request for a video of dice influence

There is no appreciable difference between "control" and "influence:" it's a matter of degree.

By definition, some semblance of "control" must be present to "influence" the dice to behave in a non-random matter, which is what you claim to have achieved.

Or maybe you claim to have achieved nothing except "affecting" the outcome: which we all, and I mean all, do every time we roll dem bones.

Heck, for that matter a butterfly farting in Siberia arguably "affects" the outcome of your dice roll, to the same degree as you do.

Quote: Dalex64

Just show us a video. No joke.

They have shown us Video. It's beautiful the dice glide though the air perfectly on axis as they stay together and hit the target zone. But then something nasty happens... they hit the felt and then kaos as they bounce, spin and tumble then they hit the back wall and the felt again. With enough will and imagination you might conclude you see something that suggests influence. They can't explain it because its magic. People don't see god, but they believe.

I think what matters is the distribution of results. It is much less important to me how they get there.

I thought the purpose was to change the results. A consistent looking shot from the same starting conditions are seen as a means to achieve this.

If a meaningful and consistent change in the results can't be demonstrated, then the means are pointless, as is debating the merits of the means, since they do not show meaningful results.

So, a simple request. Show us a video with meaningful results.

The Dice Control/Influence people will not submit to any normal criteria for measuring whether or not they are controlling/influencing anything. They want to set the criteria and call it influence or control; the words don't matter much but I guess there could be a bit of difference between them in the minds of those who think it can be done.

For it to really matter (it being control or influence), it would produce a betting advantage of some sort if it is done. The person could roll less sevens, more sevens, or more of a certain number. Anything that changes the number of bets won versus the averages that are established from the odds of random rolling would be a playable advantage. Most of us play many, many sessions where one more place win or pass line win would take a session positive.

I don't care if you go to your table, produce a significantly insufficient number of results, and claim influence with no proof shown. It only really matters if it makes a difference in the game--and, if you could do it on a regular basis (not even all the time) it would make a difference in the game.

I think I said this about a hundred times: Ahigh did not have a controlled throw. I have never seen a controlled throw on YouTube except for my own demonstrations of a slide which is not legal.

Those of you critical of claims of DI are justified in what you say because you have never seen it.

I have seen it. Until you see it you'll never believe it.

Oh, pshaw.

How do you KNOW it was anything other than luck?

Some lucky guy who was merely dressed up, polished, tuned and acting the part of a "true DI," with a smooth throw, consistent landing etc.

Alan


You know my stance, dice control does not work in the way every guy on here expects it to work

I have made a couple of videos that I feel shows there is a different set of results from different sets.

That is not the same as dice control, because every time you play or even practice, your throw is a little
different than it was last time you played. I feel there is a difference between results of different sets
if your roll is reasonably consistent, but that does not mean the main set of numbers will be the same every time
you pay on different tables and certainly not from different positions on the table because as you vary the
distance from the back wall, you also vary the number of rotations of the dice, and as your angle to the back
changes so does the effect of the corners of the table on the sideways movement of the dice.

I am comfortable showing the set differences, though it has nothing to do with winning, because controlling at what
time you see a seven is very hard.

I believe you when you say you have played with a couple of guys that had very good control when you played with
them, many people have had, but that type of control is here today gone tomorrow thing as many good players
will tell you.

dicesetter

dicesitter: first of all I don't believe there is such a thing as "control." I think there is "influence" and "influencing" and yes, I believe that different sets with a reasonably consistent throw will influence the dice to reveal certain numbers.

I use the cross sixes and that tends to produce outside numbers.

Ahigh's "friend" was at the table at Caesars charting me when on my come out roll I threw a 6 --- and for the next half hour I threw every number but a six until the inevitable 7-out.

Twice I made five points on the firebet at Caesars -- once I failed to make the 6, and the other time I failed to make the 8.

Whenever I set a point of six or 8 I cringe. When I set my point as 4 or 10 I smile.

