SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
• Posts: 3502
May 12th, 2014 at 5:02:23 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Dice sliding is cheating. The tough part is proving intent.

Not if the "intent" is winning money. And the absence of developments in the more than two years since the Dubal-Fernandez case started showcase some of the major obstacles to pursuing questionable legal actions.
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
May 12th, 2014 at 7:19:12 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

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.

This is all entirely circular. There is no such definition anywhere of "legal throw" -- what you're using is the commonplace definition of an "allowable throw", but as Ahigh correctly points out, that changes from one casino to another. But none of that is at all relevant to a determination of what is "cheating" per statute.

You seem to suggest that if the dice went flying through the air, touched the felt, and bounced off the back wall, that's not cheating regardless of whether the probability distribution was altered. But under your interpretation of "altered", isn't that exactly what "cheating" means?

Is your position based on your (incorrect) belief that nobody can control dice at all, ever?
http://youtu.be/h1Zbbr9JgKU?t=32s
If someone can control the dice so they "fly through the air, touch the felt and also the back wall" but maintain at least one axis (either horizontal or vertical) and thereby "alter" the distribution of rolls, is that cheating?

Because if so, then attempting to do that is also a crime, and that means everyone who sets the dice and tries to use an on-axis roll is a felon. Do you actually think this was the intent of the statute?
"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
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
May 12th, 2014 at 7:34:58 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Is your position based on your (incorrect) belief that nobody can control dice at all, ever?

Nobody can control the dice at a craps table under casino conditions such that the outcome is other than random so long as the dice are thrown through the air, hit the felt, and also hit the back wall.

Oh sure, there is the rare dead cat bounce, but I suspect those are very few and far between, enough to be significantly insignificant.

The Forte video you linked to shows a helicopter shot, where one die stays flat on the table and spins around, its face never rotating; that is illegal, because IT WORKS.

Not so with dice setting.
"What, me worry?"
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
May 12th, 2014 at 7:50:30 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Nobody can control the dice at a craps table under casino conditions such that the outcome is other than random so long as the dice are thrown through the air, hit the felt, and also hit the back wall.

Oh sure, there is the rare dead cat bounce, but I suspect those are very few and far between, enough to be significantly insignificant.

The Forte video you linked to shows a helicopter shot, where one die stays flat on the table and spins around, its face never rotating; that is illegal, because IT WORKS.

Not so with dice setting.

So if a technique to alter the dice distribution works, it is cheating? I think you've already said the answer is yes. Wouldn't it follow, then, that someone who tries and fails to execute that technique to alter the dice distribution is still an attempted cheater?

You don't think dice setting (your term) works, but I submit that there is at least one person somewhere who can both meet your criteria for a valid throw and still exert some influence over the dice distribution. Many books have been written about the topic. Are you suggesting that there is nobody anywhere on the planet who can intentionally throw the dice so they bounce off the table, roll forward, and then gently tap the back wall without tumbling from side-to-side? If yes, then isn't everyone who tries to do that guilty of attempted cheating?
"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
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
May 12th, 2014 at 8:07:33 AM permalink
Think of it this way: dice setting is like praying to god.

Many people provide "testimony" about the power of prayer; many people genuinely believe it actually affects events in the world.

To channel this belief, institutions have been created, many books have been written, and individuals have made a good living doing so.

Yet the power of prayer / the existence of god has never been proven to be an objective fact.

To answer your query: no, I do not believe, unlike you, "that there is at least one person somewhere who can both meet your criteria

for a valid throw and still exert some influence over the dice distribution."

People who set the dice are not cheating, as they are not in fact demonstrably affecting the outcome, at least not what I would call "statistically" (allowing for the very rare, successful dead cat bounce).
"What, me worry?"
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
May 12th, 2014 at 10:06:43 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

To answer your query: no, I do not believe, unlike you, "that there is at least one person somewhere who can both meet your criteria for a valid throw and still exert some influence over the dice distribution."

People who set the dice are not cheating, as they are not in fact demonstrably affecting the outcome, at least not what I would call "statistically" (allowing for the very rare, successful dead cat bounce).

Okay, last three questions. Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and suppose someone (just one person) could demonstrably affect the outcome and alter the dice probabilities using a particular throwing technique, to whatever degree you would consider statistically-significant. Which of the following would you say are true?
a) That person, when he successfully uses his technique, is cheating?
b) That person, when he tries but fails to use his technique, is attempting to cheat?
c) Another person, when he tries but fails to use the same technique, is attempting to cheat?
"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
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
May 12th, 2014 at 12:27:51 PM permalink
Clearly (a).

Were a player in fact able to consciously and by design influence the result such that it favors his way of betting, you bet, it would be cheating.

I'll take it a step further and include (b) as well.

But not (c).

If in fact one individual (per your example) can actually influence the dice, then his attempts and successes both would be cheating, as he is altering or attempting to alter the outcome to be other than random via his actions.

Card counting is not cheating because the counter takes no affirmative acts to alter the outcome; he merely changes his betting amount; a successful DI (I do not concede they exist, but presuppose it for this discussion) manipulates the dice to favor his method of betting, to increase his odds of winning.

Not only does such a DI deny the casino its expected / demanded randomness and resultant profit, the odds of those not betting with the DI are thereby worsened: that is a problem.

As for (c): unless he can do it, his futile attempts to do it are not cheating.

The player's ability is the key here.
"What, me worry?"
TerribleTom
Joined: Feb 18, 2014
• Posts: 319
May 12th, 2014 at 1:36:48 PM permalink
The difference between games of skill and games of chance...
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
May 12th, 2014 at 2:05:35 PM permalink
Quote: MrV

Not only does such a DI deny the casino its expected / demanded randomness and resultant profit, the odds of those not betting with the DI are thereby worsened: that is a problem.

As for (c): unless he can do it, his futile attempts to do it are not cheating.

The player's ability is the key here.

I agree with the first statement; I've even posited as such before:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/dice-setting/15388-is-dice-influencing-ethical/
It turns out that the vast majority don't have an ethical problem with any supposed DI effects. But that's not really the question I'm getting after here.

Essentially, you think dice influencing is only cheating if it's successful, or at least the person who's trying it has been successful in the past. If a first person can control or influence the dice with technique X, that doesn't mean that technique X is always "cheating", or that attempting to use technique X is always "attempted cheating." If technique X is attempted by a second person without a demonstrated ability to use it successfully, in fact, that attempt isn't attempted cheating at all. If you try to slide the dice, but you can't actually pull it off, that doesn't count as attempted cheating.

Suppose you picked up a sniper rifle, aimed it at your sworn enemy one mile away, and fired at his head. Only a handful of people on the planet can hit a target from over a mile away and I'm assuming you're not one of them. Are you guilty of attempted murder?
"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
SOOPOO

Joined: Aug 8, 2010
• Posts: 10205
May 12th, 2014 at 2:17:51 PM permalink
ME keeps looking for a hypothetical or theoretical answer, while MrV keeps giving a real world or practical answer.

As defined, yes, every person who attempts to influence the dice is THEORETICALLY cheating.
But PRACTICALLY, since the casinos and authorities know that if the conditions of dice being simultaneously tossed in the air, hitting the table, then the back wall, results in randomization, then no one will ever be criminally accused of cheating for DI if they meet the criteria I mentioned.

I think a reasonable analogy is.... THEORETICALLY, driving 66 in a 65 zone is speeding, but PRACTICALLY you will never be given a ticket for such.

How about this one.... someone believes that by chanting "Ace, Ace' increases the chance of them being dealt an ace after their first card is a 10 in BJ. Is that person committing a crime by chanting 'ace'? No, for the same reason a person trying to influence the dice isn't.
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
May 12th, 2014 at 4:11:41 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

As defined, yes, every person who attempts to influence the dice is THEORETICALLY cheating.

