odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 313
  • Posts: 8707
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:

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
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
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.
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2084
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.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
October 30th, 2013 at 11:26:56 AM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

In 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
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 130
  • Posts: 4187
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.
Buzzard
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
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" ? ? ?
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
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 313
  • Posts: 8707
October 31st, 2013 at 6:21:46 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

I 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
JB85
JB85
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 89
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.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
October 31st, 2013 at 10:50:00 AM permalink
Quote: Keyser

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.

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.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 313
  • Posts: 8707
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

  • Jump to: