Dice setting would be considered cheating
Think about it.
It is a crime to do anything to derandomize a dice roll.
Dice sliding = cheating.
Loaded dice = cheating.
Were a shooter able in fact to influence or control the dice such that a random result does not ensue, those who are not betting the way the dice are influenced toward would be robbed of the required random result.
The only reason Nevada does not have a statute specifically addressing dice setting, or "dice influencing" is because it has not been proven to work.
Would love to see it, post up a video of that bad boyQuote: MoosetonThat's right. I have a shot that I don't use because it's cheating. I'm actually being serious though.
I will send you a mask.Quote: MoosetonWhen I finally feel like giving my identity up, I'll show ya. You'll laugh your buns off. But it really is cheating. So I'll stick to real AP. No cheating.
Quote: MrVIt is a crime to do anything to derandomize a dice roll.
This hasn't been generally addressed by NV courts. The holding in Skipper v. State, which is the most related case I'm aware of, was that it's a crime to intentionally interfere with the dealer's ability to recognize invalid rolls like dice slides (so they could call "no roll").
I don't believe the question has been answered as to whether sliding is, all by itself, a crime. If not, then no other percentage throw (e.g. short blanket roll) should be a crime either. The issue is what the word "alter" means in NRS 465:
Quote:NRS 465.015 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit.
To my knowledge, no NV court has answered the question "does a skilled, influenced dice roll using otherwise fair dice constitute 'altering' the elements of chance, method of selection, or criteria for the purposes of NRS 465.015?" There is no question that a successful percentage roll would change the frequency of payment in a game -- that's the whole point -- but the dice themselves are not "altered" in any way. Switching in loaded or shaved dice is obviously cheating, but that's not the open question.
I've said this before: if skilled dice throwing is, by itself, cheating, then there are a lot of felons playing craps. According to the NRS, both cheating and attempting to cheat are felonies, so if skilled dice throwing is cheating, then setting the dice and trying to execute a controlled throw is also a felony. I have a real hard time believing this was the intent of the NV legislature.
Nor would anyone else. It takes time away from the craps table to type a post...and they could be making thousands with that "special throw" if it really existed.Quote: richbailey86Ive never played craps. Hopefully ill learn a nice strategy from the craps forum here. Let me just say if I could dice set I wouldnt tell anyone....
Quote: FleaStiffNor would anyone else. It takes time away from the craps table to type a post...and they could be making thousands with that "special throw" if it really existed.
I don't agree with this logic. Card counting certainly turns the edge in favor of the counter and we know how many books are out about that. I don't believe that very many people can successfully influence the dice. I also don't buy into the notion that if someone could they would keep quite about it.
Card counting is different it requires much more cover and there are limited places and time you can get away with it. The real good counters/other things making thousands a day are not talking about it. I get the fact some guys want to tell their story after the gig is up and they made a ton of cash (sometimes millions). They want to parlay their BJ success into books and other things they want some notoriety and have some fun spending the money.Quote: Mikey75I don't agree with this logic. Card counting certainly turns the edge in favor of the counter and we know how many books are out about that. I don't believe that very many people can successfully influence the dice. I also don't buy into the notion that if someone could they would keep quite about it.
Anyone, please name one person that has had any real big success with DI only? NOT someone selling classes, books or whatever. I want to see one person who started with a small bank-roll and used DI ONLY to make any significant amount of money. I know quite a few people who have made a fortune in all other forms of REAL AP. Yet I have never heard of any DI's that have done this. The real kicker is, REAL advantage plays are limited and always changing/ ending, so its difficult to pull this(getting rich) off. Yet tons of Craps tables are sitting there 24/7 and they let guys sit and shoot ALL DAY LONG with very little heat. We should have a ton of guys getting rich off of it.
Quote: AxelWolfAnyone, please name one person that has had any real big success with DI only? NOT someone selling classes, books or whatever. I want to see one person who started with a small bank-roll and used DI ONLY to make any significant amount of money. I know quite a few people who have made a fortune in all other forms of REAL AP. Yet I have never heard of any DI's that have done this. The real kicker is, REAL advantage plays are limited and always changing/ ending, so its difficult to pull this(getting rich) off. Yet tons of Craps tables are sitting there 24/7 and they let guys sit and shoot ALL DAY LONG with very little heat. We should have a ton of guys getting rich off of it.
