Ahigh Show Tuesday at 7:30pm Pacific Time
Since he will be getting rid of all his stuff, put me down for the camera equipment.
Dog gonnit man, the show must go on. What are you thinking!
Que Dios te bendiga
Quote: boymimboTry 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.
I don't blame you a lot of people were confused about this. Especially those who didn't watch the whole show.
I specifically set out to roll back-to-back hard tens under the assumption that if I delivered a single hard ten more than expected distribution it had the best chance of demonstrating control based on the frequency of getting hard tens in the casino (and getting paid for them).
This wasn't looking BACK on the data. This was expecting to roll more hard tens and then wanting to examine the slow motion video in search of the one throw that has evidence of not being 100% random.
Tons of people misunderstood the point of this last show. I verbalized my contemplation of not even recording the session as part of my throws just to try to nail down the specific thing with the hunt for the hard ten, and secondarily hard fours.
When Tupp gets back, I think he can confirm this. And again, I don't blame anyone for not understanding this whole idea of this last show.
But yeah, anyway. Frustrating; but nobody's fault but my own for doing something different as so many people took the results as I picked whatever was happening the most and said "HEY LOOK AT THAT! MORE HARD TENS! WOW!"
I've said this enough now though, that it just is getting tiresome to repeat it.
But I will clear my calender for the next show.
Get ready for a session of random shots that have no chance of developing a player edge. I will do a picture in picture of paint drying to elevate the level of excitement for my viewers.
My primary objective, though, is to cover my plans with capturing rolls and building a database of recorded rolls for statistical analysis. I will be demonstrating the software but not recording results. The reason I won't be recording results is because I want to do a variety of different types of shots to look at how the dice bounce differently with different shots. I also want to keep the screen clear from all the charts and graphs this time around and just focus on the instant replay from different camera angles.
I'll be honest in saying it is upsetting to see so many people on here focusing on how ridiculous they think what I am doing is instead of being supportive of my efforts. I'm with everyone else who is a skeptic when it comes to the other folks who are selling stuff, and I don't appreciate being lumped in with those who say they have proven to themselves that AP craps play is real. I'm just not in that group, nor do I want to be lumped in with those guys.
It's a ton of work and I have invested a ton of time and money into what I am doing. And just like the fact that there are no Dice Coaches, No Captains, No Mad Professors, and no Koga Ninjas busting my door down to demonstrate that they are the real deal by showing that they can perform a legal advantaged throw, there are also no Wizards of Odds who are putting a no-risk bounty of how much money he would be willing to fork over to me for proving that AP is real.
I'm the guy who is doing the work to provide a platform for the battle of is AP play real or not.
And tonight, I'll be demonstrating part of that platform. What it allows me to do is to capture the details from multiple camera angles of shots and organize them in a compact way on the computer's hard drive for later replay and inspection.
The critical feedback has been that this is nothing new, and that what I'm demonstrating is meaningless. I think those were the words that were used.
But I want the viewers to be the judge if they think I'm gathering enough data to be able to allow a real bona fide controlled shooter to demonstrate exactly what a legal advantaged shot looks like.
We still have a count of zero when it comes to shooters besides myself who are willing to demonstrate their shot. Maybe Vegas Dice Controller might want to come and demo his shot on a future show. His data that he has given me looks pretty amazing. Or maybe some other person who has been hiding would be willing to perform given that I can protect his identity. But given enough time if nobody can demonstrate a shot, I would think that wise people might stop throwing their money away on folks making claims that AP craps is possible because nobody can demonstrate a shot that actually looks to hold enough promise to believe that.
Serving as the person who debunks the theory of dice control may in fact be how this all plays out.
Or, the other possibility, is that after I or another shooter throws enough shots, it looks like AP craps play is in fact real.
This will be the first show to unveil how this is all going to play out and where I will disclose my plans on how it is all going to work.
I hope the skeptics and the believers alike join in.
You can also call in and appear on the show! Use skype id "aahigh" to call in and be able to appear and to talk on the show. Or call in at 702-933-8997.
A lot of this is new territory: the ability to instantly see what your throws looks like from four independent cameras in slow motion just one second after making the throw. It should be interesting to see what a practiced shooter thinks about their ability to instantly see how well they really did in slow motion right after making the shot.
It's humbling! I will tell you that much!
Quote: AhighI'll be honest in saying it is upsetting to see so many people on here focusing on how ridiculous they think what I am doing is instead of being supportive of my efforts.
Being upset is hardly the mark of an objective researcher. You've been given plenty of constructive feedback yet you've pooh-poohed much of it, including from people who know more than you about the kind of analyses you'll need to accomplish your inquiry.
If you weren't so scornful to everyone who has tried to engage with you on this project, you'd have a broader following and more robust methodologies. But your status quo is an unfortunate combination of questionable research techniques and a supercilious attitude toward everyone. If you keep that up, you'll be hosting your web show for nobody. Buying lots of technology does not automatically make your research legitimate. Only you can do that, and you're not there yet, but if you keep discarding the feedback that you are apparently requesting, you won't get there at all.
Given your obvious disdain for this forum and everyone here, why should anyone "be supportive of your efforts?"
ZCore13
That's because you've been stalking him for a year and a half.Quote: Zcore13I love how if you click on the link above and get to the results of the google search, my screen name shows up in the sites description. LOL
ZCore13
Quote: JB85That's because you've been stalking him for a year and a half.
That's one of the dumber things I've heard in a while. If you read what it says it says "Thanks for the show Aaron. I appreciate your effort."
I have no problems at all with the time and effort he's put into his show and equipment. The issue is with his claims of DC/DI and the off the wall things he says and does. I was one of the 4 or 5 viewers of his first show. I kept an open mind and watched it. I watched all the slow motion replays. I watched all the shots that he said felt good but when replayed were just random rolls.
There is absolutely no evidence at all of him or anyone else being able to change the odds of winning. It's that simple.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13
There is absolutely no evidence at all of him or anyone else being able to change the odds of winning. It's that simple.
I think a better statement would be "there is no evidence of anyone being able to change the odds of winning consistently for any given period of time or number of throws."
I think that from time to time, when a DI attempts a shot, he can get it right. I think we all have had a "good shot" from tiem to time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3SLiQFdKnA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw&list=TLjcXT0qSHiTN0V4b5W3hLHDybRuEMdJ2Y
But do pay attention starting at the 2:50 mark on the video! One mans view on anything can be terribly wrong, when they don't set up any experiment the right way! Just because all the books say that a craps bet is one of the worst bets you can make, doesn't mean that if you are making the point you need to win the bet that you are stupid.
Most humans are all wired the same way they see things the way they want them. It's very easy for someone to believe in anything that they are trying to prove.
Ahigh are you on vacation now? It doesn't look as though you've been groomed for going to work?
Quote: JB85That's because you've been stalking him for a year and a half.
+10
Quote: AlanMendelsonI tried to watch the show tonight, but after a few minutes I lost interest. Sorry.
Ahigh are you on vacation now? It doesn't look as though you've been groomed for going to work?
Don't be sorry Alan. I know you've been trying to really hard to figure out how you can make an extra buck buy betting the four dollar crap check with a dollar yo, and still have no hope to actually try to win on your pass line bet when it gets to $25 instead of just hedging your opportunities away. I don't expect you to watch what I'm doing on this show and be able to keep an interest in what I'm doing because you're still stuck not understanding how an 85% savings per roll on your house edge is a good idea.
I also fully expect that you will be asking me questions that I answered in this show somehow, and I also fully expect that I just won't take my time to answer them. I'm done hand holding such a vocal critic.
I think you would be greatly enhancing my efficiency to do more productive work than to try to help you keep up if you just also lost interest in my threads as well.
I went for months without interacting with you, and if I hadn't I wouldn't have gotten as far as I have gotten without responding to you (and Zcore, and Mr.V, and others) who generally speaking only served to slow me down with tangents and questions that get asked over and over and over to no benefit to me (like why I didn't say hello to you).
Just lose more interest and do me a favor!
I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to my grooming, but it was not intended for anyone's faces to appear on this show. It is quite a different setup from previous shows and the ATEM television studio was not used at all.
It has been less than a year ago that you were offering to put me on TV as your main contribution to help me with what I'm doing.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/12306-please-some-definitions/5/#post203641
I can't say as there is anything you could do to help me at this point. So please continue to lose interest, and that might be more helpful than anything.
Aside from the outcome, here's a throw that has good correlation.
http://youtu.be/L55hSJ_Mfvc?t=35m28s
Right after my shot, Tony rolled two horn-high-twelve rolls -- and knew he won both his bets. I don't discourage Tony from betting the Horn High Twelve because he doesn't play with real money. But he's possibly the luckiest shooter in the house!
Quote: Zcore13it says "Thanks for the show Aaron. I appreciate your effort."
Yeah, that must have been a long time ago. That's a very different sentiment from you than I am used to getting from you now.
I think now I expect the most creative smear campaign rivaling the most deep pocketed politicians.
At least you didn't give me feedback this time around from my show of 6 months ago like Alan did. I'll give you that much. (snicker)
Quote: Ahigh
You can't throw the dice any better than this as far as correlation. Period.
You spoke of landing the dice where the table meets the felt. I think this is a viable throw if you can do it pretty consistently. I know you know this, but if you get it right it pretty much kills the dice. If you can't do it consistently, then I think you are better off landing the dice in the 4 to 8 inches short range, depending on the table. If you are trying for the crease and they short hop the wall you get a big bounce. Even worse is the wall first shot, which you also spoke of.
Quote: JB85You can't throw the dice any better than this as far as correlation. Period.
You spoke of landing the dice where the table meets the felt. I think this is a viable throw if you can do it pretty consistently. I know you know this, but if you get it right it pretty much kills the dice. If you can't do it consistently, then I think you are better off landing the dice in the 4 to 8 inches short range, depending on the table. If you are trying for the crease and they short hop the wall you get a big bounce. Even worse is the wall first shot, which you also spoke of.
Thanks for the positive feedback. When I won my hard four at Gold Coast a couple days ago, my roll felt even better than that roll on the release. And it came up hard four from the top of my 2323 set in the casino. I had $120 on the pass and $300 odds. That was quite a good moment to get paid $720 for something that I felt was as good as any of my other throws from the time of release.
Even though this throw came out ace-deuce and it felt like a good throw on the release, it could still be a random result.
The winner hard four I got yesterday looked as clean as any shot I've ever done and to get paid on it was very rewarding.
Of course I don't have the slow motion results, but in that case, I'll take the wins over the video evidence!
In any case, thanks so much for the positive feedback. It's harder and harder to come by that sort of stuff lately!
The problem is, the game/challenge you are now trying to do, trying to have the dice fly together and rotate at the same speed, which you call correlation, makes no difference in the outcome. I know you said said you were not focusing on the outcome, but I focused on every shot after the dice hit the table. Correlated or not, the dice always bounce randomly afterward.
Dice are cubes. They will bounce act difference from each other even if off a few centimeters. The back wall makes the dice act differently when the hit it. Your focus on "correlation" is like saying because my swing looks good on video I can now hit a 95 mile an hour fastball from Randy Johnson.
So yes, very cool setup and equipment. Fun to play around with and play for fun on. But you're still no closer to proving DC/DI, AP or anything else.
ZCore13
If I recall correctly, at one point you were working on a mechanical dice thrower/tester that sat in the middle of the table. Did you decide not to pursue experimenting with this device?
Sorry if this has already been asked and answered.
Thanks.
Quote: blount2000Hi Ahigh.
If I recall correctly, at one point you were working on a mechanical dice thrower/tester that sat in the middle of the table. Did you decide not to pursue experimenting with this device?
Sorry if this has already been asked and answered.
Thanks.
I found that I throw more consistently than my contraption. If someone else wants to build me a thrower, I'm all for it. I'm a software guy and as it turns out that is a hardware problem.
There are some amazing 1000hz robots being made in Japan. It can be done, just not by me.
Quote: Zcore13So I watched all 51 minutes and 30 seconds of the show. You have a nice setup and very cool equipment. The broadcast went pretty good as well.
The problem is, the game/challenge you are now trying to do, trying to have the dice fly together and rotate at the same speed, which you call correlation, makes no difference in the outcome. I know you said said you were not focusing on the outcome, but I focused on every shot after the dice hit the table. Correlated or not, the dice always bounce randomly afterward.
Dice are cubes. They will bounce act difference from each other even if off a few centimeters. The back wall makes the dice act differently when the hit it. Your focus on "correlation" is like saying because my swing looks good on video I can now hit a 95 mile an hour fastball from Randy Johnson.
So yes, very cool setup and equipment. Fun to play around with and play for fun on. But you're still no closer to proving DC/DI, AP or anything else.
Well, I am closer. The goal of developing this system wasn't for the instant replay abilities, even though that is all that I'm showing right now. The goal was to capture enough data to know exactly where both dice went for each millisecond of movement.
I am closer to having the dice movement captured now, and so I am closer to being technically able to prove it with data than I was before I had this much completed.
As far as "the dice bounce randomly" I don't believe that. I can program up what randomly bouncing dice look like. But these dice are bouncing according to the laws of physics, not according to the laws of randomness.
Just right off the bat, the law of conservation of energy requires that the dice bounce less the less energy they have on entry. That's not randomness, that's a physical law.
Those who say that the dice are actually bouncing "randomly" do not understand what they are talking about because they are confusing outcomes that can be described as having properties of randomness with a process of resolution that is random. It's not a random process. It's a physical process that follows the laws of physics.
Just wondering .
Quote: BuzzardDoes anybody have a disabled friend with a mechanical arm ? Would he be allowed to roll the dice with his mechanical arm ?
Just wondering .
Saw these two posts recently on a different board:
Quote:I had a friend who was wearing one of those elastic ace bandages for a sprained wrist. Luckily it was on his non-throwing hand. When we went to the table they were very specific about it. He definitely couldn't touch the dice or toss with that hand and they wouldn't let him have it touching anywhere but on the padded rail. He could not pick up chips or place bets with that hand or even reach over the table to point at something while talking. I am not sure if they would have even let him play at all if they had not known him pretty well from previous table sessions. They definitely looked at it as a security issue.
Quote:I've told this story before but its' been a few years and in light of the fact that Veterans Day is just around the corner - I thought I'd mention it again. Years ago there was a gentleman who was a double amputee - he'd lost both arms in WWII. He was also one of the best DI's I've ever seen. He'd set and grip the dice with his prosthetics (hooks) and toss them to the same spot on the table every time. He was a regular at the old Harrah's property in Shreveport, which later became Sam's Town. One of the floor guys there was a friend and we were talking about this guy's toss. He told me that upper management had instructed the pit not to let this guy shoot the dice because he was using a mechanical device that might alter the odds of the game. I got the impression that they were more concerned about him possibly scratching, chipping, or otherwise dinging the dice than they were with the possibility of a controlled throw. Anyway, my pal told me that all of the front line pit critters refused to tell this guy he couldn't shoot. Their reasoning was simple. Here was a guy who had lost both arms in the war - a decorated veteran who had been horribly injured in the defense of his country. None of them were willing to tell him he could not throw the dice if he wanted to. Then, of course, there was the Americans with Disabilities act. I can imagine the law suit that might follow if they denied someone the privilege of tossing the dice just because they had no hands. It was a crazy situation. I'm assuming this guy has passed on and got his arms back in the Great Beyond. Haven't seen him at the table in years - but I think of him often. What a toss.
About saving a buck? Well, I have to hand it to you -- you could save me a buck.
Having the feedback to see when you have a good release is very helpful, I think.
I imagine there are things you could work on to improve the correlation aspects of your throw.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAhigh I think your prayers are answered. I have no interest in you anymore. And since I think everything you say or do regarding "dice influencing" is bogus I won't be putting you on TV either.
About saving a buck? Well, I have to hand it to you -- you could save me a buck.
Great news. But actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than words.
I did not watch the show but i was tempted, to and call in but that conversation
between me and ahigh is better in person. I watched a minute or so today.
But i really liked the set up, there is no question it is fun to watch.
Now in terms of hurting the DI's in a casino, i have changed my mind. I think
it would be a very good thing for all casino's to see this show and see the dice
bouncing all over over the table, off the back wall on a fly. All of us have done that
and after watching this no casino could ever ban dice control.
We are saying here take our money, and say thank you.
dicesetter
Quote: AhighAs far as "the dice bounce randomly" I don't believe that. I can program up what randomly bouncing dice look like. But these dice are bouncing according to the laws of physics, not according to the laws of randomness.
Chaos theory suggests that the dice can act to the laws of physics and still result in a random result. The laws of randomness will come be expressed by the dice rolls being sufficiently different each time that the result cannot be predicted.
That's the idea at least. I don't blame you at all for investigating if that is actually true.
Quote: thecesspitChaos theory suggests that the dice can act to the laws of physics and still result in a random result. The laws of randomness will come be expressed by the dice rolls being sufficiently different each time that the result cannot be predicted.
That's the idea at least. I don't blame you at all for investigating if that is actually true.
We can all agree that a die being dropped on a craps felt from 1mm will not result in any more than one single result given the proper orientation and initial velocity.
There is no question that the laws of physics must have enough energy into the bounce in order to be random.
Just like you have to shuffle a deck of cards enough times to be random, you have to throw a die far enough on a bouncy enough surface to be considered random.
It's not a question of if the dice outcomes can ever be non random.
It's only a question of under what conditions can the outcomes be no longer considered random.
Casino environment and currently accepted legal throw are very important aspects of this investigation.
Quote: Dicenor33An ideal shot is the one which has a dead cat bounce. This is how it suppose to be: dice fly through the air, hit bottom wedge and stops on a spot. This type of shot excludes any randomness , the result is almost 100% predictable. Anything else is a close approximation , not worth bothering.
Not even close to 100% predictable. But thanks for giving us your well thought out opinions.
Just the chance of achieving this shot (which I have done before) is far less than 1 in 100. It's probably less than 1 in 1000 for me. So even if it was 100% predictable, it doesn't occur often enough to overcome the house edge. And even if you had perfect pitch control each time you did it, you would still be getting 1 of 4 outcomes at LEAST from your set. So that means you know that it might be one out of four outcomes one out of 1000 rolls. Yeah, I don't think that's enough, just guessing, to overcome any edge.
But if you could do it repeatably with the exact same outcome in less than 1 in 100 rolls, you might be able to overcome the house edge.
Reflecting on what I just wrote, I am not sure why I responded to your post because I doubt it will have any effect on your thinking (much like the lack of effect on Alan's thinking explaining why not to bet a 13.89% edge per roll bet like the hi-lo which is part of his horn high ace-deuce). But if you can take away anything from my message, impress me by demonstrating that you have a better concept than what you expressed about the possibility of dice control. What? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Quote: Dicenor33Dice game is well protected. Most discussion on the subject of DC is purely theoretical. Here is a reason why the game will remain unbeatable. Dice must seat deep inside the palm of your hand, in front of your fingers , thumb is folded backward, almost 360 degrees( right in middle joint), it's the thumb and tip of your fingers which create dice axis. ( No, your fingers don't act as a fulcrum ). You use your fist to throw the dice, while thumb and fingers maintain the axis and create the momentum. I don' t want to go into a more complexity, but as you can already notice you need a rare type of anatomy. If you are the lucky one than keep working on a perfect shot, the results will amaze you, but if your joints are stiff, like most of us have, you' ll be greatly disappointed. Math or no math it all comes to nature's gift.
Yeah, I suspected as much. Carry on then.
And you look down at the ground and there is a very small ball there and you
have a club, and you look at a 6" hole 540 years away, 2 or 3 times further
than an average shot with an rifle could get and you say how could i get this
ball in that hole in 4-5 shots
Impossible would be the answer from anyone that never golfed.
There is nothing we cant do if accept the notion we can and work to do it.
dicesetter
I'm probably going to coast a while on my programming at home though as I have some programming I have to do at work that I need to focus on.
Quote: superrickTake it for what it's worth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3SLiQFdKnA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw&list=TLjcXT0qSHiTN0V4b5W3hLHDybRuEMdJ2Y
But do pay attention starting at the 2:50 mark on the video! One mans view on anything can be terribly wrong, when they don't set up any experiment the right way! Just because all the books say that a craps bet is one of the worst bets you can make, doesn't mean that if you are making the point you need to win the bet that you are stupid.
Most humans are all wired the same way they see things the way they want them. It's very easy for someone to believe in anything that they are trying to prove.
Those are good links Superrick.
I like the Ahigh show best when I turned off the sound and fast forwarded through the graphics.
Quote: TheWolf713Just had the chance to watch the show.. The idea of the software does show promise... A better camera with more frames per second would help.. I recommend any RED camera product. Overall Great job...
Hey thanks for the feedback. If you're curious to understand, realize that once I have my computer vision algorithm working, I will have infinite framerate available without the need for a camera that goes beyond 60 frames per second.
The combination of the high shutter speed and the 1/60th of a second shutter speed provides temporal accuracy from the high shutter speed, coupled with extrusion verification from the lower shutter speed to get 100% of the actual path taken by both dice.
Once represented by animation data in the computer, the result will be the most compact form of recording dice rolls possible, and playback will be much more vast in capabilities for analysis.
I would love for at least one more person to understand all of what I'm doing every now and then. So let me know if you understand why I don't need a high speed camera at all. I just need the software to get finished.
The wide angle (GoPro) camera is the only camera I don't really plan to use to capture data from (just because the reverse transform is a little weird). But it looks cool.
Quote: AhighYou know what? Setting the dice is easy, and is not a skill. I'm sure you already knew that, but it's hilarious how the critics are so confused they can't even describe anything properly.
It's the controlled throw that has a quantifiable bias that is in question here.
Dice setting and how it changes the outcome for a given theoretical throw with a quantifiable bias is very well understood by many, and generally speaking, critics like yourself just use "dice setting" as a derogatory description for what they fail to understand: everyone's throw is different without any question!!!
Anyone can set the dice. The technique is more of the way they are thrown. My throwing technique has always been the same for years, I just change my dice set to avoid sevens and go with that. (I may average about 10 rolls before a seven, and not make many points, but I show profit in my stack pretty much every roll)
Looking forward to your shows Ahigh. They are awesome.
