Let's Write to MythBusters To do a Show About Dice Control

I have a way to end the dice control debate. Send a group of "experts" to MythBusters and have them do a show about it.

If MythBusters can prove that it is plausible for a person to control the outcome of the dice at a craps table, I for one would believe them. If they say the myth is busted, enough said.

Of course even if it is "busted" by the MythBusters, there will be some people out there that will protest that they could control the dice through their special technique. But I still think it would be an interesting show.

They would never do it, way too boring. I'm
bored just thinking of them doing it. They like
shows where they have to build things and break
things and blow things up. Throwing a pair of
dice just wouldn't cut it..

the myth has already been busted by the multitude of so-called dice setters,
all of whom refuse to submit to independent testing.
NEXT!

Quote: EvenBob

They would never do it, way too boring. I'm
bored just thinking of them doing it. They like
shows where they have to build things and break
things and blow things up. Throwing a pair of
dice just wouldn't cut it..

Not necessarily, they'd just give it to the B team. The Asian guy could build a robotic arm, and I would enjoy watching the hot redhead bend over the table to throw the dice herself.

Quote: ewjones080

Not necessarily, they'd just give it to the B team. The Asian guy could build a robotic arm, and I would enjoy watching the hot redhead bend over the table to throw the dice herself.

I've seen every episode since they came on 10
years ago. This is way too simple and boring.

Quote: EvenBob

I've seen every episode since they came on 10
years ago. This is way too simple and boring.

you mean as apposed to them building green houses on the roof and charting the growth of plants according to what music is playing.....talk about watching paint dry....or should we say "watching plants grow"

Not a bad idea.

Of course they can't blow up, destroy or smash anything. On the other hand, it means a trip to Vegas (you don't bust gambling myths anywhere else, right?), on the company dime, too.

The downside is if they confirm the myth, that will kill dice control forever.

Quote: Juyemura

I have a way to end the dice control debate. Send a group of "experts" to MythBusters and have them do a show about it.

That would not end the dice control debate. If Jesus came down from Heaven and said that Dice Control is all in your mind and that the Atheists were right all along, that would not end the debate either.

Actually, I thought the better judges of whether or not it was possible to influence the outcome of the roll would be either The Amazing Randy OR Penn and Teller. But I'd go with Mythbusters as well. Of course, as soon as he heard there was going to be a TV program about it Frank Scoblete's footprints would be all up my back where he ran over me trying to get to the head of the line.

I've said before, I have no problem with anyone tracking my in-casino rolls. But if you think for a minute I'm going to spend day after day after day tossing the dice in the casino while you track rolls then your are sadly mistaken. I'm not changing my approach to the game just to prove some silly point to a bunch of guys who would immediately come up with some goofball reason as to why the data was flawed or . . . whatever other excuse they needed to justify their positions.

Quote: heavy

I'm not changing my approach to the game just to prove some silly point to a bunch of guys who would immediately come up with some goofball reason as to why the data was flawed or . . . whatever other excuse they needed to justify their positions.

Then you'll understand if I don't believe you because you are unwilling to prove your methods are effective with anything other than your own typing skills on an internet forum.

Quote: s2dbaker

Then you'll understand if I don't believe you because you are unwilling to prove your methods are effective with anything other than your own typing skills on an internet forum.

Dice control is not possible, just like sector shooting
in roulette isn't. Old news.

I say we send the people who claim to possess the magical ability to control dice after they have left their hand to MythBusters to prove their ability.

Quote: JB

I agree that the text which will appear when I click this button is intended as humor and is not a threat

However, if the myth gets busted, then the MythBusters crew gets to blow them up.

JB is obviously out of control with his
button fetish. Can I play too?

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: JB

I agree that the text which will appear when I click this button is intended as humor and is not a threat

However, if the myth gets busted, then the MythBusters crew gets to blow them up.

JB is obviously out of control with his
button fetish. Can I play too?

I agree that the text which will appear when I click this button is intended as humor and is not a threat

JB Needs Help.

