Ahigh Show Tuesday at 7:30pm Pacific Time

Quote: AlanMendelson

Geez, Aaron, I'm one of your supporters. But I have to tell you the truth. And Ralleigh also said pretty much the things I wanted to say.
Before the show started I was asking what the goal was on the show?
You need a subject matter or a point or some cohesive reason for doing the show. This has nothing to do with craps... this is about doing a show.

This was the first time I was able to see the show from the start and I was really expecting you to say "hi everybody, tonight we're going to see if..."

Then I saw your dice catapult. (I even commented you could use that to throw fireballs at the enemy fort or at Godzilla. It's not for controlling dice because you have too many variables when using it.) So I expected you to say something about the test you were going to do with it, but you didnt.

You gave us a nice show and tell on all your technology, but I was more concerned with what you were going to show about your research into dice control and dice influencing. I even made the comment that instead of using your catapult that I would rather see your shooting.

When I again commented that your shooting appears to be random you pulled out your stats about the fewer than expected number of 7s. That's good, but a fewer number of 7s in one-hundred rolls does not indicate dice influencing -- it's just a number in a small sample. I wanted to see your DICE INFLUENCING. I wanted to see you hit the same spot on the table, and the dice hitting the same part of the wall and the dice bouncing off the same... and unfortunately I saw none of that so you still haven't got me convinced about anything about dice influencing.

I've seen more "dice influencing" at Caesars palace than I saw from you. BUT DON'T BE OFFENDED because you have a different definition than I of dice influencing.

I also want to see your grip and your shot, instead of the dice landing and bouncing.

I will watch again next week and if I can I will drive up some day soon to play some craps with you and maybe hold a camera for you during your show.

Look, you have the pieces but you have to put them all together. Test one thing at a time instead of trying to do everything in an hour. Think of each show as a chapter in a book.

Maybe next week: testing one set to see if any particular number repeats. and show us how you will throw the dice. show us the set, the grip, the throw, where you shoot from, and then let us watch. that would set a purpose for the show and would give us something to sink out teeth into. tonight we got a lot of little tastes.

I'm with you. Im not a critic.

I couldn't agree more. I watched for most of last night, but I had to log out when Alan made his comment about "proving nothing" and Ahigh started responding. I knew what was coming and I couldn't handle the awkwardness.

Given the level of distrust surrounding supposed dice influencers, I think that there might be a place for a broadcast (or recording) where you just roll over and over and record your data. Then people who don't trust your logs can watch and see...yep, those were the actual rolls! That will be important when you have a bigger sample size.

But weeks and weeks of Tuesday night shows with 100-roll sessions each are still going to fall short of a robust statistical test for bias. So I'm not sure if it's really feasible. The take-away here, for me, is that you need to stop harping on the statistics from one 100-roll session. Sure, you can show them on the screen and note that you were over or under the expected number of 7s. But talking about it over and over and making it the main focus of one or multiple shows is not going to accomplish anything.

Also, some real-time slow mo shots would be cool. I'm not sure if Ahigh has this capability yet, but the frame rate on the streaming video isn't that great, so it was hard to get a sense of what his throws were doing. I got the general idea - hit the table well short of the wall, bounce off the strip of flat rubber above the pyramids - but the details were all lost. It's definitely an interesting theory, very different from the GTC theory of dice throwing. Do you put backspin on your throws, Ahigh? This is the kind of stuff that I think would be more interesting for a live broadcast.

Lastly, FWIW, I found your software to be pretty sweet. It's not rocket science, at least the roll-recording and bankroll parts of it, but it's definitely a cool piece of code.

Quote: AcesAndEights

but the frame rate on the streaming video isn't that great, so it was hard to get a sense of what his throws were doing. .

He needs the really expensive equipment, the new
stuff he bought doesn't cut it. The really costly
state of the art stuff, thats the ticket.

Quote: EvenBob

He needs the really expensive equipment, the new
stuff he bought doesn't cut it. The really costly
state of the art stuff, thats the ticket.

I know you're joking, but it's the internet connection that is limiting this factor. A slo-mo video taken by a high-speed camera would come across the connection great.

Quote: EvenBob

He needs the really expensive equipment, the new
stuff he bought doesn't cut it. The really costly
state of the art stuff, thats the ticket.

Actually, he needs TWO of each: one for right handers, and one for southpaws.

He should spare no expense; after all, what cost "entertainment?"

Has nobody else here gotten overly enthusiastic about their hobby and spent a lot of extra money? I'm thinking of the 18 handicapper golfers with the $1000 set of clubs... I don't understand why Ahighs enthusiasm and spending on his equipment seems to be a running joke.

Quote: Scot

I don't understand why Ahighs enthusiasm and spending on his equipment seems to be a running joke.

Because dice setting is an urban legend, like hunting
for Bigfoot. Everybody knows somebody who can
throw the dice accurately, but its never been proven.

Quote: EvenBob

Because dice setting is an urban legend, like hunting
for Bigfoot. Everybody knows somebody who can
throw the dice accurately, but its never been proven.

How freakin cool would it be if when Bigfoot is first found he is found at a craps table with a perfect set, influencing dice! That would kill two birds with one stone!

Aaron's craps passion extends far beyond money. I think he would consider it a TOTAL success if he were able to prove that a skilled roller could influence the dice by 1%, even if that was not enough to beat the built in house edge.

March 11 is less than a month away!

Quote: EvenBob

Because dice setting is an urban legend, like hunting
for Bigfoot. Everybody knows somebody who can
throw the dice accurately, but its never been proven.

I'd suggest we get the Mythbuster guys involved, but their methods don't seem to be all that scientific.

Quote: SOOPOO

How freakin cool would it be if when Bigfoot is first found he is found at a craps table with a perfect set, influencing dice! That would kill two birds with one stone!

I have this climbing buddy that knows a sherpa that said the Abominable Snowman was shooting dice with
a bunch of climbers at one of the Everest base camps last May. They didn't record his rolls, but the sherpa said
the Snowman is the only dice legit controller in the world.

If there's ever an Abominable Snowman vs Ahigh showdown, I'm putting a few bucks on the Snowman.

Quote: EvenBob

Because dice setting is an urban legend, like hunting for Bigfoot. Everybody knows somebody who can throw the dice accurately, but its never been proven.

Please quit saying that. There have been two contests sanctioned by both sides, and in each case the results favored the shooters.

Quote: tupp

Please quit saying that. There have been two contests sanctioned by both sides, and in each case the results favored the shooters.

Whats sad is, you think thats proof.

Quote: tupp

Please quit saying that. There have been two contests sanctioned by both sides, and in each case the results favored the shooters.

The Parker Trial " The sample size is too small to perform any robust tests. However just an eyeball test shows the results are thus far close to expectations in a random game."


As for Wong & Little Joe The probability of rolling 79 or fewer sevens in 500 random rolls is 32.66%.


As for favoring the shooters, Parker was random at best. If Wong had rolled all the rolls, he would have lost the bet based upon his performance on 278 rolls.

So Parker results were random, Wong was slightly less than random expectation, and Little Joe got LUCKY on a grand total of
222 ROLLS. Yeah, that is really conclusive proof !

Quote: EvenBob

Whats sad is, you think thats proof.

I don't think that those trials are "proof." However, they are the only evidence we have so far that was sanctioned and agreed-upon by both sides.

Those trials can't be dismissed just because you don't like the outcomes.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary (that dice influencing is impossible), even though you keep declaring that DI is impossible.

So, the partial verdict right now is that DI IS possible. Please post accordingly.

Quote: tupp

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary (that dice influencing is impossible), even though you keep declaring that DI is impossible.

Just so.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary that we were not created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Therefore, it MUST be real, according to your ridiculously myopic reasoning methodology.

Quote: MrV

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary that we were not created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Ah, but there most definitely is evidence that dice influencing works -- the inconvenient truth of the two sanctioned dice shooting trials.

Quote: tupp

Those trials can't be dismissed just because you don't like the outcomes.
.

Sure they can be dismissed, whether I like them or not.
You really need to study the nature of random outcomes,
then you'd see how silly most of the arguments are in
this thread. You need a huge sample of outcomes before
you start making any conclusions. By huge, I mean millions.

Quote: tupp

-- the inconvenient truth of the two sanctioned dice shooting trials.

The inconvienient truth is, you want DI to be true
so badly, you'll latch onto any scrap you think is
evidence.

I think tupp has me blocked. But the tests he referred to were one tie, one loss, and 1 win.

The win consisted of a trial of 222 rolls total. ROFLMAO

Quote: Buzzard

The Parker Trial " The sample size is too small to perform any robust tests. However just an eyeball test shows the results are thus far close to expectations in a random game."

Nevertheless, the trial was sanctioned by both sides and the shooters prevailed.

Quote: Buzzard

As for Wong & Little Joe The probability of rolling 79 or fewer sevens in 500 random rolls is 32.66%.

The shooters more than doubled the winning margin agreed upon by both sides. Wizard lost $1,800 betting against the shooters.

Quote: Buzzard

As for favoring the shooters, Parker was random at best.

No. The shooters prevailed according to the agreed-upon goals.

Quote: Buzzard

If Wong had rolled all the rolls, he would have lost the bet based upon his performance on 278 rolls.

Ah, but we can't just pick and choose the parts of the results that are convenient for our argument.

If Little Joe Green had rolled all of the rolls, the naysayers would have been "triple-trounced!"

Quote: Buzzard

So Parker results were random, Wong was slightly less than random expectation, and Little Joe got LUCKY on a grand total of 222 ROLLS. Yeah, that is really conclusive proof !

One of us holds fundamental misconceptions about the theory, practice and goals of dice influencing.

Quote: EvenBob

The inconvienient truth is, you want DI to be true so badly, you'll latch onto any scrap you think is
evidence.

Perhaps you could suggest a better source of evidence than dice shooting trials, sanctioned and monitored by both sides.

Quote: tupp

Nevertheless, the trial was sanctioned by both sides and the shooters prevailed.
.

SO WHAT? The sample size is so tiny its meaningless
statistically. Why can't you get that? If I see 50 cars
go by my house in a day and 27 are white, should
I issue a press release that most cars are white? That
would be insane, the sample size is miniscule.

Thats what you're doing. How can anybody take you
seriously.

Perhaps how you can explain that random results in the Parker trial means dice setters prevailed? Let's throw Wong into the mix and say
dice setters won a 500 roll trial WHOOPE !


I would suggest a dice setter spots me some sevens in a head up roll, or lay me 2 to 1, but that ain't never ever gonna happen ! ! !

Quote: tupp

Perhaps you could suggest a better source of evidence than dice shooting trials,.

There's no source at all, if there were we wouldn't
be having this discussion. If there were pictures
and evidence of Bigfoot, that would end that discussion
also.

Quote: EvenBob

You really need to study the nature of random outcomes, then you'd see how silly most of the arguments are in this thread.

You need to learn the very basic fundamentals of DI theory and practice.

Quote: EvenBob

You need a huge sample of outcomes before you start making any conclusions.

And which one of us has already jumped to a resolute conclusion?

Pot, meet kettle.

Quote: EvenBob

There's no source at all...

Then, how can you be so sure?

Quote: tupp

You need to learn the very basic fundamentals of DI theory and practice.

The theory of DI is overcoming randomness. So far,
all its done is PROVE randomness can't be overcome.

Quote: Buzzard

Perhaps how you can explain that random results in the Parker trial means dice setters prevailed? Let's throw Wong into the mix and say dice setters won a 500 roll trial WHOOPE !

The shooters prevailed according to the guidelines set by both sides.

Again, one of us has misconceptions about DI results and goals.

Quote: Buzzard

I would suggest a dice setter spots me some sevens in a head up roll, or lay me 2 to 1, but that ain't never ever gonna happen ! ! !

Please put that in plainer terms.

Quote: EvenBob

The theory of DI is overcoming randomness. So far, all its done is PROVE randomness can't be overcome.

Unfortunately, there are the inconvenient triumphs of the shooters in the only two sanctioned dice trials.

Quote: EvenBob

SO WHAT?

So... those trials are the only evidence we have. In both cases, they favored the shooters.

Thus, the only evidence so far is in favor of DI. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

So, you can't dismiss it just because it wasn't long enough (especially saying that after the fact). That is just the only evidence we have so far.

Quote: tupp

So... those trials are the only evidence we have..

But they're NOT NOT NOT evidence of anything
but positive variance. Which is evidence of
nothing! Geez, I bet you believed in Santa till
you were 12, finding 'evidence' of his existence
everywhere.

I give up.

No, tupp. There is no evidence either way. It's inconclusive.

A conclusive way to show dice influence is to have enough trials to prove that the odds of the shooter being random is essentially zero. We would need to put it to the same standards as gaffed software, ie: millions to one. There are very simple tests for this, and while AHigh has shown some promise, you could (and should) attribute it to luck until the hypothesis is proven.

For example, the person who claims a SRR of 7 could easily prove such after 5,000 rolls. The odds of throwing 714 or less 7s in 5,000 rolls is 2 in a million. Just keep on throwing! When you hit 10,000 samples, the odds of having a real SRR of 7 is 28 billion to one!

Want to prove SRR of 6.5? Throw 20,000 rolls. If you throw 3,077 7s or less, you're in the 1:2.3 million range.

Throw the dice. Do statistical analysis to prove that you have a bias. 100 roll trials and analysis are meaningless. Keep track of each number by die (a red die, a blue die) and rotate the dice out to remove the possibility of dice bias.

It's pretty simple. Everything else leading up to it is smoke and mirrors.

Quote: EvenBob

But they're NOT NOT NOT evidence of anything but positive variance. Which is evidence of nothing!

Perhaps one of us doesn't understand the concept of "evidence."

Quote: EvenBob

Geez, I bet you believed in Santa till you were 12, finding 'evidence' of his existence everywhere.

Resorting to personal attacks... are we desperate?

Quote: tupp

Resorting to personal attacks... are we desperate?

Santa is a personal attack? Why, was I right? Do you
hear the reindeers hooves on the roof right now? Is
that why you took it personally?

Quote: boymimbo

No, tupp. There is no evidence either way. It's inconclusive. A conclusive way to show dice influence is to have enough trials to prove that the odds of the shooter being random is essentially zero.

Evidence has no need to be conclusive -- it's just evidence. In the two cases mentioned, the evidence favors DI.

Never have I said that those trials are conclusive proof that DI is true. I merely say that it could be possible, and I state the fact that those trials favored the shooters.

In spite of the fact that those two trials are the only evidence we have that is sanctioned by both sides, one side has already concluded that DI is absolutely impossible.

Quote: EvenBob

Is that why you took it personally?

Pot, meet kettle.

Ignorance is bliss

Well that surly holds true on this thread. I know some of the best DI's in North America, I've played on the same tables with these guys many times over the years. Others call me a DI, but the one thing that none of us can do is win every time we go into the casinos. We can't stop the short rolls nor can we stop the PSO's. We are just like everybody else that plays craps; sometimes we get lucky and have a great roll. The guys that are DI's are just about the only ones that keep records of their rolls.

Now I do one better then that, I track everybody on the tables, and I know that the so-called random rollers are having those same great rolls too! I only have to point out the154 roll to prove that point! If you think of yourself as a DI why would you have to prove it to anybody, why would you want your face on a video? If you can take a few hundred dollars off the tables you play on without bringing to much attention to yourself, why would you want to stand out in the crowd.

If you are so lucky that your local casino doesn't hassle you when you are shooting, why in the world would you ever think about killing them when you are shooting. If I'm playing in a local casino and big money hits the table I leave! Why in the world would you want to kill that hand that is feeding you?

If I'm on a roll then the big money hits the table after that roll is over with it's time to pack it up and leave, why make someone that doesn't know you money, then be banned from that casino, because you cost the casino big money? I don't have to win a lot everyday I can win it over time; I can play any day that I want to living here in Vegas.

So for you guys that call yourselves DI's what's the point of proving anything, do you have an ego problem? Let everybody say what they want to about someone being a DI, who cares? Take the money and run, if you’re smart, you will never hurt the casinos you play in and you will be satisfied with the many smaller wins!

Now I'm not telling you not to take the bigger wins whey they come your way, what I'm saying is not to rub the casinos face in what you are doing! I've seen lucky slot players told that the casino didn't want their business before and was shocked when I saw it happen, I saw a don't player told the same thing and he never picked up the dice. Casinos don't like winners and they have the right to tap you on your shoulder and tell you to never come back into their casino, if they want to.

Does everybody need to be told that there are real DI's in this world and we can prove it to you and the casinos? For a game that didn't change since they started playing bank craps in 1931 in NV, up in till they started to write about someone being a DI. Why would anybody DI or anybody else want to have this proving? Is it because you want to see more changes coming to a casino near you?

It would be almost imposable to prove that there are any DI's, you would need controlled conditions to do so, recording every shot that someone made in a real casino, not at home with the cameras running for days. You could only use one set and every seven would count in the roll data. That way there would be no come out roll 7's.

For the DI's out there, you are good for the casinos, because everybody thinks you are just getting lucky anyway, beside the casinos that are sweating the money! A good roll brings in players that have never played to game before, and the casinos have a sucker for life. What was won on the good roll is given back anyway after the roll is over with, all the palyers think they can do the same thing and go down in flames trying!
Look at any one of Ahigh's slow motion videos, and ask yourself if those dice are staying on axis when they are bouncing all over the place? Then ask yourself if its just luck that they came up with the faces that we all want to see.

I hate to tell you all this but Ahigh is a showman that is using the power of suggestion to get you to believe that he is doing something that is not random. Follow along with what he does when he is shooting. He is implanting in your minds that he is going to throw a hard 8. When he keeps call out for a hard 8 just about every time he shoots the dice or some other hardway. He is using a trick that mentalist use when they are putting on a show. Come on hard 8, come on hard 8, and come on hard 8. Gee what do you all think happens when he does roll a hard 8 in your brain? Do the lights flash, do the bells ring, and do you say gee he really did it?

Random rollers roll back to back hardways everyday in the casinos, there is nothing special about doing it! I've seen five 12's rolled back to back all in a row. Could the shooter do it again, probably never again, it was just luck that he did it when he did and it wasn't on the come out roll, because then it would have been bad luck!!!!

Removed posted two times!

Quote: tupp

So, the partial verdict right now is that DI IS possible.

I agree. I believe that DI and DC are both possible. And I eagerly await someone to show how it's done.

I think I have a different standard for DI and DC than most of the forum members have. I do not measure DI and DC by the outcome of the dice because I know (and have seen) random shooters have wonderful runs at craps without a seven out for a long, long time. I personally once made 17 passes. I hit the fire bet for five numbers twice in the last couple of months (ironically once at "card craps" where the result of the dice had nothing to do with the numbers on the cards) -- but I don't consider myself to be a dice influencer or a dice controller though I try to be.

But my definition of DI and DC is someone who actually influences and controls the path of the dice in the air, on the table, how they bounce and if they remain on axis. I might be the only one on this forum who has this "standard" for DI and DC.

Basic physics tells us that DI and DC is possible -- but it remains to be seen if anyone actually has the physical skill to repeat "controlled throws" the same way a golfer, bowler, quarterback or pitcher, soccer player, vollyball player, tennis player can propel a ball with a reasonable amount of repetition.

I am open to the possibility. I want to see it. And I want to be at the table with that shooter.

Alan

There is a big misconception as to what a DI is or what ever you want to call it, but really I don't think that you are going to see every DI craw out of the woodwork to prove there are DI's that do win when they play craps. The one thing that everybody envisions in their minds is that when you have a DI on the table they are going to have great rolls every time they pick up the dice, it just doesn't happen that way.

That misconception came from our great fiction writers, or the guys that are selling the schools, to make money for their buy-ins at the casinos. Just go on any website that is trying to sell you something that has to do with becoming a DI, they are selling you a dream, and everybody wants that magic bullet that is going to make them money in the casinos, all those players are an easy sell!

Now evidently you have seen some good shooters before that was setting the dice, most of us have seen that before even if some players will never admit it! We are our own worst enemies at times, when someone is shooting the other players will not move their chips if the shooter is landing their dice in the same spot every time. I see it all the time, even when you have a random roller that is landing their dice in one spot everytime. The players that are at the end of the tables do just what the casinos want them to do and that is to play the pass-line and stack their chips as high as they can get them.

If anybody is going to prove anything it has to be done with controls, and that is not happening. The guys are right when they say that you are not proving anything if you roll the dice 200 times, all you are proving is that there is variance it can go either way. Now if you have a shooter that can call out the numbers that they are going to roll that would be a different story, I've never met one yet that can do that. Yet I've met a lot of finger snappers that think they can do it that's why they love to play the hop bets! It's also why they go down in flames, sure some times they get lucky and win a few bets, but their luck soon fades away, and they become losers!

I think a few of the guys on this board has made the comment about the shooter running out of chip before they would have won any money. Even if you have a shooter that everybody is calling a DI, when they are shooting what happens when they are not hitting those points that they have their chips on. I see this all the time if the guy has been taught to only bet on the 6 & 8.

That a concept that was taught by one of the school, so when these shooters were shooting that is the only box numbers they have their chips on, and what happens when they are hitting the outside box numbers they lose!!!!

We should all look at the table holds are in the different casinos, while NV doesn't break them down into the different casinos, AC does!

Quote:

Win holds for the craps tables in AC that should be at around 16% to 20%

Tropicana, NJ Craps hold for Jan, 2012 was 70.03%
Elko County, NV Craps win percentage for Nov. 2012 was 29.4%
Resorts Casino, NJ craps Win % for Sept, 2012 was 24.1%
Caesars Atlantic City craps Win % for February, 2012 was 32.2 %
Tropicana, NJ Craps win percentage for April, 2012 was 39.0 % according to their NJ tax return signed by Jeff Bohrer, Casino Controller

So where are all the controlled shooters that play in AC? Casinos don't have a thing to worry about when they have someone that is setting the dice; all they need to do is stop reading all the BS that is written about being one! Casinos make money off the craps tables from the rolls per hour, when you have a casino that has made their tables so bouncy that they can't keep the dice on the tables, their profit goes down.
At the same time you have fewer players, only because they get fed up standing at the tables waiting for the dice to be found on the floor. They crave the action of a fast pace game. They are just like Ahigh playing the game for the fun of it.

We are not machines; we have to many thing that can happen on the craps tables that will effect the outcome of ever roll of the dice. I've done a test where the dice slide down a ramp, dropping 4 inches rolling to the back wall 16 inches bouncing off the wall and using the same set they came up with different numbers. They are not all the same numbers when they stop. You too can try it at home, just get anything that you can make a ramp out of, that will give you enough of a roll to get the dice to the back wall and bounce off of it. The drop of 4 inches works out because you will get some spin on the dice as they drop. This was for only 36 rolls of the dice and what you are going to see is a few numbers repeating, but they are not the same numbers on the same dice to come op with that point! All the rolls were do with a hardway set so we could see the outcome with different color dice.

http://youtu.be/41WGlin4XTQ

There were no 2's rolled, there were 3, 3's rolled, there were 6, 4's rolled, there were 3, 5's rolled, there were 2, 6's rolled, there were 5, 7's rolled, there were 4, 8's rolled, there were 4, 9's rolled, there were 3, 10's rolled, there were 5, 11's rolled and there were no 12's rolled.

To save you time looking at the little bit of data we got from this here are the rolls:
3/5, 5/4, 4/5, 4/6, 6/4, 2/3, 4/6, 6/5, 2/1, 6/2, 3/5, 5/2, 4/5, 2/2, 4/3, 6/5, 3/3, 5/6, 3/2, 5/3, 3/6, 2/5, 1/2, 1/3, 5/6, 4/5, 2/2, 4/1, 3/1, 3/4, ½, 2/2, 5/6, 2/4.

So looking at this data the first point was a 8 and in 9 rolls the point was made. The the next point was a 8 and there was a PSO! Next point was a 9 and after 2 rolls there was a 7 out. Next roll the point was 6 and in 5 rolls there was a 7 out. The next point was a 4 and in 3 rolls the point was made. Next roll the point was 5 and in 2 rolls 7 out. Next point was a 4 and because of the 36 rolls ending we stopped counting the rolls. So there were only two points made in this series of rolls and there was 4 points that were not made.

So for you guys that when this series started out and you saw those 10's or the 4's think about it this way most players will never bet on them and they would only be betting on the inside box numbers. There were more points that weren't made then then were that was made. The dice only dropped 4 inches and rolled 16 and a 1/2 inches to the back wall. In this scenario the casino came out the winner.

Rolling the dice with a 4 inch drop and 16 and 1/2 inches to the back wall. You would have been a loser. The casinos have too big of an edge on you even when you do an experiment like this! The casinos don't have to worry about anybody that sets the dice, because even the numbers that came up the most on the dice did not stay on axis, as they rolled down the table! Just look at what the right and left die did! You don't even need a slow motion camera to see what happened!

Now when you have a shooter that is trying to throw the dice 8 feet or more down a table and they are two feet or more in the air, you tell me how the shooters have any control over the dice, it's down right laughable, when you look at the reality of what has to happen. Then look at the slow motion videos that Ahigh did, where you see the dice bouncing all over the place and really guy are you that easy to convince that there is any control there? You are not going to find a magic bullet out there, you better go back to reading some good books on how to bet the game, and the math of the game then you are reading all the fiction that our great fiction writers are writing. Where they claim to have a SRR of 28 or they are writing that they took a cool half million off the tables by throwing 19, 4's and 20, 10's all in one hand at the craps tables. Oh that’s right I busted that claim of the SRR of 28, I’m truly sorry for the great fiction writer, but fiction is just that fiction!

I for one love to read the BS then pick it apart, pointing out to all the guys that it didn't happen!

Quote: Buzzard
I would suggest a dice setter spots me some sevens in a head up roll, or lay me 2 to 1, but that ain't never ever gonna happen ! ! !


Please put that in plainer terms.


How much plainer can I make it. If I were to play Tiger Woods, I would need a spot of at least 100 strokes. If I were to play table tennis with Switch, I would need odds of at least 100-1.

If someone says he can influence dice, I ask for a spot or odds. I have come down from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1. I have a feeling I will not even be offered 3 to 2. Just how much better does ant dice setter think he is than a 72 year old random shooter. I don't think I can get 2 to 1 if my grand daughter Gracie ( Age % ) were to compete against a dice setter.

Quote: Buzzard

How much plainer can I make it. If I were to play Tiger Woods, I would need a spot of at least 100 strokes.

100 strokes? So you'd shoot 170 or more?

You could use a putter the entire course and just putt your way lower than 170.

Don't bet on it.I really suck at golf. I might use 170 strokes on the greens alone.

I mean 170 is less than 10 strokes a hole, isn't it.

I've read this entire post, and I would like to say that if he wants to prove that DI is possible, then By all means he should try.. Best of luck..But after hours and trials, he'll find out what every veteran player and dealer knows... Its purely random. People love to point out their long rolls and say that they are influencing the dice... Well what happen on the rest of those rolls??? Were you not 'Influencing' ? If your influence only comes as randomly as the next shooter, then why even bother.. When I go to the tables, i only see 2 types of shooters...good rollers and bad rollers: and all of them are random. Best of luck to ya

Quote: TheWolf713

I've read this entire post, and I would like to say that if he wants to prove that DI is possible, then By all means he should try.. Best of luck..But after hours and trials, he'll find out what every veteran player and dealer knows... Its purely random. People love to point out their long rolls and say that they are influencing the dice... Well what happen on the rest of those rolls??? Were you not 'Influencing' ? If your influence only comes as randomly as the next shooter, then why even bother.. When I go to the tables, i only see 2 types of shooters...good rollers and bad rollers: and all of them are random. Best of luck to ya

ThanK you foR your replY. I will Take is my advice. Good! Yay!

Quote: Ahigh

ThanK you foR your replY. I will Take is my advice. Good! Yay!

lol! Hightower you bin drinking? :)

Balls.

Superrick / Alan, the way to measure DI/DC or whatever you call is is to complete a statistical analysis of their rolls, plain and simple, and see where the bias fits in to what is normal.

I agree that DI/DC should involve an effort to shoot the dice using the same set, at least, and at least ATTEMPT to make the same shot. If you are using a different shot or different set, then that should have different data. Otherwise, a shot should be considered random. Actually, not true, I would do a second experiment.

I would suggest that a true DI/DC experiment should have the following conditions:

Hypothesis: - dice inflience
- initial conditions are always the same: using a 4-2 or 6-2 or 3-3 or flying V or whatever set.
- agreement to throw dice in the same manner everytime in an attempt to get the same result from the same position on the table.
- regulation craps table (12 - 16')
- record throws only: no betting (feel free to throw your roll data into wincraps)
- 200 throws per session.
- use all ten of every combination of the dice in the package.
- Change out dice every 1,000 rolls (20 sets of dice).
- 100 sessions of 200 throws for 20,000 trials.
- all rolls count, except no rolls (obviously).

At the end of 100 sessions:

- tally the individual die results
- tally the sum of die results
- report on DI

Anything that is sigificantly out of the ordinary will stick out like a sore thumb and will be beyond the realms of luck.

2nd hypothesis: dice bias
Hypothesis: - initial conditions are not the same: use whatever set you want.
- agreement to throw dice in randomly.
- regulation craps table (12 - 16')
- record throws only: no betting (feel free to throw your roll data into wincraps)
- 200 throws per session.
- use all ten of every combination of the dice in the package.
- Change out dice every 1,000 rolls (20 sets of dice).
- 100 sessions of 200 throws for 20,000 trials.
- all rolls count, except no rolls (obviously).

At the end of 100 sessions

- tally the individual die results
- tally the sum of die results
- report on bias

---
The two hundred trials ARE not in favor of dice control. If you take a poll of 300 americans people and ask who is going to win the election among six candidates and the results are 58/48/38/52/52/52, does that show proof that candidates 1 is going to win the election? No. Does is mean that candidate 1 is going the lose election? No. At this point, there is no proof either way. If you take a poll of 30000 americans and the results are 5800/4800/3800/5200/5200/5200, is that more meaningful. Hell ya.

----
As for superrick's report on meeting a bunch of DI's, whatever. Let legend be as such, and I hope you're right.

----
And for Alan's hypothesis that you can't prove anything outside of a casino environment, also bull. Outside of a casino place is the perfect place to make controlled experiments to prove or disprove it's possible. Do you think that cancer drugs, etc, are not tried in a lab first. Do you think that astronauts don't train for space manoevering using high flying airplannes or while submerged?
---
Roll the dice, take the results, show that you have a bias beyond what can be called random. I laud Ahigh for trying it out, but take away the showmanship and conduct an actual experiment.

Now that is a very clean, intelligent, well-thought out post if I ever saw one! My hat is off to you for doing the hard work to put that little gem together, boy!

My previous response was not because I was drunk. I was mocking in a childish way. It is exhausting fielding so many comments from so many people with so many biases of their own.

The thing that I have found myself thinking a lot that I think is a big disconnect between my approach and many is that I am attempting to use statistics for illumination, not for support. There is an old quote about this that involves a drunk and a light-post that is something that used to come up on fortune on some unix systems I used in the University.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vinscully205138.html

You guys that have already arrived at your conclusions and have your own beliefs and want to support your beliefs with what I am doing and/or discovering fall into this category. You have to look at the data and let it reveal to you if anything is there or not instead of only look at the data that tells you what you want to continue to believe.

I also want to point out a few things:

1) I don't use the term "DI" or even "so-called DI"
2) I am not a member of any group of people who already claim to know what they are doing
3) I have not taken any classes on how to play craps
4) I am an independent researcher doing my own thing my own way with my own software my own table at my own house and generally all on my own
5) I am not "trying to prove DI" (see #1 and #2)
6) I am trying to prove that it is THEORETICALLY possible to overcome the house advantage with a legally acceptable means of throwing the dice (IE: even if it can't be done in a casino but it can be done at my house, and even if it's only good for $0.005 per roll profit on a $5 bet that's good enough for my purposes)
7) I do not claim to already have proven anything at all. IE: I do not need to be told or reminded of my lack of success in my endeavor at this point in time.

Anything else that anyone else wants to say about how what I am not doing doesn't matter (to them) is their own issue and/or problem. I feel like I have my hands full just taking this much on. Anyone that's already AHEAD of me, please share their results. Anyone who is already a better shooter than me ..

SHOW ME DON'T TELL ME.

Quote: boymimbo

The two hundred trials ARE not in favor of dice control.

Your post is insightful and informative overall, but this particular line is misleading at best, if you refer to these two trials.

In these contests, the guidelines were agreed upon by both sides. There is no question that the results favored the "dice controllers." Even Wizard accepted that the dice control side won the trials, and he honored his $1,800 bet against the dice controllers in the second trial.

Thus, these two trials (as brief as they were) favored "dice control."

Quote: boymimbo

If you take a poll of 300 americans people and ask who is going to win the election among six candidates and the results are 58/48/38/52/52/52, does that show proof that candidates 1 is going to win the election? No. Does is mean that candidate 1 is going the lose election? No. At this point, there is no proof either way. If you take a poll of 30000 americans and the results are 5800/4800/3800/5200/5200/5200, is that more meaningful.

Certainly the larger poll in your example would be more meaningful and more conclusive.

Nevertheless, the smaller poll favors the first candidate. It is by no means an exhaustive samping, but its results favor candidate #1.

deleted

Tupp, I would also suggest that, like the March 11th event, it's only of anecdotal relevance. You are right in that the results favored the guys saying that they had some skill.

But I think we're still a long way from having any event that means anything towards establishing anything but a superstitious belief in whether or not any control is possible.