Ahigh
Quote: AlanMendelsonThank you for posting this set of 204 rolls. When I look at results like this I wonder what would happen if I were a come bettor and this is what happened at the table, or if I were a place bettor and this is what happened at the table?
The first thing I look for is the number of "7s" that are rolled and I ask myself were there enough rolls between the appearance of 7s that I would make money with the number of bets that are "hit" before a 7-out?
The second thing I look for is the number of "repeaters" before a "7-out" to determine if there are enough repeaters to allow a come bettor to make a profit?
So, I separated your rolls to simulate actual hands at a craps game (ending in the point being made or a 7-out) and here is what I found. These rolls are from the come out to the seven out or the point made:
43` PASS MADE
51`21`42` PASS MADE
41`32`65`61` SEVEN OUT
61` PASS MADE
21`63`36` PASS MADE
35`14`42`51`36`63` 44` PASS MADE
34` PASS MADE
21`51`24` PASS MADE
61` PASS MADE
43` PASS MADE
41`21`32` PASS MADE
33`34 SEVEN OUT
13`54`33`53`62`55`64`15`52` SEVEN OUT
31`31` PASS MADE
36`21`62`26`15`31`51`35`25` SEVEN OUT
52` PASS MADE
61` PASS MADE
41`62`61` SEVEN OUT
53`33`54`53` PASS MADE
36 66`54`21`44`32`45` PASS MADE
52` PASS MADE
43` PASS MADE
54`64`64`12`11`55`16` SEVEN OUT
65` PASS MADE
26`64`64`21`64`16` SEVEN OUT
63`53`61` SEVEN OUT
13`53`42`23`52 SEVEN OUT
62`43` SEVEN OUT
43` PASS MADE
32`66`65`66`21`23` PASS MADE
65` PASS MADE
43` PASS MADE
55`61` SEVEN OUT
21`53`64`65`45`43` SEVEN OUT
32`64`32`56`41` PASS MADE
56` PASS MADE
64`31`41`66`22 36`66`65`35`21`16` SEVEN OUT
43` PASS MADE
53`51`33`61` SEVEN OUT
54`43` SEVEN OUT
52` PASS MADE
31`55`23`65`41`56`53`55`66`41`52` SEVEN OUT
53`41`21`11`52 SEVEN OUT
42`21`43` SEVEN OUT
42`52` SEVEN OUT
32`61` SEVEN OUT
11`11`31`62`51`62`44`22`55`55`22`31` PASS MADE
33`44`55`55`21`54`41`62`21`65`63 21`23`55`22`41`52` SEVEN OUT
52` PASS MADE
21`21`43` PASS MADE AFTER TWO CRAPS ON THE COME OUT
42`41`62`11`61` SEVEN OUT
54`22`62`42`53`53`54` PASS MADE
31`52 SEVEN OUTQuote:In all you had 53 simulated hands, and of the 53 you had passes (either making the point or by rolling a natural) 29 times. So you could be "rated" as an about 50% shooter when it comes to making your pass.
The next thing I want to do is apply these "hands" to my actual betting pattern to determine if I made or lost money.
(EDITED TO CORRECT HAND COUNT)
Alan this is admittedly a good roll. I think the owner will admit to some variance. It's also on home court in ideal conditions. "On any given Sunday" anything can and does happen.
Strategy; "old age and treachery will overcome youth with ambition". Come on man, your like the wise old owl, you can do this. He may have thrown this out there trying to intimidate any contender's. He wants to keep the title of best shooter on his table worse than you want to take it away.[maybe]
Your doin good, getting in his head. "Be the dice"
Come on players, you know you want to see this, help me out a little here. Maybe The Wizard could figure some odds here on Ahigh getting his ass kicked on his own table [or downtown]. What's the over/under?
He sevened out when I had full odds on 18 of his "hands."
Basically I am on the hunt for what appear to be unlikely trends to then try to see if the rolls look like anything other than randomness.
I'm all for going on about betting strategies with real roll data, but this thread is really to discuss the autorecord software and the reason I pulled this data was to see if there was anything special about this session. And there really isn't when you look at the p-values that I am profiling. It's frankly surprising to me that there aren't an unusually high number of hardways for the session given that so many happened so quickly.
Quote: AhighIt's frankly surprising to me that there aren't an unusually high number of hardways for the session given that so many happened so quickly.
Is that like looking at the tote board at a roulette wheel and seeing a run of "red numbers" and then expecting to see more "red numbers"? Come on Ahigh, you know better than to make silly claims like:
Quote: AhighIt's frankly surprising to me that there aren't an unusually high number of hardways for the session given that so many happened so quickly.
I'm not CLAIMING that I am surprised. I am surprised. And there's nothing silly about it. I previously thought it must have been some skill in there, now I'm all WTF?!
I didn't have the p-value stuff in my software when I rolled those rolls.
Quote: Buzzard204 rolls I understand. What I have trouble with is the criteria that determines whether a random or non-random shooter was involved. Can anyone help me ?
My understanding is that the chi-squared test can suggest that when something diverges from expected distribution for a random result ENOUGH that it can be evidence of some non-randomness at play.
There's not really any of that in the entire session, even though if you ran the p-values on the selected ten samples and looked at the p-values for chance of hardways versus non-hardways, it would look very very unusual at 1 in 16 million.
Quote: Buzzard204 rolls I understand. What I have trouble with is the criteria that determines whether a random or non-random shooter was involved. Can anyone help me ?
I think Math Extremist made an excellent case for the idea that axis control can be one way to show dice influencing or dice control or non-random shooting.
Frankly, this was the same idea that Sharpshooter developed in his book almost 20 years ago. Statistics for dice throws which are not on-axis prove nothing.
As they say: there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Unless you show some actual control, how the dice resolve is meaningless. The only test of control or influencing or non random throws is the actual on axis throw. This is what makes Ahigh's video system so marvelous to have. It will finally resolve the issue of whether or not dice stayed on axis, how many faces they might rotate and whether or not there is any actual control.
Once Ahigh can shows us a roll frame by frame we can finally see who is a dice influencer and who just got lucky. The statistics about how the dice came to rest are meaningless. All those statistics will show is the result of random throws. If you want to show "controlled" or "influenced" throws then simply show the frame by frame videos.
Ahigh the researcher finally has come up with a way to prove who has control and who doesn't.
I've posted before that I don't believe in axis control. By that I mean I don't think anybody can consistently keep the dice on axis from start to finish often enough to make a difference. I do think the possibility of dice influence exists but again it's going to be through other means, not axis control. So I don't think ahighs video software will prove what you are looking for. This said, I think what ahigh has done is pretty incredible and will ultimately be very useful for him
Here's the way I sum up claims of dice influencing or dice control: if you haven't got at least axis control in the throw and when the dice GENTLY bounce off the table then you haven't got a prayer at "dice influencing" and you are just a random shooter. Now, if you follow what I just wrote then you wouldn't waste a dime with any school. Instead do what Wong wrote about in his book. Put a sheet of aluminum foil on your bed, and throw the dice and see if the dice make "stars" or "stripes" on the aluminum foil. If you see "stars" from the points hitting you have NO axis control. "Stripes" MIGHT indicate axis control and I emphasized MIGHT intentionally.
If I have an agenda here (and I do) it is this: to show who is making bogus claims about dice control and dice influencing and to prevent people from being suckered into the scams. With that said if someone really can master the dice I will not only applaud them but I will also put them on TV. And if they really have mastered the skill I will help them sell their system of instruction if they really have a system of instruction that works.
In the meantime, as I've always said: it doesn't hurt to keep trying.
And I hope Ahigh really gets his system up to par and working because Ahigh can help either dispel the myths of dice influencing or prove the mechanics of it.
Quote: AlanMendelsonpetroglyph, I wonder if you applied your own betting strategy to these rolls and what would happen to your own bankroll? Since I bet 3,4,5X odds and bet across on each shooter, and I don't bet the hardways, I need at least four "numbers" thrown to break even on the place/box bets. And 17 of the 29 passes are come out rolls with no "odds" to help.
He sevened out when I had full odds on 18 of his "hands."
Just got back from Laughlin, three casino's, three games I lost money. Ok, got that out of the way.
Everybody get's to do it their own way. I don't bet across, if I toss a hard out there it's usually for the dealers. I don't have a system. I try to remain fluid. Betting discipline to me is a must. I don't like a buy and hold strategy in stocks or craps bets.
Each table I got to today was near empty when I started [two were] and it's almost like people were waiting behind a slot machine somewhere, and the tables loaded up fast. When I play, I'm there to shoot.
So on the post with the points above, I'll estimate what I would have done had it been a real game. One caveat here though, if I were at a table with Ahigh, I would have probably been betting on some 8's. Just guessing at what he's up to ain't easy.
I don't think I would have bet till the third line. It looks to me like a 41 for a point and come right back with a 32, I would have won that with a self service place bet. The next roll is a yo, I think I would have got that one and then it's followed by 2-7's in a row. Also I was playing 3 dollar min. on two tables today and I like that, when I do I always throw a buck on the c, yeah I know it's stupid but that's what I do. So, starting that fifth line I'd of hit that 21c and lost a pass bet.
Following along I would have 3 on the line and a c for the 63 and put down odds and collected on that line. In this game here that is the first odds I would have had out there.
On the 6th line, same thing 3 on the line, 1 on the c [lost] and been all proud of myself for being so smart by now, and went with at least double odds. It's Ahigh at bat and it's an 8, I'm really on my game now, winner. Sweet, where's the cocktail lady? By now I might have had a buck on the hard 8 for the boys.
Looking down through there, I would have made some money. Working on my game discipline I hope I would have left while ahead?
I will bet across sometimes on myself, and it only stays that way up to 5 hits or less and down.
This also was a practice session not a game. Every seven away, new shooter it changes for me and I do a qualify regimen. I usually don't bet the pass unless I want a wager on the c. I was actually thinking about you today, and I bet a horn on a wild and crazy guy, I make few of those. But I was gambling and I had to make the 3 min. so I took a four horn and missed, but it was fun.
Like you, it seems to me better rolls generally come from shooter's that try? I will make a put bet on the point if I think I'm getting dirty looks and just ride that out but will take it down and do. Lately, taking my bets down has been a powerful tool. I miss some when I come down but I've been almost psychic about taking them down. If it isn't paying me it's not staying there all day.
You asked me how I bet, this is my close approximation of what I would have done in a real game with the same good shooter.
My thinking you have a reasonable expectation of having a better score on a shoot out with Ahigh really isn't about the money. It's about good sportsmanship and fun. Variance is our friend.
I've read pretty much every book I could get my hands on over the years including sharpshooters.
Maybe I didn't explain myself very clearly. I think it's possible to have the dice end up on axis more frequently than random. This would be due to correlation or by reducing the frequency of certain faces which might be possible with certain shots. But I think very very few of these on axis hits are shots that stay on axis all the way through the shot. It may appear so with the naked eye but in slow mo the truth comes out. It does happen but not often enough to make it a goal for potential advantage play.
As I said, I think the video software will help , maybe a lot, but not in the way that most people would think.
Quote: JB85Alan,
I've read pretty much every book I could get my hands on over the years including sharpshooters.
Maybe I didn't explain myself very clearly. I think it's possible to have the dice end up on axis more frequently than random. This would be due to correlation or by reducing the frequency of certain faces which might be possible with certain shots. But I think very very few of these on axis hits are shots that stay on axis all the way through the shot. It may appear so with the naked eye but in slow mo the truth comes out. It does happen but not often enough to make it a goal for potential advantage play.
As I said, I think the video software will help , maybe a lot, but not in the way that most people would think.
There is a zip file that I made with several shots in it a few posts back. If you download the zip file, it's about 200MB. And in there, there is a shot or two where a die hits the back wall and stays on axis. But here's something that I think several people don't realize. The rotational axis can remain more or less the same even when the die bounces off at an angle on the position. Once I have the computer vision working, and I roll thousands and thousands of rolls, we can have statistics on what percentage of the shots hit the back wall and stay on axis and all the other mumbo jumbo. But you can already download these videos and load them up into Windows Media Player's playlist and then watch them in slow motion and start to notice things with the naked eye if you have the time to do that. I also tried a number of stacker shots (attempting to get legal stacker shots) which can have dice settling very quickly in a legal way. Pit crews freak out when they see a stacker shot and on the show on Tuesday I'm going to talk about the stacker. But when you do a proper stacker, one die can land with very little rotation at all. I believe this is key to disturbing the process of landing for a given shot. But perfecting the stacker in a way that the casino will allow is probably an entirely different subject.
I agree that it can be done. I just don't think it can be done often enough to be a vehicle for DI.Quote: AhighThere is a zip file that I made with several shots in it a few posts back. If you download the zip file, it's about 200MB. And in there, there is a shot or two where a die hits the back wall and stays on axis.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here but I think you are talking about correlation here. If so I agree as well.Quote: AhighBut here's something that I think several people don't realize. The rotational axis can remain more or less the same even when the die bounces off at an angle on the position.
Where are these at?Quote: AhighOnce I have the computer vision working, and I roll thousands and thousands of rolls, we can have statistics on what percentage of the shots hit the back wall and stay on axis and all the other mumbo jumbo. But you can already download these videos and load them up into Windows Media Player's playlist and then watch them in slow motion and start to notice things with the naked eye if you have the time to do that.
Interesting. I've never spent much time practicing this shot. This is the shot that got me to thinking about this new shot I've been messing around with though. Looking forward to the show.Quote: AhighI also tried a number of stacker shots (attempting to get legal stacker shots) which can have dice settling very quickly in a legal way. Pit crews freak out when they see a stacker shot and on the show on Tuesday I'm going to talk about the stacker. But when you do a proper stacker, one die can land with very little rotation at all. I believe this is key to disturbing the process of landing for a given shot. But perfecting the stacker in a way that the casino will allow is probably an entirely different subject.
Quote: JB85Maybe I didn't explain myself very clearly. I think it's possible to have the dice end up on axis more frequently than random.
I understand that is your position, but my position is once the dice go off axis they are off axis. What sharpshooter details is the idea that dice remain on axis for as long as possible and then go off axis by one face when they hit the back wall and come to rest.
What you have to understand, and this is very important, is that the entire theory is based on a very soft toss and roll with the dice barely bouncing off the back wall... or even coming to rest against the back wall.
What you typically see even in online videos is not the kind of throw that has a chance of staying on axis. And those are not "controlled throws." They are random throws -- period.
IF I understood it correctly, the software is set to 'hear' the dice hit the table, and then start recording the video. Yet the video clearly shows the dice hitting the table, and then bounding into the wall. Because of the angle of descent, I have to believe I am seeing the initial contact with the table, but then there would have been no sound prior to that to have started the recording?
So now I am thinking that perhaps your cameras are always temporarily 'recording' data, but it is not being archived until the dice hit the table, and at that point, you grab what's already in the buffer?
Quote: RaleighCrapsI am late to this thread, but have a question on the original clips that are on the first pages.
IF I understood it correctly, the software is set to 'hear' the dice hit the table, and then start recording the video. Yet the video clearly shows the dice hitting the table, and then bounding into the wall. Because of the angle of descent, I have to believe I am seeing the initial contact with the table, but then there would have been no sound prior to that to have started the recording?
So now I am thinking that perhaps your cameras are always temporarily 'recording' data, but it is not being archived until the dice hit the table, and at that point, you grab what's already in the buffer?
This is a good question. I am using the BlackMagic Intensity Pro PCI express cards to do the recording. I am recording to Samsung Pro 840 SSD (the fastest SSD available). But all of the video comes from up to five BlackMagic Intensity Pro cards in raw YUYV422 format and gets stuffed into a FIFO queue. I define a constant for how many frames to store, and right now I think it's about 16 frames, but it's only limited by RAM. Once it hears the right signal, it dumps the previous 8 frames to disk and then starts recording in real time the frames directly to SSD. I currently have four blackmagic cards in my computer I built for this process, and when I use more than two at once, all video will be stored in RAM in a FIFO queue until dumped to disk because even the fastest SSD is only fast enough to store two channels of raw data. So you just beef up the RAM and store it in RAM until you're done, and then dump to disk when you run out of disk bandwidth.
Thanks for taking an interest in the software. I like these types of questions.
The first implementation had the dice just magically appearing from a frame or two after the initial point of contact. Experimentally I decided 8 frames was enough from before the sound was heard. I also do 750 milliseconds AFTER the last sound is heard as well because sometimes the dice stop making noises before they stop moving.
For the show, I will have a camera also showing the release moment as well as a digital still frame with a sound-triggered flash from a DSLR HDMI previous output. And all of this will be demonstrated in real-time. It's a big milestone in my quest to get full video tracking done. For later shows, I will book interactive bets from viewers and your bets will be drawn as chips on the actual craps table (augmented reality style) with your name associated with your chips. That way everyone can bet on the shooter in real-time.
It's going to get really fun as things progress, and I like these questions. I have more surprises, but I had to let the one about betting out of the bag. The bets aren't real money, though, just for fun due to state laws.
That's what I'd do -- pull out the frames from T-0.5 seconds to T+3 seconds (adjust as needed), where T is the impact sound, then use motion detection to trim static images from the front and back of the clip. E.g., at the beginning, delete a frame if it's the same as the subsequent one; at the end, wait for stasis for maybe 0.5 seconds and then clip all subsequent frames. That would actually give you another variable to test -- the length of the clip would be the duration between when the dice entered the shot to when they came to rest. Shorter clips should correlate with better results and more control; if they don't, control may not be there at all.Quote: RaleighCrapsSo now I am thinking that perhaps your cameras are always temporarily 'recording' data, but it is not being archived until the dice hit the table, and at that point, you grab what's already in the buffer?
(YAY!!! Rush 2049)
Quote: AlanMendelsonI understand that is your position, but my position is once the dice go off axis they are off axis. What sharpshooter details is the idea that dice remain on axis for as long as possible and then go off axis by one face when they hit the back wall and come to rest.
What you have to understand, and this is very important, is that the entire theory is based on a very soft toss and roll with the dice barely bouncing off the back wall... or even coming to rest against the back wall.
What you typically see even in online videos is not the kind of throw that has a chance of staying on axis. And those are not "controlled throws." They are random throws -- period.
I hear what you are saying. What I'm saying is that I think there may be other ways to influence the dice other than "axis control theory". My stance is that it is not possible to have the dice remain on axis throughout the entire throw OFTEN enough to make a difference. My point is that if you are looking at results from ahighs video results from anyone, not just ahigh, I think you personally will come to the conclusion that DI is not possible because we will find very few if any completely on axis shots.
But a lot of these debates, regardless of the nomenclature, are going to be testable given the precise data for the movement of the dice for large samples of throws from candidate AP shooters. Proof for legal AP play is not a certainty, but if it is proven, it should be possible to determine exactly what gives rise to the possibility for AP play.
I will be happy if there ends up being zero evidence for AP play, but my personal opinion is that we will at least see evidence of the possibility for AP play in the short rolls, and probably also for the rolls where the one or more of the dice don't move much after landing.
Quote: JB85I hear what you are saying. What I'm saying is that I think there may be other ways to influence the dice other than "axis control theory".
Yes, I understand this. In fact, previously on this Forum I asked Ahigh if his throws were in fact designed so that the dice would fly in different directions, bounce different distances once they hit the back wall, and flip and flop all over the table as they do to achieve his heralded "hard ways"? Now, with his technology he will be able to demonstrate that to us, if indeed that is what he does, and he will be able to show us this magical trajectory.
By the way, do you remember what was said about the single bullet that produced seven entry/exit wounds on JFK and Governor Conally, according to the Warren Commission? The critics called it a "magical bullet."
Well, if a non-axis throw is designed to produce hardways, I would call it a magical toss.
Read about the "magical bullet" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory
Quote: JB85I hear what you are saying. What I'm saying is that I think there may be other ways to influence the dice other than "axis control theory". My stance is that it is not possible to have the dice remain on axis throughout the entire throw OFTEN enough to make a difference.
The latter may indeed be true, but it's at least quantifiable. You can figure out how often that needs to happen in order to make a difference. It turns out not to be very often.
What's unclear is what other ways you could influence the dice that didn't involve controlling at least one axis. Every dice-throwing technique I've ever read about had to do with some manner to prevent the movement of one axis of a die, or at least correlating the movements of the axes of two dice. It's not necessarily the blanket roll, but consider that the slide shot, the whip shot, the blanket roll, the "soft gentle toss" approach, all involve minimizing the movement of at least one axis during the throw. What else would you suggest could lead to any amount of influence or control?
Quote: AhighI'm not trying to prove telekinesis, but if that were a result of my research, what an unexpected bonus!!!
Actually, I was wondering what you might say when your own technology shows you have no control over the dice and your throws are random?
Let me toss a hypothetical out there.
We've seen shooter's set all hardways and have a pretty good run but the points didn't come hard.
The diamonds do there intended function.
Just for grins sometime, make a min. bet and set all sevens and throw the way the casino wants you to.
There is more to it I'm sure, but if the die thrown hardways don't produce hardways wouldn't an all seven set produce the numbers?
What's the goal, monster rolls or a profit?
Quote: AlanMendelsonActually, I was wondering what you might say when your own technology shows you have no control over the dice and your throws are random?
For the record, I thought everyone would understand that the telekinesis comment was a joke. I can't tell if you are joking, though. I hope you are because there's no way I'm going to get to the conclusion that I have "no control over the dice and my throws are (100.00%) random."
If you think there is, please explain how it would be possible to come to that conclusion. The opposition would love to have such a way to conclude that my rolls are 100% random, I am sure, as it would squelch a lot of noise on this forum from their perspective.
I don't think any of my ideas are new but yes, dice correlation for one. With a good throw, the dice hit the table at the same time. Although the dice go off axis most of the time after they hit the table, they will react the same very often, even to the point stopping at almost exactly the same time. If there isn't much movement after they hit the table there is a chance that the dice will come to rest close to the original formation or possibly one face off. Which could lead to the seven showing less. If one were to use the hardway set where it takes 2 face turns to make a seven this would seem to be a possible conclusion. Ahighs software shows that the hardway set is best for me and I have had some success in reducing the appearance of the 7 in my practice throws. In watching the dice on all of these throws this is the only explanation I can come up with....other than pure luck.Quote: MathExtremistThe latter may indeed be true, but it's at least quantifiable. You can figure out how often that needs to happen in order to make a difference. It turns out not to be very often.
What's unclear is what other ways you could influence the dice that didn't involve controlling at least one axis. Every dice-throwing technique I've ever read about had to do with some manner to prevent the movement of one axis of a die, or at least correlating the movements of the axes of two dice. It's not necessarily the blanket roll, but consider that the slide shot, the whip shot, the blanket roll, the "soft gentle toss" approach, all involve minimizing the movement of at least one axis during the throw. What else would you suggest could lead to any amount of influence or control?
I also think that it is possible to increase the appearance of certain faces of the dice and reduce the appearance of others. It could be done in two ways. 1) for a GTC type throw, it could be done with pitch control. If one is able to control the revolutions to allow the same face to hit the table most of the time it stands to reason one face may appear more often. This combined with the correlation theory could produce an edge by being able to target a series of numbers with a RSR better than random. 2) with a stacked type throw where the goal is to land and kill one die with the same face up or land both dice with the same face up, again allowing one to target certain numbers.
Quote: MathExtremistIt's not necessarily the blanket roll, but consider that the slide shot, the whip shot, the blanket roll, the "soft gentle toss" approach, all involve minimizing the movement of at least one axis during the throw. What else would you suggest could lead to any amount of influence or control?
One of the first books out on dice control, said that all those shots were obsolete, and the Arthur was right! You should read [Dice Control for Casino Craps] by Yuri
All of those shots were used to cheat with way back when, they didn't have legal craps tables and were shot on blankets, table tops and anything else they could find to shoot on. Scarne wrote about them in his book [Scarne on dice] and everybody has been saying that these shots were used in the casinos which they weren’t used! The DI schools never taught any of those shots, they wouldn't work on a casino table, but everybody that has read some of the older books has been miss using the references to those shots wrong!
Quote: AhighFor the record, I thought everyone would understand that the telekinesis comment was a joke. I can't tell if you are joking, though. I hope you are because there's no way I'm going to get to the conclusion that I have "no control over the dice and my throws are (100.00%) random."
If you think there is, please explain how it would be possible to come to that conclusion. The opposition would love to have such a way to conclude that my rolls are 100% random, I am sure, as it would squelch a lot of noise on this forum from their perspective.
Wow, that's quite a statement. There is no way that you could come to the conclusion that you have no control over the dice and your throws are 100% random? Wow again.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Wow, that's quite a statement.
Right. If you have concluded my rolls are 100.00% random, that is what I would call an ignorant conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
I know you're real busy labeling your poor customers as degenerate gamblers, but maybe learn something?
Quote: AhighFor the record, I thought everyone would understand that the telekinesis comment was a joke. I can't tell if you are joking, though. I hope you are because there's no way I'm going to get to the conclusion that I have "no control over the dice and my throws are (100.00%) random."
If you think there is, please explain how it would be possible to come to that conclusion. The opposition would love to have such a way to conclude that my rolls are 100% random, I am sure, as it would squelch a lot of noise on this forum from their perspective.
Ahigh my guess is that as soon as you perfect your system you will abandon it -- becuase your system will prove you have zero control and the last thing you would want is proof that you have zero control.
But I don't care about you. I want you to perfect your system so that you can go after the other charlatans.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAhigh my guess is that as soon as you perfect your system you will abandon it
My guess is that you will still bet Horn High Ace Deuce.
Quote: AhighRight. If you have concluded my rolls are 100.00% random, that is what I would call an ignorant conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
I know you're real busy labeling your poor customers as degenerate gamblers, but maybe learn something?
I'll save you the time of having to click out of here and allow you to review the below definition. Let me know when you have any...
proof (pruf)
n.
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true or believable.
ZCore13
If you believe that, you have absolutely no business in the industry. You have got to be confused because as many ignorant things as you have written, this one takes the cake if this is what you're thinking.
There is absolutely no question that advantage play is possible on a craps table. No question at all. That is not what we're even talking about proving advantage play. That's a GIVEN. All the work I'm doing is to find out exactly where it lives and why and who can achieve it.
You guys hoping that the only result is that I "prove" that 100% of all rolls are 100% random are writing some really weak stuff here. But keep it coming. I'm enjoying the feeling that I'm getting having the Zcore's and Mendelson's of the world coming out to state their positions before we all find out.
Of course if we do end up with an absolute irrefutable PROOF that every roll I have ever made and will ever make that's a legitimate throw in the casino is 100.00000% random, I'll admit to the world that I was wrong and you guys were right.
For now, though, I'm LOL'ing on the CHANCE .. however remote it may be in your mind .. that you guys have no concept of what it would take to PROVE that all (of my or anyone's) rolls are 100.00000% random. Classic.
It is simply an argument of ignorance, and a classic one at that.
Please focus more on advancing this and less on rebuttals to the legion of critics, we all remember what happened to the Ahigh Show thread and others when they became less civil tan is reasonable
Quote: chickenmanTremendous use of technology, Ahigh, kudos!!
Please focus more on advancing this and less on rebuttals to the legion of critics, we all remember what happened to the Ahigh Show thread and others when they became less civil tan is reasonable
Thanks for the complement, chickenman.
You insist on making claims you have no proof for. When someone asks for it, you get defensive and personal. Now you've got all this nice equipment, but your not going to use it to determine if you can influence the dice because you already "know" you can. Great researcher.
EDIT - Sorry my post seems like I'm replying to nothing but in the post above mine Ahigh, as he's famous for, edited his post after posting it, removing a bunch of stuff, including a personal attack.
ZCore13
I dont think any roll Ahigh has ever had at a casino is anything but random. I have seen no video
of his throws on a casino table. I would think if your good enough to be the best roller ever
we could see a video of what happened in a casino.
Short of proof, i have to assume he makes it all up.
Video proof is the only thing that counts, short of that your wasting your time.
Last night was an example... i played 2 sessions of 4 hands
8,8,8,5,8,8,9,8,7,7,6,9,9,4,11,7
6,6,6,10,10,5,10,10,2,4,4,3,11,4,11,7
5,5,9,3,7
5,8,11,11,7
10,4,9,7
8,9,8,8,8,10.11.4.9.10,4,10,7
8,8,7
Now you have to understand that was just at a casino table with no video
recorder. when i quit the pit boss said you made some money here, but this
was not recorded, so i cant be sure you did not make up these numbers, however
since you play here often we will let you keep your winnings.
I thought that was great, and that is 4 nice wins in a row here, but since it
was not recorded, i am not sure what to do with the money. The hardest part was
even though the srr was between 8-12 during the month, and my on axis finish
was over over 56% , it really did not prove anything because both dice did not
stay on axis during the entire roll.
This stuff is so hard, if you win consistantly during a period and your repeating
numbers you normally repeat, it is still just luck no matter how long you do it, unless
you can prove it to some one else that cant do it.
Makes me wonder, if you bowl and average 210 a game. if not every ball hits
the exact same mark after release, and all the pins go down the exact same
way. did you really average 210????
Anyway me and zcore are on the same page, we are just mortals, now if we claimed
to be good, yet alone the best ever we would want to have a video.
There is so much nonsense on here i am just to playing my game and having fun
and making some money.
dicesetter
So ahighs rolls are all random because he didn't record it in a casino. Then you go on to tell us about your 8-12 RSR? Then you say he makes it all up? He is the ONLY one that has more than a few documented shots on video, and he has a few thousand. No one that I know of can make that claim. And it's on a REAL craps table. Perhaps his RSR is not 8-12 because he counts ALL the 7's he throws.
Ahigh has documented his wins and losses for quite a while now. Which is a lot more than you have done. His approach to craps when he is shooting is exactly how someone with an edge would approach the game. And he seems to do very well on his own shot. Most of his losses are from gambling on random shooters, he hasn't been very lucky in that regard.
Ahigh has a passion for craps and has done a lot of cool things to try and research the possibility of DI. Yet a select few continue to bash him no matter what. If you don't have anything constructive (constructive criticism is even fine) to say, why join the thread?
You may be right, that is why it is good to prove what you are doing to
others. So many people take the time to make up numbers, you dont know
who to trust.
You could be 100% correct i may have made up those numbers, hell i may
'have even made up the wins the past month.
That is the reason we need a video from anyone that claims to be good or
the best ever. i never claimed to be good at anything, i just provided data
on what i did, others may say that is good or bad or what ever, people like ahigh
may even call me a liar... life is hard,
But again i am looking forward to some video record from ahigh showing a clear
advantage with his rolls.
dicesetter.
Quote: AhighOf course if we do end up with an absolute irrefutable PROOF that every roll I have ever made and will ever make that's a legitimate throw in the casino is 100.00000% random, I'll admit to the world that I was wrong and you guys were right.
For now, though, I'm LOL'ing on the CHANCE .. however remote it may be in your mind .. that you guys have no concept of what it would take to PROVE that all (of my or anyone's) rolls are 100.00000% random. Classic.
It is simply an argument of ignorance, and a classic one at that.
You're going to need to sharpen up your terms if you want to test this properly. Every dice roll that has ever been made in a casino was random (excluding slides, which technically aren't rolls). Even the ones made with loaded or shaved dice. The question isn't whether the throw was random, the question is whether the distribution was uniform.
A random variable X is simply an outcome that varies according to chance. All dice rolls vary according to chance. A normal casino die has six possible discrete outcomes, so what you want to test for is whether, for two such dice, the results you obtain via your throwing technique are unlikely to have been produced by uniform, uncorrelated throws. The null hypothesis is that for two dice D1 and D2, p(1)=p(2)=p(3)=p(4)=p(5)=p(6) = 1/6, and moreover that D1 and D2 are independent of each other. You need to gather data and analyze whether that null hypothesis can be rejected. You can do that in one of two ways (or a combination): test whether the outcome distribution of one or both dice is significantly non-uniform, or test whether the outcomes of the two dice are significantly correlated.
The question isn't whether your dice throws are random. It's whether your dice throws have been influenced, by you, to be something other than uniform and uncorrelated.
see this is an excellent point, and ofcourse we need proof.
I do see some light at the end of the tunnel. if ahigh ever gets to the point that
he sees some advantage in his rolls, than perhaps , there is a very very outside
chance that he will think some one else could have an advantage.
But god forbid if some one else gets one first,.... there will be hell to pay.
I for one am truly excited, i have taken my game as far as i can, i am going to need
some help from a true professional, the best of all time to get to the next level.
dicesetter
Quote: MathExtremistEvery dice roll that has ever been made in a casino was random (excluding slides, which technically aren't rolls).
I disagree. Here's an example of a dice roll that's not random: two dice are thrown, the first one resolves to a six on the felt and the second one pops up and hits a player on the arm. The player already saw the six die on the felt and does not flinch. The second die bounces off the players arm who did not flinch, and the roll is called winner ten.
Absolutely nothing was done, but it is lack of action on part of the person who chose not to move that made the throw an advantaged throw. If the resolved face had read four, three, two, or ace, the player could have moved and caught the dice that went off the table.
That's just one example of a two-man advantaged throw. There are others that are not slides.
You guys are thinking WAY inside the box.
Advantage craps play is a fact in my view. Plain and simple. My only work is to identify areas where advantage plays are allowed by law. There is more than one way to do it. It exists. I intend to map it out.
Those who view the above described roll as 100% random are wrong. That's the end of the discussion on all rolls being 100% random as far as I am concerned. I am done with responding to myopic thinking that "all the rolls are perfectly random."
Quote: AhighI disagree. Here's an example of a dice roll that's not random: two dice are thrown, the first one resolves to a six on the felt and the second one pops up and hits a player on the arm. The player already saw the six die on the felt and does not flinch. The second die bounces off the players arm who did not flinch, and the roll is called winner ten.
Absolutely nothing was done, but it is lack of action on part of the person who chose not to move that made the throw an advantaged throw. If the resolved face had read four, three, two, or ace, the player could have moved and caught the dice that went off the table.
That's just one example of a two-man advantaged throw. There are others that are not slides.
You guys are thinking WAY inside the box.
Advantage craps play is a fact in my view. Plain and simple. My only work is to identify areas where advantage plays are allowed by law. There is more than one way to do it. It exists. I intend to map it out.
Those who view the above described roll as 100% random are wrong. That's the end of the discussion on all rolls being 100% random as far as I am concerned. I am done with responding to myopic thinking that "all the rolls are perfectly random."
That is one of the worst examples I've ever seen used to try and disagree with someone. Can you show any proof at all that this has ever been done or that it can be done? Show a video of two dice being rolled, one coming to a stop and someone being able to see that and adjust themselves to be able to either catch or not catch the other die based on what the first die resulted in. That would be awesome to see. Maybe on your show?
Myopic is a great term, you just happen to be using it for others when you should be using it for yourself.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Show a video of two dice being rolled....
Why because you don't understand? "Worst example?" Look, it is AN example, and there's no question that someone who understands what I am talking about would agree that's not a random shot even though it's a lack of action that makes it not random.
But, whatever, dude. You wish you were right and I was wrong, but you're not right. I am.
My example of this advantaged throw is an RAA proof that you can't assume all rolls are 100% random. I don't have to show you anything, you're already proven to be wrong that all throws are 100% random. It's as simple as that to prove it, and there is the proof.
Listen at 4 minutes in on Part 3 at the following link (bottom of the page). I describe two $100 boxcar bets at the Cosmopolitan was resolved exactly this way (as a potential advantage play).
Listen at the description at 5:14 where two players hit boxcars for $100 each.
http://www.highrollerradio.net/Aaron_Hightower.html
This actually happened, and even though nothing was done, the inaction on part of the person who was hit with the dice is potential for advantage play. And there's nothing that the casino did or really could have done to stop what happened. And they certainly could not prove that this was an advantage play any more than you could prove that it wasn't.
I have a question about this software and the recording sessions. When you do a live stream or a FULL recorded video we can see from the start to the finish and everything in between. So their is no question to what was going on. I am wondering since this just records a few frames at a time, could someone just cherry pick and delete a few files here and there? how would someone know if that was done?
This seems like great software to get proof for YOURSELF. However, When it comes to recording any REAL PROOF that could be 100% accepted by the gaming community, Everything needs to be verified by multiple people, things such as, are the dice biased, Whats under the felt, Is there sticky soda on the dice. Some kind of a controlled test.
Quote: AxelWolfAhigh
I have a question about this software and the recording sessions. When you do a live stream or a FULL recorded video we can see from the start to the finnish and everything in between. So their is no question to what was going on. I am wondering since this just records a few frames at a time, could someone just cherry pick and delete a few files here and there? how would someone know if that was done?
The stuff I uploaded is an example of the resulting files for detailed analysis. But doing a full live show that includes all of the action in full length documents that the rolls are legitimate. The rolls I gave on this page are just examples of the software and were not logged or simulated in any roll histories at all.
But when I do a live show, the rolls will be captured and made available in this format with a full show where you can match each roll from the live show to ensure that no cherry picking was done.
