Influencing the Outcome of the Roll

Quote: thecesspit

Erm, that'd be, about, no exactly, 1 in 36. ;)

I mean that if you fail to get the dice to bounce off Mike's shirt, you lose the bet. I'm not asking the conditional probability of a hard 6 *after* you've bounced the dice off the other things, I'm asking whether you're a good enough shooter to make the ricochet in the first place. It's a totally illegal proposition in Nevada: it's based on an exceptional degree of physical skill. I'm just curious as to the line you'd offer.

Quote: MathExtremist

I mean that if you fail to get the dice to bounce off Mike's shirt, you lose the bet. I'm not asking the conditional probability of a hard 6 *after* you've bounced the dice off the other things, I'm asking whether you're a good enough shooter to make the ricochet in the first place. It's a totally illegal proposition in Nevada: it's based on an exceptional degree of physical skill. I'm just curious as to the line you'd offer.

Anyone else thinking of the Bird v. Jordan McDonalds commercial?

Quote: 1BB

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.

I have proposed a SIMPLE challenge. He has not responded. My post does not sound like it comes from a 12 year old. I have not ridiculed him. I have just stated a fact that each and every 'dice controller' has made the claims, then when asked to put their money where their mouthis, have meekly faded away, as it is likely Heavy will do.
By the way, I really have nothing to lose in my challenge. If I am wrong, then I will be Heavy's best friend for life, following him around making gobs of money on his rolls. If I am right, then whatever Heavy is willing to wager will be mine.

Quote: thecesspit

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?

I think that's right. If a die caroms off the back wall and spins on its bottom face, the top face is still top. (That's what dice sliders intend to do, btw.) What I'm generally getting at is establishing some mechanical basis for believing that you are exerting some control over the dice *in the way you intend*. If you intend to keep the dice on axis, and they bounce everywhere instead, your outcomes don't matter. Heavy seems to be tracking something called "single pitch" and "double pitch" outcomes, but if that's based on the underlying too-broad definition of what "on-axis" means, those don't have much meaning either. Suppose I have the 3s up on both dice with the 1s facing left and the 2s facing toward me. A roll of 3,3 would be a desired outcome, and a 3,2 would be a "single pitch". If I throw and the dice bounce randomly all over the place before they land with a 3, 2, I did not just achieve a "single pitch" result. I had an off-axis result. Suggesting that that 3,2 outcome, with that process, is indicative of some control is fallacious. As they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Quote: MathExtremist

I mean that if you fail to get the dice to bounce off Mike's shirt, you lose the bet. I'm not asking the conditional probability of a hard 6 *after* you've bounced the dice off the other things, I'm asking whether you're a good enough shooter to make the ricochet in the first place. It's a totally illegal proposition in Nevada: it's based on an exceptional degree of physical skill. I'm just curious as to the line you'd offer.

:) I thought you might have been being facetious as well.

Quote: MathExtremist

I think that's right. If a die caroms off the back wall and spins on its bottom face, the top face is still top. (That's what dice sliders intend to do, btw.) What I'm generally getting at is establishing some mechanical basis for believing that you are exerting some control over the dice *in the way you intend*. If you intend to keep the dice on axis, and they bounce everywhere instead, your outcomes don't matter. Heavy seems to be tracking something called "single pitch" and "double pitch" outcomes, but if that's based on the underlying too-broad definition of what "on-axis" means, those don't have much meaning either. Suppose I have the 3s up on both dice with the 1s facing left and the 2s facing toward me. A roll of 3,3 would be a desired outcome, and a 3,2 would be a "single pitch". If I throw and the dice bounce randomly all over the place before they land with a 3, 2, I did not just achieve a "single pitch" result. I had an off-axis result. Suggesting that that 3,2 outcome, with that process, is indicative of some control is fallacious. As they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Sure, but if I hit a single pitch result more often than random blind squirrels, is that not important? Or, put it another way, until I can sure -merely- getting more "on-axis" results than random chance dictates, why bother looking to see if they are due to a perfect axis roll or something else? If I can get -what looks like- a on axis roll 1 time in 10 more than I should, that would seem to be a good starter to start looking at the flight of the dice. I don't think dice setters claim to be able to pitch the dice true every time.

Not least as it's a much easier experiment to run. If I get a 3,2 result more than 1 in 36 times, wouldn't that indicate something? (20 rolls out of 720, s.d 26.5, which means we'd need a lot more rolls than 720 to show a useful result here.

What you say though is something I hadn't considered when thinking about why back-propogating a changed dice set with the same rolls is nonsense (e.g. if I'd just thrown these 720 rolls with a box cars set over a flying V set I'd have made 0.45 extra units). Obviously without known how the dice mechanically tumbled, we can't possibly say what you "would of" got if the dice had started in a different position.

ed431322

Quote: 7craps

Right there is what DIs do not want to do. No collision with the wall. gently roll and just touch the wall. That is where the control comes from.

DIs are the ones that consistently NEVER touch or hit the wall.
When I dealt in Reno, my boxmen always got pissed off at DIs, they take too long to shoot the dice and never heed the warning to 'hit the wall' as they again only want to touch the wall.

Don't just believe my BS.

How about Dale Yeazel views and whys.
Controlled Shooting is Bullshit!

I knew I should have clarified that further as "until the collision with any other object" rather than merely "the wall".

Quote: thecesspit

I knew I should have clarified that further as "until the collision with any other object" rather than merely "the wall".

No need.
The rules are to 'hit the wall' or make your best attempt to hit the wall, not any object.
DIs want the dice to roll and just ever so lightly touch the wall and nothing else or we can expect an infinite number of excuses why that did not happen.

Quote: thecesspit

Not least as it's a much easier experiment to run. If I get a 3,2 result more than 1 in 36 times, wouldn't that indicate something? (20 rolls out of 720, s.d 26.5, which means we'd need a lot more rolls than 720 to show a useful result here.

Yes, it's easier, but as you noted, far more tedious. I wouldn't want to stand at a table, practice or real, for as many hours as it would take just to collect statistical information without understanding the mechanics underneath it.

Quote:

What you say though is something I hadn't considered when thinking about why back-propogating a changed dice set with the same rolls is nonsense (e.g. if I'd just thrown these 720 rolls with a box cars set over a flying V set I'd have made 0.45 extra units). Obviously without known how the dice mechanically tumbled, we can't possibly say what you "would of" got if the dice had started in a different position.

Bingo. (and I'm going to BingoWorld in 3 weeks...)
The assumptions that have been made about how to set the dice, and what to look for, have always seemed particularly unfounded to me. It *seems* proper to try to minimize the frequency of sevens because that's how the shooter ends his hand. But is it? Turns out, no. The fact that sevens lose after a point is established is mostly offset by the fact that sevens win the pass bet right away. So SRR is, for most purposes, a useless measurement.

As an aside, it's impossible to achieve an SRR of greater than 8 rolls per seven unless one can not only keep the dice on axis, but keep them pitching at the same rate. SRR is infinite if you can keep the dice pitching together and you use the hardways set. The level of influence required to achieve such a result is so extreme, I really can't fathom how Heavy isn't a wealthy man. Let me put it another way since that argument has clearly been made before and, accurate or not, has been dismissed by the dice-setting proponents. Assuming a certain ability to control the dice, the player's edge on the passline is 1.8% with an SRR of 6.015. Under the same model, if the player has an SRR of 7.5, the passline has an 80% player edge. So I can't explain how Heavy has an 80% player edge and is still bothering with seminars. A black chip player with an 80% edge makes nearly $1000/hour even at a full table. At an empty table, that goes way up to over $4000/hour. I'll tell you this: if I could make $4000/hour whenever I wanted, I'd "work" 4-5 hours a month and take a lot of vacations. And pay off my mortgage, and save for college, and ...

The cynics among us might say that the logical conclusion is that since Heavy can't make $4000/hour even though he has an SRR of 7.5, he doesn't have an SRR of 7.5. I'll leave that for them to say, though it looks like at least SOOPOO already got there.

Quote: 7craps

Controlled Shooting is Bullshit!

That was excellent.

Quote: MathExtremist

SRR is infinite if you can keep the dice pitching together and you use the hardways set.

That is exactly what I attempt to do every time I shoot the dice! Doesn't matter whether it is a come-out roll or after the point is set.

Now, I have admitted here many times that I'm not quite so foolish as to believe that my shooting technique actually has any affect on how the dice come to rest, but it sure adds to the fun of the game! I would love to have the chance to spin the roulette ball in my own special way -- it might even be enough to get me to take up the game.

Greetings, dear hearts. With a tip of the hat to Brother Dave Gardner. This is a hoot. You guys out-posted me something like 30 to 1. Hop the aces for $25. Let's keep the dice rolling.

Once again, I'm not even going to attempt to do the snippet quote thing since you guys obviously have me out-manned. Alas, since for the many of you are off target on your assumptions it really doesn't matter.

Hey 7-Craps. Time for some of that anecdotal evidence the guys over on usenet used to hate so much. Eight or nine years ago I was doing a seminar in Reno. Typically on Friday night of these deals we have a little meet-and-greet get together in a local brew pub. On this occasion it was at Brews Brothers in the El Dorado. We (my fellow coaches and I) had already determined that we wouldn't be playing at the Eldo because of their reputation for sweating the money. But as we were leaving the casino we passed a completely empty table. One of my friends said "Hey, Heavy! Table for four - no waiting." Those present were yours truly, Maddog (creator of BoneTracker), Irishsetter (founder of the original dicesetter.com website) and our mutual friend and running buddy, Roadrunner. I quickly pointed out that we had agreed that we were not going to play at that property, but the other guys were already at the table buying in, so I joined them. As soon as we started buying in the box started giving us a lecture about the rules at the El Dorado. "If you are planning to set the dice in this game both dice have to hit the back wall every time. The first time the dice miss the back wall I will call no roll. The second time it happens the dice will be passed to the next shooter and you will be through shooting at this property." I said something to the effect that "that's pretty radical considering none of us have even touched the dice yet." Well, by the time we had our chips a phone call had been made and the table games manager was at the table. "Which one of you guys is Heavy?" he asked. I looked over at Irishsetter and said "Your worst nightmare just came true," then raised my hand and said "That would be me." Next he asked "Which one of you is Irishsetter?" Irish squirmed and said "busted." The TGM then proceeded to question us about what we were up to, how many people had signed up for the seminar, where we were holding it, and how this dice control thing worked. So, the dice came to me first and I set them to the crossed sixes, which I used as my primary come-out set in those days, and established the five as my point. He said, "Okay, now you have the five as a point, what are you going to do next?" So, I showed him. I set the dice with the 3-2 on top and the 1-4 facing me and explained that I had the dice set with fives and nines showing all the way around. Then I picked up the dice and tossed them so that they landed about 2 inches from the base of the wall, bounced up against the bottom row of pips, then died against the base of the wall 3-2. Well, suffice to say the TGM uttered a few expletives, then pointed at me and told the boxman "That guy has to hit the back wall with both dice EVERY time or you pass the dice." Then he stormed off in a huff. We played once around the table, won a few (very few) bucks and then colored up and headed back to our hotel. And no, obviously I cannot replicate that feat every time I touch the dice. But once in awhile you catch a little bit of old Tinkerbell in a bottle. BTW, I liked that graphic. Hat's off to whoever came up with it.

Now, just a couple of comments on what has gone before. Folks, you just can't have it both ways. First you tell me that SRR really does not mean anything, it's things like actual influence of the dice - controlling pitch and axis - that matter. Then you turn around and say SRR matters. Then you say "no, it's only the money you take off the table that matters." Then I hear "you are selectively choosing which rolls to count by quitting when things aren't going the way you want to - when in fact that is exactly how I play in the casino. Why would I want to stand there and continue to hand over my bankroll when things aren't going well? This isn't like blackjack where we have a pretty good idea of the composition of the shoe and can range our bets accordingly. Then again, how many times of you card counters left in the middle of a bad shoe - supposedly to take a bathroom break? Yeah, you know who you are. And you demand consistency from me? Seriously. No wonder "Hot Blonde" had enough of your insults and childish behavior and stopped posting on the forum.

Hawaiian shirts. Good choice, Wiz.

Well, since you did not like my numbers I'll show you some from one of my former students. I won't identify him except to say at the time he came to me he was working at the executive level in the electronic gaming industry. I have no idea what he was earning back then but today similar positions in similar companies pay around $500K. I suspect he was knocking down $300K or so back then. He was already quite skilled at dice influencing when I met him. What he really needed was to gain some confidence in his shooting and back it with his betting. I'll post his numbers, then tell you what's happened with him since.

Toss Count 720

Sevens to Rolls Ratio (SRR) 15.32

Box Number to Sevens Ration(BSR) 11.43


Both Die On Axis 333 46.25%

Primary-Face hits 94 13.06%

Single-Pitch hits 185 25.69%

Double-Pitch hits 54 7.50%

One-Die Off Axis

L: 162
R: 144
T: 306 42.50%

Both Die Off Axis 81 11.25%

Okay, a slight case of pre-mature posting as I fumble along on the old laptop. Here's the rest of the story. I made a LOT of money off this guy's shooting. I'd like to make a lot MORE off his shooting. Unfortunately, he no longer plays in the places I hang out. His business takes him to China frequently, so once a month or so he hits the casinos in Macau. His play is almost completely funded by a couple of very high rollers there. We plays his own action, but his backers give him a percentage of what they win off this shooting. He takes a gunslinger approach to DI - giving them just enough that they keep inviting him back. He admitted to me last year that he was making much more off DI these days than he is from his "day job." And I feel confident that his day job is kicking off upwards of a half million a year at this point, since he is not the #2 guy in his organization and owns a couple of other start-ups outright.

