Can Any One Really Control The Dice?
Yeah. I know. Just wondered if he did the honourable thing wrt his conceded wagerQuote: RSHe's been to LV several times since then.
. . .wrong at every level. But lets not go there.Quote:Alan's interpretation of the 2-dice-puzzle was basically . . .
Disputed.Quote:He thinks . . .
Nobody else is talking about using toys either. And speaking of non sequiturs, you're also the only one talking about comets and robotic Martian landers. Only you know why, but none of those things have anything to do with testing the question of whether a mechanical device can predictably alter dice probabilities in a casino-realistic setting.Quote: AlanMendelsonRidiculous. I'm not talking about using toys.
We know a mechanical device can predictably alter dice probabilities in a tabletop games setting. You should know that too if you'd read the paper I linked -- in a short drop, a six-sided die was found to have over 50% likelihood of landing face down on the face that was initially oriented downward. That's not surprising, but it's also not 100%. Why you think it ever could be 100%, given the inherent variance in elastic impacts, is a mystery -- but it's also irrelevant to the important question. Nobody cares whether a robotic throwing device could be 100% effective. Even a 1% effect would disprove the theory that no control is possible.
It turns out that a 1% effect is also sufficient to swing the EV into the player's favor, if you know how to bet it.
Quote: IbeatyouracesHe also believes tax forms will prove a system with stop losses and win goals works. Some lady just won $2 million here at Greektown a few days ago. Her taxes next year will show she's way ahead. Does that prove anything? Some civilians will just never learn.
This is a lie. If you read my forum you would see exactly what I said.
My trips to Vegas were with my girlfriend and Mike was not on my agenda. Sorry Mike. I did hit a $100,000 royal on one of those trips and a $31,000 progressive on the other. So I have plenty of cash to buy Mike lunch someday.
Regarding the robot you guys are silly. But it shows how far you will all go to deny dice influencing is possible. Robots can land and function on Mars and a comet and you say having one control dice on a craps table is impossible? Are you really this absurd?
The argument always seems to follow the same formula: Alan makes a seemingly off the wall proclamation; ME points out the fallacy in Alan's thinking and asks Alan for proof; Alan's proof is his assertion that "I'm right and you're wrong."
Quote: MrVME and Alan have been going 'round and 'round for years, not just on this board.
The argument always seems to follow the same formula: Alan makes a seemingly off the wall proclamation; ME points out the fallacy in Alan's thinking and asks Alan for proof; Alan's proof is his assertion that "I'm right and you're wrong."
So you also deny that a robot could be built?
Anyone here work for JPL? Anyone here work in robotics?
So far the big critic on my forum is a member of this forum who says he is a craps dealer.
Nobody denies that a robot could be built. If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I even proposed building one to operate in casino-realistic settings.Quote: AlanMendelsonSo you also deny that a robot could be built?
But you think such a device would work perfectly every time, with 100% success and no variance in the outcomes. That's ridiculous. Nothing is perfect. All I care about is whether it would have any success at all. If it does, there's potentially hope for dice setters.
Quote: MathExtremistNobody denies that a robot could be built. If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I even proposed building one to operate in casino-realistic settings.
But you think such a device would work perfectly every time, with 100% success and no variance in the outcomes. That's ridiculous. Nothing is perfect. All I care about is whether it would have any success at all. If it does, there's potentially hope for dice setters.
ME it seems you are concerned that the machine throw produce 100% identical "results" (i.e., the dice land in exactly the same spot measured in nanometers). However, would you make the same bet with your proposed "3-inch drop" machine if the criteria was for the same faces to be up each time? In "real world" conditions this is the only outcome of importance.
Others have argued that changes in miniscule environmental variables impart huge impacts to the outcome. While the dice may not come to rest in precisely the same spot, consistent starting position, grip, release and toss impart much more influence. If anyone believes that atoms shedding off a die, or miniscule vibrations from a car passing by on a distant highway are variables worthy of consideration, please provide evidence.
I think you have me confused with Alan. Alan thinks that a machine can be built wherein that perfection will actually happen. I know it can't, but I also know that it doesn't matter because, as you say, the thing that matters in a casino is which face is upward when the die comes to rest. Experiments on a tabletop setting (both empirical and using mathematical modeling) have shown that a short drop can yield significantly altered probabilities. I want to test whether a machine can yield altered probabilities in a casino-realistic setting.Quote: AyecarumbaME it seems you are concerned that the machine throw produce 100% identical "results" (i.e., the dice land in exactly the same spot measured in nanometers).
. . . When your understanding of basic engineering is on a par with your understanding of probability and English comprehension.Quote: muleyvoiceALAN " Are you really going to continue this silly argument about technology? "
. . They are wasted and falling on deaf ears.Quote:ME... Please do not confuse this issue with facts, logic, or science.
Alan seems to have it in his head that the dice are just like space ships: They are steered by little remote controlled steering thrusters right up until they land. Either that, or those comet bound rockets are simply pointed very VERY accurately at their intended destination, then launched and left to their pre-aimed and pre-calculated ballistic course.
Ah yes, that old time superstition.
Sorry -- it's my job and it's hard to turn it off sometimes. Not that I should here but you know what I mean.Quote: muleyvoiceME... Please do not confuse this issue with facts, logic, or science. THANK YOU
Quote: MathExtremistSorry -- it's my job and it's hard to turn it off sometimes. Not that I should here but you know what I mean.
Talk about a thankless job...
https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xfa1/t51.2885-15/e15/11385119_1623332727943230_1368307974_n.jpg
Quote: AlanMendelsonThis is a lie. If you read my forum you would see exactly what I said.
My trips to Vegas were with my girlfriend and Mike was not on my agenda. Sorry Mike. I did hit a $100,000 royal on one of those trips and a $31,000 progressive on the other. So I have plenty of cash to buy Mike lunch someday.
Regarding the robot you guys are silly. But it shows how far you will all go to deny dice influencing is possible. Robots can land and function on Mars and a comet and you say having one control dice on a craps table is impossible? Are you really this absurd?
Been off at sports w/me boys and trying to catch up on the posts...
And I got stuck right here.
Seems Alan has a lot of leeway in his posts here, maybe rightfully so......
He definitely seems to be outnumbered....
Quote: ontariodealerclose this thread or bring back kentry.
Dummy up and deal. :-)
Quote: MathExtremistI think you have me confused with Alan. Alan thinks that a machine can be built wherein that perfection will actually happen.
You are wrong. I never said the dice have to land within a fraction of an atom of space, i.e., exactly. I said the robot could deliver the dice to have the same results each and every time. Whether they are off by a molecule or a fraction of an inch doesn't matter. Same with DI by humans.
In fact, I never saw one of those three DIs have their dice end up in the same spot on the table roll after roll. Heck, I remember very few "repeaters" if any.
ayecarumba is correct.
Quote: MrVHe also believes that a craps table at Caesars is "cursed."
Ah yes, that old time superstition.
You mean the one I married wife #3 on?
Yes.
Quote: muleyvoiceALAN " Are you really going to continue this silly argument about technology? " ME... Please do not confuse this issue with facts, logic, or science. THANK YOU
I copied this post so you won't change it later.
Quote: AlanMendelsonYou mean the one I married wife #3 on?
Yes.
LOL
No, the one you said showed an inordinate number of nines, IIRC.
It's not worth it if it's possible. That my opinion.
VDC has my ear more than anyone right now, and he does the work and is smart enough for me to believe what he says.
I have a hard time believing most people who talk on this subject. There's one other person Jim who had a good job.
All these guys I see setting dice toss terribly. It is just a joke.
Quote: MrVLOL
No, the one you said showed an inordinate number of nines, IIRC.
I recall that. A lot of 9s were thrown at that table.
But after being here on this forum, and after reading the lengthy threads about unbalanced dice, it must have been the dice, not the table. LOL
Quote: AlanMendelsonI recall that. A lot of 9s were thrown at that table.
But after being here on this forum, and after reading the lengthy threads about unbalanced dice, it must have been the dice, not the table. LOL
Not a lot of talk about biased tables. Exploitable, maybe. But biased, no.
