AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 130
  • Posts: 4175
December 20th, 2014 at 11:56:13 PM permalink
Kerkebet, you called my lengthy post gibberish. What exactly?
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 130
  • Posts: 4175
December 21st, 2014 at 12:10:26 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

No, Alan first posted it sometime ago, either here or on another board.

I didn't bookmark it, but it is easy enough to google up.

FWIW, I did not post it to embarrass Alan: far from it.

I think it's probably one of the coolest things any member of this forum has done to date.



The photo came from Caesars Palace. There is also a video that Caesars shot. It was first published by Robin Leach in his column and website. Years later I put it on my own website after I left KCAL.

Norm in the Las Vegas Review Journal wrote about it as well.

To the best of my knowledge it is the only time a wedding took place at a craps table. And Caesars found the Rabbi.
Kerkebet
Kerkebet
Joined: Oct 2, 2014
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 362
December 21st, 2014 at 10:21:24 AM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

What exactly?


A "soft bounce" isn't necessarily the roll of least energy, ie, of potential for least variance in a system (on its own w/o external variables). Ask, which requires more effort and agility, skipping a stone across a pond, or zinging it at the optimal angle? Just because some people can skip the stone a dozen times doesn't any more augur it's orientation, etc, when it comes to rest on the bottom.

Consistency is as meaningless. Like people can agree, love each other, and be honest and polite, to the nth degree, the truth is separate from any set of facts or the mundane.

Even the most optimized throws under laboratory conditions must encounter the threshold of randomness. Like shuffling a deck of cards. However you shuffle, at some point the deck becomes random. As paradoxically, at some point the cards begin to make sense again as dealt. Does it matter how much more shuffling after every possible means of mechanical card tracking has been exhausted, and the deck has been fairly randomized? Of course not. (Not a least, within the scope of the arguments in this forum.) At some point the games' dealers declare no more bets, etc, to well ensure the minimum of distraction.

You can't make your chances any worse either. Liken this to the old debate over which roulette ball is the most predictable. Eg, the heavy one, or the light one? The heavy one bounces less, but has a lot more momentum, ie, it takes longer to run its more-predictable course. Postulate new theorems in physics if you want. Because, after the threshold, you could shoot the dice from a gun, and into the back board, but it's not going to do what you want it to. The physics won't allow any thing to help you help you then.

People are afraid to admit that we don't reside in the realm of the absolute. But, such would be a "be careful what you wish for" world were we unable to let go of all the stuff so then forever strictly forced in front of us. Eg, there could be no sense of self as figuratively separately seeing oneself. One law follows another, regardless of the type of law. Even the universe would be a scramble were it to merely "just exist".

The mathematician Laplace of his era concluded that if a coin falls heads, then the chance of another head is GREATER THAN or equal to half the time. But, we now realize that one throw isn't statistically significant in any way. The various forms of variance are to be expected, even if the coin were heavily weighted heads. In fact, it takes millions of trials to so conclusively decide which of two very similar games is the better game. No in-between. It's gambler's fallacy, or quantifiably reproducible proof.
Nonsense is a very hard thing to keep up. Just ask the Wizard and company.
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 130
  • Posts: 4175
December 21st, 2014 at 10:32:20 AM permalink
Kerkebet that is a very interesting and lengthy post but when I see three shooters with a soft throw with little bounce and the dice are resolved with "good numbers" what the "science" says really doesn't make a difference. The important thing is that they held the dice for a long time and won money.

So... I would sum it up this way: give me a shooter who tries to influence the dice and if he has a good roll he will be my hero. And, there is no harm in trying to influence the dice so why not try?

And that is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: WHY NOT TRY?

If you don't try you don't stand a chance of beating a negative expectation game. If you don't try YOU SHOULD NOT PLAY.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 313
  • Posts: 8698
December 21st, 2014 at 1:43:53 PM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

If you don't try YOU SHOULD NOT PLAY.



I'm ok with your post but don't agree with this last assertion, for a number of reasons; after reflection you could probably name those reasons yourself

but in particular: I just returned from The Greenbrier, playing at negative expectation totally ... the decision to gamble at this resort is a complicated consideration having much to do with a compromise with the spouse, something I am guessing you know a little about yourself.

in fact the stay couldn't illustrate better that the entertainment I seek from gambling is a much smaller chunk of our vacation dollar than the travel, hotel costs, dining, etc, represent. If we went by the EV of my gambling, it's laughable up against the other expenses. If you want to go by the EV out there at 3 standard deviations to the bad, it still is a modest fraction ... and unlikely to be lived out, as the trend towards that much bad luck would probably make me cut my losses before I played it out.

So, no, I don't accept that knowing I am expected to lose* on average means I can't indulge in this modest cost of entertainment.

I have no evidence I can influence the dice, sometimes I try, sometimes I don't. There was a freeplay offer but of little consequence
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
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 130
  • Posts: 4175
December 21st, 2014 at 3:54:12 PM permalink
If you don't try to influence dice then you shouldn't bother with correct strategy in blackjack or video poker or any other hame because the goal of craps is to hit the numbers that make you win.

THE GOAL OF CRAPS IS NOT TO LOSE. SO YOU MUST TRY TO INFLUENCE. And if you don't agree don't play.
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 332
  • Posts: 7322
December 21st, 2014 at 4:52:58 PM permalink
A ridiculous assertion, Alan: "THE GOAL OF CRAPS IS NOT TO LOSE. SO YOU MUST TRY TO INFLUENCE. And if you don't agree don't play."

So only dice setters should attempt to roll dem bones, eh?

Why should anybody try, when it has never been proven to be effective?

Oh yeah, you saw three guys with good throws and good results: how do you know what you saw them do wasn't just luck?

I don't roll dem bones much anymore, I almost always pass the dice; so by your logic I should not play craps?

Most of us gamble for fun, for entertainment; were it only about making some money I'd put in a few more hours in the office.

Life is short: try to enjoy it.
"What, me worry?"
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 130
  • Posts: 4175
December 21st, 2014 at 5:22:08 PM permalink
Mr V you are absurd if you go to casinos with the goal of losing money.

You need not roll the dice to win.

I bet on non dice setters but with restraint. I would rather bet on a shooter who tries to win.

I won't bet against a DP shooter because he wants a seven out. By the same token I bet with a shooter who wants and tries to make passes... whether he has any real, measureable ability or not.

And why should someone try when never shown to be effective? Because it doesn't hurt to try. It's not illegal and it is part of the game.

The absurdity is not trying when the casino gives you the dice.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 313
  • Posts: 8698
December 21st, 2014 at 5:56:53 PM permalink
Quote: AlanMendelson

Mr V you are absurd if you go to casinos with the goal of losing money.



having a goal of losing money, definitely foolish, is not the same as knowing your expectation is negative
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
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 130
  • Posts: 4175
December 21st, 2014 at 6:05:51 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

having a goal of losing money, definitely foolish, is not the same as knowing your expectation is negative



Which is why I now rarely play craps (switched to video poker) and for the most part I won't play with shooters who don't TRY to influence the dice.

  • Jump to: