Ahigh Show Tuesday at 7:30pm Pacific Time

Quote: MrV

Alan, don't interject science and the scientific method into the discussion, you'll lose him for sure.

Just keep pummeling him with the "WTF,dude" posts.

They rock.

I have a computer that generates random numbers. At least Alan is contributing. What exactly, besides mockery and sarcasm have you contributed?

I said it last night during your broadcast and I'll say it again. I appreciate what you are doing and your effort. And I am viewing with an open mind. BUT, the show and the slow motion showed without a doubt that there was no control in your shot. Not one shot out of the 200 did I see the dice hit, bounce and rest on the same axis. That is the only way I can think of that control could be showed. 0 for 200. Even when you said it felt good or looked good to you, it wasn't when reviewed by you afterward.

I'd love to see your streak of hard 10's on slow motion. You say that is what you were trying to do. I beleive anyone could have done that in 200 rolls and I believe the slow motion will prove there was absolutely no contol. Please review those and give your opinion.

ZCore13

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Ahigh/library/_SloMo

I will say this: there's nothing obvious to me of how I could get these hard tens back to back.

Even though I did it as I expected to do it, there's nothing obviously less than random in how it happened to me.

Quote: Ahigh

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Ahigh/library/_SloMo

I will say this: there's nothing obvious to me of how I could get these hard tens back to back.

Even though I did it as I expected to do it, there's nothing obviously less than random in how it happened to me.

Thanks for making this public, Ahigh. All of your shots are random. There is no control. The only influence you have is that you kept the dice on the table. I have seen real controlled shots -- and you don't have it my friend. God bless you.

Say hello to me the next time you're at Caesars. My invitation for dinner is still open.

Superrick, I look forward to seeing your throws.

Quote: Ahigh

I have a computer that generates random numbers. At least Alan is contributing. What exactly, besides mockery and sarcasm have you contributed?

I am the fierce light of reality piercing through a blizzard of dice setting BS.

It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

FWIW, I shoot craps regularly and enjoy the game immensely: that's why i spend time on these gambling boards.

I've said all along that dice setting is an affectation that does not change the inherent randomness of dice shooting; it seems you agree, at least you recognize that you do not have "the Gift."

Given that admission, i.e. since you recognize that you have no more control over the dice than I do, what exactly is the point of you rolling dem bones every Tuesday and televising it?

Dude, give it up already.

Quote: MrV

I've said all along that dice setting is an affectation that does not change the inherent randomness of dice shooting; it seems you agree, at least you recognize that you do not have "the Gift."

Given that admission, i.e. since you recognize that you have no more control over the dice than I do, what exactly is the point of you rolling dem bones every Tuesday and televising it?

Dude, give it up already.

Interesting response.

First and foremost, if advantage play craps is possible, referring to it as "The Gift" is a derogatory label you have created. Your usage of this term is very abrasive towards anyone who has been able to obtain statistical evidence that they could perform a controlled shot.

Secondly, I do agree and I have stated repeatedly that "dice setting" does not change any randomness. Dice setting is what transforms a biased throw to benefit your bets. Dice setting is useless without a biased throw where you are familiar with exactly what bias you expect to accomplish.

For example, the expected bias I hoped to achieve last night was more hard fours and more hard tens based on similar results I obtained recently with a similar toss.

If I wanted hard 8's and hard 6's instead, I would have used a 3535 set instead of a 4242 set.

If you can't understand that part of the theory from your perspective, you're just making broad sweeping comments that are generally irrelevant to the topics I intended to cover last night.

The appearance of sevens was unfortunate and unlucky. However, it's the appearance of hard fours and hard tens as a ratio of the total rolls that I was specifically interested in. The verbal dialog with the hours of broadcast last night is the evidence of what I was looking for primarily.

In hindsight, I should not have committed to recording those throws for my other purpose of demonstrating a higher RSR.

Nevertheless, I made the mistake of doing this (trying to accomplish two goals at once .. more hard fours and hard tens back to back and simultaneously fewer sevens).

Your conclusions are interesting, and possibly not without merit.

However, making the jump that we see eye to eye is merely hopeful on your part, Mister Vee. For that you would need more good fortune than I had bad fortune to have so many sevens in the latter part of the session last night.

Quote: Ahigh

The expected bias I hoped to achieve last night was more hard fours and more hard tens based on similar results I obtained recently with a similar toss.

What is "the expected bias" that you hope achieve in the next show?

Quote: Ahigh

Now I will preface this with this is not entirely fair, but I am isolated the moments when I was accomplishing the roll that was bringing out the hard ten.
The whole goal of this session was to get those hard tens to come out one after another like they were in the casino.

Hard4
(roll hit)
9
72
73 >>back to back
116
117 >>back to back
190
at least twice back to back in 200 rolls about a 1 in 101 shot

Hard10
NO Hard 10s in the first 104 rolls
0.053409257 or about 1 in 19
(roll hit)
105
107
108 >>back to back (at least once back to back in 200 rolls about a 1 in 7 shot)
The sequence H10,X,H10,H10 {1,0,1,1} has a probability in 200 rolls of
0.409395%
or about 1 in 244.26
148
167
182
184
188 >> 3 in 7 rolls: 0.000689709 or about 1 in 1450
8 H10s in 200 rolls: 0.087439579
(8 or more 0.194852130) about 1 in 5

Quote: Ahigh

If I wanted hard 8's and hard 6's instead,
I would have used a 3535 set instead of a 4242 set.

Your 4242 set (and earlier 6262 set)
looks like it has done well for the H6 & H8 in the past.

3398 rolls to date in WinCraps shows your hardways for both sets you used
(expected number 94.4)
H4: 99
H10: 100
H6: 107
H8: 112
Total: 418 (40 more than average)
mean: 378
sd: 18.3
418 or more in 3398 rolls: 0.01557 or 1 in 64

I missed last night's show but will have a view later tonight
You showed you used the 4242 set to throw more H4 and H10s in your last 200 roll session.
Does this mean you use a different throw with the same set
to have more H4s and H10s or
is it more about positive thoughts during your throw with the 4242 set?

added:
Dr. Joe Gallenberger
http://www.synccreation.com/about-joe
"His students achieve strong altered states of consciousness and energy,
resulting in dramatic physical and psychological healing,
strong influence over dice and slot machines, and many beautiful manifestations in participant's lives at home."

Good Luck

The fact that you said you were working on hard 4's and hard 10's prior to the show and got more hard 10's than any other hard way is not that hard to do. There are only 6 hardways. You singled out two of the six. That's a 33% chance that you were going to have more of one of the hardways you chose than any other.

I would like you to always try and roll for hard 10's and see how it goes. Always going for hard 10's and ending up always (or most of the time) having more hard 10's would help prove your theory.

ZCore13

Quote: 7craps

You showed you used the 4242 set to throw more H4 and H10s in your last 200 roll session.
Does this mean you use a different throw with the same set
to have more H4s and H10s or
is it more about positive thoughts during your throw with the 4242 set?

I absolutely use a different throw, or at least variations on the same throw, even when I don't intend to.

But my goal was to throw as similarly as possible to how I was throwing recently that led to these hard tens back-to-back and then my hope was to have video to hopefully show something that wasn't random leading to evidence that a controlled shot was possible.

I missed this:

Who originally reported making 8 hard-tens within 200 rolls?

"8 H10s in 200 rolls: 0.087439579"

Where and when?

Quote: Ahigh

I mentioned this to Tupp on the way in but I wasn't initially even intending to record rolls because I wanted to do something different and that was to try to hit as many hard tens in as few rolls as possible and get it on film and try to isolate one of those shots to see if it looked random or not.

The reason I asked you what the objective for you next show is because before this show you did not mention trying "to hit as many hard tens in as few rolls as possible." In fact, you had posted before the show that your goal was an entirely different number:

Quote: Ahigh

"If I throw the dice tonight, I would like to chart out hard 8 parlay bets and try to hit another 3 hard 8's with no easy live. Someone brought up the idea that I might be throwing my money away betting the hardways which have a 2.78% edge per roll instead of 0.5%. In theory, with my throw, I have the edge on the hard 8 bet. Even over the course of 3000 throws. Of course that is just theory, but a live performance would put me on the spot to demonstrate if the theory might mean something or not."

Quote: AlanMendelson

I missed this:
Who originally reported making 8 hard-tens within 200 rolls?
"8 H10s in 200 rolls: 0.087439579"
Where and when?

I have not yet watched the show from last night but Ahigh posted the dice rolls and showed it here
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/12821-ahigh-show-tuesday-at-7-30pm-pacific-time/69/#post233593

H10 8/5 ( 4.00% - 2.78% = +2.44)

He actually did not roll any H10s until the 105th roll
So he really rolled 8 H10s in 94 rolls.
A 1 in 186 shot.
I want to see the slo-mo vids on them too.

Quote: 7craps

He actually did not roll any H10s until the 105th roll

How many H8's did he roll?

From last night
H2: 4
H4: 6
H6: 3
H8: 7
H10: 8
H12: 5
total: 33

5.6 is the average
33.3 avg for all pairs

@ 7craps, good find
thanks for sharing



Dr. Joe Gallenbergerhttp://www.synccreation.com/about-joe
"His students achieve strong altered states of consciousness and energy,
resulting in dramatic physical and psychological healing,
strong influence over dice and slot machines, and many beautiful manifestations in participant's lives at home."

Good Luck

I watched the broadcast live, except for about 20 minutes that I got disconnected and couldn't re-connect, and I viewed the slow motion clips he provided of the hard rolls afterward. There is absolutely no control in any one of the 200 rolls. The cat in the room was more accurate in predicting good rolls than Aaron was. Many times he claimed "good roll" or something to that effect as it left his hand and hit a 7. Many times he said it felt and looked good but then looked at the slow motion and admitted there was no control of the shot at all. 0 for 200. What happened was just luck. He had bad luck in a few more 7's than would be expected and good luck that a few hard 10's came in the second half of the roll.

As I mentioned, if he continues to concentrate only on hard 10's and is able to show a significant amount of more hard 10's than expected over thousands of rolls, then there might be something to talk about. He said he was concentrating on hard 4's and hard 10's. 2 out of 6 possibilities for hard-ways. He nailed a 33% chance. Do it again and again, then you might show some influencing.

ZCore13

Quote: SanchoPanza

The reason I asked you what the objective for you next show is because before this show you did not mention trying "to hit as many hard tens in as few rolls as possible." In fact, you had posted before the show that your goal was an entirely different number:

Quote: Ahigh

"If I throw the dice tonight, I would like to chart out hard 8 parlay bets and try to hit another 3 hard 8's with no easy live. Someone brought up the idea that I might be throwing my money away betting the hardways which have a 2.78% edge per roll instead of 0.5%. In theory, with my throw, I have the edge on the hard 8 bet. Even over the course of 3000 throws. Of course that is just theory, but a live performance would put me on the spot to demonstrate if the theory might mean something or not."

No you're right. I stated that goal before going to the Silverton and accomplishing all those back-to-back hard tens. After coming back from doing that at the Silverton at lunch, I was thinking more hard tens than hard 8's, and I verbalized that through the show, including at the moment when I hit the first hard ten I joked at that point verbally that the whole point of the show was to have back-to-back hard tens and the first one I hit wasn't until after a hundred rolls!

Click the link to hear that moment where I verbalize "the whole show was supposed to be to see how many hard tens I could roll and my first one at roll 110 ..."

http://youtu.be/jxeKk73zpok?t=52m

So it should be obvious for those who watched the whole show that I was trying to hit hard tens and not hard 8's for the show. But you're right that I stated hard 8's before I was hitting hard tens at lunch and also noting that I was hitting lots of hard tens at California Club last Friday.

But I'll give you that my goals did change between noon yesterday and 2:40pm yesterday due to what happened at the casino. I detailed exactly what happened in the casino at around 2:40pm yesterday as I was making plans for the show.

I also verbally stated my goals, and in general I would have been as happy with hard8's or hard 6's back to back. It was really the back-to-back nature that I was going for even more than which hardway I had.

I have done back-to-back hard tens more than any other hardway back-to-back though historically. And you can see that in my videos and I also know it personally from my throwing. But of course chance could be a factor there; I'm not saying I know why.

Here's where I stated the goal for the show. And please do note that the goal wasn't to roll fewer sevens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxeKk73zpok

And for what it's worth the whole goal of trying to find a shot that doesn't look random has been the result of everyone saying that all my videos like the 9 hardways in 10 throws looked like random shots.

I didn't watch the entire show. How many soft tens?

Nine times.

Zcore13

I rolled 8 hard tens in 84 rolls. For those 84 rolls that's nearly 10% of every roll that was a hard ten, Alan.

As stated as the first hard ten appeared on the 110th throw, "the entire point of the show was to roll hard tens."

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/12821-ahigh-show-tuesday-at-7-30pm-pacific-time/69/#post233596

It's interesting that you said the show was a disaster and then later ask these questions and admit you didn't watch it.

Good job!

Click this link to see the 110th throw when the first hard ten appeared:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxeKk73zpok&t=52m

Quote:

Alan
I didn't watch the entire show. How many soft tens?

Funny that as a reporter you would want to take hearsay information to be used against your buddy,..Ahigh. If everybody went along with the poster that responded to you,.. if he posted that Ahigh rolled 25 soft 10's where would you be?

You are always saying that Ahigh is not going about his research the wrong way, now how can you ever make a statement like that when you have to be one of the worst ones for doing any kind of research. Taking hearsay on anything just doesn't get it. If you are so interested in what he is doing, watch his shows. That way you have the real information you need to write an article that is 100% true, from your view point and it's not based on hearsay information!