I'm not actually certain this is true -- this is the basis of my query. I know what MrV thinks (yes, it is) but I don't believe a court has addressed the question of what "alter" means here. A slide shot doesn't actually alter the dice themselves. Neither does a blanket roll that barely makes it to the back wall. Both of those techniques are, depending on the shooter, sometimes able to alter the probability distribution. If you practiced a stacked-dice technique where you threw the dice with the goal of having the top die pin the bottom die (with a 6 face-up) to the table just at the edge of the wall, and 0.1% of the time you actually succeeded, then the distribution of die faces has been altered (0.1% of the throws will have a guaranteed 6). Is throwing that way cheating? Is trying to throw that way "attempted cheating"?
"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
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5197
May 12th, 2014 at 7:16:31 PM permalink
I love it when the box barks at a hop-better who bets five or six hop bets at the same time on the comeout, slowly sets the dice, and does an obviously random throw where only one die ends up short (maybe just three inches short from the far side of the table even).

It makes me think it might be reverse psychology!

You almost got the hard eight hopping for \$10 on the comeout!

ALL THE WAY DOWN SHOOTER!!!! I'm not going to tell you again, one more time and I take the dice away!

"IMMA TRY IT AGAIN!!! YOU WATCH!!!!! UHHHHHHHHHH!!!! COME OWN DICE! UHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"
aahigh.com
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
• Posts: 1157
May 14th, 2014 at 7:03:57 AM permalink
Math

There are number of ways to roll the dice and control the bounce that certainly are not considered
cheating. For instance; There are some players that use a basic parr shot that when thrown very close to
the back wall hit under the pyramids and stops there.... that is not cheating. It is easy to throw the dice
on a smaller table with enough back spin to stop them right at the point of impact on the table, or close to
it and it appears to be a short roll, some casino's dont like it, others it is ok. If you remember the forward
underhand shot, it has the dice rolling without back spin and if you are good enough, it barely hits the back
wall or atleast does not jump up into the pyramids

All of these shots attempt to control the random nature of the dice, but are not cheating. One cant
equate these shots with sliding the die.

If a blackjack player is playing in a 2 deck game and remembers that there have been no aces played
so he takes insurance, that is not cheating.

Math, ilike your quote, however i would like to add that in my own case after many years where it
was felt death was close at hand, it "was" constantly playing at dice that did provide enough solice
to weather many years of despair to get back living a decent life.

dicesetter
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
May 14th, 2014 at 7:23:32 AM permalink
You describe, essentially, the "dead cat bounce," which I agree is not cheating.

Of course, it is nearly impossible to do successfully, i.e. intentionally.

And another thing: even if the dice are gently wafted and land right where the felt meets the wall and do not tumble, there is no guarantee that the resulting dice face will be what the shooter intended.

You say "it is easy" to control the dice; I really don't think so.

Regardless, I am glad for you that you derive pleasure and perhaps even a bit of "meaning" from craps.

I do, too.
"What, me worry?"
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5197
May 14th, 2014 at 7:58:23 AM permalink
"the dead cat bounce."

I always associated this term with investing, not with throwing dice.

I wish there were a way to sell short the notions in the topics of discussion between you and dicesitter. I would be able to make a killing.
aahigh.com
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
• Posts: 1157
May 14th, 2014 at 8:01:46 AM permalink
MRV

Here in Wisconsin we had two casinos with the tub. Both are very bouncy and to try to limit
the bounce i would throw a very high soft Parr type shot and many times it hits and stops
, but the problem is it stops short of the wall and is called a no roll. So i am not saying dice control
is easy, but that type of shot is not hard, but ot always usable.

It got to the point where the no rolls cost me to much money. I went to another type of roll
which hits the back wall, but limits the bounce.

I dont mean i got that much meaing from craps, but when i starting working on the idea
of dice controll it is a process and does not come in one day, so the idea of looking forward
to the next day and the next was what i needed at the time.

dicesetter
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5197
May 14th, 2014 at 8:09:06 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

It got to the point where the no rolls cost me to much money. I went to another type of roll
which hits the back wall, but limits the bounce.

