Influencing the Outcome of the Roll
April 22nd, 2012 at 3:46:00 PM
permalink
Okay, guys and gals. I'm starting this thread as opposed to hijacking another thread where the subject turned to dice influence. Math Expert challenged me stating that simply looking at a group of rolls and trying to find some trend after the fact was useless and showed no evidence of control. I suppose we could argue that point but I don't think he'd be convinced. Besides, my personal opinion about what makes dice influencing work (note that I did not say that it doesn't work) has changed substantially through the years. Some of that change came about after I spent a little time in conversation - both face to face and via e-mail - with Stanford Wong. Even more came out of the analysis of my toss results that I was able to complete using Maddog's fine (free) roll tracking program - BoneTracker.
BoneTracker does, indeed, take a look at the player's SRR (sevens to rolls ratio). But it also looks at other measurements of a player's skill. One I am particularly fond of is BNR (box numbers to rolls ratio). Among the other elements of your roll results I find useful are BDOA (both dice on axis), one die off axis (and which one), both dice off axis, single pitch hits, and double pitch hits.
There are many other fine diagnostic tools in BoneTracker. I may get into them at some point. I'll also mention that the later versions of BoneTracker also include Wong's Dice Tool calculator. As I understand it, the Dice Tool calculates your edge (or lack of one) based on what we refer to as the "foundation frequencies," (the roll characteristics I mentioned above) rather than on the roll results themselves.
Okay, 'nuf said on that. I'll just plug in some numbers for you and let you have fun with it. This is actually my last full book of 720 rolls. Typically I'll look at a series of these books of rolls together to compare for common results. I'll also diagnose specific toss problems I may have based on the results. For example, if my right die off axis number increases significantly it is almost always related to a problem I have with a "lazy" ring finger that slips too far down the front face of my right die.
In any case, here are the results of those rolls. Hopefully the format will hold on the bulletin board.
Toss Count 720
Sevens to Rolls Ratio (SRR) 7.83
Box Number to Sevens Ration(BSR) 5.62
Both Die On Axis 333 46.25%
Primary-Face hits 86 11.94%
Single-Pitch hits 182 25.28%
Double-Pitch hits 65 9.03%
One-Die Off Axis
L: 153 R: 145
T: 298 41.39%
Both Die Off Axis 89 12.36%
Okay, now let's look at totally random results based on a 36 number distribution:
Toss Count 36
Sevens to Rolls Ratio (SRR) 6.00
Box Number to Sevens Ration(BSR) 4.00
Both Die On Axis 16 44.44%
Primary-Face hits 4 11.11%
Single-Pitch hits 8 22.22%
Double-Pitch hits 4 11.11%
One-Die Off Axis L: 8 44.44%
R: 8
T: 16
Both Die Off Axis 4 11.11%
Okay, a couple of cut and paste glitches but close enough. That last set of number gives you the percentages for purely random results.
The things I like about my numbers: Roughly a 2% point reduction in the number of double pitches with a 3% increase in single pitch results and about a one and a half point increase in tossing both dice on axis.
Now, there are guys out there who boast much better numbers than that, but I can live with these. And this is where I look to my SRR results and BNR results - and determine if there is a better dice pre-set arrangement for me based on the characteristics of my toss. Then I back test it by adjusting my pre-set appropriately.
I do have a fairly large collection of rolls archived and will pull a few more for you to crunch around with if you're interested. I'll have to do a little flash drive fu to round them up, as most are stored on an older laptop I keep in the craps pit here at the house. Meanwhile - have fun.
BoneTracker does, indeed, take a look at the player's SRR (sevens to rolls ratio). But it also looks at other measurements of a player's skill. One I am particularly fond of is BNR (box numbers to rolls ratio). Among the other elements of your roll results I find useful are BDOA (both dice on axis), one die off axis (and which one), both dice off axis, single pitch hits, and double pitch hits.
There are many other fine diagnostic tools in BoneTracker. I may get into them at some point. I'll also mention that the later versions of BoneTracker also include Wong's Dice Tool calculator. As I understand it, the Dice Tool calculates your edge (or lack of one) based on what we refer to as the "foundation frequencies," (the roll characteristics I mentioned above) rather than on the roll results themselves.
Okay, 'nuf said on that. I'll just plug in some numbers for you and let you have fun with it. This is actually my last full book of 720 rolls. Typically I'll look at a series of these books of rolls together to compare for common results. I'll also diagnose specific toss problems I may have based on the results. For example, if my right die off axis number increases significantly it is almost always related to a problem I have with a "lazy" ring finger that slips too far down the front face of my right die.
In any case, here are the results of those rolls. Hopefully the format will hold on the bulletin board.
Toss Count 720
Sevens to Rolls Ratio (SRR) 7.83
Box Number to Sevens Ration(BSR) 5.62
Both Die On Axis 333 46.25%
Primary-Face hits 86 11.94%
Single-Pitch hits 182 25.28%
Double-Pitch hits 65 9.03%
One-Die Off Axis
L: 153 R: 145
T: 298 41.39%
Both Die Off Axis 89 12.36%
Okay, now let's look at totally random results based on a 36 number distribution:
Toss Count 36
Sevens to Rolls Ratio (SRR) 6.00
Box Number to Sevens Ration(BSR) 4.00
Both Die On Axis 16 44.44%
Primary-Face hits 4 11.11%
Single-Pitch hits 8 22.22%
Double-Pitch hits 4 11.11%
One-Die Off Axis L: 8 44.44%
R: 8
T: 16
Both Die Off Axis 4 11.11%
Okay, a couple of cut and paste glitches but close enough. That last set of number gives you the percentages for purely random results.
The things I like about my numbers: Roughly a 2% point reduction in the number of double pitches with a 3% increase in single pitch results and about a one and a half point increase in tossing both dice on axis.
Now, there are guys out there who boast much better numbers than that, but I can live with these. And this is where I look to my SRR results and BNR results - and determine if there is a better dice pre-set arrangement for me based on the characteristics of my toss. Then I back test it by adjusting my pre-set appropriately.
I do have a fairly large collection of rolls archived and will pull a few more for you to crunch around with if you're interested. I'll have to do a little flash drive fu to round them up, as most are stored on an older laptop I keep in the craps pit here at the house. Meanwhile - have fun.
"Get in, get up, and get gone"
Steve "Heavy" Haltom
axispowercraps@gmail.com
www.axispowercraps.com/crapsforum
April 22nd, 2012 at 4:14:23 PM
permalink
I think that members of WOV will argue that 720 rolls is too small of a sample size to be statistically accurate.
Personally, i am very skeptical about dice control. However, what I found interesting is that you have a craps pit in your house! I do think that is rather cool. How many hours a day or week do you practice throwing the dice? How many hours do you spend per week at a casino?
Personally, i am very skeptical about dice control. However, what I found interesting is that you have a craps pit in your house! I do think that is rather cool. How many hours a day or week do you practice throwing the dice? How many hours do you spend per week at a casino?
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
April 22nd, 2012 at 4:14:59 PM
permalink
sample to small to establish proof.
is this all you got?
is this all you got?
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
April 22nd, 2012 at 4:21:02 PM
permalink
I am $17,500 ahead betting only $5 a roll. And this is with 825 rolls. What more proof do you skeptics need ??
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
April 22nd, 2012 at 4:23:06 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
April 22nd, 2012 at 4:24:31 PM
permalink
Hint: In the time it takes to concoct all that Mumbo Jumbo a person who actually did have some control over the dice could have made ten grand at the Bellagio. Instead, he is sitting at his home computer dedicating his time to informing us of the existence of this skill. What a selfless contribution that is.
April 22nd, 2012 at 4:30:01 PM
permalink
I also feel that IF someone could truly change the outcome of the dice, they would be at the casino every day, all day long long making as much money as they could. Casinos love dice setters, provided that they shoot quickly and don't slow the game down too much. If you can throw fast, you won't get a lot of heat from a casino.
IF someone was unable to change the outcome of the dice, they would be posting on forums, trying to get suckers to pay them money to teach them how to set the dice.
Just my opinion.
IF someone was unable to change the outcome of the dice, they would be posting on forums, trying to get suckers to pay them money to teach them how to set the dice.
Just my opinion.
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
April 22nd, 2012 at 4:33:07 PM
permalink
The analysis of dice on or off axis doesn't seem useful in crediting control, because to me that doesn't SEEM to be significant, but maybe for changing your set. What does seem to be very important is the BSR you have. Since dice controllers not only want to decrease the seven, they also want to hit the numbers they're betting on more frequently. So what seems to also be very important is reducing horn numbers along with the seven. Slight reductions in each with a slight increase in box numbers could definitely change the odds to the players favor.
When I've had really good, long rolls I'm hitting almost exclusively box numbers. The other day I rolled roughly 30 numbers and rolled just one 3 and one 11, the rest were box.
I would be interested to see specific box to seven ratios, like 6/8:7 ratio, 5/9:7 ratio and 4/10:7 ratio. Plus, as anybody else will say, you need more numbers, because while this is a good start there can be some skewed results with random rolls as well.
When I've had really good, long rolls I'm hitting almost exclusively box numbers. The other day I rolled roughly 30 numbers and rolled just one 3 and one 11, the rest were box.
I would be interested to see specific box to seven ratios, like 6/8:7 ratio, 5/9:7 ratio and 4/10:7 ratio. Plus, as anybody else will say, you need more numbers, because while this is a good start there can be some skewed results with random rolls as well.
April 22nd, 2012 at 5:31:43 PM
permalink
Quote: heavyBoth Die On Axis 333 46.25%
Primary-Face hits 86 11.94%
Single-Pitch hits 182 25.28%
Double-Pitch hits 65 9.03%
One-Die Off Axis
L: 153 R: 145
T: 298 41.39%
Both Die Off Axis 89 12.36%
What set were you using, and how were you betting? What were your actual results, and how many hours did it take you at the table to get through these 720 rolls?
Also, it is curious that you have reported elevated figures for both dice on-axis and both dice off-axis.
"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
April 22nd, 2012 at 5:33:42 PM
permalink
Quote: ewjones080The analysis of dice on or off axis doesn't seem useful in crediting control, because to me that doesn't SEEM to be significant
It is much more significant than what actually rolled. Rolling a 6 or 7 isn't interesting, because there are lots of ways to roll those numbers even if you just fling the dice haphazardly. But rolling a 6 by keeping both dice on axis is interesting, especially if you keep them on axis statistically more often than average.