There are many things that are posted on different craps boards that are based on hearsay, by the time they reach the board the story is blown so far out of proportion that it doesn't even come close to what happened. Like someone hitting a four point fire bet two time during the week they were in Vegas, by the time it hits the boards, they hit the fire bet for six point four times!

You owe it to everybody that reads what you are writing, to do your own research if you are going to post back on something!

Yeah, after admitting what a failure things had been up until the 110th throw that all I was trying to do was hit a hard ten, by the end of the show, 8 hard tens.

I don't know how more explicit and honest it could get about what I was trying to do than admitting when the first one hit that it seemed like failure that this was ALL that I was trying to do.

It was funny, but hopefully those who questioned what I was trying to do can see just from watching a minute starting at the you tube link above that this is what happened. It went from no hard tens to hard tens coming quite a bit.

And sure it could be luck. But as I explain at the beginning of that you tube video, the REAL goal was that assuming I was getting all these hard tens as the result of anything besides randomness, the REAL goal was to get what they were doing to come up so often on slow motion and take a look to see how it might be the tens were coming up more often!

I don't expect everyone to understand what I was trying to do.

But I went to great lengths all along the way to both explain WHAT I was trying to do and that it was DIFFERENT from what I was trying to do on previous shows, and go into detail TALKING about what I was trying to do.

And still people just say, things like "it was a disaster, that show!"

Followed by "I didn't watch the whole thing!"

I will do my own research into the slow motion results myself and then I will put all the slow motion videos together and talk about what I am seeing if I can see anything in how the dice are bouncing that could explain getting this many hard tens as the result of anything besides luck.

It is very likely to just be luck. But I am doing a directed approach to show even a tiny hint at something besides randomness occurring using all the knowledge I have to this point.

It's like a needle in a haystack type of problem though. It's not going to be easy to see anything in there even if it is in there.

And when the critics come in and say "it's all random" .. Jesus.

It makes all this work seem like a waste of time. Like presenting caviar to a trailer park banquet.

Ok, so you had a bad run of no hard 10's during the first half and then a good run of hard 10's during the second half. After reviewing your hard 10 rolls, how much control did you see? I know it's what you wanted to do, but dice flying all over the table and doing what you wanted is still random.

ZCore13

Quote: Ahigh

I don't expect everyone to understand what I was trying to do.

To what would you attribute the 180 turnaround? Changing the dice? Changing the throw? Changing the target? Changing anything else?

I haven't had time to look in detail into the slow motion, but at a glance I didn't see anything yet.

As I said, it's like a needle in a haystack trying to get visual confirmation of non-randomness.

Your comment that "dice flying all over the table" implies randomness is neither very scientific or helpful.

By the math, when I'm expecting 5.55 hardways in 200 rolls and I get 8.00, there might be one or two that were not the result of randomness.

So I gotta look at all eight throws, and try to weed through them to see if I can find the one or two that might have not been random.

It's also possible that each of the 8 throws was 69% random and 41% controlled on average.

Certainly the old "wow, when I look at those they look random, and I've been playing craps for so many years I know they are just random" kind of comments.

This stuff takes a lot of time, and I get "the show was a disaster" and "dice flying all over the table" kinds of feedback for my efforts.

THANKS GUYS!

Take two seconds to take a shit on what I'm doing and to put me down. I really appreciate that.

Quote: SanchoPanza

To what would you attribute the 180 turnaround? Changing the dice? Changing the throw? Changing the target? Changing anything else?

The first part of the show I think I was throwing how I have thrown on previous shows.

The throw I did at the casino yesterday to get all those hard tens also produced a bunch of sevens.

But I really don't know what's different about the throw that's getting all the hard tens and getting more sevens, but there is a correlation.

One of the reasons I was contemplating not recording the results is because I was getting a shit-ton of sevens at lunch yesterday too, and I was fearful of recording that and blowing away my data saying I had good RSR's.

But you know what? It doesn't really matter anyway.

As far as how the throw is different, I don't know.

I'm trying to figure it all out, but I don't know right now.

Quote: superrick

Quote:

Alan
I didn't watch the entire show. How many soft tens?

Funny that as a reporter you would want to take hearsay information to be used against your buddy,..Ahigh. If everybody went along with the poster that responded to you,.. if he posted that Ahigh rolled 25 soft 10's where would you be?

You are always saying that Ahigh is not going about his research the wrong way, now how can you ever make a statement like that when you have to be one of the worst ones for doing any kind of research. Taking hearsay on anything just doesn't get it. If you are so interested in what he is doing, watch his shows. That way you have the real information you need to write an article that is 100% true, from your view point and it's not based on hearsay information!