Sorry Bob. It's a private club And as Grouch Marx said :

I Don’t Want to Belong to Any Club That Will Accept Me as a Member

Dice control might be too boring in terms of blowing things up, but I think that this myth would interest a lot of people.

Imagine if MythBusters were able to create a robotic arm that was able to throw the dice the exact same way every time. If this robot could prove that this myth is plausible, thousands of people would flock to craps hoping that they could repeat the same results.

A robotic arm can control the dice. A robotic arm can deliver two dice to the same point on the table with the same speed, angle, etc that the DI crowd hopes to duplicate. The robotic arm could softly deliver the two dice using a set to the same point on the back wall so the dice would bounce back the same way time after time (without obstructions such as chips, 10 mph gusts of wind, stickman's stick getting in the way, etc.

I would bet on the robotic arm repeating the same number a hundred times in a row. They can land robots on Mars, why not build a robot that can deliver two dice the same way.

But the robot will not prove anything about human dice control.

The question is if any human can duplicate what a robot can do. The DI crowd preaches muscle memory. Read Sharpshooter's book.

The physics makes dice control completely logical. The weak link is the belief that a human has the skill with two tiny dice.

Even an NFL quarterback, MLB pitcher, PGA pro has a margin of error in their games which can still make them "great" even when they miss. In craps the margin of error is very small. But a robot can overcome that margin... I think very few humans can.

Quote: AlanMendelson

A robotic arm can control the dice. A robotic arm can deliver two dice to the same point on the table with the same speed, angle, etc that the DI crowd hopes to duplicate. The robotic arm could softly deliver the two dice using a set to the same point on the back wall so the dice would bounce back the same way time after time (without obstructions such as chips, 10 mph gusts of wind, stickman's stick getting in the way, etc.

I'm not so convinced this is true, though it's easy enough to test. I believe that dice throws are chaotic and that a robot would not be able to produce predictable results as long as the requirement is that the dice bounce off the back wall. A robot may be able to control a short throw, but casinos are free to no-roll those.

What good is a dice seminar if your casino requires the dice to bounce off (not just come to rest against) the back wall?

I'm not going to take the initiative to write them, but I'm happy to cooperate in any way if the producers take an interest.

I doubt they will, as it would take an enormous sample size to make a convincing case. Even if they get Little Joe, the Dominator, or any other big name in dice setting, and he fails, the other side will still claim he was under too much pressure, or proving one person failed doesn't mean nobody can do it.

Quote: heavy

Actually, I thought the better judges of whether or not it was possible to influence the outcome of the roll would be either The Amazing Randy OR Penn and Teller. But I'd go with Mythbusters as well. Of course, as soon as he heard there was going to be a TV program about it Frank Scoblete's footprints would be all up my back where he ran over me trying to get to the head of the line.

I've said before, I have no problem with anyone tracking my in-casino rolls. But if you think for a minute I'm going to spend day after day after day tossing the dice in the casino while you track rolls then your are sadly mistaken. I'm not changing my approach to the game just to prove some silly point to a bunch of guys who would immediately come up with some goofball reason as to why the data was flawed or . . . whatever other excuse they needed to justify their positions.

Heavy,

Once again I plea with you - do a study. Show us your design. Describe in detail your power analysis. Show us that you disprove the null hypothesis. Film it with others around.

I think dice control is plausible. Very few people can throw a ball at 102 mph with control. Less can hit that ball 400ft. Not many people can hit tennis ball 140mph, and less can return it. But the point is, some can. There isn't any reason that you can't have amazing control over throw of dice.

If no one on this board had every seen professional golf, and then someone explained Tiger's game, they would call you a liar also - so of course you will have critics.

but come on....prove it! It can't be that hard.

Someone on here could help you design and power the study. Others could peer-reveiw it. Then you do it.

Simple simple simple.

Please, oh please just do it. No need for myth busters.

A well designed study that gets rid of most bias would lay the question to rest. The science on myth busters is ridiculous by the way. That wouldn't prove anything.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm not so convinced this is true, though it's easy enough to test. I believe that dice throws are chaotic and that a robot would not be able to produce predictable results as long as the requirement is that the dice bounce off the back wall. A robot may be able to control a short throw, but casinos are free to no-roll those.

What good is a dice seminar if your casino requires the dice to bounce off (not just come to rest against) the back wall?

All excellent points, and this is what got me thrown out of the Bellagio years ago when my dice came to rest against the back wall. I got into a dispute with the crew -- I said the dice only had to hit the back wall and my dice were actually leaning against the back wall three rolls in a row showing 5-4.

The crew said the rule was the dice had to bounce off the back wall a minimum of EIGHTEEN INCHES which I called absurd.

A floor person sided with me and the crew got into a yelling match with the floor person. Later Bellagio managers said the crew was wrong. I had three numbers that were not paid. And the money was not "made good."

The position of the enforcement division of the NGC is that the dice, to be a legal throw, must fly in the air, bounce on the table surface and HIT the back wall. Nothing about bouncing off the back wall.

But a robot could still target part of the back wall, even particular bumps on the alligators, and duplicate that throw over and over again.

However, true dice controllers claim that they can hit the flat wall UNDER the alligator bumps. I haven't measured many tables lately, but I think there is enough room under the first row of alligator bumps to accomplish this.

Look they make precision robots to operate on eyes, hearts and brains -- they can make a precision robot that can deliver two dice. As I said before -- the issue is not if a robot can do it. The issue is if a human can deliver two dice the same way roll after roll. I dont doubt a robot can.

Quote: AlanMendelson

A robotic arm can control the dice. A robotic arm can deliver two dice to the same point on the table with the same speed, angle, etc that the DI crowd hopes to duplicate. The robotic arm could softly deliver the two dice using a set to the same point on the back wall so the dice would bounce back the same way time after time (without obstructions such as chips, 10 mph gusts of wind, stickman's stick getting in the way, etc.

You say this like a fact, but as I've said before, there's enough chaos and entropy added to the system by contact with the felt, the throw and all the rest, I'm pretty sure you can't even make a mechanical arm work to throw dice as you say, so that they end up in the same throw each time.

I would not bet you could make an arm roll 100 times the same number in a row. Not in a casino like conditions (distance, arc, surfaces... and I'll be happy if you had an empty box).

I could be wrong, but chaos is easy to add into a system, and oh so very hard to keep out.

The "ten inch drop" test performed by Steve Forte (which appears to be under some controversy, both his test and the tester) would be a starting point to go from. Even if an on axis soft throw is made through the air, the contact will have the velocity enough for things to make the dice tumble.

I'd be happy to see Mythbusters attempt this (the robot arm seems up their street to me).

It's not necessary or even desirable to roll the same number 100 times in a row. If you could influence the dice 1 out of 20 times, that should still be plenty to overcome the house edge.

Still seems like a stretch to me.

Quote: EvenBob

They would never do it, way too boring..

You are in fact quite right but I sure would like to see that dynamite chick they have on that show. Surely in the end she would blow that pair of dice to smithereens! Though of course it might be more entertaining to attach the explosives to one of those seminar hawking, consultancy fee charging Dice Controllers!

Quote:

Let's Write to MythBusters . . .

MythBusters generally tackles myths of a magnitude that they become urban legend.

Dice control isn't even on the radar.

However, if you're hell-bent on this, here's their myth submission procedures.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I would bet on the robotic arm repeating the same number a hundred times in a row. They can land robots on Mars, why not build a robot that can deliver two dice the same way.

I'd be willing to bet the other side of that.

I don't think they have ever built a robot rocket that can take all of its controlled actions at or prior to launch from the Earth and make a successful landing on Mars. Now if you are talking about a dice-throwing robot that will keep a grip on the dice all the way down the table, push them against the back wall, and then place them gently on the table with the proper faces upward, well yeah, they could build a robot like that, but it has nothing to do with the idea of playing craps.

Talking about robot arms, and thinking about the control logic courses I did, and the general science of things, there's a big difference between chucking dice and using a robot to perform surgery. And it's something human's use as well.

Feedback.

