Ahigh

Quote: Ahigh

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.

Thank you.... I added some things to my last post. I will post it here since you probably wont go back and read what i edited it to. This is some COOL stuff, Craps mad scientist stuff. I hope you get your show going again soon.

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: Ahigh

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.
...
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."

Of course that's a random roll, and it doesn't even make sense to use the phrase "100% random". Randomness is a binary question: a variable is either random or it's not. The throw of a die can't be 80% random or 23.7% random. What on Earth would that mean?

If you're going to redefine what "random" means, you should just hang it up right now. Seriously. You've spent thousands of dollars on equipment and dozens if not hundreds of hours setting up what could be a useful laboratory for exploring the question of dice influence, but all that will be for naught if your research methods aren't correct and aren't based on legitimate foundations. Lose the conceit and stop pretending you already know all the answers, because if you actually did, there'd be no point in asking the questions to begin with. If you want your research to have any shred of legitimacy at all, you can't go willy-nilly redefining terms to mean just what you choose them to mean -- neither more nor less. Humpty Dumpty thinking doesn't belong in a research lab.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass

Thank you M.E.


ZCore13

Quote: Ahigh

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."

Are you kidding?

Quote: MathExtremist

Lose the conceit and stop pretending you already know all the answers, because if you actually did, there'd be no point in asking the questions to begin with.

His conceit, or hubris, or even arrogance is part of who he is.

He cannot drop it; were he to try, his worldview would be shattered.

To him, he is master, king, and god of his own little world, the smartest guy in a room full of dummies.

Funny stuff.

Quote: MrV

To him, he is master, king, and god of his own little world, the smartest guy in a room full of dummies.

Like I said, Humpty Dumpty thinking doesn't belong in a research lab:

Quote: Through the Looking Glass

'Certainly,' said Alice.
'And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

Quote: MrV

in a room full of dummies.

I suppose that's one way to explain how nobody seems to understand the proof that you can't prove all dice rolls are random. But it would be a forum, not a room, if you are describing the audience's inability to understand an RAA proof that you can't prove that the dice are 100% random.

100% refers to the percentage of rolls which are random, for what it's worth. Some rolls might be random, and some rolls might not be random.

You only need a single roll that you can see the outcome of the first die, and have an opportunity to affect the outcome of the second die to force the roll to be a no roll for that one roll to no longer be random. The roll process is affected by conscious thought depending on the outcome of the first die when the die touches are players' arm. Once that one roll happens in one casino, then instantly all collective dice rolls become non-random. Simple as that. You can't have a single non-random roll and make the claim that ALL dice rolls are random. Therefore, by RAA, it's absurd to think that all dice rolls are random, and that is the proof that you cannot prove that all dice rolls are random. This is a complete waste of time explaining this, because I expect that many will never understand. You can call me names as Mr.V chose to do, but you can't change the facts that I am right about this.

Now Zcore and Mendelson, I can understand them not understanding why a roll that has the OPPORTUNITY to be aborted via a no-roll call effectively by the player would not be considered a random roll. It's a roll that happens if a bystander wants it to be a roll, otherwise it's not a roll. That's not a random roll. That's a non-random roll.

Now who wants to take the counter to my argument and say that this is still a random roll when a player has a chance to intercept a die and prevent it from resolving based on an observed outcome from the first die being favorable or unfavorable to a player?

The casino generally can't call a no roll after seeing the outcome of one of the dice either, without losing the good faith of the players. That's because it's only fair when nothing is known of the outcome yet.

Quote:

aHigh
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.

If that was true, it would have been proven a long time ago. You wouldn't have to be doing all of this hard work, every casino would have came up with different type of counter measures, besides what they are all ready have.

Think about what you just said in the above quote.

Quote: MrV

His conceit, or hubris, or even arrogance is part of who he is.

He cannot drop it; were he to try, his worldview would be shattered.

To him, he is master, king, and god of his own little world, the smartest guy in a room full of dummies.

Funny stuff.

Your sentence structure is interesting, but I'm pretty sure that you are speaking of the writer rather than the writing here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

PM sent for name calling. I'm not sure who the "room full of dummies" is either, but that sounds like name calling with an ambiguous target.

Quote: superrick

Quote:

aHigh
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.

If that was true, it would have been proven a long time ago. You wouldn't have to be doing all of this hard work, every casino would have came up with different type of counter measures, besides what they are all ready have.

Think about what you just said in the above quote.

It has been proven, and even demonstrated to be against the law in the case of dice sliding. That is an advantage play that is so obvious that the law has been invoked.

Seriously? If you define advantage play as what people know to be impossible, that's the only way that you can say that it's not possible!

Don't forget, what I am fighting is the RIDICULOUS NOTION that it can EVER be PROVEN that it is IMPOSSIBLE to advantage play the game because ALL ROLLS ARE RANDOM!

This whole argument is borderline insane because you're taking the side that it is POSSIBLE to prove that the game has no exposure to non-random outcomes. A belief that is completely without merit!

Quote: AxelWolf

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.

It's not a race, so it will take time. A proof does not require that everyone understands it for it to be a proof. But adding rigor once more is known of exactly what methods can lead to non-random rolls will narrow the area of interest for inspecting certain types of trajectory landings. Once entry trajectories that are favorable are discovered, it's a computer training problem to train a shooter to hone in on those trajectories.

Everything for the landing trajectory is a multi-dimensional parameter. The theory is that there are domains of landing trajectories that produce non-random outcomes. Training a shooter to narrow in one one of these landing trajectories to demonstrate more bias is a second phase of the experiment.

Right now, it's just looking at the total amount of movement and rotations after touchdown, and ideally minimizing those things as measured by the computer. I think this is the main focus until more is known, but that's mostly a guess on my part.

Quote: MathExtremist

Of course that's a random roll

What if I roll the first die, and if the outcome is favorable I roll the second die, otherwise I just throw the dice way past the table and ask for another roll.

Is that a random roll too?

I am surprised you think that a roll where a player gets to decide if you get a no-roll call based on what he sees as an outcome on the first die is a random roll.

I am unconvinced that you are right!

Quote: Ahigh

I suppose that's one way to explain how nobody seems to understand the proof that you can't prove all dice rolls are random. But it would be a forum, not a room, if you are describing the audience's inability to understand an RAA proof that you can't prove that the dice are 100% random.

100% refers to the percentage of rolls which are random, for what it's worth. Some rolls might be random, and some rolls might not be random.

You only need a single roll that you can see the outcome of the first die, and have an opportunity to affect the outcome of the second die to force the roll to be a no roll for that one roll to no longer be random. The roll process is affected by conscious thought depending on the outcome of the first die when the die touches are players' arm. Once that one roll happens in one casino, then instantly all collective dice rolls become non-random. Simple as that. You can't have a single non-random roll and make the claim that ALL dice rolls are random.

Now who wants to take the counter to my argument and say that this is still a random roll when a player has a chance to intercept a die and prevent it from resolving based on an observed outcome from the first die being favorable or unfavorable to a player?

You really need to learn the difference between random and uniform. A random variable can have a non-uniform distribution. The random variable that is the sum of two six-sided dice is non-uniform: p(2) = 1/36 but p(7) = 1/6. That's still a random variable. So is the selection of a color on a roulette wheel, and so is the sum of the dice under the human-intervention scenario you described above, where someone causes a roll not to count if one of the dice doesn't show a six. The distribution in your scenario is different from the typical one, but it's still a random variable.

Really, you need to learn what "random" means. Start with Knuth, who said "there's no such thing as a random number." When you understand why that's true, you'll be ready to proceed.

Quote: MathExtremist

You really need to learn the difference between random and uniform. A random variable can have a non-uniform distribution. The random variable that is the sum of two six-sided dice is non-uniform: p(2) = 1/36 but p(7) = 1/6. That's still a random variable. So is the selection of a color on a roulette wheel, and so is the sum of the dice under the human-intervention scenario you described above, where someone causes a roll not to count if one of the dice doesn't show a six. The distribution in your scenario is different from the typical one, but it's still a random variable.

Really, you need to learn what "random" means. Start with Knuth, who said "there's no such thing as a random number." When you understand why that's true, you'll be ready to proceed.

That's all fine and good. But for a roll, you have two dice, and if I get to decide mid-way through the roll if I want to accept the answer given the first half the resolution, that's not a random roll from my view. This is the part that makes the idea that you could prove all dice ROLLS are random absurd! Go back to the reason why I brought up this condition in the first place. We are talking about rolls of two dice being random or not, not the outcome of the dice themselves.

The outcome of each die when called is random. But if I get to alter the method of calling a roll based on information from the outcome of one of two dice, that's no longer random.

I think you will eventually see things my way. I'm not having a hard time understanding what you're saying, but I don't know if you can make the same claim.

Quote: Ahigh

The outcome of each die when called is random. But if I get to alter the method of calling a roll based on information from the outcome of one of two dice, that's no longer random.

Yes it is. Do some reading:
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy411-506/topic2/knuth-3-1.pdf

I can randomly generate a number between 7 and 12 by rolling a single die and placing another one face-up showing a 6. That's still a random variable with a calculable distribution (and variance and mean, etc.)

Quote: MathExtremist

Yes it is. Do some reading:
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy411-506/topic2/knuth-3-1.pdf

I can randomly generate a number between 7 and 12 by rolling a single die and placing another one face-up showing a 6. That's still a random variable with a calculable distribution (and variance and mean, etc.)

Alright, then your post is random too. Maybe we should also discuss the definition of the word pedantic.

What I'm talking about is the roll, the one with 21 different outcomes, six of them happening 1 in 36 rolls and fifteen of them happening 1 in 18 rolls.

If I watch the first die resolve and see that it's not a 5 or a 6, I know it won't be a ten, so then I catch the second die instead of letting it resolve.

For that case, there is zero chance for certain outcomes of the dice that include any 1, 2, 3, or 4's in the outcome of the first die. That eliminates 2/3rds of the outcomes, and we're just left looking at 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 66, or twelve outcomes instead of 36. So while the other rolls have an equal chance of the 36 outcomes, this roll only has an equal chance of 1 out of 12 outcomes. Therefore I would say that, yes, as you point out, it's randomly going to be 1 through 6 for the second face, but the roll is no longer random for 36 outcomes, it's random for 6 outcomes.

But that roll, whether you want to call it random or not, has potential for advantage play. This whole conversation has greatly diverged into the pedantic level, in my opinion, however. Maybe you and Alan should make the definitions so that you guys can agree about what it should be called after other people do the work to figure out how it works.

Even still, a dice thrown in a particular way is no longer random, even by your referenced definition which I do agree with. All of this is just to demonstrate that you can't prove the dice are always random. And it should be the case that everyone already knows that instead of wasting all this time discussing the pedantic definition of random and arguing about that.

It's still ABSURD to think for even a MOMENT that all dice rolls are even random. Period.

Quote: Ahigh

What if I roll the first die, and if the outcome is favorable I roll the second die, otherwise I just throw the dice way past the table and ask for another roll.

Is that a random roll too?

Is that a legal way to throw the dice in craps? I can't believe you are even arguing this point.

There are times where your ridiculous opinions back you into a corner. Instead of slowing down and admitting to a mistake, you try and fight your way out, which makes you look even worse.

Everyone is not always wrong. As a matter of fact, unless it comes to the actual playing of craps, it is you that is wrong most of the time. Your definitions, thoughts on how things work, ideas of randomness are at best silly and at worst border on insane.


ZCore13

Quote: Ahigh

Alright, then your post is random too. Maybe we should also discuss the definition of the word pedantic.

What I'm talking about is the roll, the one with 21 different outcomes, six of them happening 1 in 36 rolls and fifteen of them happening 1 in 18 rolls.

I'll see your "pedantic" and raise you "obdurate" and "peremptory."

An event with 21 outcomes, where six happen with p=1/36 and fifteen happen with p=1/18 is not any more or less random than an event with four outcomes where two happen with p=1/36, one happens with p=14/36, and one happens with p=20/36. And in case that second example wasn't clear, it describes the distribution of outcomes for the Field bet: {3, 2, 1, -1}.

If you want to carry on with your imprecision and intellectual laziness, be my guest. You're as free to invent your own personal pseudo-math as the baccarat systems players who have recently been posting so much. And you should expect to be afforded a similar level of credence if you do.

Quote: MathExtremist

If you want to carry on with your imprecision and intellectual laziness, be my guest. You're as free to invent your own personal pseudo-math as the baccarat systems players who have recently been posting so much. And you should expect to be afforded a similar level of credence if you do.

Just stay there, guys. Don't worry about what I'm doing. You guys are basically poking straw man arguments at my work by suggesting what will happen when the result is proving that everything is just random without understanding what I'm doing.

It's really clear that even ME doesn't understand how a dice can behave non-randomly. We can argue terms all day long without making progress. And maybe that's not intellectually LAZY, but it's sure is UNPRODUCTIVE.

You want to cite Knuth, let me cite Wall.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LazinessImpatienceHubris

All my dice code except the video capture is written in Perl, FWIW.

Quote: Ahigh

100% refers to the percentage of rolls which are random, for what it's worth. Some rolls might be random, and some rolls might not be random.

Let's try to reach a middle ground here:

1. It is difficult to make non-random "legal" or acceptable throws at a regulated casino craps table in Vegas. By regulated, I mean the crew won't let you get away with sliding.

2. Non-random or controlled or highly-influenced throws are indeed possible.

3. A non-random or controlled or highly-influenced throw will have certain characteristics that will make the path of the dice take a particular course. The particular course might follow one or more of the following:

a. dice remain on axis
b. dice rotate slowly
c. dice do not rotate at all
d. dice bounce softly
e. dice do not bounce once they hit the table
f. dice react slightly with the back wall
g. dice stop dead and come to rest against the back wall
h. dice might go off axis by one or two faces
i. one die might go off axis by one or two faces

Now I think those "conditions" of what characterizes a non-random, or controlled or highly influenced throw is a pretty good summary of what we should expect to see in a controlled, or highly influenced or non-random throw.

NOT on the list is anything that would indicate the end result or what faces show on the dice when the dice stop moving justifies a controlled or non-random or highly influenced throw because when determining a non-random, controlled or highly influenced throw "the end result of the dice does not justify the claim of non-random."

I think there are a lot of people who can exercise a throw of dice with some or many of the conditions stated above. So far I have not seen even one video of Ahigh's that shows he can perform anything from the above list. Perhaps he doesn't think the above list matters? Well, I am asking Ahigh to humor me and to please post online a video with a dice roll showing as many of the conditions from the above list as possible. If he is really as good as he says, fulfilling my request shouldn't be too much of a problem. And of course it would be interesting to see his analysis of such a throw using his new technology.

Well, it seems we almost agree, except I don't think the things you listed are possible on a "controlled" basis on a legal throw without luck being involved. If a legal throw is one that both dice are released at the same time, both dice hit the table and both dice hit the back wall, any more than maybe one of the above is just luck.

Saying one can get away with one die not hitting the back wall is all fine and dandy, but you cannot get away with enough to turn the house edge in your favor over the long run. They won't allow it.

Being able to do one or two of those things at home in a controlled environment with no Supervisors watching and trying to protect house assets is not real life dice control anyway. I can hit .600 on a video game. Doesn't mean I can if i go face the ace of the Dodgers.

The conditions of something have to be realistic for them to be valid. We both agree Ahigh has never shown he can do any of the above consistantly. His bankroll also says he can't do the above consistently. I contend that in a "regulated" casino, nobody can.


ZCore13

Quote:

aHigh
It has been proven, and even demonstrated to be against the law in the case of dice sliding. That is an advantage play that is so obvious that the law has been invoked.

First off you need to go out and learn about the history on anyone becoming a so-called DI. Then you need to do some research on cheats using the dice slide, because its legal, if you have no one that is trying to distract the dealers, boxman and suits.
The only problem with my above statement is that there isn't one casino that will allow a dice slide. It's against the casinos rules to use a dice slide, and they will call a no roll if they catch you trying it. There is only one case, that ever went to court in NV, which the defendant was found guilty of using a slide.
He had accomplices that blocked the view of what he was doing.

SKIPPER v. STATENo. 23843.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19941611879P2d732_11607

If no casino will allow you to slide the dice and there has already a case that set a precedence, I wouldn't advise to try a dice slide in any casino. Read the case, then apply good common sence to what you learn! If you have none,.. head over to the Wynn, and see how many dice slides you can get away with before they put the handcuffs on you.

So put a stop to your silly use of sliding the dice as a way to become a AP craps player, it will only work in your dreams, but it will never work in a casino!
The only people that I know of, that is trying to push AP craps playing is the great fiction writer, why don't you go over to his craps board and ask what happened to his protege when he boosted that he was a AP craps player, and he was going to double his bankroll, by playing AP craps!

Funny that nobody has seen him in any casino since he snuck out of Vegas.
The poor, poor deadcat is no where to be found. He didn't even have the common courtesy to tell all of his followers that he couldn't make it in Vegas. They didn't find out for a couple months that he was no longer in Vegas!

They do ban craps players that they feel are threat to the casinos bottom line. So any craps player that is setting the dice, and winning a lot of the time can and do get those taps on the shoulder, telling them the casino does not want their action.

Just because you happen to get lucky some times and make some hard ways, it does not prove a thing. When you stop reporting every time that you have your losses, and you are winning just about every time you walk into a casino, then maybe dicesetter, ZCore13 , Alan M, MathExtremist, and anybody else might think that you are doing something that nobody else is doing!

Quote: Ahigh

It's really clear that even ME doesn't understand how a dice can behave non-randomly. We can argue terms all day long without making progress.

The only thing I don't understand is what kind of progress you expect to make when you don't even understand what you're testing. You wouldn't, I hope, presume to be able to make a medical diagnosis without some medical education, so why do you presume to be able to quantify randomness when you don't know what random means?

But if you want to misuse the word "random", perhaps you can tell us: what's the edge on the passline when the dice are "80% random"?

Quote: Ahigh

PM sent for name calling.

"Name calling?"

Merely agreeing and clarifying.

Quote: Ahigh

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.

Quote: Zcore13

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.

Quote: AlanMendelson

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?

Quote: MathExtremist

The only thing I don't understand is what kind of progress you expect to make when you don't even understand what you're testing. You wouldn't, I hope, presume to be able to make a medical diagnosis without some medical education, so why do you presume to be able to quantify randomness when you don't know what random means?

But if you want to misuse the word "random", perhaps you can tell us: what's the edge on the passline when the dice are "80% random"?

Where did I misuse the word random? There were only two conditions that I considered. Either 100.00% of all throws are random or there is one or more throws that is not random in my samples and therefore the rolls are no longer 100% random. Some are random and some are not. Those are the two conditions that are being considered.

The percentage is an adjective describing the rolls, not the randomness. My example to RAA proof that rolls are not all random is that if any roll is not random, then you can't come to that conclusion. That's why I isolated a specific roll as my argument rather than isolating how the dice bounce. If I were to isolate how the dice bounce, everyone would be arguing about that forever. That's why I picked the specific case of an advantage play where knowledge of the first dice allows a player to selectively prohibit resolution of the second dice just to prove a point.

If some percentage of the time I am able to deliver a shot that results in a hard 8, that will create a situation where my rolls are not 100% random. That means that I have some rolls that are random, and some rolls that are NOT random. Now that's a more treacherous path to travel because we have folks on here who want to argue whether or not I am getting more hard eights through luck or variance or chance or whatever you want to call it who could say that's no proof. So that's why I used the instance of another kind of roll that's not random in the 36 possible outcomes.

This is a colossal waste of time though, this straw man argument where you say that I am misusing the term random when I am talking about a percentage of my rolls that are random not a percentage of randomness in each roll anyway. And the whole point of bringing it up was to demonstrate that the conclusion that every single shot ever shot is random. My example of selectively allowing a roll to resolve depending on the outcome of the first die does not have some percentage of randomness and percentage of non randomness. That is just something that you came up with on your own to form a straw man argument.

Rolls plural. 100% refers to the rolls, not the randomness. Got it? Besides all of that, randomness is a way to model the outcome of the dice, not a way to determine the outcome. The outcome of the dice is determine by physics, not randomness. Randomness is a way to model the expected outcome of the dice in the long run and in the absence of actual dice being rolled, not a way to determine how the dice will resolve in any instance. I think there is at least one person on this board who thinks randomness defines how the dice bounce, when in fact it is physics that serves that role.

The physics involved in rolling dem bones ensures a random result.

All of your cameras, toys and software will not document anything other than this immutable truth.

Seriously, if you want to pursue AP, focus on cards.

Craps is and always will be a negative expectation game, played purely for fun.

Ahigh, allow me to be blunt:

1. Your statistics and data are meaningless.

2. You have shown zero evidence of a controlled throw or even an influenced throw.

3. Any can interpret data anyway they like unless there are conditions made and you have no conditions.

4. You've been asked on multiple occasions to post a video of a controlled throw as defined by any number of "DI proponents" including GTC, and the rest and you still haven't.

5. Whatever videos you have posted only show what appears to be random throws with dice not on axis, not travelling equal distances, not bouncing in close proximity, not having any kind of uniform or even an expected bounce -- yet you claim the end result means you have a controlled throw.

So, in the interests again of reaching a middle ground, please explain (and make it clear and honest and without your attempts at satire and humor) to define for everyone what YOU consider to be:

A. A non-random throw
B. A controlled throw
C. A throw with influence used on the dice
D. And how you determine or prove A, B or C

Quote: MrV

The physics involved in rolling dem bones ensures a random result.

Here is where we disagree. Obviously you never even read Sharpshooter's book.

Quote:

MathExtremist
The only thing I don't understand is what kind of progress you expect to make when you don't even understand what you're testing. You wouldn't, I hope, presume to be able to make a medical diagnosis without some medical education, so why do you presume to be able to quantify randomness when you don't know what random means?

But if you want to misuse the word "random", perhaps you can tell us: what's the edge on the passline when the dice are "80% random"?

They used to say that one picture was worth a thousand words, but anybody that is on this site, and is defending ahigh’s shooting must not of ever hearing that saying, if you have dice bouncing all over the place when they hit the table, how can that be anything but random, I don’t see why anybody is still arguing with ahigh about his shooting, there is no other way of looking at any of the videos he has produced, then to say that they are random shots. The same things goes for the videos that I have posted that was shot by someone else. Their dice are staying together right before they hit the table. But when they hit the table they start bouncing all over the place.
Slow motion videos of dice shots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2FYrndlrpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiZf3jbjie0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYo1XHjBNOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXSfu5QDDVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBJwLtAORa0
Even Stanford Wong said that after looking at slow motion video, he changed his mind on DI’s, and their shooting.

Quote: Ahigh

Where did I misuse the word random? There were only two conditions that I considered. Either 100.00% of all throws are random or there is one or more throws that is not random in my samples and therefore the rolls are no longer 100% random. Some are random and some are not. Those are the two conditions that are being considered.

I know that's what you think but it's wrong, and that's easily demonstrated by attempting to answer the question "what is the house edge on the passline when the rolls are 80% random and 20% not random?" You can't provide the answer because the idea of "not random" -- in your parlance -- is not sufficiently well-defined to be useful, and that's because your notion of "random" is too narrow.

What you mean to say, and what you should be saying, is that some percentage of the time the dice behave according to a uniform die-face distribution where p(1..6) = 1/6, and some other percentage of the time they exhibit a non-uniform distribution with p(1..6) = {a,b,c,d,e,f} where a+b+c+d+e+f = 1. If you do that, then you can compute the adjusted house edge. Throwing a die with that non-uniform distribution is still a random (stochastic) process, it's just not going to generate uniformly-distributed outcomes. So when you say this:

Quote: Ahigh

If some percentage of the time I am able to deliver a shot that results in a hard 8, that will create a situation where my rolls are not 100% random.

that's a misuse of the word random. Everybody throws a hard 8 some percentage of the time. The question is whether your throwing technique can alter the die-face distribution (or the die-correlation coefficient, or both), such that your percentage of hard 8s is other than 1/36. It's still random if you can do that, it's just a different distribution. Uniform (equally-likely) distributions are only one of many different distributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probability_distributions

Zcore13,

We all understand ahigh , we know he cant do it and we know why he puts
down others...

ahigh is just someone to be avoided, there only 2 or 3 people like that in the world
and you may run into one of them.

But that should have no impact on the rest of us. Alan placed a post a while back that indicated
much of what we all need to do at the casino to give each of us the best chance to win.

And You have to be some kind of dumb not to see that a shot that controls the dice action after the
shot hits the table is different than Ahigh's wild all over the table stuff. So if you do what ever it is you do, what ever you call
it, the Parr or GTC shot the littlejoe shot, and it works for you and you hit a 6 or 8 when you have a bet on
it more times than normal statistics would dictate, or if you bet the outside and hit that more than you should,
you have a toss and game that gives you the best chance to win today. None of this lifetime winner BS that is
for kids, i am concerned about right now, did i win tonight, or last night.


This is a very simple game, if you throw an 8 and your betting on it you will get paid, and if you throw 34% of your shots
being 6 & 8 you will beat the house on that bet, if you throw more than 16.66% 4 & 10s you will beat the house on those bets.

I dont care if the dice stay on axis the entire roll, if my results are what i need to be ahead, and do it more times than I
should i am a happy camper.


I feel sorry for ahigh, if he were not so stubborn, this website and his pocket book may well be better off.

dicesetter.

Quote: Ahigh

If you define advantage play as what people know to be impossible, that's the only way that you can say that it's not possible!

The way for the poser of the issue to avoid that difficulty is to follow the rules of debate:
"CONCEPT : THE TOPIC.
If a debate is a form of argument then it logically follows that there must be something to argue about. This is called the TOPIC. The topic changes from debate to debate. They are often about current issues of public importance ("That Canberra should have self government") or about general philosophies or ideas ("That beauty is better than brains"). All topics begin with the word "That". As in other arguments there are two sides to any topic. The team that agrees with the topic is called the AFFIRMATIVE (or the `government' in parliamentary debating) and the team that disagrees with the topic is called the NEGATIVE (or the `opposition' in parliamentary debating). When organising a debate it is important to select a topic that is appropriate to the age and education of the debaters concerned. Often topics will cover areas that the debaters have a specific interest in or, in the case of schools debates, that have been covered in classes or are current news items. Click here for a list of possible topics from the Queensland Debating Union.
"CONCEPT: DEFINITION.
If a debate is going to take place then it must be agreed in advance what the debate is going to be about. Thus it must be agreed what the topic means. This may seem obvious in a topic like "That Canberra should have self government" but with something like "That a cabbage is better than a rose" is might not be so clear. Deciding and explaining what a topic means is called `defining the topic'. The job of defining begins with the AFFIRMATIVE. The first speaker of the affirmative must explain in clear terms what they believe the topic means. In deciding this the affirmative team should always try to use the "person on the street" test. That is if this topic were presented to the average person on the street - is this what they would take it to mean. Where the topic is too obscure to allow this test then apply the `reasonability' test. The affirmative team should ask themselves "Is this definition reasonable ? Is it something the average person might expect ? Does it allow for both sides of the debate ?". If you can answer yes to these questions then the definition is probably reasonable, if not search for something more reasonable. Try to avoid the dictionary, except in cases where you don't understand a word. In your definition explain the meaning of the whole topic rather than each separate word.

"The negative team may agree with or choose to challenge the definition presented. The negative team should be very careful about challenging as it is difficult to continue the debate with two definitions. Challenges may be made if the definition given is unreasonable or if it defines the opposition out of the debate. If the negative team chooses to challenge the definition it should be done by the first speaker who should clearly outline why the negative is challenging and then propose a better definition." ACT Debating Union

So instead of grappling with trying to explain meanings like this: "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.
Don't forget, what I am fighting is the RIDICULOUS NOTION that it can EVER be PROVEN that it is IMPOSSIBLE to advantage play the game because ALL ROLLS ARE RANDOM!" here is a suggestion. If you can formulate a simple affirmative statement of what you believe or hypothesize, declare it so that both sides of the discussion can adhere to it.

Quote: dicesitter

Zcore13,

We all understand ahigh , we know he cant do it and we know why he puts
down others...

ahigh is just someone to be avoided, there only 2 or 3 people like that in the world
and you may run into one of them.

But that should have no impact on the rest of us. Alan placed a post a while back that indicated
much of what we all need to do at the casino to give each of us the best chance to win.

And You have to be some kind of dumb not to see that a shot that controls the dice action after the
shot hits the table is different than Ahigh's wild all over the table stuff. So if you do what ever it is you do, what ever you call
it, the Parr or GTC shot the littlejoe shot, and it works for you and you hit a 6 or 8 when you have a bet on
it more times than normal statistics would dictate, or if you bet the outside and hit that more than you should,
you have a toss and game that gives you the best chance to win today. None of this lifetime winner BS that is
for kids, i am concerned about right now, did i win tonight, or last night.


This is a very simple game, if you throw an 8 and your betting on it you will get paid, and if you throw 34% of your shots
being 6 & 8 you will beat the house on that bet, if you throw more than 16.66% 4 & 10s you will beat the house on those bets.

I dont care if the dice stay on axis the entire roll, if my results are what i need to be ahead, and do it more times than I
should i am a happy camper.


I feel sorry for ahigh, if he were not so stubborn, this website and his pocket book may well be better off.

dicesetter.

Troll much?

Ahigh, was there a show tonight?

aHIGH




You forgot to talk about my spelling or sentencs structure.


dicesetter

Quote: SanchoPanza

The way for the poser of the issue to avoid that difficulty is to follow the rules of debate:
"CONCEPT : THE TOPIC.
If a debate is a form of argument then it logically follows that there must be something to argue about. This is called the TOPIC. The topic changes from debate to debate. They are often about current issues of public importance ("That Canberra should have self government") or about general philosophies or ideas ("That beauty is better than brains"). All topics begin with the word "That". As in other arguments there are two sides to any topic. The team that agrees with the topic is called the AFFIRMATIVE (or the `government' in parliamentary debating) and the team that disagrees with the topic is called the NEGATIVE (or the `opposition' in parliamentary debating). When organising a debate it is important to select a topic that is appropriate to the age and education of the debaters concerned. Often topics will cover areas that the debaters have a specific interest in or, in the case of schools debates, that have been covered in classes or are current news items. Click here for a list of possible topics from the Queensland Debating Union.
"CONCEPT: DEFINITION.
If a debate is going to take place then it must be agreed in advance what the debate is going to be about. Thus it must be agreed what the topic means. This may seem obvious in a topic like "That Canberra should have self government" but with something like "That a cabbage is better than a rose" is might not be so clear. Deciding and explaining what a topic means is called `defining the topic'. The job of defining begins with the AFFIRMATIVE. The first speaker of the affirmative must explain in clear terms what they believe the topic means. In deciding this the affirmative team should always try to use the "person on the street" test. That is if this topic were presented to the average person on the street - is this what they would take it to mean. Where the topic is too obscure to allow this test then apply the `reasonability' test. The affirmative team should ask themselves "Is this definition reasonable ? Is it something the average person might expect ? Does it allow for both sides of the debate ?". If you can answer yes to these questions then the definition is probably reasonable, if not search for something more reasonable. Try to avoid the dictionary, except in cases where you don't understand a word. In your definition explain the meaning of the whole topic rather than each separate word.

"The negative team may agree with or choose to challenge the definition presented. The negative team should be very careful about challenging as it is difficult to continue the debate with two definitions. Challenges may be made if the definition given is unreasonable or if it defines the opposition out of the debate. If the negative team chooses to challenge the definition it should be done by the first speaker who should clearly outline why the negative is challenging and then propose a better definition." ACT Debating Union

So instead of grappling with trying to explain meanings like this: "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.
Don't forget, what I am fighting is the RIDICULOUS NOTION that it can EVER be PROVEN that it is IMPOSSIBLE to advantage play the game because ALL ROLLS ARE RANDOM!" here is a suggestion. If you can formulate a simple affirmative statement of what you believe or hypothesize, declare it so that both sides of the discussion can adhere to it.

Good suggestions. This thread is really about my recording software anyway. Mendelson and Zcore decided to derail it with their comments along the lines of "what happens when you just prove everything is random." I should have just let that lie there instead of responding to it at all.

The debate, if there is to be any, about what randomness is and whether or not you can prove that all rolls are random is a subject for another thread as far as I'm concerned. I think it's just a tangent and I'll tell you that I'm not interested in trying to prove that all rolls are random because I think that's an ill-conceived hypothesis to begin with, and I certainly don't think that it's a direction that I have any interest in going. Someone else, feel free.

Quote: dicesitter

aHIGH




You forgot to talk about my spelling or sentencs structure.


dicesetter

Your posts are too boring to respond to.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Ahigh, allow me to be blunt:

1. Your statistics and data are meaningless.

2. You have shown zero evidence of a controlled throw or even an influenced throw.

3. Any can interpret data anyway they like unless there are conditions made and you have no conditions.

4. You've been asked on multiple occasions to post a video of a controlled throw as defined by any number of "DI proponents" including GTC, and the rest and you still haven't.

5. Whatever videos you have posted only show what appears to be random throws with dice not on axis, not travelling equal distances, not bouncing in close proximity, not having any kind of uniform or even an expected bounce -- yet you claim the end result means you have a controlled throw.

So, in the interests again of reaching a middle ground, please explain (and make it clear and honest and without your attempts at satire and humor) to define for everyone what YOU consider to be:

A. A non-random throw
B. A controlled throw
C. A throw with influence used on the dice
D. And how you determine or prove A, B or C

Write a story about it and put it on the news.

Quote: superrick

Quote:

aHigh
It has been proven, and even demonstrated to be against the law in the case of dice sliding. That is an advantage play that is so obvious that the law has been invoked.

First off you need to go out and learn about the history on anyone becoming a so-called DI. Then you need to do some research on cheats using the dice slide, because its legal, if you have no one that is trying to distract the dealers, boxman and suits.
The only problem with my above statement is that there isn't one casino that will allow a dice slide. It's against the casinos rules to use a dice slide, and they will call a no roll if they catch you trying it. There is only one case, that ever went to court in NV, which the defendant was found guilty of using a slide.
He had accomplices that blocked the view of what he was doing.

SKIPPER v. STATENo. 23843.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19941611879P2d732_11607

If no casino will allow you to slide the dice and there has already a case that set a precedence, I wouldn't advise to try a dice slide in any casino. Read the case, then apply good common sence to what you learn! If you have none,.. head over to the Wynn, and see how many dice slides you can get away with before they put the handcuffs on you.

So put a stop to your silly use of sliding the dice as a way to become a AP craps player, it will only work in your dreams, but it will never work in a casino!
The only people that I know of, that is trying to push AP craps playing is the great fiction writer, why don't you go over to his craps board and ask what happened to his protege when he boosted that he was a AP craps player, and he was going to double his bankroll, by playing AP craps!

Funny that nobody has seen him in any casino since he snuck out of Vegas.
The poor, poor deadcat is no where to be found. He didn't even have the common courtesy to tell all of his followers that he couldn't make it in Vegas. They didn't find out for a couple months that he was no longer in Vegas!

They do ban craps players that they feel are threat to the casinos bottom line. So any craps player that is setting the dice, and winning a lot of the time can and do get those taps on the shoulder, telling them the casino does not want their action.

Just because you happen to get lucky some times and make some hard ways, it does not prove a thing. When you stop reporting every time that you have your losses, and you are winning just about every time you walk into a casino, then maybe dicesetter, ZCore13 , Alan M, MathExtremist, and anybody else might think that you are doing something that nobody else is doing!

Your posts are starting to sound like a broken record. Why everything must be about deadcat and mad professor confuses me. Why not leave the personal vendettas with those guys out of this?

Quote: MathExtremist

The only thing I don't understand is what kind of progress you expect to make when you don't even understand what you're testing. You wouldn't, I hope, presume to be able to make a medical diagnosis without some medical education, so why do you presume to be able to quantify randomness when you don't know what random means?

But if you want to misuse the word "random", perhaps you can tell us: what's the edge on the passline when the dice are "80% random"?

You know what? Right now I'm just programming stuff. I'm plenty busy with that. Why don't you and Mendelson work on definitions for a while and help me out.

Quote: Zcore13

Well, it seems we almost agree, except I don't think the things you listed are possible on a "controlled" basis on a legal throw without luck being involved. If a legal throw is one that both dice are released at the same time, both dice hit the table and both dice hit the back wall, any more than maybe one of the above is just luck.

Saying one can get away with one die not hitting the back wall is all fine and dandy, but you cannot get away with enough to turn the house edge in your favor over the long run. They won't allow it.

Being able to do one or two of those things at home in a controlled environment with no Supervisors watching and trying to protect house assets is not real life dice control anyway. I can hit .600 on a video game. Doesn't mean I can if i go face the ace of the Dodgers.

The conditions of something have to be realistic for them to be valid. We both agree Ahigh has never shown he can do any of the above consistantly. His bankroll also says he can't do the above consistently. I contend that in a "regulated" casino, nobody can.

If I have a #1 hater, you're the one, Zcore. Congratulations. Get a good grip on my coattail as you describe all of what you perceive to be what I haven't done as a result of your ignorance. Somebody might notice you if you keep talking about me.

Quote: petroglyph

Ahigh, was there a show tonight?

If there was a broadcast this evening I was unable to log in.

Quote: Ahigh

If I have a #1 hater, you're the one, Zcore. Congratulations. Get a good grip on my coattail as you describe all of what you perceive to be what I haven't done as a result of your ignorance. Somebody might notice you if you keep talking about me.

Unfortunately it would probably be the wrong people noticing me as I know some of the ones who's eye you've caught with your antics and accusations. Not where I would want to be. Let's see where each of us is a year or so from now.

ZCore13

Quote: Ahigh

Write a story about it and put it on the news.

You are not newsworthy.

Just for kicks


http://www.insidescience.org/blog/2012/09/12/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random

Quote:

Dungeons and Dragons, Yahtzee, and a huge number of other games all rely on throwing dice--from the 4-sided pyramid shape to the familiar 6-sided cube and the monster 20-sided variety. The dice are meant to introduce an element of chance to these games; we expect that the outcomes of the rolls will be truly random.

However, new theoretical models and high-speed movies of dice rolls of numerous shapes and sizes confirm this is not strictly the case. They show that dice thrown with a 1 on the top are slightly more likely to land as a 1 than as the other values for every type of the various kinds of dice they studied. But at the same time, it's usually too hard for someone to predict the outcome of the throw of a single die--you'd have to know the starting conditions of the throw and its environment so precisely that for all practical purposes, the result could be considered random.

Exploring a question that was debated in the 17th century by scientists and mathematicians Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat, and many others before and since, doctoral student Marcin Kapitaniak at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland and his co-authors created a sophisticated theoretical model of the die throw in three dimensions. They considered how the effects of gravity, air resistance, friction of the table, and other factors influence the outcome of the roll. In addition, they observed the fall of the die with a high-speed camera that could capture the die's trajectory at a rate of 1500 frames per second. What did they find to be the most important factor?

"The initial position of the die," Tomasz Kapitaniak,of the University of Lodz in Poland, wrote to me in an email. Small changes in the position can significantly affect the outcome. Other factors are less significant. "The air resistance can be neglected," he said.

Quote: petroglyph

If there was a broadcast this evening I was unable to log in.

No it's Tuesday, not Thursday. Sorry.

Quote: AlanMendelson

You are not newsworthy.

Then go find something that is. Why are you wasting your time on this subject?

Quote: Zcore13

Unfortunately it would probably be the wrong people noticing me as I know some of the ones who's eye you've caught with your antics and accusations. Not where I would want to be. Let's see where each of us is a year or so from now.

Maybe you should run for political office.

Quote: rxwine

Just for kicks
http://www.insidescience.org/blog/2012/09/12/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random

I urge everyone to click on the link and read the entire article including the part about casinos which was not copied above.

And if the face/number on top is favored, when throwing the dice is the "top number" determined when you set the dice, or when released, or at the top of your swing, or when exactly? Or should you set the dice and project them with a "flat push" to the back wall?

Now, here is something for Ahigh to research (if he can put his own battles aside so that he can do some legitimate research).

Quote: Ahigh

Then go find something that is. Why are you wasting your time on this subject?

It's not a waste of time trying to find who really is a dice influencer or controller and who is full of hot air. I've asked you repeatedly to post a video showing a controlled throw. You still haven't. Why?

As I said here many times: just show me ONE controlled throw. Just one. One. Only one. One controlled throw.

Do that and I will never question you again. Okay?