There are many things that are posted on different craps boards that are based on hearsay, by the time they reach the board the story is blown so far out of proportion that it doesn't even come close to what happened. Like someone hitting a four point fire bet two time during the week they were in Vegas, by the time it hits the boards, they hit the fire bet for six point four times!

You owe it to everybody that reads what you are writing, to do your own research if you are going to post back on something!

I must say, this is the first time I was ever criticized for asking a question on a discussion forum. All I asked was "How many soft tens?"
If the response that I got was incorrect, I am sure someone would have corrected it, superrick.

And regarding Ahigh's claims-- the research has been done, and it was done years ago. Several people here have already commented that Ahigh does not have a controlled shot. He doesn't. Look at the slow motion videos of Ahigh's rolls.

I do not criticize him for trying because we all try, don't we?

That he threw hard tens or any tens is not supportive of his claims. He had random shots that came up "ten." That's interesting to see.

I look forward to seeing your rolls on the Ahigh Show and I hope we get to see them in slow motion also.

Well let me help you out. I watched the whole show, except a short time when it disconnected. I watched every roll and listen to every comment. I watched every slo motion replay during the broadcast and the ones you posted afterward.

There was nothing different from the first half throws and second half throws except random luck. Your dice were coming out the same, sometimes you were saying it felt good, sometimes not, but it never really correlated to what ended happening. I never saw a roll where the two dice hit the same and rotated the same. I never saw a roll where they both stayed on the same axis. I would say there were a few short rolls that didn't rotate much, but they were only one die rolling short. That's not going to get you anywhere except warned or removed from the table.

Every shot out of the 150+ that I saw had at least one die that rolled wildly and most of them had both doing it. You can't have the dice rolling all different ways, bouncing different ways, rolling not on any specific axis and say there was any control. Your 8 hard 10's were 69% random and 41% contolled (we won't even count the fact that it equals 110%). Are you insane? Please show a roll with even a slight bit of control when you have the time.

Aaron, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Good job to you for trying to prove a theory. Good job for putting it on tape. Thank you for taking the time. The problem is you are not looking at it clearly any more. You are biased. You believe you have some control with 0% proof. Not one throw that you can show you controlled. If you want to do this for research purposes, then do it and just take the results as a whole (not a 200 roll session) when you are done. If you are going to defend your "skills" and claim you have 41% control then stop being a baby when you are criticized for saying that with no proof.

ZCore13

Quote: Ahigh

THANKS GUYS!

Take two seconds to take a shit on what I'm doing and to put me down. I really appreciate that.

Unfortunately Ahigh not everyone sees it your way. You have to be prepared for the ciriticism of your claims. This isn't supposed to be the Ahigh fan club. Several people here are really interested in finding out about the truth of dice control and dice influencing. If you are going to take these comments personally I suggest you just put the info on your own website and require a password to see it. That way only your supporters and fans will be there to pat you on the back and say attaboy.

I am not criticizing you for trying and I don't think anyone else will criticize you for trying. In fact, I hope you succeed in your quest to prove dice control and to be a dice controller. But you have to be willing to accept challenges to your position and prove your claims.

There is an expression in the TV business when something goes wrong with a production: "This isn't brain surgery and no one died."

And this is only a discussion about craps... it isn't brain surgery and no one is going to die either.

Quote: Ahigh

I haven't had time to look in detail into the slow motion, but at a glance I didn't see anything yet.

the slo-mo you posted and the ones I viewed shows the dice never did stay on axis one time even if they ended up as looking like they did.
IMO, on axis control- no way

Quote: Ahigh

By the math, when I'm expecting 5.55 hardways in 200 rolls and I get 8.00,
there might be one or two that were not the result of randomness.

Not even.
ALL 100% random unless proven otherwise.
That is the null hypothesis.

In 200 rolls one could get 0 to 200 H10s.
201 possible outcomes.
8, H10s is the 6th highest outcome. Well within the bell curve.
slightly more than 1SD away from the mean.


This is where not understanding all the possible outcomes and their probabilities can lead to many false conclusions.
"I must have some control because 8 is way greater than 5.56"
this has no statistical significance what so ever.
The Wizard can correct me if I am wrong on this one.

I see no statistical evidence, or video evidence, that there was any control that can be made to go forward.

Does not even raise one eye brow.
This is reality.

If you were betting real $$$ on the H4 and H10 after 100 rolls you quit.
I would.
You lost too much.
They were not coming.
Even flat betting all 200 rolls, you are only up 2 units.

can this be carried forward??
I say no.
200 rolls is just that.
Let us see the next 4, 200 roll sets
I am sure they may be coming

Thanks
Two Thumbs up for an entertaining (for me) video

Great post and analysis as usual 7craps!

ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

Aaron, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Good job to you for trying to prove a theory.
Good job for putting it on tape.
Thank you for taking the time.

+1

Quote: Zcore13

The problem is you are not looking at it clearly any more.
You are biased. You believe you have some control with 0% proof.
Not one throw that you can show you controlled.
If you want to do this for research purposes, then do it and just take the results as a whole (not a 200 roll session) when you are done.
If you are going to defend your "skills" and claim you have 41% control then stop being a baby when you are criticized for saying that with no proof.
ZCore13

Any DI needs to start with the null hypothesis that they have no control
and all their rolls (legal casino rolls) are random.

The alternative hypothesis would be that not all their rolls are random and some show control.

All data gathered would accept the null hypothesis first unless something at least at the 1% level for at least 1,000 dice rolls
would cast doubt and we could reject the null hypothesis at a 1% error rate.

Any statistical data showing control or changing the house edge would have to go forward and not backwards,
meaning more rolls... can it continue??

But NO DI wants more rolls. At least practice rolls.
Ahigh has shown many 3000+ and still counting.

After 500 or so, one could pass a Pro Test for on-axis, pitch control - even show an edge over the house -
they, in their minds, are set for life.

They have the skill, so they believe over those 500 rolls or so, but not always,
just like random rollers, the losers according to FrankS.
The skill comes and goes, so bet more when you have it.
No statistical evidence is needed past this point.

It is all about having fun and making $$$ playing Craps.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: Ahigh

THANKS GUYS!

Take two seconds to take a shit on what I'm doing and to put me down. I really appreciate that.

Unfortunately Ahigh not everyone sees it your way. You have to be prepared for the ciriticism of your claims. This isn't supposed to be the Ahigh fan club. Several people here are really interested in finding out about the truth of dice control and dice influencing. If you are going to take these comments personally I suggest you just put the info on your own website and require a password to see it. That way only your supporters and fans will be there to pat you on the back and say attaboy.

I am not criticizing you for trying and I don't think anyone else will criticize you for trying. In fact, I hope you succeed in your quest to prove dice control and to be a dice controller. But you have to be willing to accept challenges to your position and prove your claims.

There is an expression in the TV business when something goes wrong with a production: "This isn't brain surgery and no one died."

And this is only a discussion about craps... it isn't brain surgery and no one is going to die either.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Ahigh... get real. Your performance on Tuesday night was a disaster.

So you're saying this was not a criticism? This was the comment that I took personally. So you're saying when you say stuff like that, and I set out to do exactly what I intended to do and you said later you didn't even "watch the whole show" I'm not supposed to "take it personally?"

Seems pretty personal when it comes out that you have a comment like what a disaster the show was .. THAT YOU DID NOT EVEN WATCH.

But sure, keep on with whatever else you want to say to make up for that.

You've made other personal attacks on me (manners, etc). So don't tell me not to take your personal attacks personally, Alan.

7craps: as usual, great post. I know it's cherry picking but if you look at the binomial distribution of achieving 8 hardways in 84 rolls, that would be interesting as well. All of the hardways appeared in a quick span 84 rolls.

Quote:

Alan

I must say, this is the first time I was ever criticized for asking a question on a discussion forum. All I asked was "How many soft tens?"
If the response that I got was incorrect, I am sure someone would have corrected it, superrick.

Alan this has nothing to do with criticizing you for asking a question, we all do that to find out facts, when they are not obvious. This has to do with you getting the facts for yourself when they are available, so you are not going to get something wrong. You of all the posters on this board should be getting all the facts right, you make your living from what you are reporting on.

If you got something wrong on your TV show you would look awful foolish. In a way you are doing what everybody on this forum is saying Ahigh is doing with his videos, cherry picking one thing that you haven't even seen for yourself, sloppy work on your part!

Alan you will not see me shooting on Ahigh shows I've got nothing to prove by doing so. Nor do I believe that he will get any other DI's showing their face on his show. It just wouldn't do any good to do so, the guys that believe in dice control would all be saying I told you so if I or anyone else beat ahigh's test, and the guys that didn't would be saying that the DI that did just got lucky when he or she did beat the test!

There still is a lot that everybody could learn by watching what he is doing. We could all see how variance and trends play a bigger part in the game of craps then most players realized. How stepping into the game at the right time can make you a winner, how betting the right way can keep you into the game until a trend is going the right way for you to bet on it.

His software tells a major story, where you are all saying here you have Ahigh and he is nothing more then a random roller. Well you could see how different betting strategies will work when you are betting on these type of shooters and how shooters that you think of as a random type rollers can still make you money.