A robot can be precise in the details as it uses feedback to adjust and correct itself. It can work on the Mars surface as it uses the sensors and precise drives to position it self, always correcting small deviations. The control logic has gotten faster and faster, so these corrections are even more natural looking than before. But it's also how a human walks and moves. We use feedback to control our movements. Thing is, for a violent movement of an object that we let go off, there is not feedback. We can try to alter throw by throw (we being the robot arm or the human arm) to zone in, but all those small variations can not be controlled for easily during the throwing motion as a lot of the feedback we need is after the object has left the hand.

That, plus the entropy/chaos introduced by the spinning roll, and I do not think this is a trivial task to be able to use a robot arm to throw dice. I think Alan Mendelson is FAR off base to say "well a robot can do it, so we need to see if a human can". It's not proven a robot can at all, and the physical world is just not precise enough as Alan believe it is for repeatability. And this precision is not something that can be engineered away from the throw or the movement of the dice once they've left the robot's hand.

This topic was already submitted to the show by many others. I don't think it will make a difference, but piling on can't hurt.

Quote: AlanMendelson

However, true dice controllers claim that they can hit the flat wall UNDER the alligator bumps. I haven't measured many tables lately, but I think there is enough room under the first row of alligator bumps to accomplish this.

The misunderstood art of the controlled throw often arises IMO from just this point, i.e. where ON THE BACK WALL that the thrower selects his dice to strike after they bounce. There are three basic places.

They are: (i) Below the dimples, (ii) on the dimples, and (iii) above them. I generally attempt to have the dice bounce high enough that they strike the back wall ABOVE the dimples. On most tables this flat space beneath the inner wooden lip of the table is fairly small (the new casino in my town purchased tables with bouncy surfaces, yet wide and flat wall space above the dimples, which has proven beneficial). If the dice do strike the lip area itself on its underneath edge they are quite often 'trapped' and sent down to the table without any substantial deviation off their intended axis. If they strike the inward wooden area of the rail above this lip, the flat wooden surface of the inner rail means the axis is typically not disrupted either.

Quote: Llew

It's not necessary or even desirable to roll the same number 100 times in a row. If you could influence the dice 1 out of 20 times, that should still be plenty to overcome the house edge.

Still seems like a stretch to me.

This is what I mentioned in the other thread, you don't have to influence a majority of the time to gain an advantage. I'm not sure if 1/20 is enough, but I crunched the numbers for 1/12 and you could get an advantage on inside place bets, plus buy on 4/10. Advantages are small, less than 5% but much larger than card counting edges.


And all the talk about how chaotic the dice are as soon as they leave the shooters hand, I simply don't believe in that. I don't believe the table and the dice are that chaotic of a system. I've had several occasions, where I'll throw the dice, attempting to throw them the same way, and three times in a row, they land the same way, come to rest in the same spot, and produce the same number. I would say that at least two of the throws were "controlled".. but whether or not I've hit the 1/12 mark is another thing, but that certainly doesn't seem outlandish to me.

Quote: ewjones080

And all the talk about how chaotic the dice are as soon as they leave the shooters hand, I simply don't believe in that. I don't believe the table and the dice are that chaotic of a system.

It is not *as soon as* the dice leave ones hand. That is the least of the worries.

It is very easy to control the dice in the air once they leave your hand, one motion *straight* or perpendicular to the back wall gives the best possible chance for success.

The problem begins at the moment each die hits the table. There is energy in those dice and that has to go somewhere.

Then they hit the back wall, and if it is not straight on to the pyramids...

no dice, no control, failure to control, out of control.
Next toss!

You say you have rolled the same number 3 times in a row.
Me too.
You have video proof that the reason they came to rest was exactly because of the control that you wanted to place on them?

They stayed together in the air, they only moved one face one time, not 5 times, or hate to say 7 times???
I do not think you have the proof.

To date no one yet has the needed visual proof.
Again, your are wrong to assume that the end justifies the means.
Back to the videos.

Quote: ewjones080

Advantages are small, less than 5% but much larger than card counting edges.

How much less than 5%. Greater than 4%.
That would give ANY team play with large bankrolls the ability to bankrupt any casino. a 4% Player advantage is SMALL?

NOT!

or a way for one casino to take over another.

This is so silly. If he could do it he'd be DOING IT, not talking about it, not trying to sell lessons. As long as he has his website hawking his snake oil every time he posts, he will keep posting. He found a source of free advertising. For the 99 of us that know it is total mularkey, there will be one lost soul, who just might take the course. Wise people like MathExtremist have shown how much per hour a DI could make if their claims were true, yet he continues to decide to give lessons rather than make ten times as much from using his skill. He is the 'nth' alleged DI who won't be kind enough to take my money when he just backs up his claims. He can't. He knows it. He doesn't care.

What if I drew a silver dollar sized circle 2 feet 9 inches from the back wall? How often could a dice setter land either die within that circle? I mean you must control the rolls to get your combo topside ?

Buzz -

That's NOT the way dice setting / dice control works.

A correct controlled roll means that the dice spin 'on axis.' In other words, in a manner that any of the 4 rotating sides land face up.

The control shooter doesn't really care how far it bounces or rolls, as long as it stays ON AXIS. They just try for the short roll / short bounce to reduce the chance it hits something and gets off kilter.

If you do it right, there is a 2 in 16 chance of rolling a 7, instead of a 6 in 36 chance. That's a HUGE advantage - if it can be done.

Get it?

If you can not control where it stops rolling, I give you ZERO chance of controlling axis, spins, etc.

Quote: Juyemura

I have a way to end the dice control debate. Send a group of "experts" to MythBusters and have them do a show about it.

Mythbusters are unreliable. As a mainstream American show, they have a tendency to avoid possibly promoting anything illegal/"immoral"/etc. Just remember certain car myths, particularly in regards to fooling speed cameras and police radars, where they almost tried to fail, even where others had already succeeded.
I trust them when it's about duct tape, but when it comes to any gray areas, there is a bias, or at least a strong selection bias, i.e. they'll do their homework and won't try things on TV that would end in giving law-breaking or otherwise "bad" advice.

How will it go? Should any real experts exist, they won't come. Someone like JLogan will. Then he'll try to teach the team, plus do some of his own, then make a poorly performing robot, and in the end easily conclude it busted.

Not that I wouldn't like to see it - beats many of the lamer "myths" they do - but it won't come close to ending the debate.

Quote: 7craps

How much less than 5%. Greater than 4%.
That would give ANY team play with large bankrolls the ability to bankrupt any casino. a 4% Player advantage is SMALL?

NOT!

or a way for one casino to take over another.

Exactly. What is the expected result?

Heavy, what is your expected outcome (percent change) and do you have any idea what the standard deviation is?

If so, I can come up with a power analysis (sample calculation) so you can prove to us once and for all! But I really need to know the expected change and a guess at your standard deviation. With all the rolls you have recorded, you should be able to produce those numbers.

And by the way, how come so many people are against the idea that this is possible? To believe that no one can do it is akin to believing that we should close the patent office.

Also, I agree with heavy that just because someone could do it doesn't mean they want to spend 12 hrs/day in the casino doing it to make money. That argument used againt betting systems is a forced either/or. It isn't a good argument. Math of course is....that isn't.

Quote: slackyhacky

To believe that no one can do it is akin to believing that we should close the patent office.

Or to believe that the patent office is correct to require working models of perpetual motion machines that are submitted for patents.

Quote: 7craps

How much less than 5%. Greater than 4%.
That would give ANY team play with large bankrolls the ability to bankrupt any casino. a 4% Player advantage is SMALL?

NOT!

or a way for one casino to take over another.

3.4% on 4/10--at $25 with vig paid always
2.4% on 5/9
4.4% on 6/8

Based on my FABRICATED numbers, it would take 6 months to make any significant money. It took me TWO hours just to shoot seven times, and that was relatively quick. It took me 3.5 hours to shoot seven times the last time I played. Plus, while you don't necessarily have to bet on other shooters, they might not like you taking up a spot on a busy table without betting. That's money that's cutting into your edge.

