation, please post it here.

I just got done watching the Golden Touch video. Besides the dubious nature of the subject matter, it's amazing to me the amount of self-contradicting statements present within the video. That, and the low quality production. With the amount of money they are charging for their seminars, you would think they would have produced a better quality video. But with all the self-contradicting statements, I'm surprised anybody would take them seriously after watching the video.

Quote: konceptum

I just got done watching the Golden Touch video.

If you got a hoot out of THAT one, check this one out ...

DiceDumb&Dumber

Quote: MathExtremist

That needs qualification. It is commonly accepted that dice setting + controlled throwing does not actually work when the dice actually bounce off the rubber pyramids. But it is also well-known (or it should be well-known) that a short roll can be controlled with practice.

Ah. Yes, if you are intentionally not hitting the back wall, or violating any other rule of the game, with the intent to affect the outcome, then indeed, you are are guilty of cheating, regardless of whether you slide or set or even do nothing at all, other than violating that rule. The fact of the intentional rule violation is the "progress" I spoke about earlier - it is an action you are taking in the process of commission of the crime, and makes you an attempted cheater rather than a mere dreamer.

To relate to my earlier example, this would be akin to pointing an (unloaded) gun at the teller before sending her a mental order to hand you the money :)

I would think that sliding still makes a bit of a better case for the prosecution, because the intent (see below) is more apparent in this case.

Quote:

I'm not sure it makes sense to suggest that someone who uses a practiced controlled throw is a criminal only when they short-roll and not otherwise.
And it's a very hard position to justify that someone who intends to use a controlled throw by having the dice stop just short of the back wall is a criminal if their throws often bounce off the pyramids. That would put you in the position of having to distinguish between someone who short-rolls "often enough" to be a cheater, vs. someone who is merely engaging in wishful thinking after attending someone's "beat the casino" seminar.

There is nothing new here. Intent is a key element of many felonies. If my car hits a pedestrian by accident, that is (usually) not a criminal offense at all, even if I was speeding at the moment. But if I intend to harm him, that is assault or even attempted murder. Similarly, the prosecution would have to look into whether I hit this particular pedestrian "often enough", or find some other evidence to establish my intent if they want to prosecute. Even to file the charges, they themselves should have some reasons to believe in good faith, that my act was intentional.
Same story with dice control. If there are reasons to believe you intentionally violate rules of the game trying to affect the outcome (maybe, they saw you winking at the boxman when you do it or something like that), then yes, you can be prosecuted for cheating, otherwise, you are in the clear.

Now, if you want to say, that this evidence (like winking at the boxman) is not very definitive, you will be right. The prosecutor will use a "reasonable person" test, when deciding whether or not there is really a crime. Would a reasonable person conclude that you violated the rule intentionally? If the prosecution thinks so, they will proceed with the charges. Their common sense is then further validated by the jury. If members of the jury agree with their conclusions, you will be found guilty, otherwise, you'll be acquitted.
At least, that's how it is supposed to work in theory.

Quote:

At a bare minimum, if controlled throwing is indeed cheating, then the providers of those seminars must be guilty of conspiracy to cheat, no?

No, not really. Conspiracy requires an agreement between the parties to commit crime. The providers of the seminars do not know or care whether their customers are really going to follow through, even if the actions they propose are indeed criminal (like intentionally violating the rules), so they are not members of a conspiracy any more than a person who sells books, explaining bank robbery in details is a co-conspirator with someone who reads that book, and decides to rob a bank.
They (providers of the seminars) can (and should) be prosecuted for fraud in my opinion, but that's a completely different can of worms (and set of reasons why it cannot practically be done).

I think there is a difference between what is considered to be an "illegal throw" of the dice, and what is considered to be a "criminal act."

It was my understanding that when dice slides were called "illegal" it meant it was not a legal throw to be used in the game, but no one ever said it was an offense that could be prosecuted. Rather, "illegal" meant it was not a valid throw in the game. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted (criminal charges) brought for sliding dice.

The gaming regulators in both Nevada and Michigan told me that dice setting and a controlled throw that flew in the air, hit the table, bounced and hit the back wall were "legal throws" meaning that they were permissable. However, casinos have the right as private businesses to decide who they will let gamble on their properties. If they don't want dice setting and dice setters, they have the right to make that rule.

Again the example of blackjack card counters applies to this issue: There is no regulation, no law, against card counting. But a casino doesn't have to allow card counters or even proven winners to gamble on their property.

Some of you are trying to use the term "illegal" for dice sliding to mean it is a criminal act similar to using doctored dice which is a criminal act. And I've never heard that dice sliding is the same kind of "illegal" as using doctored dice, or stealing chips from the dealers' bank. The context that the term "illegal" was used for dice sliding was about if it is "permissable" or not.

I never had a discussion or heard that dice sliding as "illegal" was something that could be prosecuted.

Come to think of it, I guess a casino could actually allow dice sliding if it wanted to. When I was interviewed by the LVRJ I told the reporter that I once saw a dice slide used and it was my feeling that the table crew "let it go" out of compassion for that shooter who had lost a lot of money betting the don't (and rolling point after point and number after number).

Quote: AlanMendelson

It was my understanding that when dice slides were called "illegal" it meant it was not a legal throw to be used in the game, but no one ever said it was an offense that could be prosecuted. Rather, "illegal" meant it was not a valid throw in the game.

It could mean either of those things. It is not a "legal throw" according to the game rules. It is also illegal to do it intentionally attempting to affect the outcome of the game.

Quote:

I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted (criminal charges) brought for sliding dice.

There is a recent thread on this very forum about that.

Quote: weaselman

Quote:

I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted (criminal charges) brought for sliding dice.

There is a recent thread on this very forum about that.

That would be here: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/6829-gambler-accused-of-dice-sliding-at-wynn-las-vegas-sued-for-return-of-700-000

They were arrested, jailed, and then released without being charged.

Both are members of Team Poker Stars Pro, a professional poker players team.

see: pokerstars

They weren't charged. Police, or gaming enforcers, might haul you in, but its up to the DA to decide if there's really a crime, right?

Does anyone know of a case where there were actual criminal charges?

pics:



Victoria






Leonardo

Quote: AlanMendelson

They weren't charged. Police, or gaming enforcers, might haul you in, but its up to the DA to decide if there's really a crime, right?

Does anyone know of a case where there were actual criminal charges?

No, and that's the point. To my knowledge, the DA has not pressed charges under any cheating provisions of the NRS. As of right now, it does not appear that sliding is "cheating" pursuant to statute. The case wasn't County of Clark vs. defendants, it was Wynn vs. defendants. That's a civil matter. I'm not at all sure if they'll recover the alleged losses, but it's an entirely different legal analysis than the question of criminal cheating.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Does anyone know of a case where there were actual criminal charges?

Probably a situation wherein a DA would say, call it then or don't call it at all.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I think there is a difference between what is considered to be an "illegal throw" of the dice, and what is considered to be a "criminal act."

It was my understanding that when dice slides were called "illegal" it meant it was not a legal throw to be used in the game, but no one ever said it was an offense that could be prosecuted. Rather, "illegal" meant it was not a valid throw in the game. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted (criminal charges) brought for sliding dice.

Gah, you were asked if that was what you meant. It was quite clear people were interpreting you term "illegal" to mean "against the law and liable for a criminal charge". Glad you now understand why people were asking you for clarification.

Quote: MathExtremist

No, and that's the point. To my knowledge, the DA has not pressed charges under any cheating provisions of the NRS. As of right now, it does not appear that sliding is "cheating" pursuant to statute.

Sliding (intentionally) definitely is cheating. Whether or not the DA feels the case can be made and won in a particular instance is an entirely different matter.

Quote:

The case wasn't County of Clark vs. defendants, it was Wynn vs. defendants. That's a civil matter.

Are you sure? If it is a civil matter, how could they have been arrested? Or was arrest unrelated?
I would think, there are really two cases (as it is often the case in instances like this) - a criminal case for the cheating, and a civil action to recover damages contingent upon conviction. If the prosecution does not go through with the charges, I don't see any way whatsoever the civil case can be won.

Quote: weaselman

Sliding (intentionally) definitely is cheating. Whether or not the DA feels the case can be made and won in a particular instance is an entirely different matter.

I would love to see this question addressed by the court. For now, the jury is out (pun definitely intended). I still don't see how sliding could be cheating while controlled throwing isn't.

Maybe I'll write a letter to the DA...

Quote: weaselman

I would think, there are really two cases (as it is often the case in instances like this) - a criminal case for the cheating, and a civil action to recover damages contingent upon conviction. If the prosecution does not go through with the charges, I don't see any way whatsoever the civil case can be won.

Why not? The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case (after all, OJ wasn't successfully prosecuted for murder, but ended losing the civil case...).

Quote: AlanMendelson

Don't confuse my news reporting in the past, with what I do today.

I'm not confused. You used to be a real reporter. Now you pretend to be a reporter to sell products. I see the difference. I think sometimes you confuse the two.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I think there is a difference between what is considered to be an "illegal throw" of the dice, and what is considered to be a "criminal act."

Quote: dictionary.reference.com

il·le·gal
adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.

When something is "illegal", you can be criminally prosecuted for doing it.

Quote: MathExtremist

I would love to see this question addressed by the court.

Good luck ;)

Quote:

For now, the jury is out (pun definitely intended). I still don't see how sliding could be cheating while controlled throwing isn't.

Like I said earlier, it is too, as long as you actually do something to change the outcome of the game (like intentionally not hit the back wall), you are in violation of statute.

Quote: MathExtremist

Maybe I'll write a letter to the DA...

And now it's not a "maybe". I'll let you all know if I get a reply.