May I ask why?
No, you actually said this:Quote: AlanMendelsonYou are wrong. I never said the dice have to land within a fraction of an atom of space, i.e., exactly. I said the robot could deliver the dice to have the same results each and every time.
That's not true. It's also not relevant because the dice can bounce lots of different ways and end up with the same face upward. That's why it doesn't matter whether they bounce "the same way each and every time." It only matters if, after the bouncing is done with, the dice come to rest with different probabilities than 1/6 per face.Quote: AlanMendelsonIf the dice are oriented exactly the same every time, and always tossed with the exact same force at the exact same speed, and so on and so on, and with no other variables such as earthquakes, gusts of wind, a fly being hit by the die on the left and a mosquito intercepting the die on the right, the dice will hit and bounce the same way each and every time. It's called physics.
It turns out that you're wrong about the first theory too, but again that's not relevant. A machine doesn't need to display 100% control to display control. Anything more than 0% will do. I want to test for whether a machine can demonstrate >0% control on a casino table, while you think that's a forgone conclusion because of your mistaken belief that a robot can throw dice with perfect consistency.
Quote: MathExtremistthe dice can bounce lots of different ways and end up with the same face upward.
think about this for a second: the only reason why the dice would bounce differently is because of an outside influence. If the robot throws the dice the same exact way each and every time, and the outside influences don't change (my original statement: "with no other variables") then they would bounce the same way each and every time. Sure, they might be off by an atom or two, but who's counting?
Quote: MrVAlan, you used to be a hard-core crapster, but it seems your focus these days has shifted to VP.
May I ask why?
Because I've won a heck of a lot of money playing VP including a $100K royal at Caesars with only $1,000 in the machine.
Recently I started winning money at craps again -- but only because on my last two outings I played the Small, Tall, All at Bellagio with very good results. Ironically I never made more than 3 different points at Bellagio on any one roll (no firebet payoff if I was playing at Caesars) but I've made the ALL twice, and made the SMALL twice (once with $25 bet) and the TALL three times (once with $25). The two times I made the all I only had $5 on it which is what I usually bet on the STA. Not bad for just two outings at Bellagio.
The first time I made the ALL, I made only one pass.
Oh, I also hit a $31,000 VP progressive at Bellagio which didn't hurt either.
Quote: AlanMendelsonthink about this for a second: the only reason why the dice would bounce differently is because of an outside influence. If the robot throws the dice the same exact way each and every time, and the outside influences don't change (my original statement: "with no other variables") then they would bounce the same way each and every time. Sure, they might be off by an atom or two, but who's counting?
So no wear and tear in the mechanism of the robot and more especially disturbance in the nap of the table fabric or pyramids? Yes, Alan. Previous throws really will influence future throws, in ways that cannot be measured.
If the robot were throwing/dropping the dice a couple of centimetres onto a machined surface, then we may all accept that there would be some limited predictability in outcome. Far less than YOU might expect.
But get real. You are expecting the robot to lob the dice several feet into a soft target wall with pyramids to land on a fabric covered table. Predictability goes out of the window even in a laboratory environment.
You demonstrate an abject lack of knowledge of the massive engineering obstacles which would need to be overcome. Insurmountable obstacles that only a non-engineer (maybe a politician or PR guy) would ignore.
Oh. Just throw the best engineering brains of the world at it with unlimited budget, I hear you say. Well. No actually. I/we contend that there is not enough of either available in the world to do that.
Your comparison with the engineering skills in play in landing devices on comets is laughable. They don't just design, calculate, build and launch those bu663rs. There are feedback loops and telemetry involved every metre of the way to correct the inevitable and incalculable unknown variables.
Fit your dice with remote controlled rocket thrusters, gyro's and GPS and you may land them something like predictably. But this is the real world and that probably breaks the rules of most casinos, just as it would break the rules for a human thrower to suspend his dice on little puppet like threads.
Or maybe you are going to have your robot thrower place one of the dice face up as a two, because Newton's law tells you that it was sure to land that way anyway.
