Thread Rating:

konceptum
konceptum
Joined: Mar 25, 2010
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 790
January 25th, 2012 at 6:20:00 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That would involve either driving or flying to Laughlin and staking real money. The combined cost of that would be, from all accounts, greater than the potential profits from anyone who's been posting details about their travails with dice setting. In other words, if anyone out there actually can influence the dice, they're not posting here about it.


True. I guess what I'm saying is that I want to hear someone say they went to Laughlin, staked real money, and performed a dice "influencing" experiment. Even if they lose, I would give them credit for at least having the guts to put their money where their mouth is, and trying to influence the dice in a real world laboratory.

Also, I like the use of the word "influence", as though they are coaxing the dice into certain numbers. "Come on, honies, just three more hard 10s, and we'll all go get a nice steak dinner!"
AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4299
January 25th, 2012 at 10:36:51 AM permalink
Have there been any more public/quasi-public dice experiments since the Stanford Wong challenge? Personally I believe it's possible, but not for everyone. Like card counting is a mental exercise for which not everyone has the capacity, controlled throwing is an athletic endeavor that probably isn't for everyone either.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
January 25th, 2012 at 10:46:00 AM permalink
I think the trial was not valid unless a magician was present. Preferably unknown to witness the event!
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
January 25th, 2012 at 11:00:52 AM permalink
I think the distinction between card counting and controlled throwing is one of variability. In a depleted blackjack deck, at any given point in time, there is exactly one EV. It is readily determined with a computer based on the cards seen thus far. The various card counting systems are simply shortcuts to knowing to a sufficient degree what that EV is so as to inform a betting decision. By and large, the methods to count cards all correlate with each other because of that single EV. Moreover, there's only one way to bet on a blackjack table -- in the circle. The only choice is how much to bet.

On the other hand, there seem to be as many potential way to set and/or throw and/or bet on the dice as there are dice shooters. I've seen stories about people doing sliding techniques, gentle soft throwing, controlled bouncing, stacked dice, crossed-sixes, parallel sixes, flying-V, you name it. I think controlled throwing is probably more of a mental endeavor than you think -- you have to know how you're altering the dice probabilities so you know how much to bet and where. The fact that the OP, according to his records, demonstrated a very high level of dice control but did not see a profit is a perfect example.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
January 25th, 2012 at 12:51:32 PM permalink
Thanks for posting MrRalph. I find it very interesting. Did you also track the effectiveness of the "hardway" set? Were you able to produce more hardways than random? If so, perhaps your betting strategy should include hardway bets.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
MrRalph
MrRalph
Joined: Jun 8, 2011
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 148
January 26th, 2012 at 4:28:55 PM permalink
I did not do the math so if one of the math guys wants to do the calculations as to wether the number of hardways thrown was above or below random then here are the numbers. 1024 rolls.
31 hard 10's
14 " 4's
24 " 6's
23 " 8's

the software showed using the paralell sixes set I would have had an edge on the hard 6 and 8 but those are not bets I would normally make nor is that a set I have used. I also would not think enough of my ability to duplicate this in a casino enviornment to make the hardway bets. The hardway set is really a seven avoidance set more than a set to actually hit the hardways. There is an explanation in one of the Wizards craps appendix's.
One of my expectations for this test was that using the all seven set would produce a higher SRR than the hardway set because it would take a primary hit to roll a seven and it takes away the dreaded double pitch which produces the seven in the hardway set. The SRR for the all sevens set was only 5.1. This is because my percentage of hardways was 13.28% with random being 11.11%. My double pitch percentage was only 9.61% with random being 11.11%. I am going to do this test again just to compare results after I get back from my trip.

I also agree that card counting and controlled throwing of the dice are not the same thing. In Black jack once the cards are dealt you either have an edge or you do not and it changes with every deal either to your advantage or disadvantage until the shuffle where it goes back to the starting point for that game with it's particular rules. In craps wether you control the dice or not every throw has the same built in house edge for the bets you are placing. I know in my case I am not skilled enough to think that I can throw the dice consistently enough to change the house edge to a player edge. But I can count well enough to know if I have an edge or not. Now having big enough kahuna's to bet your edge is a different story
YoDiceRoll11
YoDiceRoll11
Joined: Jan 9, 2012
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 532
January 26th, 2012 at 4:50:37 PM permalink
FYI to all: The hardway set is primarily used to reduce the appearance of the 7. Its secondary objective is to make hardways and inside numbers. The hardway bets are always bad bets with House edges so high that even for a controlled shooter, they are terrible bets.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
January 26th, 2012 at 6:32:16 PM permalink
When you threw those hardways, how many easy numbers and how many sevens did you observe with the same technique?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
ewjones080
ewjones080
Joined: Feb 22, 2012
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 456
February 22nd, 2012 at 8:02:44 PM permalink
Here's my theory. You were reducing the seven, but reducing it much more on the comeout than after the point is established, and also decreased the 11 and increased the 2,3,12 on comeouts. That would've changed the 2:1 advantage on the comeout.. if that was lowered significantly to say.. 1.5:1 than that might be enough to end up giving you a negative expectation. ( I haven't done the math).

However, this might influence me to forgoe the come bets and just do place bets.
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2053
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:23:38 PM permalink
Why are you combining the totals of both dice in your experiments?

Why don't you simply record the face number on each cube, and then calculate the theoretical based on your results?
It would be far more interesting to view the chi square and the standard deviation graph for the individual outcomes.

Also, if you're testing your throwing abilities, then please tell us that you're are using new dice and not the voided ones.

  • Jump to: