Ahigh Show Tuesday at 7:30pm Pacific Time

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


Yeah, the first trial was a stunning success ROFLMAO

"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. "

Buzzard. Until I got to know who you are and what you are all about, I took great offense to your messages.

Quote: Buzzard

Yeah, the first trial was a stunning success ROFLMAO "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 guidelines were set in advance of that particular trial and agreed upon by both sides, and the shooters prevailed.

So far, with the only two trials sanctioned by both sides, the score is:
DI Possibility 2
DI Impossibility 0

Sorry about that Ahigh. But Tupp has posted this many time. I just posted what the result was of the 1st trial that he quoted.


Plus every real forum should have a designated grouch. I have found that people who are passionate about their beliefs welcome an opportunity to defend their position. And sometimes a well placed barb will drive another member to post. I am not responsible for anyone who takes me serious.

Quote: tupp

Nevertheless, the guidelines were set in advance of that particular trial and agreed upon by both sides, and the shooters prevailed.

So far, with the only two trials sanctioned by both sides, the score is:
DI Possibility 2
DI Impossibility 0

" "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. "

Then this means a random result is indicative of DI possibility.

And Bigfoot is possible because most dice setters have 2 feet.

Let me change the subject!!!

TGI Friday's Comp for lunch today.

Talked to Carl and Eddie about the theory of biased dice. Saw TONS of 6-1's on the table while talking about it.

Tipped as much as I won (I rolled a hard 8 for the boys .. not a two way, just for the boys). Everyone was happy.

Quote: tupp

So far, with the only two trials sanctioned by both sides, the score is:
DI Possibility 2
DI Impossibility 0

At the blackjack table today, I saw a ploppy STAND on A,6 twice!

He won both times. Guess we better start rewriting those basic strategy charts.

Quote: Buzzard

"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. " Then this means a random result is indicative of DI possibility.

I see no need for both of us to continually quote the same line from Wizard, except this time I would like to point out the term "close" in Wizard's quote. From previous posts, you obviously know what they say about "if's," but do you also know what they say about "close?" I would bet that you do.

What you are apparently unaware of is how "close" the margin is for someone who is trying to get an edge on influencing dice outcomes. It's tiny, often less than the variance of a random shooter.

What counts (especially in gambling) is that one side won the contest -- guess which side.

Quote: Buzzard

And Bigfoot is possible because most dice setters have 2 feet.

Well, if DIs could shoot two feet from the back wall, I think a lot of the deniers would "change their tunes." Of course, that is one of those "ifs."

However, keep in mind that there is a major difference between the possibility of DI and the possibility of Big Foot (which you have used in your very funny and original joke).

The difference is that we have already had two trials closely monitored and sanctioned by both sides of the DI possibility issue, whereas there exists absolutely no study, no research nor evidence for Big Foot that has been closely monitored nor sanctioned by both sides of that issue.

The fact that Bigfoot has entered this discussion reflects poorly on the entire forum, even though I think it was just one person who brought that subject up as a method of making an analogy for the discussion about advantage play craps being possible.

I believe that any rational person would already understand the points that tupp is trying to make.

If you drop a die from a sufficiently small distance, it won't even bounce. This is the extreme end of the debate.

As the distance increases, you have bouncing with non-random behavior.

The argument could be summed up as the question, "at what distance must a die fall before perfectly random behavior results?"

This is a more pure way to approach the problem being discussed.

Then we get to broad obviously false statements made with no foundation whatsoever like "Throwing a die from 4 feet away with diamonds on the wall is impossible to have anything but 100% randomness occurring, anyone disagreeing with this is like someone who believes in Bigfoot."

Yet nobody has the distance at which something becomes 100% random. I think we all agree that at an infinite distance and an infinite number of bounces the result is random in theory.

But if the dice are only allowed to rotate a limited number of degrees, it's just not going to be random unless the number of degrees of allowed rotation is large enough (for example, greater than 90 degrees).

But hey, let's not be specific. How about we talk about Bigfoot and ridicule people instead? Yeah, this is the Wizard of Vegas, isn't it! YAY!!!!

Quote: boymimbo

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.

Great post. This is the bottom line, but this thread will rage on for weeks and nothing will be accomplished.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Great post. This is the bottom line, but this thread will rage on for weeks and nothing will be accomplished.

Boymimbo details out precisely what ME suggested in lesser detail many weeks ago. But we got Tell don't Show....