The argument that someone with control would play constantly doesn't hold any water.

Quote: ewjones080

3.4% on 4/10--at $25 with vig paid always
2.4% on 5/9
4.4% on 6/8

Based on my FABRICATED numbers, it would take 6 months to make any significant money. It took me TWO hours just to shoot seven times, and that was relatively quick. It took me 3.5 hours to shoot seven times the last time I played. Plus, while you don't necessarily have to bet on other shooters, they might not like you taking up a spot on a busy table without betting. That's money that's cutting into your edge.

The argument that someone with control would play constantly doesn't hold any water.

You just proved the advantage is clearly with team play.
So, based on what you just said, it would take a long time for just one player to make any amount of money from their skill and advantage. That allows too much variance for any one player.
Variance is not good when you have a real advantage.

Looks like 7Craps suggested "ANY team play with large bankrolls"
Like a Baccarat Syndicate.
Bac team play works when they exploit something in game procedures that one can gain an edge on or flat out Dealer/Team cheating.

You make a great case why much time is needed to win any money by one DI.

So, a table full of DIs would be the obvious solution.
All DI teachers should then teach for free so teams can alter forever the casino game of Craps.

But, all DI teachers say only a few can really have the DI skill needed to win at Craps, but they will still charge a big fee for their time to teach everyone, knowing they are really just teaching a skill to a bunch of losers in the end, by their own words.

Students at my school have a money back guarantee. PM me for details as casino executives frequently check these forums.
And of course, students must sign an agreement to not play at any Venetian property.

Quote: ewjones080

and I would enjoy watching the hot redhead bend over the table to throw the dice herself.

Cool - I didn't know they even got a new cast member, even though I watch
all the time.

Wow. I can see now why most of you guys don't believe dice influencing works. There's way too much incorrect information floating around among the non-believers. I mean, seriously. At least get the concept down correctly.

Somebody wanted a circle drawn on a layout to see if you can make your dice land in it. I have a grid drawn on my layout - guess I'll have to see if I can post a photo for you later - it's roughly 6" wide by 8" deep. I want my dice to die within that box - and the closer to the back of the grid the better. Getting the dice to die on the grid is not that difficult with practice.

I also routinely practice tossing the dice into progressively smaller containers, ending up with a coffee mug.

I have a hodgepodge assortment of training aids for dice control practice - both mobile and at home. In addition to the table I have a double sized practice rig - roughly 3' wide by 3' deep - a large practice rig about 24" by 24" - several mid-size rigs in the 18" by 18" range, and one micro-rig that's 12" wide by 18" deep - it breaks down flat and fits in a thin attache case. I have toss bars you can set up on your craps table to train you to throw the dice at the optimum angle. I have a laser device that you can use to mark a straight line on the layout. I have a mirrored grip bar you can use when learning to grip the dice at different levels up and down the front faces, while observing it all in the mirror and making on-the-fly adjustments. I have blocks of dice - sometimes referred to as "bricks" that consist of two casino dice glued together. They're great diagnostic tools to check for things like wrist-roll-over when throwing the dice. I'm sure there's more "stuff" in there I'm forgetting. And I didn't even start on the seven practice rigs and two shooting stations out in the garage. Then there's the stuff in the trunk of my car. Oh, man. The list goes on and on.

Don't you guys EVER get to the casino?

And yet you refuse to put your money where your mouth is !

Quote: heavy

Don't you guys EVER get to the casino?

From my experience in reading thousands
of posts on gambling forums, for years,
the only people who use that condescending
expression are themselves usually non
casino go-er's. They're armchair experts.

Clearly heavy spend most of his time with rigs and practice stations. I'm not sure why having such kit is related to "us guys ever going to a casino".

I'm not sure why having multiple different places to through dice on proves or disproves his ability to a) throw numbers outside of random and b) be able to teach people to do this as well and c) be worth paying money to.