I for one would love to see how a pass-line bet with full odds works against someone betting on one or two place bets with the same amount of money that the players has on the pass-line bet.

There are many things that the guys could be asking to see how they would work out, using only the hardway set, because that is the easiest set for Ahigh to track.

Here you have a very honest guy that has changed his way of thinking as time went by, he still thinks that he has some kind of an bias on the dice when he is shooting, just like every other guy that thinks of themself as a DI. You are looking at a work in progress with his shooting, most so-called DI's fail miserably over time and at some point they realize that they have been led down the Yellow Brick Road by these fiction writers on the game of craps. That is why you see them fade away on DI boards, they can't live up to the high expectations that they have been led to believe are possible playing craps!

Instead of hiding behind a curtain like My good buddy The Madprofessor does, Ahigh is right out there for everybody to see,. even if he fails in what he is doing, he damn sure isn't writing fiction to see how many players he can fool into wasting their money playing craps and he is not selling anything like a school, books.

Sometimes we all learn from failure, but so far I've not seen anything that spells out failure for him, if he is willing to keep trying different things. “Remember He Is A Work In Progress”

Yes Alan all DI's have days that they never should have picked up the dice, but if they were taught how to bet the game the right way and when to walk away, they can win at the game!

Quote: superrick

Alan this has nothing to do with criticizing you for asking a question, we all do that to find out facts, when they are not obvious. This has to do with you getting the facts for yourself when they are available, so you are not going to get something wrong. You of all the posters on this board should be getting all the facts right, you make your living from what you are reporting on.

Are you trying to turn this discussion into one about fact finding instead of whether or not Ahigh has the skill of dice control?

Never mind how I gather facts. Let's discuss dice control.

If you want to discuss fact finding and journalism come on over to the "Media forum" on my website. I'll be happy to discuss it there.

I look forward to seeing your shooting on the Ahigh Show.

Quote: Ahigh

So you're saying this was not a criticism? This was the comment that I took personally.

Of course it's criticism, but you shouldn't take it personally. You put yourself on stage and you got bad reviews in the morning paper. Suck it up. Or are you expecting us all to say, "great performance in Ahigh, we know you missed those tens for the first half of your session but what a great cluster you showed us in the second half!"

Unfortunately you didn't announce at the start of your program that you were going to cluster all your tens at the end of the show, and you didn't announce that you wanted to roll a lot of 7s.

Try to understand it from someone else's point of view besides superricks's and tupp's. There are other craps players in the world who are skeptical. You have a heavy burden -- you have to prove something that so far has not been proven by anyone. Imagine that -- you have to prove something that so far has not been proven by anyone. That is a very tall order.

Now, if you can't take heat, the flack, the resistance, then look for some battle that's easier to fight.

Dinner invitation is still open.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I look forward to seeing your shooting on the Ahigh Show.

Or at least take up the Wizard's challenge, even if it's not taped.

SuperRick has thrown enough dice on my table to know he can beat the SOOPOO challenge.

Even a random shooter only has to throw 600 throws to have a 200 set come up with a win on the challenge.

That challenge is for fun, and proves nothing.

The last time we were at someone's house with a table exactly like mine, I think SuperRick threw the dice about 400 times.

We weren't counting anything, but when he placed bets, he turned $300 into a couple thousand.

Still doesn't prove anything, and SuperRick knows that better than anybody.

This is what frustrates me when I get feedback from you, Alan, talking about the "disaster" when I stated very explicitly what I was trying to do was to nail down some slow mo on repeater hard tens to look for anything that didn't look random.

The biggest failure I see is your failure to understand what I'm doing. You think I'm trying to prove that I have skills and that's what this is all about!

You think this is all a demonstration of my ego!

I wouldn't even be DOING live broadcasts if nobody ever claimed bullshit on stuff that wasn't performed live.

I've lost a lot more money investing in my setup than at the tables. I'm almost at break-even, in fact, in my lifetime craps losses. My losses are about at my daily swing amount right now.

But doing a live show means nothing to that either. I could have an advantage shot and still be down hundreds of thousands of dollars if I enjoyed gambling more than playing AP, regardless of whether I had what someone referred to as "The Gift" or NOT.

I am not sure any of this makes any sense at all to you from the comments you post on here, though. Things are much more simplistic in your mind. At least that's my perception.

Ahigh,

Have you had time to review your hard 10's yet for control? Since your whole goal of the show was to be able to roll hard 10's and review them, you would think this would be at the top of the list to review and report your finding?