Quote:

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

The one thing that I write about every time I hit the tables is luck, some is self made by playing when nobody else is on the tables, but what are you going to do when the table fills up and you don't leave. If you stay are the DI's or what ever you want to call them going to have good rolls? Last night I started playing on a table with only one guy on it, and I never got pass 12 rolls of the dice, the only reason I stayed on the table was because I was waiting on somebody to show up. Most players would say that 12 rolls of the dice are great, but I never put any other money on the table until I get past the second roll of the dice, then only put one or two bets on the table.

I've seen way to many guys have PSO's and I think the DI's are famous for doing so!

Last night what started out as a empty table filled right up, for some odd reason nobody wants to play craps on an empty table with one or two players on it, but when you get that guy that buys in and starts to scream when a point is made, there goes the table, everybody that ever wanted to play craps is now buying in for whatever change they have in their pockets.
This is where you see the $5 buy in's! Now it takes forever to get the dice back in your hands again as they go around the table. This is also why most players will lose, their money by betting on everybody on the table.

Now I have no problem betting on what everybody calls a random roller, if they are getting lucky. Last night was no exception to how I bet, there was one guy that got lucky on his first roll, and when he got the dice for the second time I waited till he made his first point before I put any money on him. I had the fire bet on the guy, because of his first roll. Even with that one bet I was not about to throw chips on the table until I saw him make one point.
He went on to make five points, but one was a repeater, so he hit 4 points to the fire bet. He ended up having a 28 roll, from SL 9. Now was it luck, you tell me. He didn't set the dice all he did was pick them up and shoot them.
Are we tricking our minds into believing something that a lot of players want to believe in. Just like when I wrote that Ahigh is doing to his audience when he keep repeating come on hard 8.
Do we do the same thing when we see a guy that is setting the dice have a good roll at the tables, because we have been preprogrammed to expect this so-called DI to have a good roll and that is what we are looking to happen.

I do a lot of reading on the gaming industry and the game of craps. Here is a interview with the author of “What's Luck Got to Do With It”

Joseph Mazur, Author, What's Luck Got to Do With It?

http://gaming.unlv.edu/audio/024_mazur.mp3

This interview starts out kind of slow, but its well worth listening to it. I always play any interview in the back ground when I'm working on something else on the computer!
Dr. Mazur discusses his new book, which combines history, psychology, and mathematics of gaming.
Some of us call it skill when we are shooting the dice I prefer to call it luck when we get on a good roll.
The reason I say its luck is everything has to come together perfectly in the casino for someone to have that great roll, that they are going to make money on. Just look at what happened in those 36 rolls of the dice only rolling 16 and ½ inches. The shooter still lost, call it variance, bad luck or what ever. The fact still remains that the house edge is going to beat you in the long run of things.
Players win in the short run, due to the variance, if you over stay your time at a craps table most likely you are going to lose, unless you have a bankroll that can withstand the short term losing cycles of the tables you play on. That is why the casinos give out comps, they want you standing at the tables as long as they can get you too.

Quote: boymimbo

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.

Unfortunately, a statistical analysis cannot differentiate between a true dice influencer and someone who just got lucky.

This is why I have a standard that calls for looking at the roll. Was there an even, consistent toss that hit a particular point on the table with the dice staying close together, hitting and rolling on axis and hitting the back wall at a slow speed so that the dice come to rest together near the back wall and showing a combination of faces that indicates the dice remained on axis.

If you can't do that, you are not controlling or influencing the dice.

Even random rollers can have an amazing SRR so the statistic is meaningless and only reflects luck or the lack of luck.

But show me a CONTROLLED THROW and then you will get my attention.

And for the record, I have played with two shooters with controlled throws. One is my surgeon friend in Washington State, and the second was a player I saw once at Caesars early on a Sunday morning who I never saw again. His rolls were exactly as I described above and it was mesmerizing.

True, every dice controller will slip up. He didn't slip up for about 20 minutes. He and I were at the table, so the shots came quickly. He shot his one hand, colored up and left.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Unfortunately, a statistical analysis cannot differentiate between a true dice influencer and someone who just got lucky.

I assume you are talking only about a short number of samples.

Someone educated me on Chi-squared recently. But that is exactly the test that Chi-squared tests for.

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

As far as the term "true dice influencer" I'm not familiar with those terms, but I assume that you mean someone who creates an advantage play and plays long enough to exploit it.

In all of my investigations into this area of research, I have yet to meet the person you refer to as a "true dice influencer." And if such a person did in fact exist, I absolutely do not know what the process is for establishing them as "true" versus simply believing it in their mind.

I would love to be able to do a test on a shooter to certify that they in fact do, at the time of testing, possess what is considered to be an advantaged shot.

But I don't know anybody who currently has such a test, and therefore I'm not sure there is anyone who has been verified as a "true dice influencer."

We all know that winning is more easily obtained by pure luck than hard work at getting an edge and then later exploiting that edge in the casino throwing dice.

Well, I _think_ we all know that anyway.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Unfortunately, a statistical analysis cannot differentiate between a true dice influencer and someone who just got lucky.

Not correct. That is not what the experts say. Like Frank S and the guys behind Smart Craps Software
The Smart Craps program is slick and accurate.
http://www.deepnettech.com/SmartCraps.shtml

one can have verifiable proof (99% degree of certainty)
of dice influence in as little as 100 dice rolls up to 500 rolls.

But that is not all...
1. how to prove, with statistical certainty, that you are influencing the dice outcomes, using our powerful and new Pro Test© method.
2. the optimal dice sets and bets given your unique dice control skill.
3. your edge over the casino: how much money you can make playing craps. (yeah! Now we are talking!)

Frank Scoblete, #1 best-selling gaming author in America, says:
"The concept of the software is to prove you have an edge
and to show you how to increase that edge with "cutting edge" dice sets that you may not have even thought about.
What startled me was that my rolls were analyzed and while I had a good edge, the software recommended I change certain things about my dice sets at certain times.
This increased my edge by quite a bit."

All a DI has to do is keep the dice an axis, lower the pitches and double pitches, use the proper sets for the numbers they roll, bet more when they are in the zone and less on random rollers.
It really is that simple

I failed the 3 tests in Smart Craps last week,
but I only had 120 rolls and really never used the hardway set before.
More dice rolls coming for me next week

Fact (like it or not)
DI can be proven statistically

Awesome thread and I am learning quite a bit. After reading it I decided to register and put my 2 cents in to broaden the discussion.


This month playing electronic craps at Maryland live I have tracked every roll while I have been playing. The electronic craps there has a third black dice for sic bo and rolls every 30 seconds.

1824 rolls

284 sevens

15.57%

Does the machine have an edge?



Also a rather interesting bit of info and I was wondering if these numbers are within the expected outcome:

Double 7 sequence happened 28 times. (this includes 7 out leading to 7 PL winner)

Triple 7 happened 3 times

Quad 7 happened 1 time

Quin 7 never happened.

Oddest streaks:

5 tens in a row 3 hard ways back to back at the start.

6s (easy and hard) were up to 32% average off 100 rolls. At the time 7s came in at the lowest I had ever seen at 3%. While this was happening 6 seperate points were hit and a fire bet would have been much appreciated!

Quote: 7craps

Frank Scoblete, #1 best-selling gaming author in America, says:

For ploppies and twice a year gamblers. You
never hear experienced players quoting him.

Binomdist(284,1824,1/6,true) = .109565.

Luck.

-----

Quote: Aztek

Awesome thread and I am learning quite a bit. After reading it I decided to register and put my 2 cents in to broaden the discussion.

This month playing electronic craps at Maryland live I have tracked every roll while I have been playing.
The electronic craps there has a third black dice for sic bo and rolls every 30 seconds.

Welcome.
You are talking about the Organic Craps game. I like it here in SoCal.

Your other questions should be in their own thread.
Start your first thread!
I can answer your questions there so they have their own home and for discussion.

Click on Craps and the page it takes you to has "new thread" right under the Craps on the left.
Oh you are new, I wonder if you can start a new thread so soon.

This is Ahigh's thread and it already has a few topics running in it as you can read.

Good Luck

Of course, you could prove dice influence in 100 rolls. Just throw 60 or more of 1 digit on the dice or throw less than 11 of another number and you're in the 1,000,000:1 range and the program will scream influence.

Keep in mind that the program will skew your results towards dice influence because they want to sell more units of the software...

However, if the program is "as advertised" then it would be cool to see what set makes the best sense for your results.

Quote: boymimbo

However, if the program is "as advertised" then it would be cool to see what set makes the best sense for your results.

It is shareware for Windows with all features available.
Simulations are limited in size.

I know of no other DI software that is so easy to use. And you can also use Excel with it as I did.
The Risk of Ruin math is also good, I like the program, it is very user friendly and easy to use.

