Wong and dice control

Quote: MrV

The same dynamics seem to apply to both dice setting and religion: either you believe, or you don't.

It's a matter of faith, based on hope.

Now there is the voice of reason ! ! !

no either it works for you or it does not...

You go to a guys home and he says he is a good elk hunter..... you think now he has been hunting 15 years and only has 10 trophy
mounts on the wall..... so next week you go to a friend that has been there 10 years and has none.... he says you know that idea
that Joe is a better hunter that i am... thats nonsense... do you really think Joe cares?????

I have a table in my office, i have practiced for about three years... if dice were heavy i would not have any walls left. it is
by far the hardest thing i have ever done,,,,, now i have made progress, i will play Saturday and Sunday and the money i will
use is money i have won, i dont want to lose it, but i probably lose 3 out of 5 times at the table, my loses are small, my wins are
much larger,,,, and if i win i bank that winnings.....

I am no expect at this, i have proved to myself i can do this...it is a good feeling... now it is hard, i cant say i would have started
if i knew it would be this hard....

Its not at all like religion..... religion we either belive or we dont it can not be proven..... dice control can and has been proven, most
of the really good guys play alone, i play mostly alone...

Just sayin i htink a person is a coward for condemning something they cant do or have not tried to do...just sayin

dicesitter

Quote: FleaStiff

Dice controllers can not show the printouts of the dice throws, ...

See the first table on this page?

Click "print" in your browser, and you will have a "printout" of the dice throws of an actual dice influencing trial officiated by Wizard.

Quote: FleaStiff

So no matter how enamored you are of the term "Wong"

"Wong" is not a dice influencer. The only ones who mention him are those who deny the possibility of dice influencing.

Quote: FleaStiff

... just look at the evidence!! It ain't there. If dice control existed, the evidence would be there!

The evidence is in the link above, which gives the results of two official dice trials closely monitored by both those who assert the possibility of dice influencing and by those who deny it.

In each trial, the shooters did better than the expected math. Furthermore, in the second, more hotly contested trial (involving significant wagers), the shooters not only beat the expected math, but they also more than doubled their winning margin required to win the contest!

In addition, both trials were sanctioned by Wizard.

I don't know what other evidence one needs than such intensely scrutinized trials.

Quote: tupp

In each trial, the shooters did better than the expected math.

Me no see that.
Me see several shooerts: Beau, Pablo, Debbie, Michael
Me no see any statements by said shooters that they were in fact trying to roll any particular number such as a seven.
Me only see conclusionary statement of "test for winning come out rolls of seven and eleven".

Me no understand why come roll of eleven is a "success" if shooter was trying to roll "seven". Yes, Shooter wins pass line bet, but he no win dice setting bet that way. Dice Setter must try to roll seven and must in fact roll seven. Six is a loss, eleven is a loss, thirteen is a loss! Only seven is potential bet winner. Can only go from Potential Bet Winner to Actual Bet Winner if number of sevens consistently rolled is so overwhelmingly high that entire crowd go crazy. Unless Crowd go crazy, Dice Control not exist.

Quote: FleaStiff

Me no see that.
Me see several shooerts: Beau, Pablo, Debbie, Michael
Me no see any statements by said shooters that they were in fact trying to roll any particular number such as a seven.
Me only see conclusionary statement of "test for winning come out rolls of seven and eleven".

Me see conspicuous, detailed table showing each shooter and their individual, ordered rolls.

Me see plain, straighforward statement by Beau Parker in fourth paragraph stating that they will try for naturals on comeout and avoid sevens after point established: "So I asked Beau what I should be testing for. He said on the come out roll that I should test for winning rolls of 7 and 11, and on all other rolls to test for rolling anything except a 7."

Quote: FleaStiff

Me no understand why come roll of eleven is a "success" if shooter was trying to roll "seven". Yes, Shooter wins pass line bet, but he no win dice setting bet that way. Dice Setter must try to roll seven and must in fact roll seven. Six is a loss, eleven is a loss, thirteen is a loss! Only seven is potential bet winner. Can only go from Potential Bet Winner to Actual Bet Winner if number of sevens consistently rolled is so overwhelmingly high that entire crowd go crazy. Unless Crowd go crazy, Dice Control not exist.

Me know that Beau Parker stated in advance that the DIs would try for sevens and elevens on the comeout.

Me know that dice can be set for seven, in such way to avoid craps numbers. Real goal on comeout is to actually avoid craps number, not expect that every toss be an exact result.

Me know that usually only non-craps players think that DIs expect exact rolls.

Me know that there is another documented dice influencing trial at bottom of linked page in which DIs did even better than first trial.

Mongo only pawn in game of life...

Quote: tupp

Me know that Beau Parker stated in advance that the DIs would try for sevens and elevens on the comeout.
Me know that dice can be set for seven, in such way to avoid craps numbers. Real goal on comeout is to actually avoid craps number, not expect that every toss be an exact result.

Impossible for ANY shooter to try for multiple results per roll. Try for Seven, Try for Eleven, Try for Six... but not all of them.

>Me know that usually only non-craps players think that DIs expect exact rolls.
All rolls are very exact. One number and only one number is the "call". I ain't never heard no stickman call out "three and a half".

Quote: FleaStiff

Impossible for ANY shooter to try for multiple results per roll. Try for Seven, Try for Eleven, Try for Six... but not all of them.

>Me know that usually only non-craps players think that DIs expect exact rolls.
All rolls are very exact. One number and only one number is the "call". I ain't never heard no stickman call out "three and a half".

If a bias is attainable, each die has independent bias for a particular biased throw.

The 21 possible outcomes have various likelihoods of occurring according to the theoretical bias of each die.

It's a computer program to target the most likely outcome by using the biased throw with a set that matches that bias to the desired outcome.

There is a second most likely outcome as well.

All of this is based on the foundation that a biased throw is possible, but if you assume that biased is possible to obtain and quantify, you are wrong.

Your claim that no shooter can target multiple outcomes is true if and only if a biased throw is not possible or if the biased throw cannot be quantified by the shooter.

In the domain of everything being the result of randomness, you are correct that there is absolutely nothing but random numbers coming out of the shooters rolls.

But you are 100% wrong absent this assumption of yours that everything is random.

It's comments like this that truly illuminate the lack of knowledge of many of the non-believers.

There is merely one missing link in the proof, and that is that a biased throw can be obtained and quantified for what bias exists.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

(Well, obvious to some of us, I guess.)

The the come out measurement was flawed. It should have been sevens only.

MRV


It is not at a matter of faith, it is a matter of math......period........ you practice, your recordings of each roll in
practice sessions over time prove you either have or dont have some influence over you numbers or your SRR.

Now i understand fully there are a bunch of kids on these web sites that want to measure dice controll as if
a person can go up and throw a hard 8 any time they want, or lets throw 100 times and count the number of
7's this is child play, kindergarden stuff.....

Dice influence is easy to measure, i know what my advantage is and i also know what it is not.

I will also say that test this board did with Parker shows results that are so poor , that
i have to beleive either it is fake or Parker and his group are not serious in terms of their practice habits.
Last Saturday was a tough day for my team.... yet we had 6 rolls of between 20-25, a 36 and a 38. Even
at that we were even for the day because of a number of short rolls in between. I had 5 of the rolls
between 20-25 with 30% of better 6 & 8's if i had bet only on myself i would have been ahead,,,, but
Saturday was a team deal and we only broke even...


dicesitter

Quote: MathExtremist

Altering the probabilities of rolling a seven from 1 in 6 to 1 in 7, as some seem to claim, is hardly "slight".

Quote: Wizard

I don't think anybody is claiming to go 1 in 7 under casino conditions.

"What would happen to a 5-Counter who found himself at the tables with such controlled shooters as Sharpshooter or Dominator
or others in the Golden Touch™ crew sporting SRR of close to/or at 1 to 8?"

No mention over how many rolls.
a 7SRR over 10k rolls is easy as 1 in 28 Billion
Gotta love the math
http://www.goldentouchcraps.com/WeeklyArticles/45.shtml

I stopped counting my rolls at 2200
Ahigh is what at 3k?

I will be going on a recording frenzy soon. I plan to record and broadcast my shots frequently very soon.

Quote: Wizard

When I observed Beau Parker and his crew shooting dice I asked specifically what they expected to achieve,
so I could do a rigorous test.

For example, what set did they start with,
and were they trying to keep them on axis,
minimize single pitches, double pitches, how where they influencing the dice?

They all just said that they try to avoid sevens.

If the shooter does not give a detailed answer about how he minimizes sevens,
then I think a simple test of the RSR (rolls to sevens ratio) is the best you can do.

ME also asked FrankS how he achieves his control.
FrankS remained silent at WoV except data is in his books and over at GTC and in the Smart Craps pdf help file.
the answer: on-axis (z) control

"This chapter is intended as a brief summary only on dice control and the physical skill of dice setting.
If you want to master the physical skill of dice setting,
you will want to read and consult with some of the resources in the "Resources" section of this documentation.
Unlike card counting in blackjack, dice setting is a physical skill, and cannot be mastered through reading and mental practice alone.

Dice setters attempt to control the physical throw of the dice in such a way as to influence the outcome of the dice.
This skill, when used consciously at different points in the game,
generates a non-random distribution of outcomes, which the shooter hopes reverses the casino's edge in the game to the player's favor. "
more
"A typical controlled shooter is attempting to cause the dice to rotate only around the Z axis.
In theory, any spin in the Y or X axis can introduce unexpected bounces and a less controlled outcome.
With a spin in only the Z axis, the outside numbers on the dice set should not occur in the final roll result."
more
"As well as limiting the spin of the dice to the Z axis,
extremely proficient controlled shooters also try and fix the rate of spin for both dice to be the same.
This can further reduce the dice outcomes for advantage play.
For example, with a 24/24 or hard way set (sixes and ones on the outside),
a perfectly controlled throw with Z axis rotation only at the same speed for both dice means the outcome should be one of: 22, 33, 44 or 55."


The Wizard may be silent in current FrankS discussions but not in this thread or at the WoO.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/
"How Dice Control Allegedly Works

Even the strongest believers in dice control will admit that most throws, even of the best shooters, are still random.
However, it takes a small percentage only of precise throws to overcome the house edge.
What is happening on these successful throws?
There are two schools of thought, or types of shooters.
Both types of shooters set the dice in a certain way, hoping to keep them on axis, and together in rotation, as if the dice were glued together.
Two things can go wrong after the dice leave the shooter's hands, and that is what divides the two types of shooters."

he continues

"Stanford Wong writes in 'Wong on Dice' that most careful shooters he observed
were not keeping both dice on axis more than the random expectations,
but were achieving influence through correlation.
Based on my faith in Wong, the following tables are all under the assumption of correlation shooting only."


AlanM knows the dance steps but is just a random shooter after many years of practice.
Some will "have it" and some will never have it.

Quote: thecesspit

With 5x odds and playing the passline only with full odds,
I think over 10% of shooters would be lifetime winners at 30 hours a year shooting for 50 years.

Let us say 30 bets per hour resolved (100 rolls per hour) = 30*30*50 = 45,000 lifetime bets made.
it would take a very lucky player to show a profit after that many bets without having any
DI skills to give them an edge. Having an edge is the only way to beat the casino, so goes the saying.

all values per unit wagered

ev: -636.3636364
sd: 1,235.46
ev/sd: -0.51508349
prob of being even or ahead: 0.30324734
(the math is left for anyone to verify.
Some say it is rude to show my work.
PM me if you want to know how this is calculated.
No guarantee I will show)

You were close at 10%.
Hey, add some color to these long and boring math pages


how about 1 million such bets still at 5X odds.
(for the don't pass player, close to these results too)
ev: -14141.41414
sd: 5,824.00
ev/sd: -2.428126858
prob of being even or ahead: 0.007588517 (about 1 in 132 would be successful)

how about the 10X odds player over 1 million bets.
Could take a lifetime of play or 22X more hours of play each year from the first example

Many gambling writers, including FrankS, just about 100% of them,
say all who bet on negative expectation games are losers and can not win, even in the long run.
Total crap of craps I say.
it depends on your average bet and how many you make over your lifetime.
here is proof.
ev: -14141.41414
sd: 10,809.17
ev/sd: -1.308279217
prob of being even or ahead: 0.095389311
(about 95390 out of 1 million attempts would be successful)
95,390 is NOT zero or even close to it.

Don Jones from Miami, Florida writes
"Yep. I beat craps over 1 million lifetime bets and did not even need DI skills.
Never made one sucker bet other than the pass line bet.
The place bets, all the rest are sucker bets.
I beat Craps and had more fun without fussing with the dice"

Quote: thecesspit

But in the end, what you say is correct.
Despite of the house edge, you can end up being on the plus side of craps over a long period
due to simple variance and not being a God of Dice.

Also your statement turned around would work too.
A DI God controller still could be ahead after 1 million bets made due to just luck (simple variance) only.
But they will say it was because of their skills and not luck.

In the end, it is what makes you have the most fun playing craps.
Then we die.

I think Nyro was a craps player
"Give me my freedom
For as long as I be
All I ask of livin' (craps)
Is to have no chains on me

All I ask of livin' (craps)
Is to have no chains on me

And all I ask of dyin' (craps)
Is to go naturally (7craps)

And when I die
And when I'm gone
There'll be one child born (next shooter)
And a world to carry on"

Quote: Ahigh

I will be going on a recording frenzy soon. I plan to record and broadcast my shots frequently very soon.

Shots? Are we talking about dice, or the circle jerk you mentioned in another thread?