What you describe sounds like you are saying the casino would call a favorable outcome that was short a no-roll and a non-favorable outcome (EG: a seven) a roll.

I've never seen this practice in Vegas. But it's pretty well known that calling shorties no-roll post-resolution is a clear and obvious violation of player trust.

Can you describe exactly how they treat the no-roll calls. Do they no-roll each and every roll where both dice don't hit the back wall?

In Las Vegas, no rolls are called on clearly defined events (on the dough, in the wood etc) but a short roll is generally NEVER called a no roll because the condition for a short roll can be difficult to pin down, ESPECIALLY post resolution without reviewing the video.
aahigh.com
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
• Posts: 3502
May 14th, 2014 at 10:21:57 AM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

"the dead cat bounce." I always associated this term with investing, not with throwing dice. I wish there were a way to sell short the notions in the topics of discussion between you and dicesitter. I would be able to make a killing.

Hooray for Mark to Market and the uptick rule.
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
May 14th, 2014 at 11:40:16 AM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

I wish there were a way to sell short the notions in the topics of discussion between you and dicesitter. I would be able to make a killing.

Just as I wish I hadn't invested in NTEK stock immediately after you were hired.

I wouldn't have made a killing, but I'd have avoided the resultant bloodbath.
"What, me worry?"
rudeboyoi
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
• Posts: 2001
May 14th, 2014 at 12:27:18 PM permalink
There's too much grey area to ever make dice influencing a felony. It would just create a slippery slope that will inevitably kill the game of craps.
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
• Posts: 1157
May 14th, 2014 at 1:21:48 PM permalink
Ahigh

Sure, what we see here is different than what you see in Vegas, all we have are tribal
casino's.

We have 3 casino's here that have a tub. On all three of these tables both dice have to
hit the back wall . If they dont, they call it a no roll and no harm no foul. But if you hit
the number you wanted and it was called a no roll, well, you just hurt yourself. If it was
a 7 it was also called a no roll. I would not suggest that they called all close calls a 7. it is
a hard job to make the call, i do know i never saw a 7 call over-turned by the camera.

These tables were so darn bouncy that if you used the GTC or PARR shot you wanted to
control the bounce as much as possible, so i used a very soft short from SL1 with some height
and lots of back spin so it would hit and barely hit the back wall.

We were doing pretty darn good on one table and one day they began to say that if you did
not hit the wall they would take the dice away.

At the other two they still dont mind short rolls , they are just a no roll, and as you indicated
there are times they take a look at the camera if some one would question a call.

i got to the point that the short roll calls hurt me as much as they helped so i just changed
my shot.

dicesetter
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5197
May 14th, 2014 at 1:30:11 PM permalink
Quote: MrV

Just as I wish I hadn't invested in NTEK stock immediately after you were hired.

I wouldn't have made a killing, but I'd have avoided the resultant bloodbath.

Did you lose more than I did betting max odds next to you at Casino Royale? I don't blame the forum (or you) for those losses, and I certainly hope you don't hold me accountable for yours.

\$3 pass/come every roll and \$60 odds, I think I lost about \$1,000 on that session.

If you sold, how much have you lost on NTEK stock?

I have profited from each and every transaction I've made on NTEK stock so far.
aahigh.com
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
May 14th, 2014 at 7:04:25 PM permalink
No, I don't blame you, it was just a flippant comment.

I did not invest a lot in NTEK, but it sank like a rock shortly thereafter, dropping 45%.

No biggie: it's just gambling.

I recall playing next to you at CR, you were betting as you say, with little success.

Last trip I played PL / come at CR, betting aggressively, like you did, and did very well, more than doubling my buy-in in short order.

It's all luck.

This game can drive you nuts.
"What, me worry?"
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
• Posts: 1157
May 15th, 2014 at 6:55:32 AM permalink
MrV

Stocks are just like playing craps, there are those that just play a poke and hope
game of craps, then there are those that really play it.

Stocks are no different, there are those that buy a stock hoping it is going to go up
so they make some, and over the course of a year they may buy a \$7 stock and it
goes to \$9 and they think wow... there are those that study stocks and learn alot about
a couple of them and use variance to make alot.

Kog is an example, in 2011 it hit above \$12, 2013 it hit \$12 and now it is at \$12, looks like
a loser to most, yet i have traded it for an \$800 average three times a week for almost a
year. I first bought the stock at \$3.50 and held it until \$9.66, and i have traded it ever
since rather than holding it. Just like the table where you see things that repeat, you can
make money on them. Yesterday the stock was at \$12.58 and today it is \$11.85, this is a
gift, i just bought 4000 shares, i sold yesterday at \$12.48.

dicesetter
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5197
May 15th, 2014 at 9:16:26 PM permalink
I find stocks and gambling quite different these days. But there was a time when they were more similar in my mind.
aahigh.com
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
• Posts: 5937
July 9th, 2014 at 2:09:47 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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:

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?

Gosh, it's been a long time and I looked on this thread.

As I wrote originally and in subsequent discussions about the Bellagio incident, it was just pure luck, plain and simple, that had the dice come to rest against the back wall showing 5-4. Never in a gazillion years could I do that "on demand."

Do you want to talk about the thousand other times I threw the dice the same way and they didn't come to rest showing 5-4?

By the way, regarding all of your questions about what is cheating, and can a shooter stretch out his arm and put the dice down-- all of this is easily reasoned with if you follow what the Nevada, Michigan and New Jersey authorities all say constitutes a legal or valid throw:

Dice must fly in the air.
Dice must hit the table surface at least once.
Dice must hit the back wall.

Any throw of the dice that flies in the air, hits the table surface, and then the dice hit the back wall by definition eliminates a slide or whip shot, or anything else that might be called "no roll."

What happened to me at Bellagio happened because the dealers were "wrong" -- and the casino apologized to me and the dealers were "retrained" whatever the heck that is.
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
• Posts: 5937
July 9th, 2014 at 2:16:30 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Clearly (a).

Were a player in fact able to consciously and by design influence the result such that it favors his way of betting, you bet, it would be cheating.

Do me a favor, MrV: give us the name of ONE, just ONE, official of any gaming regulatory body who will say this statement of yours is correct?

I can give you names in Nevada, New Jersey and Michigan who all say you're wrong, and that the dice are given to the shooter (player) so that he may try his best to set and influence the dice as best he can as long as that when he throws the dice they:

1. fly in the air
2. bounce off the table
3. hit the back wall

You don't give up with this rant of yours no matter how many times you were told dice setting and a controlled shot (not a slide) are not cheating.

Quote: SOOPOO

As defined, yes, every person who attempts to influence the dice is THEORETICALLY cheating.

I am going to ask you the same question: WHO says this is "theoretically" or otherwise cheating? Give me a name -- a regulator I can phone.
nickolay411
Joined: Sep 7, 2011
• Posts: 283
July 9th, 2014 at 2:58:00 AM permalink
Alan,

So would a helicopter/whip shot that hits the back wall... Is that then legal or not? Cuz... I'm confused!

oh and also a low tossed blanket roll that gently hits the back wall? legal or not?

Note both dice are in the air for at least half of the throws length.
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
July 9th, 2014 at 7:21:51 AM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

Do me a favor, MrV: give us the name of ONE, just ONE, official of any gaming regulatory body who will say this statement of yours is correct?

I can give you names in Nevada, New Jersey and Michigan who all say you're wrong, and that the dice are given to the shooter (player) so that he may try his best to set and influence the dice as best he can as long as that when he throws the dice they:

1. fly in the air
2. bounce off the table
3. hit the back wall

You don't give up with this rant of yours no matter how many times you were told dice setting and a controlled shot (not a slide) are not cheating.

I am going to ask you the same question: WHO says this is "theoretically" or otherwise cheating? Give me a name -- a regulator I can phone.

The casinos allow players to set the dice because they KNOW, empirically, that so long as the three criteria are met, a random roll will result.