THIS. There are famous successful poker players. There are successful blackjack players. I'm talking about people that have made a lot of money playing cards.
There are no celebrity dice rollers as far as I know. If somebody has started with a bankroll similar to the entry fee for the WSoP and now has millions from rolling dice, where are they?
That was my questionQuote: TerribleTomTHIS. There are famous successful poker players. There are successful blackjack players. I'm talking about people that have made a lot of money playing cards.
There are no celebrity dice rollers as far as I know. If somebody has started with a bankroll similar to the entry fee for the WSoP and now has millions from rolling dice, where are they?
Quote: AxelWolf
Quote: TerribleTomTHIS. There are famous successful poker players. There are successful blackjack players. I'm talking about people that have made a lot of money playing cards.
There are no celebrity dice rollers as far as I know. If somebody has started with a bankroll similar to the entry fee for the WSoP and now has millions from rolling dice, where are they?
That was my question
I was seconding your post. I agree and have the same question.
I suspect that there is no such person, which would explain why we don't know about them. I imagine you're in a similar place.
In High School I was a (back-up) Quarterback, in addition to being a Kicker, Punter & Tight End, so I have a fairly accurate throw compared to most. If a carnival offers me a game that involves throwing a football through some kind of hoop, would I be cheating because I can probably do it one out of every few times?
Quote: MrVI believe that dice setting would be considered a form of cheating, IF it could be objectively proven that it works as claimed.
How many years have you been arguing the same thing? It goes back to the days of Rec Gambling Craps ... is that 20 years or only 15?
How many times have I told you -- that the Nevada Gaming Commission and regulators in Michigan and New Jersey told me -- that dice setting and controlled shooting is NOT cheating or illegal or unlawful AS LONG AS the dice fly in the air, bounce off the flat surface of the table at least once and hit the back wall.
I even interviewed the NGC about this for a TV report on KCAL about this, and I have direct quotes on my website about this.
I go away from the message board for a few days and come back to find the same hallucinations from years ago. LOL
Quote: AlanMendelsonHow many times have I told you -- that the Nevada Gaming Commission and regulators in Michigan and New Jersey told me -- that dice setting and controlled shooting is NOT cheating or illegal or unlawful AS LONG AS the dice fly in the air, bounce off the flat surface of the table at least once and hit the back wall.
You have stated that on at least one occasion.
I agree, they told you that.
BUT (and it's a big but) they parrot that line only because they feel that dice setting has never been proven to work, "AS LONG AS the dice fly in the air, bounce off the flat surface of the table at least once and hit the back wall."
Let's assume, for purposes of discussion, that it has been proven to work, i.e. assume that a shooter can in fact change the result from random to nonrandom: assume he can in fact control or influence the dice in a quantifiable manner.
Were that the case, all those players who happen to be betting against the shooter would not be receiving what they expect, namely a random or fair outcome.
How could the casino or a gambling regulatory agency possibly accept, sanction and bless such a scenario?
They wouldn't.
No Alan, you just don't seem to understand: IF IT REALLY WORKED, it would be barred.
It doesn't work, so it is allowed.
Just another affectation, like bending the cards at baccarat.
Hey, we're all free to choose our delusion .
Question: suppose instead of throwing the dice, the shooter just reaches out and places them on the table with a hard six showing. They're nowhere close to the back wall, they're in the come bet area. If the dealer fails to call no roll, is the shooter a cheater?
If the dealer does call no roll, is the shooter an attempted cheater?
In the real world the crew would look at the geek, mutter WTF? and tell him he can't do that.
If he did it again, the crew would pass the dice to a new shooter.
Here is all you need to see, think about what you are watching, then tell every casino that you go into to watch the same videos.
Slow motion videos of dice shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2FYrndlrpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jej4WNRGyR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiZf3jbjie0&list=UUfDRf2L1rCEgYtGFlS_z9ag
Don't you get tired of standing at a craps table and waiting for the dice to be picked up off the floor, because the casinos were to stupid to watch slow-motion videos of what happens when the dice hits the table!
By now it should be obvious, that the guys that have these on axis DI schools are making their money off their schools and charging hook up fees to go to the tables with their instructors and anything else they can sell.
The authors are making all their money off the books they sell. You're not going to see them in a casino, making their money off the tables, the only time you will see them is when they have a class, in town and they now have a buy-in that they made selling their class. Most of them do not even live in a town that has casinos. Some of these so-called experts only play craps a few times a year!
Casinos read all of this fiction, that is written in these books and let's not forget posted on the DI boards, and they actually believe the BS. They took so many different countermeasures that they are costing themselves money, by chasing the dice every time they go off the table. They are constantly hassling anybody that sets the dice and just gets lucky, and gets on a roll.
The truth of the matter is, casinos make their money off of rolls per hour, and when they're doing all these stupid things they are cost themselves money. That's what happens when you have a bunch of bean counters running a casino!
Quote: MrVIn the real world the crew would look at the geek, mutter WTF? and tell him he can't do that.
Agreed, but was it an attempt to cheat (as defined in NRS) and therefore a felony?
Quote: MoosetonThat's right. I have a shot that I don't use because it's cheating. I'm actually being serious though.
is this you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7ufOkRoShk
Quote: MathExtremistAgreed, but was it an attempt to cheat (as defined in NRS) and therefore a felony?
No.
Not as contemplated by the statute.
In merely placing the dice on the felt with the desired result showing, the shooter has not taken the necessary condition precedent of actually rolling dem bones.
With no attempt to roll having been made, the casino can give no credence to the act.
Basically it would be considered either a joke, or the acts of a madman, and disregarded accordingly.
Your suggested scenario would seem akin to simply telling the dealer "I won, pay me" without even attempting to roll the dice whatsoever.
Those dogs won't hunt.
Quote: MrVIn merely placing the dice on the felt with the desired result showing, the shooter has not taken the necessary condition precedent of actually rolling dem bones.
With no attempt to roll having been made, the casino can give no credence to the act.
Basically it would be considered either a joke, or the acts of a madman, and disregarded accordingly.
Your suggested scenario would seem akin to simply telling the dealer "I won, pay me" without even attempting to roll the dice whatsoever.
Those dogs won't hunt.
Okay, what if the shooter places the dice down, showing hard six, then scoots them forward four feet on the table so they slide to a stop just past the prop box with neither die having tumbled? Or eight feet, so they come to a rest one foot before the far end? If the dealer calls no-roll in either of those scenarios, is the shooter still guilty of attempted cheating?
The tough part is proving intent.
Quote: MrVDice sliding is cheating.
I'm not at all sure that's settled law, but let's assume for now that it is. What's the legal difference between attempting to slide the dice and attempting to roll them on-axis, in both cases using a short roll? Both techniques are known to be effective at altering the uniform die-face distribution. Is that what the NRS means by "alter"?
Sliding the dice involves deliberately manipulating the movement of the dice so as to have (at least) one of the dice not rotate, so that the number chosen is the number that shows.
That has been proven to be effective, and I believe could be the basis for criminal prosecution, if intent can be proven.
To prove intent: probably review tape and reconstruct the actions of the two or three confederates employed at the time the shot is taken.
In contrast, dice setting involves hope as opposed to control, as it has never been proven to be effective.
There is no basis for your comment that dice setting is" known to be effective at altering the uniform die-face distribution."
Quote: MrVIn contrast, dice setting involves hope as opposed to control, as it has never been proven to be effective.
There is no basis for your comment that dice setting is" known to be effective at altering the uniform die-face distribution."
To most people, "dice setting" is just fiddling with the dice and then haphazardly flinging them toward the far end of the table, off the back wall, bouncing everywhere. I agree with you that such action isn't going to change anything about the house edge.
But that's not what actually I said. What I said is a short-roll blanket roll is known to be effective. There are several methods of influencing the dice that work perfectly well (if not all the time) when the dice fail to bounce off the back wall. The blanket roll is one of them, even I can do it and you probably can too.
So let me rephrase the question. If a shooter is willing to admit intent, which of the following would be cheating?
a) Making a dice slide where the dice fail to hit the back wall and one die slides and does not tumble
b) Making a blanket roll where the dice fail to hit the back wall and one die rolls on-axis and does not tumble.
As you concede the shooter would admit intent, a successful prosecution should be the end result.
BTW, I have read of "a" but am unfamiliar with "b."
Quote: MrVI would characterize both as cheating, as both " alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine: (a) The result of a game."
As you concede the shooter would admit intent, a successful prosecution should be the end result.
BTW, I have read of "a" but am unfamiliar with "b."
See Scarne on Dice for a description of the blanket roll. Here's the problem, though: both the slide and the blanket roll are just examples of the generic concept of "altering the dice probabilities via influence." The whole point of trying to influence the dice is to alter the probabilities. So by your characterization, anyone who actually succeeds in altering the dice probabilities is cheating.
However, cheating is illegal in Nevada:
Quote:NRS 465.083 Cheating. It is unlawful for any person, whether the person is an owner or employee of or a player in an establishment, to cheat at any gambling game.
Further, cheating and attempting to cheat are both felonies in Nevada and carry exactly the same penalties:
Quote:NRS 465.088 Penalties for violation of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive.
1. A person who violates any provision of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished:
(a) For the first offense, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
(b) For a second or subsequent violation of any of these provisions, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. The court shall not suspend a sentence of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this paragraph, or grant probation to the person convicted.
2. A person who attempts, or two or more persons who conspire, to violate any provision of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive, each is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imposing the penalty provided in subsection 1 for the completed crime, whether or not he or she personally played any gambling game or used any prohibited device.
The conclusion would be that anyone who succeeds in altering the dice probabilities, or even attempts to alter the dice probabilities (by whatever method), is guilty of a felony. That includes everyone who has ever set the dice and tried to make a careful throw. Do you actually think this is the intent of the Nevada legislature?
Quote:The conclusion would be that anyone who succeeds in altering the dice probabilities, or even attempts to alter the dice probabilities (by whatever method), is guilty of a felony. That includes everyone who has ever set the dice and tried to make a careful throw. Do you actually think this is the intent of the Nevada legislature?
Yes, absolutely.
If dice setting (or "dice influencing") actually worked, you bet, it would be cheating.
But there's the rub: it doesn't work; under your definition, a DI cannot demonstrably alter the dice probabilities.
It would be neat if they could, but they can't, and don't, at least not enough for the casinos to be concerned about.
I concede there may be the rare, occasional "dead cat bounce," but by report that is exceedingly difficult to pull off.
Quote: MrVYes, absolutely.
If dice setting (or "dice influencing") actually worked, you bet, it would be cheating.
But there's the rub: it doesn't work; under your definition, a DI cannot demonstrably alter the dice probabilities.
It would be neat if they could, but they can't, and don't, at least not enough for the casinos to be concerned about.
I concede there may be the rare, occasional "dead cat bounce," but by report that is exceedingly difficult to pull off.
Hold on, that's not what I said. A short roll can absolutely be controlled by any number of techniques. Suppose a shooter has read all of the purported dice-influencing books and can keep the dice on-axis a meaningful percentage of the time on his bed or carpet. Suppose also that he can keep the dice on-axis 2% of the time when he makes a short roll on a casino dice table. Suppose also that his throws hit the back wall 95% of the time but roll short 5% of the time. And suppose all of this is entirely intentional. That means 0.1% of the time (1 in 1000 rolls) the shooter's rolls have an altered distribution.
Is he cheating 0.1% of the time? Is he attempting to cheat 100% of the time, or at least 5% of the time?
Suppose also that the casino disallows the short rolls so the shooter never actually alters the distribution, but he makes the short rolls 5% of the time anyway. Isn't that still an attempt at cheating?
And it's not clear to me that making an attempt at something, legally, has to do with one's likelihood of success. I've thrown exactly one dead cat bounce in my life. The dice hit the table in the come box and just stopped dead, rather than bouncing forward like they almost always do. They were nowhere close to the back wall but the casino allowed the roll.
If I were trying to do that on every roll, but only succeeded once every 100,000 rolls, would that be attempted cheating?
2) He would be cheating every deliberate short roll, IF his play actually alters the probabilities, which I do not concede to be true.
3) Yes.
4) No, a dead cat bounce is a legal throw: it hit the wall.
Quote: BuzzardAre you available to be called as an expert witness for the defense ?
The best defense against a closely held superstitious belief is unwavering logic.
While you won't likely change the opinion of the deluded believer, you should emerge intellectually unscathed, not to mention mildly amused.
Quote: MrVWhile you won't likely change the opinion of the deluded believer
Delusion is so easy to see in others. Do you see it in yourself is the challenging question to answer honestly.
It's possible that even you have beliefs you wish not to dispel for your own convenience.
Quote: AhighDelusion is so easy to see in others. Do you see it in yourself is the challenging question to answer honestly.
It's possible that even you have beliefs you wish not to dispel for your own convenience.
Ah, there's the rub.
How can we be objective about our own subjective beliefs?
Takes a bit of critical self-examination, and a willingness to open your mind to the comments of others.
Not easy.
Quote: MrV2) He would be cheating every deliberate short roll, IF his play actually alters the probabilities, which I do not concede to be true.
I think you can demonstrate to yourself that a short roll can be controlled some non-zero percentage of the time. But I don't think the nature of an attempt is related to the likelihood of success, even if zero. Would you say a three-year-old basketball fan, vainly heaving the ball from behind the three-point arc in the vague direction of the basket, wasn't actually trying to make a three point shot just like the one that won Game 7 of the Portland-Houston series last week?
If that's an attempt, then why wouldn't it also be the case that everyone who sets the dice and tries to control them is also making an attempt -- in this case, to alter the dice probabilities. Is that "attempting to cheat"? Is everyone who tries to control the dice a felon?
Quote: BuzzardAre you available to be called as an expert witness for the defense ?
Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time. :)
Quote: MathExtremistwhy wouldn't it also be the case that everyone who sets the dice and tries to control them is also making an attempt -- in this case, to alter the dice probabilities. Is that "attempting to cheat"? Is everyone who tries to control the dice a felon?
Of course they are all attempting to alter the dice probabilities.
Dice setting, lucky rabbits foot, praying: all are affectations which people employ in a vain, superstitious attempt to "win."
None are deemed criminal because none employ an affirmative act which in fact derandomizes the outcome.
Too bad there's no way to tax hope.
Quote: MrVOf course they are all attempting to alter the dice probabilities.
Dice setting, lucky rabbits foot, praying: all are affectations which people employ in a vain, superstitious attempt to "win."
None are deemed criminal because none employ an affirmative act which in fact derandomizes the outcome.
Interesting. So in your opinion, someone who practices and can achieve a "derandomized" outcome say one time in 1,000, are they a criminal? Suppose they're trying for the shot where the dice die at exactly the corner of the table and the wall? For example:
Quote: AlanMendelson
my dice with 5-4 showing came to rest against the back wall three times in a row. I used the cross sixes set with 5-4 in the front.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/5411-has-anyone-ever-seen-a-real-study-on-dice-control/20/#post188997
He was certainly trying to throw the dice that carefully, presumably using a gentle, consistent throwing motion each time. It's one thing to set the dice and just fling them. It's another to set them and throw them so precisely that they come to rest against the wall three times in a row. I can't do that -- can you? Do you think Alan is admitting to cheating here, or at least attempting to cheat? If not, why not?
Quote: MathExtremistInteresting. So in your opinion, someone who practices and can achieve a "derandomized" outcome say one time in 1,000, are they a criminal? Suppose they're trying for the shot where the dice die at exactly the corner of the table and the wall?
Your example is that of a legal throw.
The dice went flying through the air, touched the felt and also the back wall.
To the degree somebody can intentionally throw a dead cat bounce, which meets all the criteria of a legal throw, I say "Hats off!"
Other than this I know of no other way to achieve a "derandomized" outcome at craps, without cheating, i.e. without improperly manipulating the dice to alter the outcome.
As for Alan, no, he wasn't cheating, as the dice met the criteria for a legal throw.
It would be cheating had the dice been slid, or if substitute "gaffed" dice were used.
But dice setting?
That isn't cheating.
Nor is it demonstrably effective.
Were it so, it would be cheating.
Quote: MrVYour example is that of a legal throw.
The dice went flying through the air, touched the felt and also the back wall.
To the degree somebody can intentionally throw a dead cat bounce, which meets all the criteria of a legal throw, I say "Hats off!"
Other than this I know of no other way to achieve a "derandomized" outcome at craps, without cheating, i.e. without improperly manipulating the dice to alter the outcome.
As for Alan, no, he wasn't cheating, as the dice met the criteria for a legal throw.
It would be cheating had the dice been slid, or if substitute "gaffed" dice were used.
But dice setting?
That isn't cheating.
Nor is it demonstrably effective.
Were it so, it would be cheating.
"Legal throw" IMO IS ANY THROW DEEMED ACCEPTABLE BY HOUSE RULES.
House rules vary.
I am disallowed from shooting in two casinos for different reasons both related to how I throw.
Each house decides.
I queried gaming and they said as much.
do you accept PayPal ?Quote: MathExtremistYes, and it wouldn't be the first time. :)
