Next Biggest Question for Dice Setters
October 30th, 2013 at 9:01:44 AM
permalink
Now that this entire category can be blocked, I don't feel guilty anymore about adding a thread about dice setting [the moderators, I would think, will be OK with this now]
The biggest question for setters has to be whether it is possible at all to control/influence the dice. However, let's not talk about this in this thread please. Also, let's assume that when we say we are looking for a certain result, we are not looking for anything more than improving that result over random results.
I occurs to me that the next biggest question ... one I ask myself quite a bit anyway ... is whether or not expecting the dice to "stay on axis" should be primary in the shooter's mind. It seems to me dice sets purely have this in mind, certainly when I set I have this purely in mind, yet consider the following statement from the Wizard's page on the subject:
I have tried to picture what this means. My god, if the dice don't stay on axis, what set is the shooter to pick from? Pick up a pair of dice, set them with some set, and imagine that they tumble off-axis. What was the point of that set, which so typically seems to assume on-axis instead? the number of possibilities goes haywire, beyond management IMO. In other words, I do not see the advantage of correlation if the dice cannot stay on axis.
Your thoughts?
btw see the Wizard's page for the explanation of correlation.
The biggest question for setters has to be whether it is possible at all to control/influence the dice. However, let's not talk about this in this thread please. Also, let's assume that when we say we are looking for a certain result, we are not looking for anything more than improving that result over random results.
I occurs to me that the next biggest question ... one I ask myself quite a bit anyway ... is whether or not expecting the dice to "stay on axis" should be primary in the shooter's mind. It seems to me dice sets purely have this in mind, certainly when I set I have this purely in mind, yet consider the following statement from the Wizard's page on the subject:
Quote:Stanford Wong writes in 'Wong on Dice' that most careful shooters he observed were not keeping both dice on axis more than the random expectations, but were achieving influence through correlation
I have tried to picture what this means. My god, if the dice don't stay on axis, what set is the shooter to pick from? Pick up a pair of dice, set them with some set, and imagine that they tumble off-axis. What was the point of that set, which so typically seems to assume on-axis instead? the number of possibilities goes haywire, beyond management IMO. In other words, I do not see the advantage of correlation if the dice cannot stay on axis.
Your thoughts?
btw see the Wizard's page for the explanation of correlation.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
October 30th, 2013 at 9:44:36 AM
permalink
The dice? What about the posters flying off handle? All these darned dice setting threads and all this on axis stuff ... and them casinos still ain't going bankrupt or ripping out the craps tables. And ain't none of these dice setter posters struttin' 'round town in no cadillacs as they lend money to the casino executives.
October 30th, 2013 at 10:04:43 AM
permalink
Theoretically, while attempting to influence the dice, you could accidently cause your numbers to hit less frequently than they should, according to basic probability. In other words, your attempts to set the dice could also theoretically cause you to lose at a rate that exceeds the house edge.
October 30th, 2013 at 11:26:56 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitIn other words, I do not see the advantage of correlation if the dice cannot stay on axis.
I think the theory is that if the dice are going to tumble, they both tumble exactly the same way. If you start with 2 up and 3 facing you on both dice, and you can achieve some manner of correlation, then if one die ends up with 2 to the left and 4 up, the other die would also end up with 2 to the left and 4 up more than would be expected. If you know your two dice are likely to be correlated in some fashion, you can remodel the two-dice outcome distribution. For example, if you used the hardway set and could guarantee 100% correlation (without any axis control), you would have a 1/6 chance of each paired outcome. You could then hop all the hard outcomes for a guaranteed 400% gain per roll.
I've no idea how anyone would physically accomplish that, however. That correlated-die model doesn't seem as plausible to me as the idea of keeping at least one die on axis, but I admit to not having really studied it in a lab setting.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 30th, 2013 at 1:25:34 PM
permalink
No one claimed that "dice influencing" or even "dice control" is perfect. Even in Sharpshooter's classic book he takes into account the dice going off one face or two faces. The idea that you can't have perfect control is why the "all hardways set" was developed as it is the "most forgiving." But you still have a 1/6 chance of throwing a 7.
Frankly, the true and original proponents of DI were more realistic than what is being "marketed" now.
Back in the old days we just wanted to hit a few extra numbers and make a few extra bucks. Then came along the "super stories" about the "super rolls" and the proponents of DI started playing "can you top this" to sign up students and peddle their wares.
If everybody took a giant step back to the reality of DI a lot of this controversy would not exist and we would accept DI for what it truly is -- an attempt to slightly alter the odds.
Frankly, the true and original proponents of DI were more realistic than what is being "marketed" now.
Back in the old days we just wanted to hit a few extra numbers and make a few extra bucks. Then came along the "super stories" about the "super rolls" and the proponents of DI started playing "can you top this" to sign up students and peddle their wares.
If everybody took a giant step back to the reality of DI a lot of this controversy would not exist and we would accept DI for what it truly is -- an attempt to slightly alter the odds.
October 30th, 2013 at 1:34:42 PM
permalink
" But you still have a 1/6 chance of throwing a 7 "
"an attempt to slightly alter the odds" ? ? ?
"an attempt to slightly alter the odds" ? ? ?
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
October 31st, 2013 at 6:21:46 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistI think the theory is that if the dice are going to tumble, they both tumble exactly the same way... [but] doesn't seem as plausible to me as the idea of keeping at least one die on axis
Checking this out, I see what you mean; I would also have to say it seems like a tall order to pull it off.
As for myself, I have to "mustard-seed-size-wise" hope for a on-axis result.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
October 31st, 2013 at 8:35:52 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambit
I occurs to me that the next biggest question ... one I ask myself quite a bit anyway ... is whether or not expecting the dice to "stay on axis" should be primary in the shooter's mind. It seems to me dice sets purely have this in mind, certainly when I set I have this purely in mind, yet consider the following statement from the Wizard's page on the subject:
I have tried to picture what this means. My god, if the dice don't stay on axis, what set is the shooter to pick from? Pick up a pair of dice, set them with some set, and imagine that they tumble off-axis. What was the point of that set, which so typically seems to assume on-axis instead? the number of possibilities goes haywire, beyond management IMO. In other words, I do not see the advantage of correlation if the dice cannot stay on axis.
I don't believe that anyone can keep the dice on axis throughout the throw often enough to influence the dice. I do think it happens with a good throw sometimes but just very very rarely.
If dice control is proved to be possible, I think it will be due to the following or a combination of the following:
1) Correlation. A good throw will have the dice rotating at the same rate and landing on the table at the same time. Although I don't believe they stay on axis, I do believe that it is possible to have the dice the react the same in relation to each other and stop at the same time. The sooner that you can get the dice to lay down (i.e. not bounce all over) the more likely it would be that the faces could match (or be close) to their starting position. If correlation is responsible for influence, the hardway set would be the best set.
2) The ability to land the dice with the same faces hitting the felt consistently. This could be done with pitch control or by using a stacked shot. This in and of itself may not reduce 7 exposure but it could increase the appearance of certain faces and decrease others leading to some numbers showing more frequentlly and some less which could be exploitable.
October 31st, 2013 at 10:50:00 AM
permalink
Ofcourse. Or you could wind up as Professor Persi Diaconis did... have such a minute edge that his research assistants made more mistakes in recording his data than the shaved dice gave him as an edge.Quote: KeyserTheoretically, while attempting to influence the dice, you could accidently cause your numbers to hit less frequently than they should, according to basic probability. In other words, your attempts to set the dice could also theoretically cause you to lose at a rate that exceeds the house edge.
November 1st, 2013 at 4:34:58 AM
permalink
Quote: JB851)1) Correlation
Well, axis control may not be realistic while correlation possibly can be obtained to some degree. However, I can't give up on the former as the latter considering the complexity of necessary strategy [see math extremist post] is way beyond my abilities for sure.
I actually think having the dice hit the felt side by side is one of the things that causes the axis control to fail. I can't help but note that sometimes landing together, they just "explode" apart.
Quote: JB851)2)same faces hitting the felt consistently.
If this kind of control is possible, perhaps landing side by side is less of a problem.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
November 21st, 2013 at 8:27:29 PM
permalink
Is it possible to control the dice?
When the Taj in AC first opened years ago, I often visited, and noticed something that the dealers did that was very odd. After every roll when they brought the dice back to the shooter they would play with the dice with the stick. Wondering why, I stood next to the dealer and noticed that he would set the dice up with a 7 showing on the sides facing him and the boxman, and with a box number on the top side, so that when he slid the dice to the shooter they would not be aware that at least two sides of the cubes had a 7 on them. Figuring it was just this dealer I waited, and watched every stickman at every table (at that time they would have 10 tables open on a weekend) and EVERY dealer did it.
Then I started with my own dice setting philosophy. Learned to throw the dice the way I thought was best and I started tracking my progress in live play. I now average a good 10:1 sevens ratio where the average of course should be 6:1. Does it work? Yes, and some houses believe it does as well.
When the Taj in AC first opened years ago, I often visited, and noticed something that the dealers did that was very odd. After every roll when they brought the dice back to the shooter they would play with the dice with the stick. Wondering why, I stood next to the dealer and noticed that he would set the dice up with a 7 showing on the sides facing him and the boxman, and with a box number on the top side, so that when he slid the dice to the shooter they would not be aware that at least two sides of the cubes had a 7 on them. Figuring it was just this dealer I waited, and watched every stickman at every table (at that time they would have 10 tables open on a weekend) and EVERY dealer did it.
Then I started with my own dice setting philosophy. Learned to throw the dice the way I thought was best and I started tracking my progress in live play. I now average a good 10:1 sevens ratio where the average of course should be 6:1. Does it work? Yes, and some houses believe it does as well.
November 21st, 2013 at 9:30:16 PM
permalink
The only question for dice setters of any sort is when are YOU going to buy the next round of drinks with all that money you supposedly are winning at the craps tables?Quote: FleaStiffThe dice? What about the posters flying off handle? All these darned dice setting threads and all this on axis stuff ... and them casinos still ain't going bankrupt or ripping out the craps tables. And ain't none of these dice setter posters struttin' 'round town in no cadillacs as they lend money to the casino executives.
November 22nd, 2013 at 12:58:49 AM
permalink
Quote: arrgyFiguring it was just this dealer I waited, and watched every stickman at every table (at that time they would have 10 tables open on a weekend) and EVERY dealer did it.
.
I suspect they were told to show the camera the serial numbers on the dice after(or call it before) each and every roll, not that they were trying to influence the dice themselves. I should know, I lost my last bet in the Taj, a don't pass and a hard ten was rolled costing me a fortune. I went and canceled my credit line, never returned. The lights were always too bright there for me anyhow plus purple tables if I recall......
November 25th, 2013 at 5:07:25 PM
permalink
Controlling the dice:
Put one finger in the air and Point it to the east . As the sun comes up, attempt to drag it across the sky to the west... If you think that you've moved it, well then You have just mastered dice control. Stay thirsty my friends..
Put one finger in the air and Point it to the east . As the sun comes up, attempt to drag it across the sky to the west... If you think that you've moved it, well then You have just mastered dice control. Stay thirsty my friends..
"I'm a DO'er and you my friend, are a Don'ter"
-Mark Walberg
pain and Gain
November 25th, 2013 at 5:37:13 PM
permalink
Dicerobics might be a popular fitness program. I would make each die to weigh a pound, couple hours of exercise and your cardiovascular condition will make you feel like a millionaire .
December 24th, 2013 at 12:05:46 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitNow that this entire category can be blocked, I don't feel guilty anymore about adding a thread about dice setting [the moderators, I would think, will be OK with this now]
The biggest question for setters has to be whether it is possible at all to control/influence the dice. However, let's not talk about this in this thread please. Also, let's assume that when we say we are looking for a certain result, we are not looking for anything more than improving that result over random results.
I occurs to me that the next biggest question ... one I ask myself quite a bit anyway ... is whether or not expecting the dice to "stay on axis" should be primary in the shooter's mind. It seems to me dice sets purely have this in mind, certainly when I set I have this purely in mind, yet consider the following statement from the Wizard's page on the subject:
I have tried to picture what this means. My god, if the dice don't stay on axis, what set is the shooter to pick from? Pick up a pair of dice, set them with some set, and imagine that they tumble off-axis. What was the point of that set, which so typically seems to assume on-axis instead? the number of possibilities goes haywire, beyond management IMO. In other words, I do not see the advantage of correlation if the dice cannot stay on axis.
Your thoughts?
btw see the Wizard's page for the explanation of correlation.
This is much more easier done than said.
1) If you want to roll 5 or 9 then set the dice to show 4-5 top and 4-5 facing you and bingo keep em flat and throw them to make your 5 or 9
2) If you are looking for a 6 then set the dice to show 3-3 at bottom and 6 on the side facing you.
3) If you want 4 or 10, then set the 1-3 or 6-4
Just keep em flat before rolling.
When you roll enough it becomes like riding a bicycle.
8 more years till retirement.
December 24th, 2013 at 12:20:48 PM
permalink
Quote: CrapsGeniousThis is much more easier done than said..
I'll have to investigate your suggestions.
What are you saying, though, easier to do than to think about? And what, keeping them on axis or taking advantage of them rolling off axis in an intended way?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
December 24th, 2013 at 10:53:05 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitI'll have to investigate your suggestions.
What are you saying, though, easier to do than to think about? And what, keeping them on axis or taking advantage of them rolling off axis in an intended way?
Before throwing the dice, set them then put them together with a firm hold and move them in small circular motion to make sure they are flat, then toss them. do not pick up and throw. also if you use that finger thumb / front behind approach you will angle the throw when in motion, don't bother with this type of throw, you will never develop a good throw. I watched a pro shooter in my area put sixes up turning the top six sideways and tossing the dice in front of each other tossing them fast but making many numbers. he repeated the same tossing technique for 3 table rounds and made everyone money each time.
8 more years till retirement.
December 25th, 2013 at 4:34:48 AM
permalink
I am tongue in cheek about the "yo set" [mentioned in a different thread] but I think actually it is good evidence setting the dice doesn't work, at least any set that must keep the dice on axis to work. I guess your last post was trying to address that. Bear in mind dice setting is just entertainment for me, not religion.
If the dice stay on axis with the Yo Set, correlation effect random, the possible 16 combinations include two 11s. [also four 7s, making it excellent for the come-out if it would work]
2/16 = vis a vis 2/36 for a random throw = 1/8 vis a vis 1/18
Yo pays 15 to one, fair odds are 7 to one assuming 100% success in the set. Wow. Well, we know that doesn't happen, no one claims to be that good.
What if the set works just once in a while? I'll try to do the math, which I can easily screw up, btw. To make it easier, let's say we get random Yos 2/36 times plus a bonus of one extra Yo per 36, 3/36 in other words.
1/12
11 to one fair odds
pays 15 to one. Hmmm.
In the case of this yo bet scenario described, the true odds are 11 to 1, and the payoff is 15 to 1, so the house edge is (11-15)/(11+1) = (-4)/(12) = -33.333%
Perhaps I did that right. In any case, clearly the player edge would be enormous.
Let's don't labor this anymore. Getting back to the original point of the thread, not staying on axis is murder for any sets I ever see mentioned. And, oh, no one mentions this set, notice? Maybe because it is evidence to the contrary.
If the dice stay on axis with the Yo Set, correlation effect random, the possible 16 combinations include two 11s. [also four 7s, making it excellent for the come-out if it would work]
2/16 = vis a vis 2/36 for a random throw = 1/8 vis a vis 1/18
Yo pays 15 to one, fair odds are 7 to one assuming 100% success in the set. Wow. Well, we know that doesn't happen, no one claims to be that good.
What if the set works just once in a while? I'll try to do the math, which I can easily screw up, btw. To make it easier, let's say we get random Yos 2/36 times plus a bonus of one extra Yo per 36, 3/36 in other words.
1/12
11 to one fair odds
pays 15 to one. Hmmm.
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/glossary/ [bottom]Quote: wizardFor bets which can only win or lose, if the actuall payoff is w, and the true odds are t, then the house edge is (t-w)/(t+1)
In the case of this yo bet scenario described, the true odds are 11 to 1, and the payoff is 15 to 1, so the house edge is (11-15)/(11+1) = (-4)/(12) = -33.333%
Perhaps I did that right. In any case, clearly the player edge would be enormous.
Let's don't labor this anymore. Getting back to the original point of the thread, not staying on axis is murder for any sets I ever see mentioned. And, oh, no one mentions this set, notice? Maybe because it is evidence to the contrary.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
December 25th, 2013 at 4:59:47 AM
permalink
The picture of the dice you have there is a variant of the Hardways called parallel sixes. Have 3's or 4's kiss and you can get the yo set 6/5 5/6.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
December 25th, 2013 at 5:09:09 AM
permalink
Quote: arrgyI now average a good 10:1 sevens ratio where the average of course should be 6:1.
Then you will soon be the wealthiest man in the world. It won't take long just betting 6 and 8 to make as much money as you want, limited only by table limits. Why do I think that you really shoot a 7 one out of six times, not one out of ten?
December 25th, 2013 at 6:34:32 AM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoThe picture of the dice you have there is a variant of the Hardways called parallel sixes.
I'm suing those bastards, I've got copyright on the name it's supposed to be!
of course I don't have copyright actually (just a joke)
Quote: DeMangoHave 3's or 4's kiss and you can get the yo set 6/5 5/6.
3's and 4's as the axis in any fashion works
except dice setting *doesn't* actually work in my experience
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
June 21st, 2021 at 7:07:13 PM
permalink
Where have you gone Nok Tang?????
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
July 13th, 2021 at 4:32:29 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistI think the theory is that if the dice are going to tumble, they both tumble exactly the same way. If you start with 2 up and 3 facing you on both dice, and you can achieve some manner of correlation, then if one die ends up with 2 to the left and 4 up, the other die would also end up with 2 to the left and 4 up more than would be expected. If you know your two dice are likely to be correlated in some fashion, you can remodel the two-dice outcome distribution. For example, if you used the hardway set and could guarantee 100% correlation (without any axis control), you would have a 1/6 chance of each paired outcome. You could then hop all the hard outcomes for a guaranteed 400% gain per roll.
With all the incredible technology available, it would seem that a machine could be made to roll or toss dice "on axis" every time. This "machine" could initiate or simulate tosses with any "set" desired. The mechanism could make homogenous tosses at the same velocity, height, and length, i.e. landing area. Such a machine could actually validate, or not, everything stated here. If the hypothesis stated here is correct, such trials would "prove" valid and worthy. I believe, IMHO, the hypothesis would be defeated simply because, and no one has stated the obvious, the rebound off the back wall of the table sets in motion dice "confusion." There is no way to mitigate or moderate that action.
Quote: MathExtremistI've no idea how anyone would physically accomplish that, however. That correlated-die model doesn't seem as plausible to me as the idea of keeping at least one die on axis, but I admit to not having really studied it in a lab setting.
Professional athletes in baseball, basketball, and other sports requiring precision hand-eye coordination could not, on any consistent basis, come close to replicating a velocity, distance, elevation, and just plain control to effect tossing the same number, regardless of which one, with ANY regularity or on purpose.
In the famous words of a great philosopher, John McEnroe "You can't be serious!!"
tuttigym
July 13th, 2021 at 9:52:51 PM
permalink
Quote: tuttigymProfessional athletes in baseball, basketball, and other sports requiring precision hand-eye coordination could not, on any consistent basis, come close to replicating a velocity, distance, elevation, and just plain control to effect tossing the same number, regardless of which one, with ANY regularity or on purpose.
In the famous words of a great philosopher, John McEnroe "You can't be serious!!"
yeah, tell that to the fred sanford lookin MF that's been throwing bones in a Detroit alley for the last five decades and has a closet full of "golden shooter" jackets from the fremont casino dice club
July 14th, 2021 at 4:31:32 AM
permalink
I'm interested in the topic, have started threads I think. My only firm conclusion is that I personally am ineffective, I can see the dice are not doing what I want.
I also think most casino conditions are not good; an insistence that a shooter hit not just the back wall, but the little pyramids, is deadly. Others have mentioned concerns about bounciness.
One unanswered question comes from the Wizard's page. As far as I can tell there's a table that shows that a mere change from rolling 7s one time in 6, to one time in 6.04*, will wipe out the house edge. I have never gotten an answer about whether I am correct to say that is only one less 7 in a thousand rolls. I'll try to find my work and repeat it again, out of time now
But that is something to think about.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/
* rolls to 7 ratio some call it
I also think most casino conditions are not good; an insistence that a shooter hit not just the back wall, but the little pyramids, is deadly. Others have mentioned concerns about bounciness.
One unanswered question comes from the Wizard's page. As far as I can tell there's a table that shows that a mere change from rolling 7s one time in 6, to one time in 6.04*, will wipe out the house edge. I have never gotten an answer about whether I am correct to say that is only one less 7 in a thousand rolls. I'll try to find my work and repeat it again, out of time now
But that is something to think about.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/
* rolls to 7 ratio some call it
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
July 14th, 2021 at 5:52:54 AM
permalink
Closer to 1.1 less 7s per thousand.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
July 14th, 2021 at 7:22:12 AM
permalink
Not necessary to build a machine. The Chi Square test is available.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
July 14th, 2021 at 9:25:07 AM
permalink
Quote: loldongsyeah, tell that to the fred sanford lookin MF that's been throwing bones in a Detroit alley for the last five decades and has a closet full of "golden shooter" jackets from the fremont casino dice club
Do those "G S Jackets" represent the biggest loser, most frequent patron, most documented time at the tables, or most tosses in a session, month, or year?? Is the Fremont still there and are they still giving out the "GS Jacket"? Basically, what I am asking is: What is the significance of the "GS Jacket"?
tuttigym
July 14th, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM
permalink
Quote: odiusgambitOne unanswered question comes from the Wizard's page. As far as I can tell there's a table that shows that a mere change from rolling 7s one time in 6, to one time in 6.04*, will wipe out the house edge. I have never gotten an answer about whether I am correct to say that is only one less 7 in a thousand rolls. I'll try to find my work and repeat it again, out of time now
The "experiments" shown by Wong are inconclusive as noted by Mr. W because of the small sample size plus there are no distinct anomalies that stand out that would make a conclusive case in the affirmative for setting or influence. The other table exhibits displayed by Mr. W. do not provide the least amount of experimentation only conjecture of what is suppose to happen in a perfect craps world.
I have suggested this idea to Mr. OG on his blog: Mr. W., who is a well respected teacher and gaming professional advocate, could go to casino management at one or more of the most active venues and seek to review a months worth of CCTV craps table action from four different busy tables to log or otherwise index all the rolls and hands of all the players during that time period. To insure confidentiality, the players and dealers could be "masked" and the focus would be stringently on dice outcomes. The sample size of this endeavor would be big enough (possibly 100,000+ rolls) to actually validate much of the speculation surrounding craps math inferences.
I am a realist though, so there are two roadblocks: 1) Casino management allowing the experiment, and 2) The time and manpower it would take to complete this monumental task.
BTW as an aside, I wonder if any here that had a dispute with a table on a payout or dice outcome ever asked the pit boss to stop the action for a short time to review the CCTV of the exact action to confirm one's assertion.
tuttigym
July 14th, 2021 at 10:35:56 AM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoNot necessary to build a machine. The Chi Square test is available.
What, pray tell, is the Chi Square Test and how does it replace the physicality of human movement or physiology?
tuttigym
July 14th, 2021 at 12:05:52 PM
permalink
Quote: unJonCloser to 1.1 less 7s per thousand.
That's two of us thinking so. Simple algebra should answer this.
100 sevens per 604 rolls means how many sevens per 1000?
100/604 = x/1000
x = 100,000/604 = 165.56
expectations for sevens rolled per 1000 rolls are one in six or 166.67 sevens
yep, 1.1 or so.
That's something but the Wizard does *not* come out with a simple statement that if you are a 6.04 rolls-to-7s roller you've struck it rich. The chart shows results for "HW#1 Set and HW#1 & 7#1 Sets". Frankly I can't follow this. I might try again.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
July 14th, 2021 at 12:54:31 PM
permalink
it takes your tosses and measures them vs random.Quote: tuttigymWhat, pray tell, is the Chi Square Test and how does it replace the physicality of human movement or physiology?
tuttigym
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
July 14th, 2021 at 12:58:04 PM
permalink
NEXT BIGGEST QUESTION FOR DICE SETTERS:
Where are you spending your millions of dollars?
How foolish do you now feel after paying all that money taking GT DI classes etc etc.
Where are you spending your millions of dollars?
How foolish do you now feel after paying all that money taking GT DI classes etc etc.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
July 14th, 2021 at 1:01:25 PM
permalink
Where re they now:
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
July 14th, 2021 at 6:54:32 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfWhere re they now:
Is this Doxing? Permission was never requested or granted to Publish this picture of me.
July 14th, 2021 at 8:13:43 PM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoit takes your tosses and measures them vs random.
DeMango, I am a bit obtuse; your actual tosses at the casino under game conditions? "Measure" them? How many? Where do the "random" tosses come from? Aren't YOUR tosses random? Can you be a little more exact and simple in your explanation. Please.
tuttigym
July 14th, 2021 at 10:50:28 PM
permalink
We are going in a direction we need to avoid publicly.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
July 15th, 2021 at 12:02:07 AM
permalink
I first commented on this thread eight years ago -- it's on page 1.
I dont believe anyone actually controls dice. I think people can influence dice to varying degrees. For some, dice influencing only goes as far as keeping both dice on the table. But for others they can influence the dice so that they travel together, stay parallel to the table, have a limited and soft bounce and die after hitting the back wall.
I dont think anyone can hit numbers on command.
But I know I'd rather play with a shooter who at least tries to win instead of someone who just shakes the dice in his hand and throws them so they bounce all around the table and often bounce up hitting players in the face.
I personally have had two pair of glasses destroyed by flying dice that scratched my lenses. I've seen players and dealers cut by the sharp corners on dice.
So even if you dont believe in dice influencing please throw the dice so they stay low and dont become dangerous.
I dont believe anyone actually controls dice. I think people can influence dice to varying degrees. For some, dice influencing only goes as far as keeping both dice on the table. But for others they can influence the dice so that they travel together, stay parallel to the table, have a limited and soft bounce and die after hitting the back wall.
I dont think anyone can hit numbers on command.
But I know I'd rather play with a shooter who at least tries to win instead of someone who just shakes the dice in his hand and throws them so they bounce all around the table and often bounce up hitting players in the face.
I personally have had two pair of glasses destroyed by flying dice that scratched my lenses. I've seen players and dealers cut by the sharp corners on dice.
So even if you dont believe in dice influencing please throw the dice so they stay low and dont become dangerous.
July 15th, 2021 at 10:14:08 AM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoWe are going in a direction we need to avoid publicly.
Chi Square Test = "A direction we need to AVOID (emphasis) publicly" ???? Who knew the math was X rated?
tuttigym
July 15th, 2021 at 3:27:35 PM
permalink
Totally agree with Alan, a first.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
July 15th, 2021 at 9:05:42 PM
permalink
Haven't been on here for a few years.. nice to see the same arguments still going
get second you pig
July 16th, 2021 at 7:49:55 AM
permalink
Quote: ontariodealerHaven't been on here for a few years.. nice to see the same arguments still going
Mr A! So good to see you, when can we pop over the border and see you?
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
July 16th, 2021 at 7:41:02 PM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoMr A! So good to see you, when can we pop over the border and see you?
I just retired after 16 months of inactivity thanks to covid.... probably gonna hang around Biloxi in the winter
get second you pig
July 24th, 2021 at 5:09:38 PM
permalink
One interesting thing in favor of dice setting is that casinos have implemented several mechanics to the tables and backstop to make their rolls as random as possible. It seems like at one time in the very old days, it likely was possible to dice set with enough frequency to churn a healthy profit.
December 5th, 2021 at 6:50:30 AM
permalink
Seriously people do believe that they can throw the dice across the entire table, have them hit the backstop and they can set the dice?
I can understand if they allowed shooters to slide the dice across the whole table that’s one thing, but that would be an invalid attempt at a roll.
How does a casino player actually throw the dice across the entire table, hit the backstop and land on the preset number totally blows my mind. Somebody explain to me what the thought process is, that actually works in the players favor.
I can understand if they allowed shooters to slide the dice across the whole table that’s one thing, but that would be an invalid attempt at a roll.
How does a casino player actually throw the dice across the entire table, hit the backstop and land on the preset number totally blows my mind. Somebody explain to me what the thought process is, that actually works in the players favor.
Marcus Clark. Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66. *Professional Casino Security Expert.
*Certified EMT
*Certified Company Firearms Instructor.
*Certified Gaming Regulations Interpreter for Corporate Applications.
*Domestic UrbanTactical Combat Casualty Expert.
*Tic-Tac-Toe Expert (Real Competitive Versions) & Mastering Chess.
*Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club.
*Mastering Cracking it. Bit-by-Bit, Piece-by-Piece Crediting Forum Members.
*Certified Casino Property Entry & Exit Point Analyzer
*Baccarat Winning Session Record: 12 out of 12 & 1 out of 1 Mini Session. Baccarat Losing Session Record: 2 Losing Sessions.
December 5th, 2021 at 7:00:32 AM
permalink
Quote: Marcusclark66Seriously people do believe that they can throw the dice across the entire table, have them hit the backstop and they can set the dice?
I can understand if they allowed shooters to slide the dice across the whole table that’s one thing, but that would be an invalid attempt at a roll.
How does a casino player actually throw the dice across the entire table, hit the backstop and land on the preset number totally blows my mind. Somebody explain to me what the thought process is, that actually works in the players favor.
link to original post
I don't think that dice setting actually works, or if it does, it would be an incredibly small minority of people with that degree of precise physical control to exert a meaningful enough influence over the dice.
Anyway, the thought process itself is defensible. A professional bowler and I go down to the bowling alley---the professional bowler will be rolling strikes as a matter of routine while I struggle to even string three strikes together in a single game. Even then, not even a professional bowler is going to roll a strike every single frame...except those rare, but occasional, 300 games.
So, the thought process is that it's physically possible for someone well-practiced enough to exert a sufficient degree of influence over the dice such as to alter the natural probabilities in the player's favor. Again, I've never seen any evidence that would lead me to the conclusion that this works reliably (it would have to be demonstrated over a tremendous sample size of rolls), but the theory that it is a physical task that a person can eventually become good at is a reasonable enough starting point.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
December 5th, 2021 at 7:40:16 AM
permalink
I find the evidence that the casinos have taken defensive measures to be persuasive. Hit back wall. Add diamond bumps to back wall. Add some sponginess under felt.
The casinos must have felt that some level of dice influence worked for some people without those countermeasures. To me, the open question is whether there’s a level of successful dice influence possible given the current set of countermeasures.
And someday the casinos might add another rule if they thing there is. Add bumps to felt near walls. Etc.
The casinos must have felt that some level of dice influence worked for some people without those countermeasures. To me, the open question is whether there’s a level of successful dice influence possible given the current set of countermeasures.
And someday the casinos might add another rule if they thing there is. Add bumps to felt near walls. Etc.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
December 5th, 2021 at 7:45:26 AM
permalink
Technology and advancements evolve. Everywhere. Casinos included.
Comparisons are countless. Think about drivers licenses with the newer security features as well as paper currency.
Comparisons are countless. Think about drivers licenses with the newer security features as well as paper currency.
Last edited by: Marcusclark66 on Dec 5, 2021
Marcus Clark. Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66. *Professional Casino Security Expert.
*Certified EMT
*Certified Company Firearms Instructor.
*Certified Gaming Regulations Interpreter for Corporate Applications.
*Domestic UrbanTactical Combat Casualty Expert.
*Tic-Tac-Toe Expert (Real Competitive Versions) & Mastering Chess.
*Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club.
*Mastering Cracking it. Bit-by-Bit, Piece-by-Piece Crediting Forum Members.
*Certified Casino Property Entry & Exit Point Analyzer
*Baccarat Winning Session Record: 12 out of 12 & 1 out of 1 Mini Session. Baccarat Losing Session Record: 2 Losing Sessions.
December 5th, 2021 at 8:00:21 AM
permalink
tbh i have no clue how dice setting even began.
the technology to "deal" with dice setting or literally anything to do with dice cheating has been dealt with from a "table game security" perspective since the 50s
im so glad i googled this because this is my highest image quality find of the pages
the technology to "deal" with dice setting or literally anything to do with dice cheating has been dealt with from a "table game security" perspective since the 50s
im so glad i googled this because this is my highest image quality find of the pages
Last edited by: heatmap on Dec 5, 2021