ZCore13

Quote: Ahigh

The biggest failure I see is your failure to understand what I'm doing. You think I'm trying to prove that I have skills and that's what this is all about!

You think this is all a demonstration of my ego!

I wouldn't even be DOING live broadcasts if nobody ever claimed bullshit on stuff that wasn't performed live.

I've lost a lot more money investing in my setup than at the tables. I'm almost at break-even, in fact, in my lifetime craps losses. My losses are about at my daily swing amount right now.

But doing a live show means nothing to that either. I could have an advantage shot and still be down hundreds of thousands of dollars if I enjoyed gambling more than playing AP, regardless of whether I had what someone referred to as "The Gift" or NOT.

I am not sure any of this makes any sense at all to you from the comments you post on here, though. Things are much more simplistic in your mind. At least that's my perception.

Ahigh, I'm sorry. You are correct. I don't know what you're doing. One day you're a dice controller and the next day you're not. One day you're the greatest shooter and the next day you're almost at break even or losing money. One day you're a researcher and the next day you're showing everyone you can hit a certain number of hardways. One day the shots are hitting where you want them to and the next day its all random shots.

You're right. I don't know what you're doing. I am going to shut up from now on.

Quote: Zcore13

Ahigh,

Have you had time to review your hard 10's yet for control? Since your whole goal of the show was to be able to roll hard 10's and review them, you would think this would be at the top of the list to review and report your finding?

ZCore13

No I've been busy. My woman and I got married.

Quote:

Ahigh

No I've been busy. My woman and I got married

Congratulations are you on your honeymoon? Best of luck, but you shouldn't need that, I think you found a good one!

Quote: Ahigh

No I've been busy. My woman and I got married.

Congratulations and good luck to you.

ZCore13

Quote: Ahigh

No I've been busy. My woman and I got married.

"Your woman?"

LOL

"Me Tarzan, you ..."

Quote: MrV

"Your woman?"

LOL

"Me Tarzan, you ..."

Classy response. Oh the irony, Mr. Respect.

Quote: MrV

Yo bang her anyway?

After a half fifth and a few puffs of KGB and with the lights out she'll seem like a goddess.

Yeah, calling the woman who I married my woman means I am a caveman, and I need advice from someone who makes comments like this referring to women.

Yeah, really classy guy you are to be giving me advice here.

If there weren't evidence of how rude and insensitive you are to what I am doing with my life before, there sure is now, Mister Vee.

My woman is absolutely great, and she loves being called my woman. And she's absolutely beautiful on top of that!

You could have just said "congratulations" like the other people, ya know.

Quote: Ahigh

No I've been busy. My woman and I got married.

Felicitations to the Bride, congrats to the Groom and as always best to you and yours!

Quote: Ahigh

Yeah, really classy guy you are to be giving me advice here.

What planet do you live on, anyway?

I wasn't giving you any "advice."

You want some "advice?"

OK, here goes ...

Stop posting so much personal information, it could easily backfire on you.

Your name and town of residence is known, so it should be pretty easy for some evil-doer to research and find out where you live: not that he would, but he probably could.

Why would he want to?

Perhaps to burglarize / home invade: heck, if I were a desperate thief and I read posts from a guy bragging about using his winnings to buy gold, I'd put the braggart's home (the presumed locale of the horde of gold) at the top of the list of potential fat targets.

The last thing you and your "woman" want is some meth-fueled degenerate following a rainbow to what he believes to be a pot of gold located at your residence.

Keep your "real life" and your "internet life" separate: that's my advice to you.

Just a heads up but I'm not planning to have a show on Tuesday. If there is enough continued interest in the show, I could do one, but I think I could use a break. I'm spending more time at work and with my family.

I do have an offer for a couple of random shooters would like to come on and just play craps without any specific goals or anything relating to possibilities of influencing the dice. But so far, there aren't any people who are interested to demonstrate what they believe is their controlled shot on film. Until I have this, I feel a little bit beat up by all the responses I have gotten from people who claim that my work is a demonstration of, basically, how mentally inept I am.

I may be, but if I am, it's for thinking anybody might care or be willing to contribute towards my work instead of attacking me on every front and just assuming that my efforts are all 100% completely futile.

I have better things to do that continue to subject myself to the responses that I have received on this forum lately.

IMO, you do have better things to do.

- Learn and practice "controlled" throw.
- Learn statistical significance.
- Try to prove that dice control is real by not making suppositions that a few extra hard 10s over normal is "not random". Let the math and results speak for itself.
- Continue publishing your results and let other people analyze your results.
- Stop getting into petty arguments with your detractors.
- Love your woman and family.
- Win money.

And most of all, don't let idiots like me affect your day.