You should not, IMHO be allowed to mention Newton's name, You are not qualified. He'd turn in his grave.
Incidentally, Newton's laws have been proved to be only an approximation to reality. Read up on Chaos Theory or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Oh. Sorry, I forgot. You never do listen do you.
ps Happy to hear of your recent wins. Enjoy.
What 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.Quote: MathExtremistA machine doesn't need to display 100% control to display control. Anything more than 0% will do. I want to test for whether a machine can demonstrate >0% control on a casino table, while you think that's a forgone conclusion because of your mistaken belief that a robot can throw dice with perfect consistency.
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. ;)
Quote: AlanMendelsonI've won a heck of a lot of money playing VP including a $100K royal at Caesars ...I also hit a $31,000 VP progressive at Bellagio which didn't hurt either.
Very nice.
Perhaps you could apply a portion of that $131K to hire a competent individual to design and build a dice throwing machine such as you describe.
It would be a fitting cap for your life's work, and might muzzle your nay-sayers.
What price satisfaction?
Quote: MrVHe also believes that a craps table at Caesars is "cursed."
Quote: AlanMendelsonYou mean the one I married wife #3 on?
Yes.
Here's an idea.
Build that dice tossing machine you are so keen on.
Then next time you marry at the craps table at Caesars and the marriage fails for whatever reason, you can take a page from the Arab's playbook: terminate your union by setting the machine up on the same craps table, put your wedding ring in the machine and fling it precisely on-axis down the table while saying "I divorce you" three times
Seven out, love away.
That's simply not the way the physical world behaves. You can model a physical world with no outside influences with mathematics simply by ignoring those elements ("today we're going to ignore friction and assume perfectly elastic collisions"), but that does not make the model reflect reality. There's no such thing as a perfectly elastic collision. If you don't know what an elastic collision is, stop making intuitive arguments about physics and go study.Quote: AlanMendelsonthink about this for a second: the only reason why the dice would bounce differently is because of an outside influence. If the robot throws the dice the same exact way each and every time, and the outside influences don't change (my original statement: "with no other variables") then they would bounce the same way each and every time. Sure, they might be off by an atom or two, but who's counting?
Your obsession with this idea of a perfect physical experiment is a red herring. It's not relevant to the ultimate inquiry, which is whether humans can control the dice on a craps table. Humans aren't perfect so I don't need to build a perfect mechanical device to replicate them. If I build a robotic device that is more precise than humans, and it fails to yield predictably altered probabilities, then it is reasonable to conclude that people can't do it either.
Let me put it another way. Your hypothesis is that a robot with precision = 100% will yield 100% control. That's not true, but let's take it as a given anyway. You also must concede that the most precise human has far less than 100% precision, otherwise there would be stories of the magic dice thrower who only threw hard 8s and broke the bank. Call that greatest human precision H. You seem to believe that there are people who can control the dice, but that's the open question. In order to test that question, all I need to do is build a machine with precision M, where H < M < 100%. If the machine is more precise than any person, and it *still* has no control, then certainly no people can do it either. Even if a perfectly precise machine could actually control the dice perfectly, it wouldn't matter because people aren't perfect machines. I don't care whether dice control is possible in a lab with a perfect robot, I care whether it's possible in a casino with a person's arm.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI copied this post so you won't change it later.
Why would I change it ???
The Kapitaniak paper did exactly that, with a single die dropped from a few inches onto a mirror. It had decidedly non-uniform face probabilities, so yes, some control is possible if you're dropping dice onto a table. That's different than throwing them 4 to 6 feet down a craps table against the bumpy wall, or even against the bottom part of the bumpy wall. Nobody's ever tested that, I think.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.
A crude example, but imagine a setup similar to this at one end of a craps table (using dice instead of cars, of course).
Speed, launch (release) angle, and initial orientation of the dice could be controlled with more precision than a human could do. The only thing I see that would be a problem would be imparting an initial rotation (if that is deemed desirable for more consistent results). Well, that and making sure your kinetic friction is constant for each trial.