Okay, enough fodder for tonight. I'll let you guys chew on that awhile and if I have time I'll check back in tomorrow.

Peace, love and fluffy bunnies. Lord knows you guys could use some joy in your lives.

He won so much money from casinos he had to invent a company and an alias. Non dice setters know him as Bill Gates !

You can't fool me, Buzz. You're playing $5 blackjack in some dump in Colorado and you suffer from forum post envy. But hey! I like you. It appears you were born during the last Great War and I suspect deep down inside you are a patriot. Salute!

So.....are you going to accept SooPoo's challenge?

If I accepted every challenge that comes down the pike from a forum poster looking to make a name for himself I'd never have time for anything else. I will make him the same offer I've made others in this situation. Anytime you want to come follow me around the casino and track rolls you are welcome to do so. I'm not going to post my seminar schedule here out of deference to the forum owner's rules, but I'm not hard to find. Can I promise I'll have an SRR of 7.8 or whatever over the course of 720 Rolls? Hell, you'd probably have to follow me around two or three seminars to see me get that many rolls in. Then again, I might surprise you.

Now for an example of how stories can grow with the telling. A few years back I have pretty much a stellar weekend in Vegas. Early in the morning I tossed an hour and forty minute hand at the Golden Nugget - something like 57 rolls as I recall. The guys I was playing with joined me for brunch, then we went back down to the casino and bought in at another table, where I was told that I'd just missed it - a player on the other table had held the dice for two hours and won something like $200K. In truth, the entire TABLE might have dumped $200K. I damn sure didn't win that much. Anyway, that's how these "legends" are born sometimes.

After that session we wandered over to Binions and tossed an hour and twenty minute 61 number hand. Most of the guys who were with me departed for other properties at that point, assuming the big rolls were done for the day. Then the dice came back around to me and I tossed an hour and a half hand that totaled 66 numbers. Am I amazing or what? No. Because after that third hour-plus hand I walked across to the 4 Queens and went point-seven-out three times in a row. In my language "the universe was owed some sevens" and it collected. Things have a way of balancing out. I just try to tip the scales in my favor a bit.

Here's another funny story from the Heavy vault of anecdotal evidence. One night back about six years ago I was doing a joint seminar with Dice Coach in Vegas. On Friday night we had a little party at his place - around 30 guests - and as we like to do at these events - we held a "No Sevens" contest among the "shooters." And yes, I competed along with everyone else. Beau and I actually started out very well, then Stanford Wong put a little "juju" on me when I overheard him telling another person "Heavy's going to win this deal." Well, suffice to say Heavy didn't win. The format - each person participating tosses the dice six times - or until the seven shows up. Once they toss a seven they're out of the game. If you complete your six tosses you proceed to the next round. Well, by the time we get to the final round the last two contestants are Wong and the wife of one of my friends, South Shore Swamie. Swamie's wife, by the way, is a pick 'em up and fling 'em kind of gal. Which she did. All the way to victory. So there you had around twenty guys who were hardcore DI's, and we all get shut out by the randy gal. Which is exactly what SHOULD happen from time to time. Dice Influencers do not exercise perfect control. They influence the outcome of the roll. But they are still subject to going point-seven-out or tossing a lot of shorter hands broken up by occasional monsters. We're subject to the same volatility of the game as everyone else - but we just start out with less of a disadvantage - or with an advantage. But it's not something you can measure like card counting and cannot be thought of in the same context.

Quote: heavy

Now, just a couple of comments on what has gone before. Folks, you just can't have it both ways.

Heavy, when five different people reply, they will have six different questions and opinions. Hnece you'll see people making different comments. It's not "having it both ways" if person A says "that doesn't matter" and person B says "no, wait, THIS doesn't matter". That's two people, with two different opinions.

Quote: heavy

Then I hear "you are selectively choosing which rolls to count by quitting when things aren't going the way you want to - when in fact that is exactly how I play in the casino. Why would I want to stand there and continue to hand over my bankroll when things aren't going well?

Why wouldn't things go well if you have mastered the art of controlling the dice after they leave your hand?

How do you know things won't get better unless you keep playing?

I admire your dedication, in the sense that you have an actual craps table in your house, but I think you are applying your passion to the wrong pursuit.

Quote: heavy

I made a LOT of money off this guy's shooting ... He admitted to me last year that he was making much more off DI these days than he is from his "day job." And I feel confident that his day job is kicking off upwards of a half million a year at this point, since he is not the #2 guy in his organization and owns a couple of other start-ups outright.