But of course, we can always go follow him around and record his rolls. But why would we do that? Those making extra-ordinary claims and the inability to back them up always go that route. Once again, he backs away from any proof or challenge, while clearly if he COULD roll in the ranges he states over even the short term, he'd be a favourite to win a bet (maybe not a bet where both sides would say "this proves my statement", sure), with far better odds offered than those playing dice with a 2-3% edge (for example).

So why would a person who can get a 2-3% edge, and knows it, back away from a bet with 30% edge? It's the lack of negotiation that's very telling. I know these bets never transpire (see: multiple attempts at the wizards challenge, VP discussions etc).

Scared money and anecdotal evidence. Or salesman not wanting his product to be found defective?

I don't blame heavy for not wanting to chuck dice for 6 hours at a time. THAT I can understand. But there's ways to work around that (I found them in my own clue bag).

Quote: thecesspit

Scared money and anecdotal evidence. Or salesman not wanting his product to be found defective?

Aren't you having a Jerry Logan/Singer flashback? ;)

The regular posters here know all about the fraud, the charlatan, but he has still succeeded. There are many who just come and peruse the sight, and if even one has signed up for the 'seminar', HEAVY has accomplished his goal. He has learned over the course of his lifetime of defrauding people how to avoid a straight answer, how to avoid a challenge, and how to keep saying the same inanities. Forget my challenge.... if he could REALLY do this, imagine the value of the Wiz saying he witnessed a dice setter making a claim, and actually accomplishing it! I'm not holding my breath.....

All of these posts, of course, make the assumption that I've come over here to promote my seminars, yet you guys are the ones who keep bringing up the subject - even to the point of cutting and pasting text from one of my websites onto this one - in effect promoting the seminar (thanks Mr. V).

Interestingly, on my forum I recently asked players who were tracking rolls in Bonetracker to post their most recent 720 roll book of results. One member posted his results, which showed an SRR in the low fives. Here are his numbers:

Toss count- 720
SRR- 5.33
BSR- 3.47
Both On Axis- 45.97
PFH -8.33
Single Pitch- 23.89
DP- 13.75
Left Off- 165
Right Off- 156
Total One off- 44.58
Both Off- 9.44

Okay, quick review - SRR is lower than average, as is BSR. Both dice on axis is better than average but his primary face hits are lower. Meanwhile single pitch and double pitch hits were up significantly. Both dice were off axis less than norm. So you tell me. Is there any indication of influence in these numbers? How many percentage points will any one of the foundation frequencies have to vary from standard to demonstrate an exploitable edge? How would you bet if you had this data in advance of the shooter getting the dice?

Soopoo - you continue to beat a dead horse. I've told you that it is common knowledge when and where I conduct my seminars. I'm really not that hard to find in the casino on those weekends, but in case you can't find your way around I'll be happy to provide you with directions, date and time. Show up and track rolls. I could care less. Toss a few bucks on the table if you want. Not going to bother me as long as you get your bets in early and keep your hands out of the way when the dice are out. But forget the side-bet idea. It's been done to death.

As for the Wiz - he has good taste in shirts from what I've heard. I also like the dice chick from his video. I understand that she's a "dealer-tainer" at one of the downtown casinos. Dice Coach (Beau Parker) tells me that he's met Michael a time or two and that he's a great guy. So clearly he has some stuff working for him. But I don't really need him - or any other third party to verify my numbers. I've had math majors, engineers, nuclear scientists, and rocket science guys in my class before. Many of them keep signing up for reunion get-togethers. Add to that list someone like Stanford Wong, whose credentials aren't that shabby, and I think I'm good. And while Mr. V took a shot at me over the fact that John Patrick gave me a pretty solid endorsement a few years back, dubbing me the "crown prince of craps" and heir to the throne when it comes to craps play - I'm okay with both the endorsement and John's friendship.

Wow Heavy, did you plug these numbers into Dice Tool? Your boy needs to use the All 7's set and clean out the casinos! How about a SRR of 7.7!! 5.7% advantage on the pass line. Bet the Hardways! 24.7% advantage on the 4/10 22.6% advantage on the 6/8. Wish I could shoot that good!