Is dice influencing ethical?
Poll
 | 29 votes (87.87%) | ||
| | 4 votes (12.12%) |
33 members have voted
Now, in blackjack, when a counter counts cards, they are using information about the state of the deck to vary their wager size, but that action does not impact the other players at the table. However, if a shooter can influence the dice such as in the example above, that influence alters the probabilities for everyone at the table. If a shooter can keep the 3s on axis and make the don't pass bet player-favorable (and shoots from the dark side), everyone betting on the passline has a larger house edge and a greater expected loss. Is that fair?
Consider the following scenarios:
a) Suppose the shooter knows, after rigorous practice and analysis, that his average on-axis rate is indeed 20%, that he has a meaningful edge on the don't pass when he sets the 3s on axis, and that the passline now has a house edge of -3.9%.
b) Suppose the shooter thinks he can increase the on-axis rate and move the edge on the don't pass bet toward player-favorable, but he doesn't know by how much.
c) Suppose the shooter doesn't know whether he can influence the dice, but he's trying to.
Is there any scenario under which making a bet worse for other players at the table is ethical?
Does it matter if the shooter announces his intentions to the table? Or if he says something like "don't bet on the passline while I shoot"?
Does it matter which bets the shooter makes worse? If the shooter kept the 1s on axis, the don't pass players would have the worse expectation and not the pass players. Does that make a difference?
I'd add this one:
1. Should a controlled shooter deliberately shoot randomly in order to lose in the long run in order not to hurt other players' chances?
Of course you could have a DI who intentionally makes the worst bets on himself and then have other players follow suit. Not sure why anybody would do that, except in the case of "that guy is annoying me, I'm going to show him a lesson and change my set to try to hit (whatever number(s) will intentionally make the other player lose.)"
Where's "I'm a bigot" poll option!?
I don't believe there are any issues in this scenario.
Firstly, as has already been noted, the other players are free to bet EXACTLY the same way as the person shooting the dice. If I was playing at a table and I noticed one person who consistently hit their bet, I would probably decided to make the same bets next time they shot. Even to the dreaded HORN, assuming they were consistently winning when they made that bet.
Secondly, other players are not forced to bet on other players. You can choose to take no action and just wait for another shooter.
A shooter should not have to announce their intent. Heck, if a shooter had an advantage on HORN numbers, announced the same, and then proceeded to win a large number of bets on the HORN, how long would it take for the casino to say to him "step away from the rail sir, your craps play is too strong for us".
ME, as you know, craps is a fairly balanced game. It has beautiful symmetry. A shooter who gains an advantage in one area is going to create an equal disadvantage in another area. As a player, I need to be observant enough to recognize that another player has discovered a way to play that has altered the game. Hopefully I learn before I have lost all my money for that session.
I think the real challenge in this case is going to be to the player with the advantage. How does he/she go about playing the game, and making bets, to take Maximum advantage, so they can extract the most possible money from the casino, before they get the boot. I suppose one way would be to make sure you have lots of little losing sessions, and then have one big win, followed by more small losers, followed by a BIG win, etc. Feed the notion that you are a consistent loser who gets lucky once in a while.
At first, this would in fact, seem unfair to the other players, except in this scenario, I would not bet WITH this loser shooter, instead I would bet in another manner. I suppose if he was someone I played with all the time, when he decided to have his 'winning' session, I would get caught playing the wrong bets, and I guess that could be unfair to me, but then again, there is nothing that says I have to bet on his roll.
Is caveat emptor appropriate for this situation?
Quote: MathExtremist
Is there any scenario under which making a bet worse for other players at the table is ethical?
Assuming you are not outright cheating there is nothing unethical here. I set the dice, I influence the dice, I find some hottie who never shot before--it doesn't matter. I want to win and will do whatever I can do within the rules to do so. For me to win the DP must lose, so be it.
Quote: Dicenor33I think it's wrong to change the outcome of the game in favor of a player by using an advantage play.
How so? On any game or just craps?
Quote: Dicenor33However,if shooter acts as a shill or he helps the house to eliminate dark side players than it's ok.
Why would the house want to eliminate dark side players? There is still a house advantage over them.
Dice influencing is ethical.
Now, if a casino doesn't want you setting the dice or using a controlled throw, they have the right not to let you play.
Now, I am ready for the usual suspects to start quoting the actual law about altering the odds of the game and the NGC also addressed that and dice influencing is not considered anything that will alter the odds of the game.
+1Quote: wudgedWhere's "I'm a bigot" poll option!?
LOL
Quote: AlanMendelsonSTOP. The answer has already been given in Nevada. Dice setting, controlled shooting, attempts at dice influencing are all (with the exception of sliding) an accepted part of the game in the view of the Nevada Gaming Commission. The dice are given to the player with the expectation that the player will do what he can (lawfully and within the rules of the game) to get the results he wants. Only "dice sliding" is specifically prohibited along with using artificial methods to influence the dice such as glue. The condition that the NGC sets is that the dice must fly in the air, bounce at least once on the table and hit the back wall.
Dice influencing is ethical.
Now, if a casino doesn't want you setting the dice or using a controlled throw, they have the right not to let you play.
Now, I am ready for the usual suspects to start quoting the actual law about altering the odds of the game and the NGC also addressed that and dice influencing is not considered anything that will alter the odds of the game.
Aren't you confusing ethical with legal ?
They are two different things. ME has not mentioned anything about legality, he was only asking if controlling the dice presented any ethical issues on the game, and the other players.
And, I agree, the legal aspect has been discussed ad nauseum, AND I LIKE craps
Quote: Dicenor33I think it's wrong to change the outcome of the game in favor of a player by using an advantage play.
Are you PaigowDan's understudy?
Seriously, I voted "yes." If the casino allows it, then do it.
Quote: WizardAre you PaigowDan's understudy?
Seriously, I voted "yes." If the casino allows it, then do it.
I actually have a question for you, Wizard.
On WoO you've identified different ways to set the dice and have identified what those sets would theoretically do for an on-axis throw. I tend to use one of the 3V sets, also known as, "The flying V," because I happen to like how it looks. However, the only reason I set the dice at all is a sort of, "Pascal's Wager," sort of idea in which I figure if it could theoretically help, then I might as well.
So, my question is, do you attempt to set the dice when you are shooting predicated on the possibility that it may work?
Quote: Mission146So, my question is, do you attempt to set the dice when you are shooting predicated on the possibility that it may work?
No. Not only do I not believe in dice influence, but I think it would set a bad example if I even acted as if I did. I'm just happy to have both dice land inside the table. This coming from the kid who was always picked last in P.E., so physical dexterity is not my strong suit.
Quote: Mission146I actually have a question for you, Wizard.
...
Do you attempt to set the dice when you are shooting predicated on the possibility that it may work?
I've still yet to play dice with the Wizard. I suspect that he feels he doesn't have the motor skills for it to work regardless and only worries about hitting the back wall and keeping the crew happy that he's playing the game within the rules of the casino and betting as much in free odds has he can.
I would be extremely surprised if he admitted to attempting to have an advantaged throw, even with a lame excuse of an attempt of setting and shaking or other ritual.
edit: we answered at the same time, but I promise I didn't read his response before writing what I wrote above.
Lost me right there.Quote: MathExtremistFor the sake of this discussion, let's assume that a shooter has the ability to influence the dice.
I spent great deal of my visiting and playing at casinos. I grew over the idea of easy money and I don't treat'em as a source of income. It's just a show which I like and most of the time we pay for what we like not the other way around.Quote: wudgedHow so? On any game or just craps?
Why would the house want to eliminate dark side players? There is still a house advantage over them.
I hate dont's.
Quote: hwccdealerAs a dealer, I've actually been written up because of an influence player (he bet a hopped and all-day hard 8 for $50 each, taking the dealers with him,) and he won almost $2,000 because of it. I was at the wrong end of the table to catch it and had nothing to do with it; nonetheless, I still got written up. So I have a pretty sour attitude toward people who try to influence the dice, especially considering that the only people who are actually trained to catch this crap, i.e. the supervisors, couldn't do it.
Do you have a copy of the 'write up'? I'd be fascinated to read it! Was the player sliding the dice? Was he short rolling? What were you written up 'for'? I am trying to figure out what you were supposed to do? Have you ever stopped a player from rolling who was not rolling short or sliding? What would you actually tell the guy who was rolling, hitting the back wall with both dice, and seemingly 'controlling' the dice?
If you are comfortable sharing, what casino did this occur at?
Quote: DeMangoWow! On axis occurs randomly 44% of the time. So we are going to limit it to 20%????? Hello All 7's set! Let's make some money!!!!!
Not true at all. If each face is equally likely, it is true that 44% of the time each die will show one of four preselected faces (4/6 * 4/6 = 16/36 = 44.44%). However, that's under the assumption of equally-likely faces. When the dice stay on axis, each die will show one of four radial faces 100% of the time and the axial faces will *never* show. The supposition was that a shooter could get the dice to stay on axis 20% of the time, so the shooter's likelihood of what you're calling "on axis" is now 55.55%.
It's one hell of a work environment when a man can not shut his eyes for a moment to pray. And thank God the supervisor
admitted he did not hear him snore.
Quote: AlanMendelsonSTOP. The answer has already been given in Nevada. Dice setting, controlled shooting, attempts at dice influencing are all (with the exception of sliding) an accepted part of the game in the view of the Nevada Gaming Commission. The dice are given to the player with the expectation that the player will do what he can (lawfully and within the rules of the game) to get the results he wants. Only "dice sliding" is specifically prohibited along with using artificial methods to influence the dice such as glue. The condition that the NGC sets is that the dice must fly in the air, bounce at least once on the table and hit the back wall.
Dice influencing is ethical.
Now, if a casino doesn't want you setting the dice or using a controlled throw, they have the right not to let you play.
Now, I am ready for the usual suspects to start quoting the actual law about altering the odds of the game and the NGC also addressed that and dice influencing is not considered anything that will alter the odds of the game.
To echo a prior poster, I'm not asking about legality at all. The question isn't whether trying to influence the dice is legal, the question is whether it's ethical. But since you mentioned sliding, I'll use that as an example for further discussion.
Suppose you're at the table and someone else has the dice on the comeout roll. You make a passline bet. The shooter has a don't pass bet and makes a $100 snake-eyes bet, then proceeds to execute a flawless slide of two aces in such a way that the dice spin at the end of the table, off the bumpers, but don't tumble. The stick allows the throw. The shooter wins $3000 on his aces bet while you lose your pass bet. The shooter, being an accomplished dice controller, knew he was going to throw snake-eyes. Was this an ethical thing to do, throwing the dice in a way that your bet would surely lose?
I also see that you believe sliding is illegal, even though that wasn't technically the holding of Skipper v. State (which held that deceptive sliding was illegal). Suppose there were a court ruling that sliding in the open is legal, and that it is up to the casino to decide to call no-roll or not. Would that change your opinion on the ethics?
Quote: BuzzardSOOPOO Management can write an employee up for anything.
Having known lots of dealers, I can vouch for this.
Quote: BuzzardSOOPOO Management can write an employee up for anything.
I understand that. I am just interested in WHAT they would write.
Quote: MathExtremista flawless slide of two aces...The stick allows the throw. The shooter wins $3000 on his aces bet while you lose your pass bet
I was going to vote "ethical" but this escalation to the extreme has me wondering. Can someone make the argument that cheating "a little bit" is OK? [in other words, any possible true DI is still likely to have a minimal effect, thus that makes it OK? eh?]