Yes, Heavy, of course you are "confident."

As I am "confident" that this "former student" of yours learned the magic skill at one of your seminars.

*yawn*

I think I've seen this movie before ...

Coming up: Heavy will flog his upcoming seminar: only $599 for new students.

Wait for it ...

Wouldn't it be possible to build a machine that could test whether or not a particular set and toss, performed the same every time, that met all the criteria of a proper casino toss, would yield a significant change in the outcomes?

Set the dice, toss the dice, read and record the result, and gather the dice. It could have enough dice that it could have another ready to toss and record when the new dice were cleared. Seems you could get thousands of samples per day.

re: heavy's response to accepting the challenge.
tl;dr
short answer:
no.

In response to Nareed's comment a few pages ago... I agree that the edge you could get with dice control is so small that in a lot of ways it's not worth it.

If you follow the advice of some dice control teachers, if you have thousands to spend on equipment and seminars and tens of thousands to fund a bankroll, then you already make enough money that the small amount you would win in a casino isn't worth the time and effort. Quite frankly I'm not sure why I still try because I know that IF I have an edge, it's so small that I won't be able to make any significant money. The gas I spend to get to the casino and the couple of beers I get after shooting, and the money I lose on other shooters is at or slightly more than I can expect to win on my throws. Thus my small bankroll will never grow, to where I can start making considerable money.

At this point, what would need to happen, is an extraordinary streak of luck, where I can double my buy-in each session, and increase my buy-in by say 50% the next time, until I reach the limits I want to bet at, THEN have a few more doubling session to build a bankroll that could sustain losses. Only then would I be able to consistently make money. This of course is assuming I have an advantage, which I don't claim to have.

I love a good thread on dice control, dice setting, dice influencing... So I have to state my beliefs and experience just for the discussion:

1. I believe the concept of dice influencing is possible. Just as there are great pitchers and quarterbacks and golfers, there are a few skilled dice shooters out there who can influence the dice to travel lightly, stay together, stay on axis, hit the wall softly, and bounce and roll softly.

2. While I believe a few have the skill there are other variables out of the control or influence sphere of the shooter: a crowded table with chips, a worn spot on the felt, perhaps a table with a bounce that is different from any other table.

3. I reject the concept of owning a practice rig because no two tables have the same bounce. You can practice your throw as easily on your bed.

4. While I have seen dice influencers and have seen shooters with expert tosses -- the best, most profitable rolls I have ever been on came from "random rollers."

5. I think it doesnt hurt to try to influence the dice. In fact, it can't hurt. It might not help, but it can't hurt. So why not try? You can get lucky with dice influenceing just as you can get lucky with a random throw. You can get unlucky with a controlled throw just as you can get unlucky with a random throw.

6. Craps is a negative expectation game, so you are going to lose mathematically. So if you are destined to lose mathematically, you might as well try dice influencing. You also can try saying extra prayers. It doesn't hurt.

Personally, I set the dice. I try to influence the dice. Sometimes I get lucky, and sometimes I dont.

Quote: QuadDeuces

Wouldn't it be possible to build a machine that could test whether or not a particular set and toss, performed the same every time, that met all the criteria of a proper casino toss, would yield a significant change in the outcomes?

Set the dice, toss the dice, read and record the result, and gather the dice. It could have enough dice that it could have another ready to toss and record when the new dice were cleared. Seems you could get thousands of samples per day.

QuadDeuces, over the years I have asked for the same thing: build a machine that would toss the two dice the same way every time to the same exact position on the table. If you did build such a machine it would PROVE that dice influencing works. Its basic physics. For every action there is a reaction. If two dice are thrown the same exact way to the same exact spot each and every time the dice will have the same result each and every time.

Thats science. But thats not the issue.

The issue is can a human being throw two dice the same exact way and hit the same exact spot each and every time with NO variance at all in their throw or point of impact, angle, speed, table condition, air current, bounce effect?

In theory dice influencing/control works. It's the actual application by a human being is the question. Can a human being throw two dice the absolute same exact way even twice? I don't think so. That elminates the claims of "dice control."

Now, can a human being come relatively close to throwing two dice about the same way each and every time? Well, "about the same way" covers a lot of ground, and that makes "dice influencing" possible.

A machine could beat the casino with a high level of certainly. No human has the precision of a machine.

Quote: AlanMendelson

A machine could beat the casino with a high level of certainly. No human has the precision of a machine.

Which begs the question, in 20-50 years, when they've perfected bionic limbs, and you can now throw dice with the same precision as a machine, would any casino allow you to throw the dice, cause you now are using a "machine" or "electronic device" to allow you to gain an advantage?

I think that the dice are so light weight that even a machine that could toss the dice the same way with the same force every single time would not be able to produce consistent results. There's still about 3 to 6 feet of air through which the dice must traverse and that can't be controlled. There's the vibration of the floor from people walking around. I think that even a machine will produce random results.

Oh, and thanks to Heavy's awesome new method of statistic tracking, I am now a champion dart thrower because I only count when I hit a bull's eye.

Quote: s2dbaker

I think that the dice are so light weight that even a machine that could toss the dice the same way with the same force every single time would not be able to produce consistent results. There's still about 3 to 6 feet of air through which the dice must traverse and that can't be controlled. There's the vibration of the floor from people walking around. I think that even a machine will produce random results.

Oh, and thanks to Heavy's awesome new method of statistic tracking, I am now a champion dart thrower because I only count when I hit a bull's eye.

Be fair, he didnt state he only tracks winning results. He said he stops if the day is bad, but still tracks.

Quote: heavy

If I accepted every challenge that comes down the pike from a forum poster looking to make a name for himself I'd never have time for anything else. I'm not going to post my seminar schedule

Well... now we know... you likely have NEVER accepted ONE challenge, because you are smart enough to know you would fail. And let me guess, your 'seminars' are only $49.99.... Please go away, Mr. Blowhard....

Quote: SOOPOO

... because you are smart enough to know you would fail.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement, SOOPOO?

Quote: Doc

Do you have any evidence to support that statement, SOOPOO?

No direct evidence. But those with a 'seminar schedule' will evade all real attempts at being actually monitored, and of course will never put up a dime of their own money in support of their claim. I gave him a chance, and as I predicted he cowered....

Quote: AlanMendelson

Thats science. But thats not the issue.

The issue is can a human being throw two dice the same exact way and hit the same exact spot each and every time with NO variance at all in their throw or point of impact, angle, speed, table condition, air current, bounce effect?

If you can build a machine that throws the dice the same way each time, and according to the theory of how dice control works, you could gain useful information from building it. For one thing, if the machine cannot get the expected results, then dice control is simply not possible and no one should bother trying to learn it. Then, too, if the machine does get the expected results, you have a yardstick to compare human performance.

The major trouble is that immitating human movement is a hard thing to accomplish through machines. That could render comparisons useless.

You see there are three questions here:

1) Is it possible to control the dice?
2) Can people control the dice?
3) How much does dice control affect the house edge.

Let's say the asnwers to the first two are yes, but the third is 0.01% in favor of the player over the existing house edge. Well, then it's true, but useless. Kind of like counting cards in Baccarat.

Quote: SOOPOO

No direct evidence. But those with a 'seminar schedule' will evade all real attempts at being actually monitored, and of course will never put up a dime of their own money in support of their claim. I gave him a chance, and as I predicted he cowered....

He really can't accept, can he? If he accepts and fails - whether or not he does influence the dice on average, variance still exists - , seminar attendance wanes as a result of the credibility hit.

That said, if the influence were real, there'd be MUCH more money in playing than in teaching. The lack of playing suggests yet another blow-hard scam.

Quote: SOOPOO

No direct evidence.

I was referring to evidence of being smart, or at least smart enough.

Quote: ewjones080

In response to Nareed's comment a few pages ago... I agree that the edge you could get with dice control is so small that in a lot of ways it's not worth it.

It's a bit like the advantage of buying up every lotto ticket for millions. If you already have millions, why do it? Well, at that level you can make a few millions more, if you don't have to share the prize.

Now, let's say good dice control brings you an edge of 0.5% over the house. I lack the skills to do the math t tell me what that would mean betting, say, pass line at $25 with 3,4,5X odds, but you now have a positive expectation, right?

Of course, there are many uncertainties. Table conditions, obstacles, and even Dan Marino had bad days throwing the ball. So perhaps you can't have a consistent advantage, therefore it's still a gamble. You'll get an edge over the house if you can play well, but you don't know until you play how well that will be. and this just brings us abck tot he original point.

Now, it could be, as has been suggested, that only a few, rare people can excel at dice control enough to be really good and consistent at it. Fair enough. There are a bunch of competent QBs in the NFL, but only four or five are really great for their generation. But then offering seminars would seem to be unethical. I mean, a merely competent QB can still win more games than he loses, while a merely competent dice controller may not win more money than he loses.

What we keep coming back to is: we need good, quantifiable data regarding all these claims.

Quote: SOOPOO

And let me guess, your 'seminars' are only $49.99....

Pshaw; if you are going to dream, dream big.

seminar : see post #7, on John Patrick's message board:

"My next seminar will be over in Albuquerque the weekend of June 22nd ... Anyone interested in signing on for the weekend's events is free to e-mail me ... and I'll be glad to send out more info. Tuition is $499 if you've done a class with me in the past - $599 if you have not. That $599 includes a copy of my seminar on DVD, which normally sells for $189. The full seminar class is limited to ten students. Eight slots remain available at this point."

Hey, there's money to be made in dice setting: IF you put on seminars; oh wait, 8 seats still remain, only 2 are taken? Time to beat the bushes and drum up some more new marks, I mean, new customers.

"BTW, I cleared mentioning the seminar with John beforehand for those of you who are concerned about such things."

The only ones "concerned about such things" are Heavy and John Patrick; Patrick has previously announced that Heavy will succeed him and take over his board when the wolves finally tear him down.

Imagine ... the annointed successor of John Patrick, coming to the Wiz's board to flog his wares.

The man has got chutzpah.

Nareed you make some great points. For example, athletes can have bad days even though they are considered exceptional performers. However, many of the greatest coaches in sports history were not necessarily successful athletes. The same can be said for any profession that requires skill--Just because the person isn't succesful, doesn't mean they can't instruct/coach in their area.

As for Heavy, why would he want to become a professional gambler when he has a secure job with benefits and a consistent paycheck? Also, everyone is exposed to variance of the game, even the Wiz (when he lost his huge bet on No Safety). Professional gambling isn't the most stable of jobs.

Heavy can have seminars and only has to prove to his buyers that his information is relevant enough to purchase. There will always be two camps regarding DI--You believe it can be profitable or you believe it is impossible.

I'd be fascinated to see what kind of abject losers will pay $600 for such a seminar. So, Doc, he is smart. If he can get 10 bozos to pay him $600 for a weekend of mumbo jumbo then I can only applaud him. I would pay to watch the suckers, if only for the entertainment value!

Quote: JamieV

Nareed you make some great points.

Thank you.

Quote:

For example, athletes can have bad days even though they are considered exceptional performers. However, many of the greatest coaches in sports history were not necessarily successful athletes.

Sure. The skills that make someone a great athelte have little or nothing to do with the skills that make someone a great coach. John Madden, for example, did not have a distinguished playing career, but he was a great coach. Mike Ditka was both. It varies.

Quote:

As for Heavy, why would he want to become a professional gambler when he has a secure job with benefits and a consistent paycheck? Also, everyone is exposed to variance of the game, even the Wiz (when he lost his huge bet on No Safety). Professional gambling isn't the most stable of jobs.

No argument there.

Quote:

Heavy can have seminars and only has to prove to his buyers that his information is relevant enough to purchase. There will always be two camps regarding DI--You believe it can be profitable or you believe it is impossible.

I can buy that. Perhaps some people can't influence dice well enough, but can successfully coach others in how to do it. But a good coach should know the limits of the players he coaches. If I knew how to teach a dice control method that would work only for the very best players, say with 1 out of every hundred, I couldn't morally charge for it, knowing 99 out of every 100 will merely be paying me money for no clear gain at all.

If I did charge, I'd feel morally obligated to offer a money-back guarantee without time limits.

So to summarize, I am acurious as to whether dice control can work at all, and how much of an advantage can be had. But I'm highly skeptical. So much so that I won't even consider annecdotal evidence. Anyone can get lucky, even very lucky. Stanford Wong tells of a player who made 1.5 million with dice control, then eventually lost it all with dice control. This is annecdotal evidence, too, and not proof of anything. But it does point towards dice control as unreliable at best and useless at worst.

Quote: AlanMendelson

QuadDeuces, over the years I have asked for the same thing: build a machine that would toss the two dice the same way every time to the same exact position on the table. If you did build such a machine it would PROVE that dice influencing works. Its basic physics. For every action there is a reaction. If two dice are thrown the same exact way to the same exact spot each and every time the dice will have the same result each and every time.

Exact isn't possible. Small variations will cause larger changes in the end result (see chaos theory). I believe someone built amachine to drop two dice the same way from a short height onto a craps felt. They found there was no repeatable trends there either.

So, while the machine dice thrower sounds like a decent concept, I'm not convinced that building a machine would be worth the time and effort.