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 you go, I did that before and the so-call DI's said that it wasn't like what they were doing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TwGnLZsY3E&list=UUi_qsQYSKO72Yf43wHls1bw&index=202
Pah! you want silly. You need to search the forum for 'two dice puzzle' Contributor Extraordinaire=Alan, who contributed his own particular brand of silliness. That ran for months and spilled to other forums and Facebook and YouTube. Some of us still wake up screaming from that one.Quote: Wonko33this whole robot conversation is one the silliest things I have ever seen, Talk about one side making an irrelevant claim and the other side getting dragged into deeper and deeper stupidity...
One guy here even still agrees with Alan! Just the one!. . . and it ain't me or ME!
Now back to robots: this is not about real casino craps tables. This is about physics including geometry and a robot operating in a perfect world.
And of course you missed the dice problem. Just as you're missing the robot problem.
You're so smart you can't see the simple answer.
Quote: AlanActually, if you read my forum, you'd see a lot of people agreed with my answer because of the wording of the question. Even the math department at some college agreed once they realized how the question is worded.
Even if it was worded poorly, we came up with a "different" scenario, where if you roll the dice and only count the rolls with at least one 2 in it, that the chance of rolling a 2-2 (out of all the counted rolls, where at least one die is a 2), that the answer is still 1/6!
Quote: AlanNow back to robots: this is not about real casino craps tables. This is about physics including geometry and a robot operating in a perfect world.
Now I think you're just saying stuff just to say stuff. Do you have any legitimate background in physics, math, geometry, statistics, or anything at all relating to this subject? I'm not talking about a physics class you took 50 years ago in high school.
Quote: AlanAnd of course you missed the dice problem. Just as you're missing the robot problem.
You're so smart you can't see the simple answer.
Oftentimes, especially when you're confused and can't figure out the right answer, the answer isn't so simple, or rather -- the simple answer is not the correct answer.
Quote: AlanMendelson...this is not about real casino craps tables. This is about physics including geometry and a robot operating in a perfect world.
Once again, Alan demonstrates that he cannot follow a discussion in the English language. This whole topic was about the practical limitations of engineering a robot thrower that could make a legal throw with some degree of influence over the result. Read the thread. It's not subtle or tricky. It was a bit of consideration being given to an engineering problem.
But then Alan wades in with the absurdity that "
Quote: AlanMendelsonIf the dice are oriented exactly the same every time, and always tossed with the exact same force at the exact same speed, and so on and so on, and with no other variables such as earthquakes, gusts of wind, a fly being hit by the die on the left and a mosquito intercepting the die on the right, the dice will hit and bounce the same way each and every time. It's called physics. . .
Craps tables are not moving objects. They are fixed. The table does not rotate or have waves under the felt, and the walls don't move and the pyramids don't vibrate. The dice are also fixed objects of size and weight. Now unless you start changing these parts of the equation -- that "robot" is going to get the same results with two dice each and every time.
He cannot comprehend that we are discussing an Engineering feat that is impossible in the real world. Someone once mentioned Newton's laws to him. So now he's qualified to say what will happen in a perfect world, in the absence of variables
Notwithstanding the fact that we don't engineer in such a world, he just cannot see that his answer is irrelevant and that he is off topic by a mile. He cannot and will not acknowledge that even the wear and tear of one robotic launch will influence the next throw to be different. He firmly believes that it's within the ability of humanity to build a robot so perfect that it can lob a pair of dice onto a regular craps table with a legal throw and get the exact same result time after time. Not just with a bit of influence, but they
Quote:might be off by an atom or two
Comprehension Alan: English is what you claim to understand. You don't show it. You DO show the opposite, time after time after time.
Quote: MathExtremistThe only question that matters -- because last I checked, the Venetian isn't taking dice bets in orbit -- is whether a robot can perform a precise throw on a dice table under realistic conditions and yield predictable results. That is, I think, worthy of an experiment. But you're going off the deep end by saying that not only would the results be predictable (that is, non-equiprobable), but they would be identical each and every time.
. . .
Your strange reliance on "identical results" isn't remotely realistic. It's also not necessary. Stop trying to build strawmen and making arguments against positions that nobody holds.
Still let's not divert this thread to be one of Alan's failing to comprehend. I take that as a given.
Are there too many uncontrollable variables in the launch, flight, bounce and landing of a pair of dice lobbed by the best robot money can buy in a legal throw onto a legal craps table in a real world casino?
Because as ME points out, that is something that might lead us to accept or discount the possibility of an imperfect human to do so with meaningful influence.
I firmly say. No. No such robot can be constructed.
It's called "bubble craps", and they have two great big dice, launched by a machine, in a bubble, and the same two numbers hardly ever come up.
Hope this helps?
I think that's probably right, but I'm proposing a related test: build a machine (robot, if you will) that is simply *more* precise than humans can be, without regard to the outcomes generated by that machine.Quote: OnceDearAre there too many uncontrollable variables in the launch, flight, bounce and landing of a pair of dice lobbed by the best robot money can buy in a legal throw onto a legal craps table in a real world casino?
Because as ME points out, that is something that might lead us to accept or discount the possibility of an imperfect human to do so with meaningful influence.
I firmly say. No. No such robot can be constructed.
If a machine that is measurably more precise than a human cannot influence the dice, then neither can a human. If it *can*, then I submit dialing down that level of super-human precision would allow an examination of whether, how, and to what extent humans might learn to control the dice. But I don't think this will be the case.
But if some super-human level of precision does *not* lead to influence, then it's beside the point whether additional precision in the machinery leads to influence because human limbs will never be able to replicate it. If Alan wants to build a dice-throwing robot that attempts to perfectly control the dice, he can go ahead. He'll fail and it won't matter anyway.
But I'll take a robotic arm that simply behaves slightly better than a human one. Bonus points if it uses the same stepper motors as slot machines. :)
Actually, it is about real casino craps tables. It always has been, because nobody cares about controlling the dice on a make-believe craps table where you can't win any money.Quote: AlanMendelsonNow back to robots: this is not about real casino craps tables.
If you want to go have a conversation with yourself about how it's so easy to control the dice on your idealized, perfect-world craps table where you can build an ideal robot that throws perfect dice with perfect precision because there's no air in the room, the table is perfectly rigid, and all collisions are elastic, you have fun. It's weird that that is your ideal of craps in a perfect world, but to each his own. In my perfect world, craps is played on a private table in a smoke-free casino with dice that only have 5s on them. Hopping hard 10 hits again!
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt would really be curious to see how this group would react to the lack of robotic perfection in endeavors like the driverless automobile and the manufacture of precision pharmaceuticals. It seems that one of the problems that the driverless cars are having is that they obey the laws TOO faithfully. Google and others are now discussing programming in some questionable activities like speeding up to pass other vehicles.
I'm one of the few who have built throwing contraptions. I recently threw out in the garbage my contraption that I spent a few hours and about a hundred maybe two hundred bucks building.
But my finding was that the robot wasn't able to throw any better than I.
In any case, you're betting on a VERY long series of throws if you are going to AP craps properly AND if it exists in the first place.
So it's about consistency. And it's damn tough to get a consistent shot from either a person or a robot.
The idea about having a robot that slowly pushes a die off a ledge is probably the best idea I can imagine to examine the possibility of control.
Even if that is verified, you're still going to be left with real world conditions not being sufficently controlled to reproduce in a casino.
Most of the people who believe in exposure to a casino from operating a craps table are simply wrong IMO.
Including the players.
Including the pits.
That's my feeling. But it's just a guess.
Quote: OnceDear
I firmly say. No. No such robot can be constructed.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt would really be curious to see how this group would react to the lack of robotic perfection in endeavors like the driverless automobile and the manufacture of precision pharmaceuticals. It seems that one of the problems that the driverless cars are having is that they obey the laws TOO faithfully.
Darn, 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.
And then, this:
Quote: AhighI'm one of the few who have built throwing contraptions. I recently threw out in the garbage my contraption that I spent a few hours and about a hundred maybe two hundred bucks building.
But my finding was that the robot wasn't able to throw any better than I.
Well, it was only a $200 effort.