On the other hand, "unethical" doesnt seem to fit the bill. Even if the argument convinced me, I couldnt lose much sleep over it. Havent voted yet.
Quote: RaleighCrapsAren't you confusing ethical with legal ?
No.
Quote: MathExtremistSuppose you're at the table and someone else has the dice on the comeout roll. You make a passline bet. The shooter has a don't pass bet and makes a $100 snake-eyes bet, then proceeds to execute a flawless slide of two aces in such a way that the dice spin at the end of the table, off the bumpers, but don't tumble. The stick allows the throw. The shooter wins $3000 on his aces bet while you lose your pass bet.
If you remember the LVRJ article about the Wynn case, I was quoted about being at a table at Caesars where a don't player slid the dice and they let him get away with it because he lost so much money prior to this. I said nothing because I won money off of him and I felt bad for him. But I would not let another slide happen.
So here's another question about "ethical": was it ethical for me, a player, not to protest that slide? I could have asked for the eye to review the tape -- and I would have won. But I didn't. Was it ethical for the dealers to give him a "pass" as well?
Regarding dice sliding in the open being legal: if the NGC Enforcement Division tells me it's legal then it's legal. Legal meaning "acceptable" and not necessarily legislated.
Quote: WizardNo. Not only do I not believe in dice influence, but I think it would set a bad example if I even acted as if I did. I'm just happy to have both dice land inside the table. This coming from the kid who was always picked last in P.E., so physical dexterity is not my strong suit.
At least you got picked. I got transferred to the special P.E. class in high school.
I voted yes.
Would it be ethical for the dealers said things, like
"You shall not pass!"
Lose, lose, lose".
"He's influencing the dice."
"You throw dice like a girl."
The shooter is paying for the opportunity to throw the dice so should be able to throw them anyway they want [that's legal].
Should even be able to throw one off the table once in a while as a subtle remark about too bouncy of table, inconspicuously.
Anyone else betting should realize the shooter is trying to win.
It's not like gambling is a shining example of ethical behavior anyway.
It's not unethical, it's sort of like playing snooker.
Quote: petroglyphIt's not unethical, it's sort of like playing snooker.
Or ruthless croquet even. It's a new idea to me though to think that Craps has any aspect of player competition.
Quote: odiousgambitOr ruthless croquet even. It's a new idea to me though to think that Craps has any aspect of player competition.
That is an interesting point. Until this topic, I've always thought of a craps game as a bunch of players all rooting for basically the same thing (no 7), united against the house. Occasionally, a Don't player will also be 'against' the rest of the table, but most of the time, it is players vs the house. Now we are introducing the element that the shooter has a way to make the game biased, and in so doing, could mean his interests are not the same as the other players, who are not aware of the bias.
THAT IS JUST GREAT. Now, not only do I have to fret the House Edge, but now I need to be paranoid that all of the other players are also going to threaten my bankroll. How is this game ever going to be fun anymore?
Maybe the ethics / team spirit is what motivates the tradition of making that announcement...?
Quote: MathExtremistNot true at all. If each face is equally likely, it is true that 44% of the time each die will show one of four preselected faces (4/6 * 4/6 = 16/36 = 44.44%). However, that's under the assumption of equally-likely faces. When the dice stay on axis, each die will show one of four radial faces 100% of the time and the axial faces will *never* show. The supposition was that a shooter could get the dice to stay on axis 20% of the time, so the shooter's likelihood of what you're calling "on axis" is now 55.55%.
One more time. Random is 44.44% on axis. If you stipulate 20% on axis this is a great opportunity to put 7's on all faces and not throw many 7's. You are just pulling numbers out of your keister!
Quote: DeMangoOne more time. Random is 44.44% on axis. If you stipulate 20% on axis this is a great opportunity to put 7's on all faces and not throw many 7's. You are just pulling numbers out of your keister!
No, random is 0% on axis. 44.44% is the probability that any of four numbers will appear on both dice, but that's true even if you select (1,2,3,4) and there is no axis at all.
At this point you should understand the definitional differences between what you consider "on axis" (including whether the dice bounce off someone's shirt and happen to land the way you want) versus whether the dice actually rotate around an axis and do not tumble. Intentionally conflating the two is dishonest. It's like saying that by definition, everyone slides the dice 1/36 of the time.
Quote: DeMangoOne more time. Random is 44.44% on axis. If you stipulate 20% on axis this is a great opportunity to put 7's on all faces and not throw many 7's. You are just pulling numbers out of your keister!
I think what ME is trying to say is that 20% of the time you are guaranteed on-axis, while 80% of the time will be a standard normal/random distribution. So 80% * 4/9 = 35.55% of the time the results will be random but wind up on-axis, plus the guaranteed 20% on-axis = a total of 55.55%
Quote: FleaStiffI ain't never met no shooter what cared anything for someone else's bets!
The people who pay attention to the whole game and are not just worried about figuring out where their own bets are placed, what it takes to win/lose, etc. sometimes "feel the pressure."
I saw a guy who was just a "random roller" at the Taj Mahal in AC once. Another guy at the end of the table walked up and chucked table max $2500 on the line, and of course the point is set at 4. He then puts $5000 in odds, and the shooter, wearing a NY Yankees cap, whispers to me and my friend, "I've never been so nervous since Mo was pitching game 7 of the World series!" Next toss, you guessed it, seven-out.
Quote: wudgedI think what ME is trying to say is that 20% of the time you are guaranteed on-axis, while 80% of the time will be a standard normal/random distribution.
I don't think that is what ME is saying at all.
I think there is a confusion here between what the numbers showing for an on-axis throw are vs. an actual on-axis throw.
An "on axis throw" is strictly mechanical -- it's as if you ran a pencil through two dice side by side with the pencil piercing through the 6 and 1 faces of both die. An "on axis throw" is not how the dice come to rest on the table.
When you say that the dice came to rest on the table with 2, 3, 4, or 5 faces showing it doesn't mean that the dice ever traveled on axis to get there. And yes, a hard 6 or a hard 8 or a hard 4 or a hard 10 can appear on the dice on the table felt without the dice ever traveling on axis.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI don't think that is what ME is saying at all.
I think there is a confusion here between what the numbers showing for an on-axis throw are vs. an actual on-axis throw.
An "on axis throw" is strictly mechanical -- it's as if you ran a pencil through two dice side by side with the pencil piercing through the 6 and 1 faces of both die. An "on axis throw" is not how the dice come to rest on the table.
When you say that the dice came to rest on the table with 2, 3, 4, or 5 faces showing it doesn't mean that the dice ever traveled on axis to get there. And yes, a hard 6 or a hard 8 or a hard 4 or a hard 10 can appear on the dice on the table felt without the dice ever traveling on axis.
You're both right. If you use the pencil trick 20% of the time, and randomly fling them the other 80% of the time, the house edge changes as in my first post. That's equivalent to someone trying to throw on axis all the time and only succeeding 20% of the time. In reality, the idea of someone having that ability seems highly improbable, but that wasn't what I wanted to explore.
It seems likely that everyone who's going to vote has. Interesting results and comments. Thanks for participating.
What have we ever done to you? What bad experiences have you had with evil don't players?Quote: Dicenor33I hate dont's.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhat have we ever done to you? What bad experiences have you had with evil don't players?
I treat all betters equally. What I hate is players who have really bad body odor or who are rude or mean! Farting is a close second to all of that. But at least the smell of a fart goes away after a minute.
Quote: BozAnd I don't believe there is a don't player in the world who doesn't love playing against a so called "influencer".
Thanks for an example from your fine array of solidly backed and researched beliefs. Why not share them all?
Is Boz short for anything? Just curious.