The only exception I suppose would be a dead cat bounce, which I must assume is so difficult to pull off so as to be a very rare event indeed, and deemed to be statistically insignificant.

If in fact someone were able to pull off a dead cat bounce with regularity, such that casino staff notice the shot leading to results which repeatedly favor the shooter, that would take us into Unexplored Territory, as I doubt it has ever happened before.

Casinos would only allow dice setting / dice influencing if they believed it does not work; would a farmer invite a wolf into his chicken house?

Do casinos allow card counters to count in their casinos?

Were there objective proof that a player could derandomize the outcome of his throw, he'd be barred from the craps table.

Do you disagree?
"What, me worry?"
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
• Posts: 5937
July 9th, 2014 at 9:30:22 AM permalink
Quote: nickolay411

Alan,

So would a helicopter/whip shot that hits the back wall... Is that then legal or not? Cuz... I'm confused!

oh and also a low tossed blanket roll that gently hits the back wall? legal or not?

Note both dice are in the air for at least half of the throws length.

I really would need to see the "shots" you describe as a helicopter or whip shot and a low tossed blanket shot to make sure we are talking about the same thing. But if all of these throws are in the air, and hit the table surface and then hit the back wall then yes they would be considered "legal" or valid throws.

What is clearly not "legal" or valid is a "slide" where the dice do not leave the table and literally "slide" their way to the back wall. I did a demonstration of a slide here:

AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
• Posts: 5937
July 9th, 2014 at 9:38:41 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

The casinos allow players to set the dice because they KNOW, empirically, that so long as the three criteria are met, a random roll will result.

If that's what you believe then fine... that's what you believe.

Just stop with your claims or statements or allegations that "dice setting" or "dice influencing" or "dice control" is cheating. It isn't -- except in the case of a slide.

If you want to say the casinos allow setting, influencing and controlling because they don't believe it works -- I will not disagree with you.

At Caesars Palace they stopped enforcing the "hit the back wall" rule. Now, you have to make a good effort to at least reach the back wall. If you throw the dice so softly that they dont get close to the back wall they will say something to you. But throw the dice to the back wall and they come up short an inch or two and they won't care-- at least that's how it's been on my last few trips.

However, I remember when Caesars always said to hit the back wall. Only recently that seems to have changed.
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
• Posts: 1157
July 9th, 2014 at 9:42:49 AM permalink
Alan

All these shots are legal . The first meerly has the dice rotating one above the other and when they hit you hope to freeze the bottom one. The
blanket or low shot meerly hopes to keep the dice below the aligator board. tons of random rollers try to do the same without really
understanding why.

Professional golfers use a tee for the first shot to help get more distance, that any different than a craps player that uses a set
to help keep each shot similar.???/ Pro bowlers use finger grips, arm stabilizers, off set balance on the balls to affect the game, that
is much more intrusive regarding the results than is dice setting. And they all play for money.

Dicesetter
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
• Posts: 5937
July 9th, 2014 at 10:10:15 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

All these shots are legal . The first meerly has the dice rotating one above the other and when they hit you hope to freeze the bottom one.

I've heard the name "stacked shot" and is this what you are referring to?

I actually used a stacked shot once at the Rio years ago with pretty good success. But if you want to look at the "fine points" it is not a "legal" shot.

The shot I used looked like this: two dice travelling together into the corner where the bottom die would hit the table against the wall, and the top die would hit keep the lower dice on the table while the top die hit the back wall and would roll off the top die. Actually, to be perfectly "legal" both dice need to hit the table surface first, but in this case the bottom die hit the table first, and the top die hit the wall and then the table. But no one said anything so I continued.

However, after that is when I found out about the exact "rule" and haven't used it since.
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5197
July 9th, 2014 at 10:28:28 AM permalink
I've been practicing what I refer to as a "stacker" shot. I have had plenty of people tell me they have no problem with the shot, but other places that raise an eyebrow.

I have not had much success with this shot myself except to impress people that I can perform it. It's hard to perform!

I usually switch to this shot right after taking all my bets down (except line) as a result of being happy with my wins so far, but I still am obligated to shoot (for finishing my roll).

Given that I'm not playing I might have some free time to demonstrate this shot. There are no laws against the shot in Las Vegas, so it's 100% legal.

If both dice don't hit the back wall, you're going to hear about that. But the goal, for me, with this shot is just to impress people that the dice can appear to be glued together through the air.

I have another shot I developed in the past 4-5 months that has an axis of rotation perpendicular to the table. I perform this shot in a way that I haven't seen anyone else do, and I have had good success with this shot, but it's success is not based on the dice touching each other on landing. I have no shots that I feel like there is any benefit to the dice touching. I find it hard to believe that having the dice touching each other is ever desirable at all except to make people go "ooooh neat!"
aahigh.com
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
• Posts: 3502
July 9th, 2014 at 1:22:51 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

I usually switch to this shot right after taking all my bets down (except line) as a result of being happy with my wins so far, but I still am obligated to shoot (for finishing my roll).

You may feel "obliged" to do so, but there is no formal obligation.
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5197
July 9th, 2014 at 1:38:03 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

You may feel "obliged" to do so, but there is no formal obligation.

Nobody passes the dice as much me.
aahigh.com
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
July 9th, 2014 at 3:09:19 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

Nobody passes the dice as much me.

I do.

I very rarely roll dem bones anymore.

Of course, if you mean "nobody passes the dice as much as me, after a point is established but before the game concludes," then you are probably correct.

On the rare occasions I deign to roll, I never walk away mid-roll.
"What, me worry?"
Dicenor33
Joined: Aug 28, 2013
• Posts: 624
July 9th, 2014 at 3:36:13 PM permalink
Today's casinos hardly resemble "the casino" we used to play. There no rules or laws which govern these places. It's another form to collect taxes. You must pay. If you refuse to do so, they'll throw you out. Tell your senator of separation of "casino" and state. John Patrick and others say the same thing, anything you try to do to win will only get you in trouble. I, personally, consider to get myself fishing rods.
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
• Posts: 1157
July 9th, 2014 at 8:27:44 PM permalink
MrV

I dont understand your comment or that of Ahigh, why in the world would you play the only game
in town where the casino allows to have some impact on the result and then pass the dice to
some one else, that may or may not have put any time or effort in trying to impact the result.

I am not saying you should not bet on random rollers, etc, but when i play i want the dice in
my hands..... period

Now for sure that does not always turn to have been a good idea, but i know my shot and i
can try to make adjustments to gain an advantage, i cant do anything with anyone else's
shot.

Dicesetter
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
• Posts: 5937
July 9th, 2014 at 10:06:18 PM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

you play the only game in town where the casino allows to have some impact on the result

probably the most important thing to remember. is there any other casino game (playing against the house) where the player has any impact at all on the result?
nickolay411
Joined: Sep 7, 2011
• Posts: 283
July 9th, 2014 at 11:19:17 PM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

I really would need to see the "shots" you describe as a helicopter or whip shot

Ok here is the whip shot by Mr. Steve Forte. This is not the same one as posted earlier which did not hit a any walls...

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=1582y6f%3E&s=8#.U74v6fmSzTd
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
• Posts: 5937
July 9th, 2014 at 11:42:18 PM permalink
Quote: nickolay411

Ok here is the whip shot by Mr. Steve Forte. This is not the same one as posted earlier which did not hit a any walls...

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=1582y6f%3E&s=8#.U74v6fmSzTd

Unfortunately I can't see three-dimensionally what's going on. Did the dice fly in the air? Did they hit a back wall? Awfully small table.
nickolay411
Joined: Sep 7, 2011
• Posts: 283
July 10th, 2014 at 12:09:44 AM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

Unfortunately I can't see three-dimensionally what's going on. Did the dice fly in the air? Did they hit a back wall? Awfully small table.

Ok here is another angle but only performed with one die. Maybe you could use your imagination on what the second would do...

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=5ff42e%3E&s=8#.U748DfmSzTc

If you watch closely, the die hits the table, and then proceeds to hit 3 walls. It was in the air after leaving his hands... Why or why wouldn't this be a legal throw in the casino?
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
July 10th, 2014 at 12:59:13 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

MrV

I dont understand your comment or that of Ahigh, why in the world would you play the only game
in town where the casino allows to have some impact on the result and then pass the dice to
some one else

Two reasons.

1) I mostly place bet, and rarely bet PL, but bet come fairly often.

2) My rolling is rarely fun, as I tend to bet heavily on myself, with unfortunately predictable results.
"What, me worry?"
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5197
July 10th, 2014 at 10:31:11 AM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

the only game in town where the casino allows to have some impact on the result and then pass the dice to some one else, that may or may not have put any time or effort in trying to impact the result.

Just remember, I've seen you shoot. Just putting in effort isn't enough, that's why.

Even in poker, known to be advantage playable, overconfidence is a problem for gamblers.

Certainly in craps, it can be a problem too.

You pass the dice when you're done. That's all.
aahigh.com
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
• Posts: 5937
July 10th, 2014 at 4:06:29 PM permalink
Quote: nickolay411

Ok here is another angle but only performed with one die. Maybe you could use your imagination on what the second would do...

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=5ff42e%3E&s=8#.U748DfmSzTc

If you watch closely, the die hits the table, and then proceeds to hit 3 walls. It was in the air after leaving his hands... Why or why wouldn't this be a legal throw in the casino?

I'm just going by what the NGC says: if the dice fly in the air, bounce on the table, and hit the back wall it's a valid throw.
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7899
July 10th, 2014 at 4:19:32 PM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

I'm just going by what the NGC says: if the dice fly in the air, bounce on the table, and hit the back wall it's a valid throw.

As I recall, Alan, that is what somebody at NGC told you.

To my knowledge there are no written regulations or statutes that state that.

If so, GI,GO.
"What, me worry?"
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
• Posts: 1157
July 11th, 2014 at 9:50:45 AM permalink
Ahigh

You have seen me shoot two hands on a table i had never played on before in
my life.....

You and i both know that means nothing......

Confidence is not over-confidence. I want the dice because i want to see the shot and
make adjustments, that may not work, but i still want the ability to try.

Over-confidence is going to the table and betting way to much and losing your rear end
because you dont know how to adjust or are not smart enough to quit.

You and I both have done, and i suspect an awful lot of people have. Hopefully we learn
from that.

One cant sour on the game of craps because we dont play it right, or dont understand our
toss etc.

Mrv has a point in that if you think you have nothing to offer in a throw or you play the donts
i guess not shooting has some merit. .;

Now i have said many times dice control is the best thing to happen to a casino,,.. that is a fact
it will make them money if they are smart enough to allow it. But also knowing the game, playing
right, having a decent shot will also help you do better than the average player.

dicesetter
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5197
July 11th, 2014 at 9:56:25 AM permalink
Like it or not, I'm quite qualified to discern how unlikely a throw is to be an advantaged throw no matter where the dice land, assuming you're trying.

If I were operating the casino, I might tell you to hurry up, but I wouldn't discourage you from making bets that are too large.

Such concern is rare (a casino worried about how you throw the dice on bets that are too large for their comfort zone).

I would love to have you take me to a casino that would sweat your action. IE: show me your definition of "heat" for your toss. I'd love to see it.
aahigh.com
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
• Posts: 1157
July 11th, 2014 at 11:54:55 AM permalink
Ahigh

I have long since given up on the notion that we can have a serious conversation
about anything. so i wont engage in that now.

But i have not now or ever indicated a casino would sweat my action, by that i mean
at the level i bet. I dont think that would happen, but rather when a person uses
the GTC shot and that is all, i have been harassed many times, and asked not to play
several times. I hardly think that had to do with them being afraid of me, but rather anyone
one with that type of shot. If they allow me to play,how then do they stop the next guy
with that type of shot that is much better or larger better?

I am surely not good enough to scare a casino, or even start my own show to show
every one how good i think i am.