Heavy's rejection of SooPoo challenge is telling. Not that it was rejected, but the terms in which it was rejected. "Some guy wanting to make a name for himself" says it all. It says "I'm already too big and important to have to prove anything". If you could do what you state, 6 hours work at a "seminar" chucking the dice instead for $6,000 (*) would be the same as teaching ten folks for the day at a dealer's school. Maybe you need to do it over 3 2 hour sessions. Still, it's gotta be a better deal than a seminar if you can throw 7.5 SRR consistently.

SRR not the right one? Fine, give another metric on dice chucking that can be put to the test. Make a claim there, a quick calculation by someone can easily show what the percentage chance of making that claim given fair dice and a random throw. If you are a couple standard deviations away from that baseline, both sides should be able to come to an agreement.

(*) SooPoo did say "name your wager", but I am not assuming the amount he'd gamble. Just showing for comparisons sake, you can make 6 grand one way or another from dice control. And I'd wager dollars to donuts, winning such a challenge would be worth the same again several times for the advertising.

Quote: heavy

Sevens to Rolls Ratio (SRR) 15.32
Box Number to Sevens Ration(BSR) 11.43

If the box and craps numbers were otherwise properly distributed, these results yield greater than a 200% player edge on the passline. Even at a full table, with $100 line bets you can clear $4500/hour with a 200% edge. At an empty table, you're making $21,000 (yes, twenty-one thousand dollars) per hour. You are seriously wasting your time earning money in any other way if you have this dramatic an ability to alter the edge. Even the top litigators in New York only go for $1250/hour. $21,000/hour is in the realm of CEOs, top athletes, and movie stars. And you have a day job as an employee for someone? That's hardly plausible.

It also stands to reason that if a human can produce this significant a change, a machine should have no problem doing so.

" And you have a day job as an employee for someone? "

Let's not be judgmental. Walmart needs every greeter on it's payroll.

Quote: s2dbaker

I think that the dice are so light weight that even a machine that could toss the dice the same way with the same force every single time would not be able to produce consistent results. There's still about 3 to 6 feet of air through which the dice must traverse and that can't be controlled. There's the vibration of the floor from people walking around. I think that even a machine will produce random results.

There is an article somewhere [someone posted it here] that posits that the factor of changing velocity is bigger than intuition would hold. This can be seen in the formula for momentum, which is proportional to mass times velocity squared. Human intuition tends toward feeling that the bigger car coming at us when we cross the street has all the momentum to fear, but it is the speeding one to look out for.

The point was that slight changes in velocity tossing the dice produced dramatically different results and the article writer was able to conclude through experiment that it was a bigger factor than these you cite ... which, however, are also valid.

velocity squared kills

ed4313777

Quote:

I think that the dice are so light weight that even a machine that could toss the dice the same way with the same force every single time would not be able to produce consistent results. There's still about 3 to 6 feet of air through which the dice must traverse and that can't be controlled. There's the vibration of the floor from people walking around. I think that even a machine will produce random results.

The machine would prove that "dice control works" or "dice control doesn't work." If the former, the remaining question would be if it was possible for a human to get profitably close enough to the machine's results.

A 180 in darts is a feat the pros accomplish with stunning regularity.

Mobbing has made the forum uninhabitable. Smell ya later.

Quote: waltomeal

Mobbing has made the forum uninhabitable. Smell ya later.

Oh, so now we aren't allowed to pass comments, and have to line up, one by one? Bah, and humbug.

Quote: QuadDeuces

The machine would prove that "dice control works" or "dice control doesn't work." If the former, the remaining question would be if it was possible for a human to get profitably close enough to the machine's results.

A 180 in darts is a feat the pros accomplish with stunning regularity.

Dart throwing is not sensitively dependent on initial conditions (i.e. chaotic). If a pro misses a 180, he is likely hitting a 140 or 100. Moreover, it is immediately obvious that a dart player is skilled simply by correlating the results with the intentions. One can measure how far away a dart went from its intended target. Professional level dart throwers are those whose distance between intention and actual results is minimized. A dart throwing machine (a gun of some sort) could do far better. Robotic guns are well known.

Dice are different. If you are aiming at a particular spot at the far end of the table and intend to roll a 6, a slight miss does not mean you will throw a 5 or 7. It means that the dice become completely randomized or, at a minimum, behave in a way that nobody has yet properly modeled. Dice rolling is chaotic.

That's not saying that humans can't influence the outcome of dice. But the demonstrably successful techniques are not compliant with casino craps rules. It's against policy to shoot dice using blanket rolls or whip shots.

Quote: waltomeal

Mobbing has made the forum uninhabitable. Smell ya later.

Heaven forbid that more than one person should have an opinion. It's not our fault that the OP holds a minority opinion - and it's not like he didn't know that was the case before he posted.