So yes, I am in your corner on this one. A relatively consistent throw with certain sets will help you roll certain numbers. And like you I don't believe anyone can control anything except maybe keeping the dice on the table or hitting the back wall.

As far as the "experts" I saw roll -- what they accomplished was avoiding the 7-out. They had no idea what number they were going to roll next, but they just wanted to avoid the 7 and they did.

When I rolled 5-4 with the dice leaning against the wall three times in a row at Bellagio I didn't set my dice or roll them thinking they would end up 5-4 leaning against the back wall. They just did and it was luck they landed that way. I just wanted to avoid a 7. But my "good luck" is what triggered my problems at Bellagio because they thought I was some kind of mechanic.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!! My grandmother knows by now, no one sane is talking about actual CONTROL. It's just a fancy term used before all the ruckus. Dicesitter can you just include the difference in DI VS DC in your signature instead of starting out half your posts explaining it, and dancing around actual questions?

Quote: AxelWolf

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!! My grandmother knows by now, no one sane is talking about actual CONTROL.

I'm afraid that too many people think that when people use the terms "dice influencing" or "dice control" that they mean they can control the dice to the point that they can roll certain numbers on demand.

On this forum, for example, I am afraid that too many people fail to understand that the goal of DI or DC is simply to increase or decrease the chance of the 7 showing. And if they just would accept that goal they might understand that it's not as farfetched as they make it out to be.

No one said it's easy... but it's not so farfetched.

Quote: dicesitter

I just moved over to my table and threw 2 sets of 10 rolls, one set and another with a set which has a completely different starting axis.

first set... 6-2,2/4, 1/5,2/4,3/1,1/5,5/1,4/6,5/2,1/4

second set 3/6,4/6,5/3,5/4,5/5, 6/6, 5/6,5/5.1/6,1/5,

set 1 9 0f ten rolls 8 or under
set 2 8 of ten rolls 8 or over.

Same table, same dice, same player.. different set,

In case you missed it, this is what he claimed he could do.

As for "SRR," there have been several discussions here before about that, and even bets proposed, and still not enough evidence to differentiate influence and luck.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I'm afraid that too many people think that when people use the terms "dice influencing" or "dice control" that they mean they can control the dice to the point that they can roll certain numbers on demand.

I seriously think you are underestimating the intelligence of the average forum visitors.

It's painfully obvious no one can influence the dice enough to overcame the landing, let alone roll anything on demand.

If I had any confidence in the polling system here I would suggests one.

DI I once thought it possible but then I seen the light, after that I seen the results, then I heard the real experts , Most impotently I seen the VIDEO.

15 years later we are still waiting for any proof its possible. There's tons of fame and fortune just waiting for that person. New games and methods get figured out quickly

If they can prove roulette is doable then surly DI can be proven.

You're only evidence is....You think you saw someone do it.

I know you think I'm just a DI hater and don't want to believe. But that's not true, I want it to be true. I would love to find some extremely talented youngster and put him through DI college. Have him(or her) eat drink and sleep craps, then bankroll us to riches.

Quote: AlanMendelson

... I think there is "influence" and "influencing" and yes, I believe that different sets with a reasonably consistent throw will influence the dice to reveal certain numbers.I use the cross sixes and that tends to produce outside numbers...Whenever I set a point of six or 8 I cringe. When I set my point as 4 or 10 I smile.So yes, I am in your corner on this one. A relatively consistent throw with certain sets will help you roll certain numbers.

Given the above statement, i.e. that you "smile" when the point is 4 or 10 whenever you "use the cross sixes and that tends to produce outside numbers:" you appear to be claiming that you can influence the dice to throw a disproportionate amount of 4's and 10's.

Yes, success in that regard requires that you demonstrate "a relatively consistent throw," but you report seemingly non-random results, i.e. you "tend to produce outside numbers" which leads you to "cringe" if the point is 6 or 8 and "smile" when it is 4 or 10.

Given the above: does your craps play now focus pretty much exclusively on your using the cross sixes set while placing or buying the 4 and 10 and focusing on those two numbers?

If not, why not?

Why not bet those numbers heavily all the time?

Good grief: if you've got the power, use it!

Dalex64


Unless you missed it, this is not what I claimed I could do, this is what I did.

Where you and I vary greatly, and I am sure we will continue as with others on here is that now you expect
I can go back to the table right now and throw the exact same numbers......sorry wont happen

I am sorry for not having my videos up here yet, I have to move them from what I took them on to the computer
then get them on here.....I don't know much about computers and videos because I never had messed with
that before.

What I am saying and have said is that when your toss is consistent and you change sets you will see a difference
in the main sets of number you toss... period end of story.... I never will and have never said your going to beat the
casino now, nor did I say you can now move around the table anywhere you want and throw the exact same numbers.

Alan was one of the first guys on here to indicate there are many things that go into winning now and then and the toss
is only one of them. I feel that is 100% accurate, if I can make some adjustments at the table so my toss is effective and
I pay attention to the results of others and I bet properly I feel I can be affective.

None of this is dice control...

I will get the stuff up as soon as I can.

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

I pay attention to the results of others and I bet properly I feel I can be affective.

*Raises eyebrows*

Please explain this. It sounds like that golden monkey tossing around his Voodoo doo doo.

Axelwolf


nice try



dicesetter

Quote: AxelWolf

I seriously think you are underestimating the intelligence of the average forum visitors.

A million times this. As evidenced by the next post...

Quote: dicesitter

Where you and I vary greatly, and I am sure we will continue as with others on here is that now you expect
I can go back to the table right now and throw the exact same numbers......sorry wont happen

Dicesitter, I'm having a hard time here. You are very much reminding me of Ahigh in that you are neglecting the serious members in favor of fighting about the silly stuff. It makes one think that either you've been beaten by the peanut gallery so much that you feel you need to defend yourself, or that it's a purposeful avoidance of an issue you can't back up.

Forget "calling your shot", ie making a certain combination appear. No one serious believes that's what you mean by DI. If they do, then those are the guys you should be ignoring. The guys who know what you're talking about are the guys you should be talking to; all the rest is just fluff and bother.

Quite simply, the math says each number has a specific probability of appearing. Just show that your shot defeats the math in any way. It can be less sevens, can be more sevens, can be more hardways, can be less twos... any single result possible by the tossing of two die. Just show that your way produces results outside of expectation. That's it. That's all that matters.

I get it. I know what you're claiming. I just can't do math and am of little help to you. But there are others who get it as well, who can do the math, and would like nothing more than to go on this little journey with you. Go with them. Leave the peanuts in the gallery.

Face

you said

Quite simply, the math says each number has a specific probability of appearing. Just show that your shot defeats the math in any way. It can be less sevens, can be more sevens, can be more hardways, can be less twos... any single result possible by the tossing of two die. Just show that your way produces results outside of expectation. That's it. That's all that matters.


If you actually believe what you say, then when one set is used and it has a different set of main numbers than another, you will satisfied????

That's all i am going to show..... but when all the additional comments pop up on here... i wonder what your response will be??? We will see
where you leave the peanuts.

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

..., ... i wonder what your response will be??? We will see

You already know

Quote: dicesitter

Where you and I vary greatly, and I am sure we will continue as with others on here is that now you expect
I can go back to the table right now and throw the exact same numbers......sorry wont happen

It isn't for me to speak for others, so I would be more than satisfied (and highly surprised) if you could just demonstrate the knack or ability or talent to produce even semi-consistently more or less fewer 7's.

Quote: dicesitter

If you actually believe what you say, then when one set is used and it has a different set of main numbers than another, you will satisfied????

That's all i am going to show..... but when all the additional comments pop up on here... i wonder what your response will be??? We will see
where you leave the peanuts.

dicesetter

I think so, insofar as I understand math. But a solid definition of the proof required would be better answered by someone who's not me. I get the gist, but I don't want to make claims that are untrue and I'm not math savvy enough to give you a target to shoot at.

It seems you are grouping all of the members into one base unit. That is foolish and unproductive; at least it may be so depending on your goal.

There is a subset who want to believe or do so already. Mendelson, Scoblete, et al. In them you may find support or even encouragement. If that's all you want, some support, these are the men you should engage with. I am and have been addressing you under the assumption that you want to show proof. If that is the case, ignore these men.

There is a subset who are skeptically sarcastic. These are the ones who mock, who ask why you're not a skillionaire, etc and so forth. These seem to be the people with whom you engage with the most. Ignore them. It's a distraction you spend too much time on addressing.

The subset you want are the skeptics who understand the game and can recognize if you have something. Despite the little rift going on, I guarantee you that Axel would be the first to come flying to your side should you show even a mote of control. I know SOOPOO would meet you anywhere for an exhibition, bet you on the results, and pay you immediately should you demonstrate the claims you have made. There are further members who have no dog in this fight and likely are just lurking along, but can do the math and would proclaim you 100% validated with no qualms whatsoever, if you can just show the results.

You saw this with Ahigh. I know you were here and went along for his ride. There are always going to be a group of folks who deride and ridicule. But among them, there are the serious members who will view your actions with an unbiased eye and do real work for you. Ahigh could never handle the gallery, and much of his serious work is slathered with petty arguments and pissing contests. I'm hoping, should you begin the process of offering information for review, that yours does not follow the same path.

My response going forward will be what is expected. If you provide info that is either incomplete (too few rolls, not enough integrity, whatever) or inconclusive, everyone who is a skeptic now will remain a skeptic, as they should. And the serious members will say you haven't proved anything, and the gallery will continue to teehee and giggle about. But should you show actual proof with hard, irrefutable evidence, forget the GD forum. You will have done something no one has ever done, never, in the history of ever. And should a peanut mock you then, I'm sure many people would accuse them of being a dullard that doesn't understand games, and all of the mocking ridicule would then fall onto them.

Expect a bumpy ride at first. Proof is a very specific thing, and the serious folks here are going to view this as a scientist would. Note taking, film making, all that stuff has to be rock solid and integrous. So unless you're familiar will scientific research, most all of the start of your journey is going to be corrections and complaints that what you've done has not satisfied an integrity check. This isn't the members being jerks, it's just the nature of the beast. It's a lot of work, which is why so few people do it. But until you do, or someone does, all claims of dice control and dice influence rest on the evidence so far provided, all of which refutes it.

Face

You should be a politician.

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

Face

You should be a politician.

dicesetter

Hey, I'm trying to be helpful. But if you're gonna start hurling insults...

;)

Quote: Face

Hey, I'm trying to be helpful. But if you're gonna start hurling insults...

;)

I thought that's what a moderator was.

Quote:

There is a subset who are skeptically sarcastic. These are the ones who mock, who ask why you're not a skillionaire, etc and so forth. These seem to be the people with whom you engage with the most. Ignore them. It's a distraction you spend too much time on addressing...Ahigh could never handle the gallery, and much of his serious work is slathered with petty arguments and pissing contests. I'm hoping, should you begin the process of offering information for review, that yours does not follow the same path.

Au contraire.

It is we who hoot and jeer that he should focus on convincing.

Convince us, and the world will be his oyster.

I'd enjoy it if dicesitter came to WoVCon and showed us his magic touch at the tables.

I'll behave, heck I'll even bet with him.

Then again, I bet with all the random rollers.

All I see are a lot of claims, a lot of excuses, and no evidence.

Quote: MrV

Au contraire.

It is we who hoot and jeer that he should focus on convincing.

Convince us, and the world will be his oyster.

Is he going to convince you with impassioned arguments and witty comebacks? Or is it going to require some proof?

You're a logical man, so I assumed you would require proof. If that is the case, and it is, this verbal jousting should be set aside (see also: ignored) and dicesitter should focus on the task at hand. Wouldn't you agree?

A new problem for me is it has been so long since his claim, he could have spent a lot of time filming a lot of rolls and end up with 20 that do what he described.