"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
April 22nd, 2012 at 5:47:40 PM
permalink
Quote: heavyToss Count 720
Sevens to Rolls Ratio (SRR) 7.83
Ok, Heavy. You have stated you were able to 'control' enough to get your SRR up to 7.83 over 720 rolls. I'll bet you cant with me watching you. I'll make it easier for you. I'll bet you cant get it to 7.5 over that many rolls. You name the casino, the amount you want to bet, and we can make this happen. All the other charlatans who made the same claim as you slink away into the shadows when challenged. Are you next?
April 22nd, 2012 at 5:51:39 PM
permalink
Quote: WongBosample to small to establish proof.
No sample is big enough to establish proof.
Now as far as a sample of 720 rolls, it might be enough to reach the conventional criterion used in statistics (alpha <= .05), or it might not be. A sample size of 720 is, by itself not enough to reach a conclusion. For example, the majority of papers published in scientific journals (ok, the ones I read, in neurobiology and behavioral science) have sample sizes of considerable less than 720. Very few of them conclude "no effect".
I am aware that Bonetracker reports a Chi-squared statistic, with the corresponding alpha value. This is the first place I would look if I were interested in making a statement regarding the possibility of dice influence.
Posters in this thread and the previous one have made noise about users of the WoV forums being a mathematically informed bunch, and I think that's true. But over the years, I have been even more impressed with the forum users being an open minded bunch. We can do better than this.
Old enough to repaint. Young enough to sell.
April 22nd, 2012 at 6:16:21 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOOk, Heavy. You have stated you were able to 'control' enough to get your SRR up to 7.83 over 720 rolls. I'll bet you cant with me watching you. I'll make it easier for you. I'll bet you cant get it to 7.5 over that many rolls. You name the casino, the amount you want to bet, and we can make this happen. All the other charlatans who made the same claim as you slink away into the shadows when challenged. Are you next?
Ooooh! The gauntlet has been thrown! Go get'um SOOPOO!
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
April 22nd, 2012 at 8:07:37 PM
permalink
Once again, you guys rush to judgment. I'm not going to go through and do the whole quote/snippet thing because then we'd just end up with snippets of snippets. But seriously, guys. You should read the entire post before jumping in with some knee jerk reaction. I quite clearly stated that I track books of 720 rolls. I routinely review these in ten book segments. I suppose I could cut and paste them into a single book, but what I'm looking for when I analyze my toss results are changes to these foundation frequencies. I will post more roll results in the days to come. Oh, what the heck. I'll give you another one right now and you can really pee your pants.
Toss Count 720
Sevens to Rolls Ratio (SRR) 8.09
Box Number to Sevens Ration(BSR) 5.58
Both Die On Axis 317 44.03%
Primary-Face hits 80 11.11%
Single-Pitch hits 171 23.75%
Double-Pitch hits 66 9.17%
One-Die Off Axis
L: 140
R: 182
T: 322 44.72%
Both Die Off Axis 81 11.25%
Now there's another one for us to look at, Math Expert. This one also shows a small increase in both dice on axis and a small increase in both dice off axis. Makes me suspect a small formula error. I cut and pasted this directly from BoneTracker. I have a pristine copy of BoneTracker on-hand, so I'm going to double check these numbers by cutting and pasting the actual roll results into the fresh copy and see if I get the same results. I'll post an update on that tomorrow if I have time.
Note that my primary face hits in this book are totally random. But I got a nice bounce on single pitch hits and a good decrease on double pitch hits. This particular book of rolls was tossed using the straight sixes set, which is my normal come-out set. By the way, the previous book of rolls was tossed using the V-3 set - which I am not particularly fond of in it's "standard" configuration. I typically toss that family of sets with the 3-2 on top and the 1-4 facing me. This permutation shows fives and nines with the 5-6 on the lateral faces.
Now, I am particularly amused when someone says "if I had an SRR of 7.8 (or whatever) I'd spend all day every day in the casino until I cleaned them out" or something to that effect. Come on, son. Reach in the bag and grab yourself a clue! There's a reason why I tell players who are attempting to influence the roll to "get in, get up, and get gone." It's because DI skills are fleeting as the day wears on. When I'm playing on a daily basis my average session is well under two hours. In most cases I am in and out of the casino in just over an hour.
I won't comment on the other responses in this thread, since for the most part I find them pointless. However, I will make a general comment on decorum and some of the childishness I've seen on other threads here on the site. Some of you guys need to go back to school and learn something about social graces. If you conduct yourself in the real world like you do on this forum . . . well, let's just say you've probably put a plastic surgeon's kid through college at some point thanks to that rinoplasty surgery you had to have.
Toss Count 720
Sevens to Rolls Ratio (SRR) 8.09
Box Number to Sevens Ration(BSR) 5.58
Both Die On Axis 317 44.03%
Primary-Face hits 80 11.11%
Single-Pitch hits 171 23.75%
Double-Pitch hits 66 9.17%
One-Die Off Axis
L: 140
R: 182
T: 322 44.72%
Both Die Off Axis 81 11.25%
Now there's another one for us to look at, Math Expert. This one also shows a small increase in both dice on axis and a small increase in both dice off axis. Makes me suspect a small formula error. I cut and pasted this directly from BoneTracker. I have a pristine copy of BoneTracker on-hand, so I'm going to double check these numbers by cutting and pasting the actual roll results into the fresh copy and see if I get the same results. I'll post an update on that tomorrow if I have time.
Note that my primary face hits in this book are totally random. But I got a nice bounce on single pitch hits and a good decrease on double pitch hits. This particular book of rolls was tossed using the straight sixes set, which is my normal come-out set. By the way, the previous book of rolls was tossed using the V-3 set - which I am not particularly fond of in it's "standard" configuration. I typically toss that family of sets with the 3-2 on top and the 1-4 facing me. This permutation shows fives and nines with the 5-6 on the lateral faces.
Now, I am particularly amused when someone says "if I had an SRR of 7.8 (or whatever) I'd spend all day every day in the casino until I cleaned them out" or something to that effect. Come on, son. Reach in the bag and grab yourself a clue! There's a reason why I tell players who are attempting to influence the roll to "get in, get up, and get gone." It's because DI skills are fleeting as the day wears on. When I'm playing on a daily basis my average session is well under two hours. In most cases I am in and out of the casino in just over an hour.
I won't comment on the other responses in this thread, since for the most part I find them pointless. However, I will make a general comment on decorum and some of the childishness I've seen on other threads here on the site. Some of you guys need to go back to school and learn something about social graces. If you conduct yourself in the real world like you do on this forum . . . well, let's just say you've probably put a plastic surgeon's kid through college at some point thanks to that rinoplasty surgery you had to have.
"Get in, get up, and get gone"
Steve "Heavy" Haltom
axispowercraps@gmail.com
www.axispowercraps.com/crapsforum
April 22nd, 2012 at 9:17:53 PM
permalink
If you conduct yourself in the real world like you do on this forum . . . well, let's just say you've probably put a plastic surgeon's kid through college at some point thanks to that rinoplasty surgery you had to have.
At last someone who has an adult view of life !!
At last someone who has an adult view of life !!
April 22nd, 2012 at 9:40:02 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffIf you conduct yourself in the real world like you do on this forum . . . well, let's just say you've probably put a plastic surgeon's kid through college at some point thanks to that rinoplasty surgery you had to have.
At last someone who has an adult view of life !!
Exactly! "Believe my bullshit or I'll punch you in the face!" is exactly the kind of socially-graceful contribution that this forum has been lacking. Welcome Heavy! I'm glad that I took the time to read your posts...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
April 22nd, 2012 at 9:47:41 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffIf you conduct yourself in the real world like you do on this forum . . . well, let's just say you've probably put a plastic surgeon's kid through college at some point thanks to that rinoplasty surgery you had to have.
At last someone who has an adult view of life !!
For what it's worth, my opinion is that Heavy has shown admirable calm and restraint in the face of unprovoked attacks.
Old enough to repaint. Young enough to sell.
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:02:34 PM
permalink
Quote: heavyBoth Die On Axis 317 44.03%
Primary-Face hits 80 11.11%
Single-Pitch hits 171 23.75%
Double-Pitch hits 66 9.17%
One-Die Off Axis
L: 140
R: 182
T: 322 44.72%
Both Die Off Axis 81 11.25%
Now there's another one for us to look at, Math Expert. This one also shows a small increase in both dice on axis and a small increase in both dice off axis.
No it doesn't. 44.03% is 0.41% *less* than expected. 11.25% is more.
But you didn't really answer the most important questions: how were you betting and what was your net bankroll change from these sessions? I'm also curious about the total elapsed time this took, and how you managed to get both sessions to be exactly 720 rolls.
"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
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:10:01 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOOk, Heavy. You have stated you were able to 'control' enough to get your SRR up to 7.83 over 720 rolls. I'll bet you cant with me watching you. I'll make it easier for you. I'll bet you cant get it to 7.5 over that many rolls. You name the casino, the amount you want to bet, and we can make this happen. All the other charlatans who made the same claim as you slink away into the shadows when challenged. Are you next?
April 23rd, 2012 at 2:43:10 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistIt is much more significant than what actually rolled. Rolling a 6 or 7 isn't interesting, because there are lots of ways to roll those numbers even if you just fling the dice haphazardly. But rolling a 6 by keeping both dice on axis is interesting, especially if you keep them on axis statistically more often than average.
Yes it certainly seems interesting to keep them both on axis, it just seems jumping from 44.4 to 46.2% isn't statistically significant. I used to know how to figure that out, but I don't anymore.
April 23rd, 2012 at 2:49:21 AM
permalink
I believe Heavy must've accomplished these at home, not in a casino... or did you know that, and it was sarcastic, because you believe at home has no comparison to a real casino..
Trying to talk to a lot of the people here about dice influence is like trying to talk an atheist about God, they already won't believe you and nothing you say will change their minds. You have to be open to the possibility otherwise it's useless to talk about it.
Trying to talk to a lot of the people here about dice influence is like trying to talk an atheist about God, they already won't believe you and nothing you say will change their minds. You have to be open to the possibility otherwise it's useless to talk about it.
April 23rd, 2012 at 5:03:22 AM
permalink
Comparing religion to dice setting.... I like it!!Quote: ewjones080Trying to talk to a lot of the people here about dice influence is like trying to talk an atheist about God, they already won't believe you and nothing you say will change their minds. You have to be open to the possibility otherwise it's useless to talk about it.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
April 23rd, 2012 at 6:17:35 AM
permalink
You are correct about the fact that these rolls were tracked on my home table. I also used precision casino dice manufactured by one of the leading manufacturers of casino dice. When playing in the casino I track other players rolls, but rarely track my own. I'm more focused on my toss routine. I'll power up the old computer and post another book or two of rolls for you to consider this evening.
Regarding the rinoplasty comment - I was talking about your past - not your future. I'm too old and too fat to get into trading punches anymore. And if it's of any interest to you - my nose got broke twice in my youth - once when a linebacker put a knee in my face in the days before decent face masks, and once when boxing a guy in high school. Yeah, it hurt both times. Ain't gonna go there again.
As to my practice routine - I practice very little these days. My laptop is perched in the hook and I enter numbers after each toss. I continue until I've filled up a book of 720 rolls - the BoneTracker default book. I might toss one hand a day. That might be a dozen numbers or ninety. If I seven out within the first few tosses I'll usually continue until I get a decent hand. If it's not working for me I walk away. This is the same way I play in the casino. If my toss is off I try not to chase.
My practice session goal is to simulate walking into a casino and tossing a profitable hand and walking out a winner. My win objective will likely be laughable to some of you, but it's a whopping $160 a day. I know at my betting level I can get ahead $160 in most sessions. After I pass the $160 mark I continue to play until the next loss. Then I'll color up and hit the road. My betting strategy varies and depends on how well my toss has been on in practice sessions - and where my confidence level is on any given day. I'll get more into betting strategies when I have a little more time. Also, since there seems to be some interest in it, when I get a little spare time I'll shoot some video in the game room and show you a few tosses. Hey, I live to give.
Regarding the rinoplasty comment - I was talking about your past - not your future. I'm too old and too fat to get into trading punches anymore. And if it's of any interest to you - my nose got broke twice in my youth - once when a linebacker put a knee in my face in the days before decent face masks, and once when boxing a guy in high school. Yeah, it hurt both times. Ain't gonna go there again.
As to my practice routine - I practice very little these days. My laptop is perched in the hook and I enter numbers after each toss. I continue until I've filled up a book of 720 rolls - the BoneTracker default book. I might toss one hand a day. That might be a dozen numbers or ninety. If I seven out within the first few tosses I'll usually continue until I get a decent hand. If it's not working for me I walk away. This is the same way I play in the casino. If my toss is off I try not to chase.
My practice session goal is to simulate walking into a casino and tossing a profitable hand and walking out a winner. My win objective will likely be laughable to some of you, but it's a whopping $160 a day. I know at my betting level I can get ahead $160 in most sessions. After I pass the $160 mark I continue to play until the next loss. Then I'll color up and hit the road. My betting strategy varies and depends on how well my toss has been on in practice sessions - and where my confidence level is on any given day. I'll get more into betting strategies when I have a little more time. Also, since there seems to be some interest in it, when I get a little spare time I'll shoot some video in the game room and show you a few tosses. Hey, I live to give.
"Get in, get up, and get gone"
Steve "Heavy" Haltom
axispowercraps@gmail.com
www.axispowercraps.com/crapsforum
April 23rd, 2012 at 6:32:09 AM
permalink
Quote: heavyYou are correct about the fact that these rolls were tracked on my home table. I also used precision casino dice manufactured by one of the leading manufacturers of casino dice. When playing in the casino I track other players rolls, but rarely track my own. I'm more focused on my toss routine. I'll power up the old computer and post another book or two of rolls for you to consider this evening.
I stand by my original proposal. You will not replicate this in a real casino. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you? You said you had an SSR ratio of 7.83 over 720 rolls. I'll bet you you can't get to 7.5 or better over 720 rolls with me watching in a real casino. Pretty simple.
April 23rd, 2012 at 7:09:23 AM
permalink
I am sure that I'm reading Heavy's last post incorrectly. It looks like he only records 720 tosses if he's winning. If he's losing, the results do not get recorded. Is this correct? Because if I recorded my scores while playing darts only when I toss a bull's eye, I'd come here and brag a out my expert darts skills too.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
April 23rd, 2012 at 7:14:01 AM
permalink
I just want to add a simple question. In any kind of advantage play, the question is the oposite of the Wizard's motto: it's not whether you make a good bet, but whether the strategy wins or not.
Now, I realize an Ap won't win every time, just like the house edge dones't make the casino win every time either. But if a house edge of even 0.5% makes the casino money, then a player edge of 0.5% ought to amke the player money.
The question then is: how much money do dice influencers (controllers, setters, whatever) make when playing craps? Whats' the return on your bankroll investment?
Initially I thought to ask this, becasue it seems dice controllers make money by selling seminars, books and DVDs, rather than as one would expect by playing craps. But the more I've learbed about AP, the more it seems it's not a viable, long term means of earning a living. I think Elliot Jacobson said this on the Wizard's radio show: if you can afford to be an AP you don't need to be an AP.
And we now return to the scheduled flame war...
Now, I realize an Ap won't win every time, just like the house edge dones't make the casino win every time either. But if a house edge of even 0.5% makes the casino money, then a player edge of 0.5% ought to amke the player money.
The question then is: how much money do dice influencers (controllers, setters, whatever) make when playing craps? Whats' the return on your bankroll investment?
Initially I thought to ask this, becasue it seems dice controllers make money by selling seminars, books and DVDs, rather than as one would expect by playing craps. But the more I've learbed about AP, the more it seems it's not a viable, long term means of earning a living. I think Elliot Jacobson said this on the Wizard's radio show: if you can afford to be an AP you don't need to be an AP.
And we now return to the scheduled flame war...
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
April 23rd, 2012 at 7:33:38 AM
permalink
Quote: heavyYou are correct about the fact that these rolls were tracked on my home table. I also used precision casino dice manufactured by one of the leading manufacturers of casino dice. When playing in the casino I track other players rolls, but rarely track my own.
So you don't actually track your bankroll results in casinos and how they correlate to your throwing? That seems backwards to me. Tracking roll results at a home practice table with no other players would seem to have little correlation to your results on a live casino table with a different layout fabric, different physical characteristics, different maintenance schedule and lots of other players. With all due respect, it seems equivalent to claiming you're a good baseball pitcher because you can consistently throw the ball through a hanging tire. Professional pitchers don't judge themselves based on their practice sessions, they judge themselves based on real games facing real batters. And they *definitely* track their statistics -- how often their fastball missed high and away, how often they got the 3rd strike with a slider in a 1-2 count, etc.
I guess if I had spent over a decade learning and practicing a physical skill to beat a casino game, I'd want to know more about how I performed when it mattered: when money was on the line. You wouldn't ever see a serious blackjack card counter spreading only $5-$20. Being an AP is about handle per hour -- if you have the edge, you want to minimize variance and maximize action. Why are you satisfied with such small stakes given the amount of time you have put into this effort?
"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
April 23rd, 2012 at 7:43:34 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedThe question then is: how much money do dice influencers (controllers, setters, whatever) make when playing craps? Whats' the return on your bankroll investment?
If Heavy's last post is accurate, he doesn't track his results in a casino. I can't fathom why.
Quote:Initially I thought to ask this, becasue it seems dice controllers make money by selling seminars, books and DVDs, rather than as one would expect by playing craps. But the more I've learbed about AP, the more it seems it's not a viable, long term means of earning a living. I think Elliot Jacobson said this on the Wizard's radio show: if you can afford to be an AP you don't need to be an AP.
That might be true for blackjack but it's not true for craps. In blackjack, higher action and higher bet spreads gets you red-flagged by management. In craps, higher action gets you private tables. If you're betting $500/hand (or even $100/hand in smaller casinos), you can have the table to yourself. If you truly do have the edge when you're throwing, and presumably nobody else does, it's clearly optimal to maximize the time the dice are in your hands.
"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
April 23rd, 2012 at 7:57:21 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistIf Heavy's last post is accurate, he doesn't track his results in a casino. I can't fathom why.
Well, I don't want to add fuel to the fire.
So I'll just bring up something Larry Niven said about ESP, psi powers, precognition, etc: if such things do exists, they're pretty much useless.
His meaning is that people with such skills should have revolutionized the world merely by being able to do the things they claim to be able to do. Since that hasn't happened, then the conclussion is obvious. I'm beginning to believe the same is true of dice control. Even if it's possible, it's not a good advantage play.
I think there should be a serious controlled study done to settle the question once and for all. I don't think a phycisist would be itnerested in one, but how about a PhD candidate in math?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
April 23rd, 2012 at 7:58:44 AM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerI am sure that I'm reading Heavy's last post incorrectly. It looks like he only records 720 tosses if he's winning. If he's losing, the results do not get recorded. Is this correct? Because if I recorded my scores while playing darts only when I toss a bull's eye, I'd come here and brag a out my expert darts skills too.
I don't think that is what he stated. He'll toss and record regardless, but might stop early if he's not doing so good that day.
As for Sevens-to-rolls-ratio and the number of data points. By my reckoning, hitting 96 or less 7's in 720 rolls (SRR 7.5) is about 0.8% chance (using a binomial distribution). That means 720 rolls looks pretty statistically significant to me. Not conclusive. For 720 rolls, you expect 120 sevens, with a standard deviation of 10. So 24 less, is 2.4 standard deviations away. This is just a bit greater than a 1 in 81 chance to be that far outside either side (2.5 standard deviations), which is about 0.6% chance to be 95 or less Sevens in 720 rolls.
I apologize if I messed up the Maths.
I don't pretend to understand the other stats on in the BoneTracker results or where they come from, so I can't comment.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:03:16 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistIf Heavy's last post is accurate, he doesn't track his results in a casino. I can't fathom why.
Wouldn't recording individual dice results be tricky in a casino? I'd assume though someone would record their wins/losses in terms of raw cash while holding the bones, though. And win/loss while waiting for your turn.
(As an aside, my Grandfathers and Grand Uncles spent some time fighting the aixs powers...)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:08:44 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedI think there should be a serious controlled study done to settle the question once and for all. I don't think a phycisist would be itnerested in one, but how about a PhD candidate in math?
Oh, I can think of at least one physicist who would be interested. Didn't you see the coin-flipping paper by Persi Diaconis?
Besides, we have at least one math PhD on this forum already. No need for a candidate. But even so, you can only settle the question once and for all if the answer is "yes, there was a significant degree of influence". If the results are inconclusive, as have been basically every other attempt at properly investigating this, you're left with a big waste of time. A long time ago, I met a r.g.c member in Las Vegas to watch him throw dice. He had some pretty wild claims of dice control success, but when I saw him throw it was completely uncontrolled and not at all consistent. There were a lot of excuses but no results.
"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
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:10:47 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitWouldn't recording individual dice results be tricky in a casino?
Nah, you see old guys with little notebooks do it all the time. You could even write an iPhone app for it, and that wouldn't break any laws about electronic devices because it's not giving you an edge or predicting anything.
"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
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:20:32 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistOh, I can think of at least one physicist who would be interested. Didn't you see the coin-flipping paper by Persi Diaconis?
I've never seen any kind of scientific paper in my life :)
I just read about them in Discover or Pop-Sci.
Quote:Besides, we have at least one math PhD on this forum already. No need for a candidate.
I was thinking it might be a good subject for a doctoral thesis.
Quote:But even so, you can only settle the question once and for all if the answer is "yes, there was a significant degree of influence".
You do a controlled study, double-blind, in a lab setting, under ideal conditions, etc etc. If the result is that there is no significant degree of influence as compared to expected results by random throws, then that's the end of it. If there is some influence, then that is reason enough to try the experiment under casino conditions without strict controls.
Quote:If the results are inconclusive, as have been basically every other attempt at properly investigating this, you're left with a big waste of time.
If all results are inconclusive, that's enough for me to declare it not a good advantage play.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:53:55 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedI've never seen any kind of scientific paper in my life :)
I just read about them in Discover or Pop-Sci.
I was thinking it might be a good subject for a doctoral thesis.
It might make a good Master's thesis, but for a three year doctorate, I'm not sure there's enough there to make a decent thesis out of.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 23rd, 2012 at 9:00:59 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitIt might make a good Master's thesis, but for a three year doctorate, I'm not sure there's enough there to make a decent thesis out of.
Agreed; it's definitely master's work. All you're doing is exploring and recording known phenomena, not discovering new ones. If I had the equipment (and really, the time) I'd run the study myself. But there are two angles of approach: the purely statistical, and the physical. I'm not a physicist but I've attempted to model dice setting from a physical standpoint. I've made a few assumptions in doing so, some of which are likely incorrect but serve as a baseline for further analysis.
But it's not clear that even the terms are in consistent usage. What is an "off-axis" throw, for example? If I set the dice with the 1-6 on the horizontal rolling axis, does "off-axis" mean that a 1 or 6 are necessarily showing when the die comes to rest? Or just that the 1-6 axis did not remain parallel to the table during the entire roll? That definition alone will have an enormous impact on the statistics.
"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
April 23rd, 2012 at 9:06:39 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistAgreed; it's definitely master's work.
All the more proof I'm not acquainted with scientific publications.
Quote:But it's not clear that even the terms are in consistent usage. What is an "off-axis" throw, for example?
All such things must be defined in advance. But the good thing is that all such things can also be measured precisely.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
April 23rd, 2012 at 9:36:30 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistAgreed; it's definitely master's work. All you're doing is exploring and recording known phenomena, not discovering new ones. If I had the equipment (and really, the time) I'd run the study myself. But there are two angles of approach: the purely statistical, and the physical. I'm not a physicist but I've attempted to model dice setting from a physical standpoint. I've made a few assumptions in doing so, some of which are likely incorrect but serve as a baseline for further analysis.
But it's not clear that even the terms are in consistent usage. What is an "off-axis" throw, for example? If I set the dice with the 1-6 on the horizontal rolling axis, does "off-axis" mean that a 1 or 6 are necessarily showing when the die comes to rest? Or just that the 1-6 axis did not remain parallel to the table during the entire roll? That definition alone will have an enormous impact on the statistics.
A quick look at the bone tracker spreadsheet suggests that "off-axis" is a throw where the dice lands with 1 or 6 face up. A "prime" is where the dice land on one of the set numbers (a set number being the pair showing on the top, bottom or sides of the pair of dice before the throw). A single pitch throw is where the numbers are off by one (e.g. the you get a pair of numbers that were on adajacent faces of the pair of dice) and a double pitch throw is where you get two numbers that were on opposite sides of the dice pair.
E.g set the dice like this (might be easier if you get a pair and look at 'em)
Face Pattern Left Die/Right Die
Top 3 3
Facing You 2 6
Bottom 4 4
Back (to wall) 5 1
Roll 3-3 and it's prime. Roll 2-6 (NOT 6-2) and it's prime.
Roll 3-6 and it's single pitch. Roll 5-6 (NOT 6-5) and it's a double pitch.
Roll 1-3 and it's one die of axis. Roll 1-2 and both die off axis.
Hope that helps.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 23rd, 2012 at 9:49:51 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitA quick look at the bone tracker spreadsheet suggests that "off-axis" is a throw where the dice lands with 1 or 6 face up.
That's interesting, but it seems incorrect (not your analysis, but the spreadsheet itself). I would think an "on-axis" roll would be one in which the axis remains both parallel to the table and orthogonal to the direction of the throw, between the time the shooter releases the dice and the time they come to rest. If you throw the dice on the 1-6 axis, and that axial stability is perturbed at any point during the throw, you did not make an "on-axis" throw. Even if the dice ultimately come to rest with the 1-6 axis oriented in the proper direction. But using the 1-6 axis as an example, it seems that the bone tracker spreadsheet would count a roll of 3,3 as "on axis", regardless of how the dice bounced around before landing.
If the goal is to keep the dice on axis, why wouldn't you actually track how effective you are in doing that?
"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
April 23rd, 2012 at 10:02:30 AM
permalink
I get what you are saying, but I'd worry about that after I could prove I could actually make my "sets" hit more often than chance, to be honest. It would seem to be the next stage to work out what mechanics of the phenomena is, after working out if there is one at all.
One reason I'm guessing it'd be harder to track in a casino... you can distinguish right and left dice as well (I'm assuming at home you use a red and green dice, after all heavy sells two match sticks of red/green dice for $39.99 via his website).
One reason I'm guessing it'd be harder to track in a casino... you can distinguish right and left dice as well (I'm assuming at home you use a red and green dice, after all heavy sells two match sticks of red/green dice for $39.99 via his website).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 23rd, 2012 at 10:20:01 AM
permalink
" but might stop early if he's not doing so good that day. "
Now that certainly won't affect the results. ROFLMAO
Now that certainly won't affect the results. ROFLMAO
April 23rd, 2012 at 10:30:58 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistDidn't you see the coin-flipping paper by Persi Diaconis.
My brother's thesis advisor was Persi Diaconis. Perci knows some great card tricks and is a very interesting man to talk to.
His thesis was Random Walk, Semi-Direct Products, and Card Shuffling. I have been trying to get my brother to join this forum, but his interest would be in the math, not in Vegas itself.
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:13:49 AM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaff" but might stop early if he's not doing so good that day. "
Now that certainly won't affect the results. ROFLMAO
No it won't. If he completes 720 rolls over 1 day or 5 days, makes no difference. If there is 0 effect, it doesn't matter. If there is an effect if he's feeling the dice "throw well" then the effect will show.
What DOES matter if the dice setter doesn't record for the days they "feel off" but Heavy is not making that statement.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:15:48 AM
permalink
Right. And he will warm up and start with a winning streak that second day. Seems he can put his money where his mouth is, but refused that challenge. Dice setter = TOUT
April 23rd, 2012 at 12:10:50 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI get what you are saying, but I'd worry about that after I could prove I could actually make my "sets" hit more often than chance, to be honest. It would seem to be the next stage to work out what mechanics of the phenomena is, after working out if there is one at all.
My intuition is the exact opposite. If I can intentionally make the dice stay on-axis *at all* (using my definition of "on-axis"), I can then start working on the appropriate sets and betting patterns to use given my observed ability. But if I can't make the dice stay on-axis, why bother? I don't care that I'm trying to hit a hard 6, and a hard 6 comes up, if the dice bounced off the puck, a chip stack, and a Hawaiian shirt before landing.
That would make a great prop bet, btw. Anyone want to guess at fair odds for tossing the dice off a puck, chips, and a Hawaiian shirt, and having them show hard 6? Assume for the sake of argument that the Wizard is standing at the far end of the table, suitably attired...
"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
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:19:43 PM
permalink
Quote: waltomealFor what it's worth, my opinion is that Heavy has shown admirable calm and restraint in the face of unprovoked attacks.
That's how some new members are welcomed to the forum. They make a post or ask a question and are mocked and ridiculed especially by a few of the "old guard."
If someone makes a post, they should at the very least get a response that doesn't sound like it came from a 12 year old.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:23:05 PM
permalink
well, let's just say you've probably put a plastic surgeon's kid through college at some point thanks to that rinoplasty surgery you had to have.
I'll give you another one right now and you can really pee your pants.
After I pass the $160 mark I continue to play until the next loss.
****************************************************************************************
Yeah, we are supposed to be enlightened by such dribble.
SOOPOO challenge = Proof of failure !
I'll give you another one right now and you can really pee your pants.
After I pass the $160 mark I continue to play until the next loss.
****************************************************************************************
Yeah, we are supposed to be enlightened by such dribble.
SOOPOO challenge = Proof of failure !
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:38:01 PM
permalink
If the dice stay on axis until collision with the wall, and then turn on a vertical axis only, then maybe it doesn't matter if the 6 is facing sideways or forwards, no?
Erm, that'd be, about, no exactly, 1 in 36. ;)
Quote:Anyone want to guess at fair odds for tossing the dice off a puck, chips, and a Hawaiian shirt, and having them show hard 6? Assume for the sake of argument that the Wizard is standing at the far end of the table, suitably attired...
Erm, that'd be, about, no exactly, 1 in 36. ;)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:40:02 PM
permalink
re $160, if your dice-setting works, why be such a piker?
I'm a piker ... $5-10 on the line pretty much.... but my dice-setting sucks.
I'm a piker ... $5-10 on the line pretty much.... but my dice-setting sucks.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:52:44 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistThat would make a great prop bet, btw. Anyone want to guess at fair odds for tossing the dice off a puck, chips, and a Hawaiian shirt, and having them show hard 6? Assume for the sake of argument that the Wizard is standing at the far end of the table, suitably attired...
I'd bet against anyone claiming they can bounce the dice off a puck, chips and a Hawaiian shirt regardless of the result, or even whether it gets called a bad roll :)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
