Dice setting would be considered cheating

I believe that dice setting would be considered a form of cheating, IF it could be objectively proven that it works as claimed.

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.

That's right. I have a shot that I don't use because it's cheating. I'm actually being serious though.

Quote: Mooseton

That's right. I have a shot that I don't use because it's cheating. I'm actually being serious though.

Would love to see it, post up a video of that bad boy

When 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: Mooseton

When 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.

I will send you a mask.

Quote: MrV

It 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.

Ive 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: richbailey86

Ive 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....

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: FleaStiff

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.

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.

deleted