Quote: Dalex64

All I see are a lot of claims, a lot of excuses, and no evidence.

+100

Quote: Face

Is he going to convince you with impassioned arguments and witty comebacks? Or is it going to require some proof?

You're a logical man, so I assumed you would require proof. If that is the case, and it is, this verbal jousting should be set aside (see also: ignored) and dicesitter should focus on the task at hand. Wouldn't you agree?

baby steps I guess

and the beat goes on.

Quote: Dalex64

A new problem for me is it has been so long since his claim, he could have spent a lot of time filming a lot of rolls and end up with 20 that do what he described.

I dont believe dicesettin dicesitter would intentionally mislead us.When he first joined here maybe but after a couple of yrs. of reading his posts, no.

After all the Ahigh videos and all the slomo videos of dice wrecking onto the table I dont think we will ever see evidence of influence.

What I do think has merit is what dicesitter has said a few times in his posts about betting on the numbers that are being thrown right now. I know, I know, the past doesnt reflect the future but the more I play the more I will take the place 6 and 8 down and put it on that damn 9 or whatever no. the shooter keeps throwing. Just because the house edge is high on certain nos.or bets doesnt mean one should not play them. How many times have we all said to ourselves man I should have thrown a couple of chips on that no.?

Alright let me have it. Im a big boy, I can take it. I wont become mean or nasty. lol

Influencing is like the thing those sweepers do with the broom on ice in that Olympics competition (I guess).

It's just that there is evidence at that sport. (now going to look up what that sport is called)

Quote: Dalex64

A new problem for me is it has been so long since his claim, he could have spent a lot of time filming a lot of rolls and end up with 20 that do what he described.

That's why I mentioned "integrity" when it comes to note taking and film making. I wasn't implying dicesitter was a fraud, rather commenting to the quality that needs be present in the evidence

@rxwine - curling

Quote: Face

Is he going to convince you with impassioned arguments and witty comebacks? Or is it going to require some proof?

You're a logical man, so I assumed you would require proof. If that is the case, and it is, this verbal jousting should be set aside (see also: ignored) and dicesitter should focus on the task at hand. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely!

All that he or any other DI needs to do is provide PROOF.

I am a logical man, and if it is PROVEN that dicesetter actually does have a quantifiable, true edge via dice setting, I'll doff my cap and shut my yap.

In the meanwhile all we can do is wait with hope in our hearts and mischief in our minds.



-

Quote: ontariodealer

and the beat goes on.

and the beat down goes on. I think you meant

I've played with a lot of people who consider themselves dice controllers. I've met one that I honestly believe was. You won't find him on video, but he is beating the casinos day after day. I do believe it is possible but I don't believe there are many willing to put in the time and practice to actually make it happen.

Quote: mdh

What I do think has merit is what dicesitter has said a few times in his posts about betting on the numbers that are being thrown right now. l

Someone suggested I take yoga to calm my nerves. Personally I wish I could take up advanced waterboarding as my therapy and everybody who believes in this kind of nonsense would volunteer for a session or two.

What I really don't get is there are guys much smarter and mathematical than I, yet they can't grasp that this stuff is complete nonsense.

Is there some special part of the brain that's in play here?

Quote: AxelWolf

and the beat down goes on. I think you meant

touche'

amen

dicesetter

Face



That is my point, and it is yours though your dancing a tad to say it...nothing I could present would be
good enough......

I understand that, and it is fine, I don't expect it to do anything... but unlike Ahigh, I am not doing this
for personal vindication, the results are not earth shattering or life changing. I go to the table everyday
and use different sets to see if there are any differences. I will present that. Whatever is said, is said, I sure as
heck wont change my mind about what I see. But what you will see which is different from Ahigh is that the
majority of time the dice are not bouncing all over the table, and for the most part the alligator board is
not impacting the dice as much as they do for most shooters.

