Can Any One Really Control The Dice?
Quote: AlanMendelsonDarn, I forgot about those machines that make sure my anti rejection drugs for my kidney and pancreas transplants are spot on prescription strength.
And I need to add driverless cars to the robots that land on Mars and on a comet..
Absolutely nothing at all to do with Ballistics Everything to do with Alan not being able to follow a discussion.
Quote: JoemanWhat about constructing a slide/ramp on a craps table in lieu of using a robot? It seems like this would be a quick and inexpensive way to test your hypothesis. If the dice could be released from a fixed height, wouldn't this insure a repeatable "throw" -- speed, launch angle & initial orientation would theoretically be the same each time.
I can also see some drawbacks: A ramp like this doesn't have the ability to impart much initial rotation to the dice (if that is something that is needed.) Also, once constructed, making changes to adjust angles & orientation to a ramp would be more difficult than making similar changes to a robot's motion.
Or has this already been tried? I don't pay too much attention to DI, though some of these threads can be entertaining.
Also, as someone who occasionally works with/programs robots, I can say that their repeatability/precision is definitely less than 100%. Personally, I believe that a robot would be a ploppy like the rest of us at a Craps table.
Although, Mr. Data seemed to do OK. ;)
Here is two videos that I did to show the dice only droping 6 " and rolling to the back wall that you wouldn't get the same results!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i29XrhcBYM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TwGnLZsY3E&list=UUi_qsQYSKO72Yf43wHls1bw&index=202
I had shown Axel in my two online videos that can throw the dice in a way to limit
the effect of the back wall. I also showed you can limit the action of the dice after they
hit the table.
All of this is a waste of time because after they see it, they turn around and say no one
can do it, or if they can then prove it has an affect, then prove your a lifetime winner,
then prove you can win on any table you play on , then prove you can hit any
number you want to hit.
Craps is the only activity I have ever seen that no matter what you do it is never good enough
for those that cant. In the movie war games the computer said " silly game, the only way to win is
not to play" that's fits the discussion on here, if what your doing helps you win, go do it and
keep it to yourself, It is far easier to win on the table than prove anything on here.
Dicesetter
Quote: dicesitter
Craps is the only activity I have ever seen that no matter what you do it is never good enough
for those that cant.
Dicesetter
Perfectly said.
And marriage. Don't forget marriage.Quote: AlanMendelsonPerfectly said.
:)
Quote: OnceDearAnd marriage. Don't forget marriage.
:)
Marriage is a wonderful thing. But I pity the poor slobs who are stuck in a bad marriage and can't afford to get out of it.
Quote: dicesitterCraps is the only activity I have ever seen that no matter what you do it is never good enough
for those that cant. Dicesetter
At first glance this sounds relatively poignant, but upon reflection it devolves into gobbly-gook.
Just what are you trying to say?
Quote: MrVAt first glance this sounds relatively poignant, but upon reflection it devolves into gobbly-gook.
Just what are you trying to say?
Sounds like he's arguing that dice setting takes a lot of skill and that those who lack the skill will refuse to believe that anyone actually can. Not agreeing with him, but his point made plenty of logical sense.
He also questions why anyone who can set dice would bother trying to prove it statistically real. My answer is, if you were able to do so, you'd likely make more money (or at least suffer less volatility) teaching others than you would actually playing.
If you posit (and I'm not yet sold on this) that dice setting can change the statistical probability of the roll... whether you work to prove it or not, it WILL eventually be proven. That's just how science works. WHEN it's proven, the person who does so will probably make a lot of money demonstrating it to others, while casinos make efforts to counter this practice. In short, if it's possible to prove, it'll be proven with or without you, and it'll be more lucrative to be the guy known for proving it, than to be the guy trying to implement it against the (now wise) house.
Except that it already happened, and the casino already did make efforts to counter the practice. You don't get to throw against a hard backboard anymore. From a return-on-investment standpoint, attempting to practice dice control is a terrible waste of time. If it's possible at all, it apparently takes months or years to master a particular physical technique intended to throw the dice in an advantageous way. It takes the casino less than 5 minutes to tell you to throw the dice so they bounce back further from the back wall, or pass the dice to the next shooter.Quote: ElastoidIf you posit (and I'm not yet sold on this) that dice setting can change the statistical probability of the roll... whether you work to prove it or not, it WILL eventually be proven. That's just how science works. WHEN it's proven, the person who does so will probably make a lot of money demonstrating it to others, while casinos make efforts to counter this practice. In short, if it's possible to prove, it'll be proven with or without you, and it'll be more lucrative to be the guy known for proving it, than to be the guy trying to implement it against the (now wise) house.
There have been several people who talk about minimizing the bounces and gently rolling to a stop touching the back wall. Yet the boxperson can simply say "throw harder or pass the dice" and all that effort is for naught. So why bother, even if it is possible? It's not like the casino isn't going to notice that your dice always just barely touch the back wall and be okay with it.
Countermeasures would be easy for the casinos to implement and they'd be devastatingly effective.
DI=much ado about nothing