BoneTracker by Wong is out there in Excel but Smart Craps runs circles around it IMO.

I can tell you if someone is a dice influencer in ONE roll. Either they "got it" or they don't.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I can tell you if someone is a dice influencer in ONE roll. Either they "got it" or they don't.

Thats it, either you have the edge on every roll
or every spin, or its just random. Its called kidding
yourself.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats it, either you have the edge on every roll
or every spin, or its just random. Its called kidding
yourself.

Please don't misinterpret me. My point is that after observing ONE roll of the dice I can tell if someone has the skill to influence the dice. You can see dice stay on axis, you can see how the faces line up, you can see how they bounce and if they stay together, and you can see if they gently roll to the back wall. And you don't need a slow motion, high definition camera to see this either.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Please don't misinterpret me.
My point is that after observing ONE roll of the dice I can tell if someone has the skill to influence the dice.

One roll will not tell you the "degree of skill" that this shooter may have and that really is the important factor or even how many rolls he will have in his hand.

Even the Wizard points it out
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/

"The skill factor is defined as the percentage of double-pitch throws that the skillful shooter turns into zero-pitch throws. "

Even with a very high skill at DI,
unless you make the bets that favor the numbers that the shooter can roll more of, you are not taking any advantage of their skills.
Same as betting on a random roller.
A DI can still have some skills but a normal ratio of 7s that roll.

A DI, you know the shooter is by his ONE roll,
may have his advantage on the 4&10 numbers from certain dice sets he uses the most,
you do not know this from ONE roll, and you never will

but you refuse to bet those numbers because of their low winning probabilities.
You make your pass and place6&8 and can not win and may even cuss out this DI shooter for his lack of DI skill.

Statistics can prove a DI skill with a very high degree of certainty over many rolls, even as low as 100 to 500 rolls

One roll only opens your eyes wider to the possibility this shooter may be the one to win the big money.
The Dream

... a wise and good buddy once told me:

Quote:

Have you ever heard an on axis shooter
instruct the dealer to not pay the last box number hit for it was off
axis? If half of all their rolls were off axis, think of the money lost!

There probably are many more things we can list to show that on
axis shooting is not what it’s cracked up to be.

Quote:

Ahigh
We all know that winning is more easily obtained by pure luck than hard work at getting an edge and then later exploiting that edge in the casino throwing dice.

Let me see if I got this right, you are now saying that its luck, when someone like yourself gets on a good roll?

Quote:

Ahigh
In all of my investigations into this area of research, I have yet to meet the person you refer to as a "true dice influencer." And if such a person did in fact exist, I absolutely do not know what the process is for establishing them as "true" versus simply believing it in their mind.

Well then does this include you?

Quote:

Ahigh
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.

Ahigh we will be hitting 4 or 5 casinos on 2-17-13 this will just about be an all day event, there will be four of us. You can met and shoot with us if you can make it, just PM me.

7craps... remind me never to get into a business arrangement with you because drawing up a contract will probably take months and months because you are such a stickler for detail.

All I said is I can look at one roll of the dice to see if any shooter is able to control the dice. I wrote "after observing ONE roll of the dice I can tell if someone has the skill to influence the dice." That doesn't mean I can tell you if they are going to be hitting fours and tens or even if they won't seven out on the next roll. I am just saying that it only takes one roll to see if a shooter has the skill.

I look at Ahigh's wild toss and I know he doesn't, for example. Although if Ahigh can prove that his wild throw is actually planned to hit certain numbers then I will have to redefine what I consider to be a controlled throw.

I have an easier method of determining if a shooter is a expert dice setter or not. He is not a DI if he is not
a Bigfoot or a Sasquash.

Quote: AlanMendelson

7craps... remind me never to get into a business arrangement with you because drawing up a contract will probably take months and months because you are such a stickler for detail.

All I said is I can look at one roll of the dice to see if any shooter is able to control the dice. I wrote "after observing ONE roll of the dice I can tell if someone has the skill to influence the dice." That doesn't mean I can tell you if they are going to be hitting fours and tens or even if they won't seven out on the next roll. I am just saying that it only takes one roll to see if a shooter has the skill.

I look at Ahigh's wild toss and I know he doesn't, for example. Although if Ahigh can prove that his wild throw is actually planned to hit certain numbers then I will have to redefine what I consider to be a controlled throw.

I agree with with you on your decision making time...

Quick decisions using instinct are perfect.. In craps, most people who lose make late decisions because they go through their normally train of thought, which is pretty slow. They receive the initial thought (based on intuition or instinct) and then go back and try to put logic to it prior to making a move..

The fact that you make you decision after one roll is a good thing... The faster you make a decision, the better... Most people who win use instinct versus logic.. The players who use the concept of logic usually lose alot... You'll see them with their hesitant bets, and one of the biggest examples is the remorse of not "calling off bets" just before that seven.. You will hear them say "I felt it coming" but had they used that instinct and saved those 10 seconds to think it over, they would have those chips in the rail...

Oh and a "controlled-wild throw"... I can't do anything but laugh

Quote: TheWolf713

Oh and a "controlled-wild throw"... I can't do anything but laugh

I missed this. Where was a "controlled-wild throw" mentioned?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Please don't misinterpret me. My point is that after observing ONE roll of the dice I can tell if someone has the skill to influence the dice. You can see dice stay on axis, you can see how the faces line up, you can see how they bounce and if they stay together, and you can see if they gently roll to the back wall. And you don't need a slow motion, high definition camera to see this either.

Alan,

Come on now, dude. Really? That's crazy!

Quote: Ahigh

Alan,

Come on now, dude. Really? That's crazy!

Not crazy at all, Ahigh. It only took one of your rolls for me to see you are not a dice influencer.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Not crazy at all, Ahigh. It only took one of your rolls for me to see you are not a dice influencer.

Ouch. That one hurt..

Shit just got real.

Quote: EvenBob

Ouch. That one hurt..

Quote: sodawater

Shit just got real.

It appears that the peanut gallery just woke up.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Not crazy at all, Ahigh. It only took one of your rolls for me to see you are not a dice influencer.

Congratulations commander data. Did you happen to just get a new prescription? I really don't have to go into details because generally speaking everyone knows about sample sizes of one. But if you want to go down this road for me saying something you said sounds crazy, you are really leaving orbit with some of the statements you are making.

Come on back down to earth my friend.

As far as what you know about me, you generally don't know anything at all about me _or_ my game. You protect your belief system like a religious zealot. If what I was doing didn't challenge what you believe about the game you wouldn't have such a huge problem with me.

When you're practicing, why not use two different colored dice so you can tell them apart? If you're trying to influence the dice, you're trying to make the same thing happen on each throw. Getting a 5 on D1 and a 3 D2 is different than a 3 on D1 and a 5 D2, where D1 is the one that starts on your left and D2 the one starting on the right, is it not?

You know my software does support that, but I'm keeping things simpler for now is the short answer. I will be doing this eventually, possibly even soon rather than later. But it's clear you understand the advantages. Just also understand that it's a bit more work and my throw is specifically geared towards reducing the occurrence of sevens and and increasing the occurrence of pairs not much else right now, and non-hardway sets are of little interest to me at this early stage. And as long as I am seeing success with that, it's simpler for me to proceed in that direction.

All the software for this is done (except showing two face histograms on the graphs which is easy to add).

I already record rolls in order and store them in order and I have a mode bit in the file that tells that the order is important or not (whether two colored dice were used and order was recorded in with the throw).

The thing that searches for the best die-set also considers left and right die to be specific.

But it's a good question/observation.

Quote: Ahigh

Congratulations commander data. Did you happen to just get a new prescription? .

For someone who says it is inappropriate to dish out insults, you sure know how to do it yourself, don't you?" But for the record, I take about 30 pills a day to prevent rejection and to keep healthy following my kidney and pancreas transplants. The medications cost about $25,000 per year (insurance covers most).

Quote: Ahigh

I really don't have to go into details because generally speaking everyone knows about sample sizes of one. But if you want to go down this road for me saying something you said sounds crazy, you are really leaving orbit with some of the statements you are making.

Come on back down to earth my friend.

Sample size is not important. If you read what I wrote earlier, you will see that I don't care about results or statistics, because even a random shooter can have a marvelous SRR (seven to rolls ratio) because it can be just good luck that gives them that glowing SRR.

My definition of a dice influencer is simply whether or not the dice are influenced or controlled. That means a controlled throw, a controlled hit, a controlled bounce, etc. You might have the best SRR in the world, and you might be the world's best shooter, but it doesn't mean you influence or control the dice any more than anyone who describes themselves as being lucky.

Quote: Ahigh

As far as what you know about me, you generally don't know anything at all about me _or_ my game. You protect your belief system like a religious zealot. If what I was doing didn't challenge what you believe about the game you wouldn't have such a huge problem with me.

Another insult -- now you call me a religious zealot? Well, I did have a Bar Mitzvah, and a Rabbi did perform my wedding at the craps table at Caesars Palace 7 years ago. But I am not religious.

But you are right that I don't know anything about you. One day you're a dice influencer and the next day you're not. One day you're a researcher and the next day you're trying to prove your conclusion. One day you're the greatest shooter in the world and the next day you attribute it to luck.

So PLEASE set me straight and tell me just what you are? This way I won't have to guess anymore.

Quote: AlanMendelson

But you are right that I don't know anything about you...So PLEASE set me straight and tell me just what you are? This way I won't have to guess anymore.

How about "A deluded dreamer who can't cash the checks his mouth writes?"

Alan, I was on to this guy from the beginning; his toss shows he's got nothin'.

Just a bunch of hot air yearning for a gullible audience.

End of story.

I would have to agree... even if "dice influencing" were possible -- which I don't think it is -- the last person who could ever do it is ahigh. I've watched his videos (which I guess speaks more to my own boredom than anything else) and his dice bounce around completely randomly. Anything said beyond that is wishful thinking and BS.

Ahigh.

I haven't contributed here. But I do have a simple experiment for you and I'll do the work on the far end. Rather than throwing two dice, throw one. Make sure it hits the back wall each time. It should take you maybe 2 hours to run 500 tosses. Post them here and I'll do some chi-squared testing. Before you can control two dice, you should be able to control one.

This is pretty easy. I'd be curious about the results and I would be glad to do the statistical analysis.

Best,

Eliot

Quote: teliot

Before you can control two dice, you should be able to control one.

Interesting offer, Eliot, but the "dice influencing crowd" believes that by keeping two dice together it helps to limit the rotation and keeps the dice on axis. The primary requirement for "dice influencing" is the grip which keeps the dice moving close together.

While it is difficult to control/influence two dice, I think it might be even harder to control just one die.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Interesting offer, Eliot, but the "dice influencing crowd" believes that by keeping two dice together it helps to limit the rotation and keeps the dice on axis.

Would it be worthwhile to throw a die and a 'blank?' Or two colored dice disregarding one?

Quote: AndyGB

Would it be worthwhile to throw a die and a 'blank?' Or two colored dice disregarding one?

I have been saying this for a while. If you can just get one die to land on '5' at a disproportional high rate a right way bettor can be successful, and in my opinion, be called a dice influencer. Even if the second die is 100% random. On the initial roll you would increase 11's while decreasing 2's and 3's, helping there be more initial pass line winners. On subsequent rolls, 6-10 are increased, and since those points would have been preferrentially established, there is a greater chance of hitting those points.
Of course, I do not believe there is a human who can actually do it. But just being able to reliably increase or decrease the chances of a defined number showing up on ONE die is enough to make someone a dice influencer.

The reason I use the cross-sixes set is that if I happen to keep my dice on axis, the only "7" that would show would be 6-1. And yes, I tend to 7-out with more 6-1s than anything else.

Ahigh I think claims to use 4-2 as his set and 4-2 is a variation of the cross-sixes on top, if indeed he is using that particular 4-2 combination. I have asked him over and over again to show us his set and grip and I don't recall he ever has. He only shows dice in the air and hitting and bouncing on the table.

If he were really serious about investigating dice influencing, or if he were really serious about showing the world his talent, he would start with the set and grip. Because it all begins with the set and grip not some hocus pocus of chanting for dice landing on hardways.

Quote: AlanMendelson

A Rabbi did perform my wedding at the craps table at Caesars Palace 7 years ago.

Did you use the dice to break the glass? What set?
Good thing it wasn't a bris.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Did you use the dice to break the glass? What set?
Good thing it wasn't a bris.

Take a look at the ceremony: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/PerformanceNISMO/moneyla/scan0001.jpg

Las Vegas Norm in the Review Journal: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-13-Mon-2006/news/6331187.html

The wine glass was wrapped in a white Caesars cloth napkin and with the casino totally hushed (except for dealer Moe on the next table yelling "8 hard 8") I stomped on the glass and everyone shouted "Mazel Tov."

Quote: EvenBob

Ouch. That one hurt..

I think this is one of the best quotes of the thread so far (and what a thread this is). I just love this game.