In terms of integrity, as I recall it was Ahigh that was calling me a liar, and it was not I that was trying to ride along
with Ahigh, it was Ahigh that was asking for data from other shooters because he could not produce anything
consistent on his own.

dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

That is my point, and it is yours though your dancing a tad to say it...nothing I could present would be
good enough......

I am not dancing and that is not my point. Proof. Proof is good enough.

Until then, DI is religion, and the discussions will reflect that.

Dicesitter, I will not question your claim that "the majority of time the dice are not bouncing all over the table, and for the most part the alligator board is not impacting the dice as much as they do for most shooters."

I recognize that with much practice, a crapster can develop a throw which typically is fairly soft and lands near where the felt meets the wall.

I recognize that sometimes dem bones probably don't bounce a helluva lot after landing.

I question however whether it makes a difference.

Quote: dicesitter

Can we see your shot/play in action? Even if DI is/was possible under perfect conditions I'm skeptical that anyone could be consistent enough to overcame the HA.

Id like a 60 minute demonstration of your rolls. to see if there's any consistency in a "good looking" shot. something you can describe what an influence shot does or should look like.

I Would love to see a DI set the dice and toss them, then turn around quickly right before they land. Then without looking declared if it was a good or bad shot. I bet you would be shocked to find out the truth.

My guess is ....DI's associate the results of the dice on each toss with something that looks good with skill every time. "that's not luck, I made that more likely to happen with skill"

Everything else is disregarded as variance.

Indeed.

Dicesitter, I'll once more extend an invitation for you to come to WoVCon, belly up to the craps table and show us what you've got.

Ability talks; B.S. walks.

MrV



I Appreciate the invite, but i play mostly alone or with a couple of others that feel like i do about this stuff.

The last 4 comments or so on here were very reasonable and that is nice, i hope to get my stuff on here this week end.

I do have to thank everyone on here for all the grief this week because i spent more time than normal on my table with
the different sets and all. I played last night and only had one roll and it was a real nice roll. I play there maybe once a week or
every two weeks and the stick man commented after the roll that this was the best he had ever seen my dice look.

I colored up and went home smiling, was no need to play more.

dicesetter

OK.

All lampooning aside (?!), I really do hope your efforts bear fruit and that you achieve a clear, demonstrable advantage at craps.

Hey, maybe I was wrong.


* "I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken"

Alright. Dicesitter is working on getting stuff uploaded and has about 10 so far. I've been communicating with him to get it here. I believe I found the first video he spoke of, so, for your viewing pleasure...

Face


thanks


I am sorry that I did not get the larger of the two on you tube yet.. it is was very large since I was at the table alone.

What I did was this.... I made a 20 shot set with a come out roll set where the1-6 comes into to play a lot. The next
10 rolls I made one minor change and it cut done the 1 or 6 and then on rolls 30-40 I made a complete axis
change on the 1-6. The rolls 30-40 revealed only 1-1 with the exception of a very poor toss that kissed.

The last 10 rolls I changed the axis again to one that favors high numbers.

I was not worried about the 7 and I did not make any changes to any sets within the 10 rolls for each, but as I went
along to changed where the 1-6 axis was placed.

When I get the larger video up it will show that the first 40 rolls there were 6 numbers over 7. The last 10 rolls
with the different axis there were 6 out of 10 rolls over 7.

I understand there was be some calls for me to show me throwing and the sets, but I cant and wont do that
because an understanding with others that use the same sets and same toss.

dicesetter

results of 5 sets


set 1...... 3/4 2/5 6/4 3/2 1/6 1/5 5/1 2/1 2/4 6/4

set 2 3/4 5/5 3/1 5/6 2/4 5/1 5/1 6/1 1-1 6/1

set 3 4/2 3/1 4/3 3/2 2/2 4/1 4/1 2/3 5/6 1/3

set 4 (1-6 axis change) 5/2 3/2 3/3 2/1 4/5 4/2 2/2 6/1 2/3

set 5 change axis 6/4 6/5 5/2 5/2 4/6 6/1 2/2 6/6 5/5 6/5

dicesetter