DICE SET INCONSISTENCIES
there are differing opinions on what constitutes the best dice sets for a given desired outcome.
I chose to post this topic here because "The Wizard” is held in such high esteem in the gaming
community and especially since I would be looking for any definitive answers from a math
and statistical perspective: not based on myth, fallacy, or superstition. A nagging corollary
might be if one takes exception to personal experience, which is an oxymoron?
It is hoped this subject will be worthy of discussion since the answers are of great practical
importance for serious dice influencers and their game.
Let me begin by posting the first, and seemingly the most glaring of dice set inconsistencies, by
several experts on the subject. I have no desire to impune anyone’s reputation or experience but
rather am interested in the facts.
Known as the “Straight Sixes” set, (6’s on top, 3 on the outside left die, 4 on the outside right die)
The Wizard has labeled this set as “Hardways Set #2” posted at this link on the subject-- if one rotates
both die two turns forward .
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/
One forum claims this set is the best on the come out for rolling 7s and 11s because it take into
consideration all possible outcomes. (6-1, 1-6, 2-5, 5-2 6-5 and 5-6 on axis: 3-4 yaw right, and 4-3
yaw left) This is of course the opposite opinion held by The Wizard about the outcome for his
“Hardways Set #2”. Yet another forum expert claims the same set is best for rolling field numbers and
avoiding the 7 given that there are four field numbers on axis.
Can someone chime in about these conflicting suggestions? It seems to me one set must be superior
to the other?
Regards “HardWays Set #1, The Wizard states the conventional wisdom about the set being the king of
the dice sets, even though there are four ways to make a 7 while on axis. We know other sets
reduce this number to two ways.
Perhaps the confusion on my part is due to lack of understanding between a correlation shooter
and an axis shooter since I am a newcomer to this fieldr? Again, perhaps someone can add some
clarity to crooked thinking. Thank you.
Prove influence/setting works to the Wizard's standard and people may change their minds. Other wise, set the dice however you like and roll them randomly just like everyone else...
If you want to study the topic, there are two parallel questions you should answer. One is the level of control you could feasibly attain. Two is the technique (including the dice set) that maximizes your EV under that level of control. If you are like most dice players, your level of control is zero so it won't matter how you throw the dice. If you can attain a non-zero level of control, it is possible you could beat the game with the right technique.
Unfortunately, what I've seen from the most vocal proponents of dice control -- the ones who admit to spending hours or months practicing -- tells me that none of them has the ability or desire to measure either their level of control or their resulting EVs. Don't be like that.
I edited that for you.Quote: MathExtremist
Unfortunately, what I've seen from the most vocal proponents of dice control -- the ones who admit to spending many months or years practicing -- tells me that none of them has the ability or desire to measure either their level of control or their resulting EVs. Don't be like that.
Quote: eclecticperhaps someone can add some
clarity to crooked thinking.
No, your crooked thinking needs no clarification.
You actually seem to believe that the notion of dice setting is somehow valid and legitimate.
That personifies crooked thinking.
If anybody can at least offer a theory of how DI works, then we could discuss what would be the best way to set the dice for each bet.
Quote: WizardFor all the many thousands of posts on the topic, I'm still waiting for a credible source to explain how DI works. Wong subscribes to what I call the "correlation" theory, and he is by far the most legitimate name to defend DI. However, since he wrote his book, he seems to have lowered the temperature of his passion for the topic quite a bit, without outright repudiating it.
If anybody can at least offer a theory of how DI works, then we could discuss what would be the best way to set the dice for each bet.
Wizard, I thought the forum was past how DI actually works? I thought we were stuck on whether it can work and can be scientifically proven.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that "DI actually works." There are lots of ways it *might* work if any amount of control can be achieved but right now it's all rank speculation. You can calculate the passline EV of a shooter who can keep the dice on-axis 3% of the time with no other face correlation, and who throws fairly the other 97% of the time, but (a) nobody's ever credibly demonstrated that ability and (b) there are lots of other ways influence could be achieved if it's possible.Quote: AsswhoopermcdaddyWizard, I thought the forum was past how DI actually works? I thought we were stuck on whether it can work and can be scientifically proven.
So any rigorous discussion needs to be specific with regard to those details, but the only statistic ever reported by dice setters is SRR (which is poorly correlated to EV and does not accurately measure displayed skill).
This is going to sound obvious, and begs the question, but speaking in theoretical terms, the 'slider shot' is meant to eliminate 5 faces of at least one die (stacking the bottom die with the 6 facing up) and the blanket roll eliminates two faces of both die. Please correct me if I am wrong. So MathExtremist has it that the idea is to eliminate two faces of both die; by staying on axis by DI. And the science for all this is rooted in aerodynamics and physics. And like he says, this falls into the category of "if a frog had wings................" I did a cursory read of most of the posts on this site and those videos should convince anyone's lying eyes. My other favorite post on
DI is about this discussion surrounding the NEXT throw. Meanwhile, I'll continue to toss randomly in my practice box, hoping to at least be a correlation shooter, setting for an sevens set (4-3, 5-2) with my truth detector being how often 2-3-4-5 appear on both die. A dumb question now: what is EV please? Tks again for sharing your insights.
Practice makes perfect. You only need your own table and 10 years of practice and real play to get good enough to influence a good looking shot, unfortunately you'll still just be a random roller.Quote: eclecticWell, partially because I'm a crooked thinker. (:-) Also ignorance. I thought Craps had one of the lowest HE in the casino. Plus, I'm too lazy to deal with learning blackjack; but I;m all ears about other game considerations?
Quote: Wizard
If anybody can at least offer a theory of how DI works, then we could discuss what would be the best way to set the dice for each bet.
The theory is very simple: you throw the dice in such a way as to limit the rotations of the dice. And with the dice showing certain sets, the limited rotation will favor certain numbers.
It's the actual ability to LEGALLY do that which is difficult.
I can slide the dice at craps tables to show the ultimate in control -- but that's illegal. (Illegal meaning not permitted by any casino and not considered a valid roll.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPkgvNV_IuE
I cannot throw the dice with enough limited rotation to convince myself or anyone else that I can alter what are otherwise random results.
However, I keep trying. :-)
In your quest, most noble knight, This is a new year, almost anything can happen. Go get 'em.Quote: AlanMendelsonThe theory is very simple: you throw the dice in such a way as to limit the rotations of the dice. And with the dice showing certain sets, the limited rotation will favor certain numbers.
It's the actual ability to LEGALLY do that which is difficult.
I can slide the dice at craps tables to show the ultimate in control -- but that's illegal. (Illegal meaning not permitted by any casino and not considered a valid roll.) I cannot throw the dice with enough limited rotation to convince myself or anyone else that I can alter what are otherwise random results.
However, I keep trying. :-)
When the dice hit the felt, control / "influence" is lost.
Quote: MrVAssume the shooter is able to limit rotation.
When the dice hit the felt, control / "influence" is lost.
Obviously when we are talking about the shooter being able to limit rotation we are also including after the dice hit the felt and the back wall.
How many years have we been going back and forth -- you and I? If we include the old RGC forum it must be 15 years.
15 years? That is close to a quarter, OK a fifth, of your productive lifetimes? Since you're still going at it, I hope like hell you both had a lot of fun along the way.....Quote: AlanMendelsonObviously when we are talking about the shooter being able to limit rotation we are also including after the dice hit the felt and the back wall.
How many years have we been going back and forth -- you and I? If we include the old RGC forum it must be 15 years.
Alan is stubborn as to his DI views, no question about it.
Quote: AsswhoopermcdaddyWizard, I thought the forum was past how DI actually works? I thought we were stuck on whether it can work and can be scientifically proven.
I meant how it allegedly works.
I assume it is not legal to set one up in the parking lot of the convenience store on the corner, or is it?Quote: Pinit2winitI mean the real answer is an average craps table in vegas makes 2k an hour.
P.S. I condone none of this.
Quote: MrV
Alan is stubborn as to his DI views, no question about it.
Lets say he has seen a couple REAL LIFE D.I.'s..... If i told you i saw a D.I. and made money off it then there is no way you could tell me otherwise, because i lived it. Has he seen this.... the only person who knows is himself. Maybe he is so set in stone because he has by his word seen 3-4 people do this is in life search. There really is no way to tell until a D.I. comes forward and does it in front of a group of us or we send this to Mythbusters.
Quote: Pinit2winitLets say he has seen a couple REAL LIFE D.I.'s..... If i told you i saw a D.I. and made money off it then there is no way you could tell me otherwise, because i lived it. Has he seen this.... the only person who knows is himself. Maybe he is so set in stone because he has by his word seen 3-4 people do this is in life search. There really is no way to tell until a D.I. comes forward and does it in front of a group of us or we send this to Mythbusters.
Exactly. MrV has never seen it. I don't think he has even tried. All the rest of you have never seen it. I haven't seen the Loch Ness Monster so I don't believe there is a Loch Ness Monster despite all those pictures and eyewitness accounts.
I would say that yes, a true DI, is probably as rare as a Loch Ness Monster. The only difference being I have seen true DIs.
Alan have you ever noticed you repeat the same type of stuff over and over?Quote: AlanMendelsonThe theory is very simple: you throw the dice in such a way as to limit the rotations of the dice. And with the dice showing certain sets, the limited rotation will favor certain numbers.
It's the actual ability to LEGALLY do that which is difficult.
I can slide the dice at craps tables to show the ultimate in control -- but that's illegal. (Illegal meaning not permitted by any casino and not considered a valid roll.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPkgvNV_IuE
I cannot throw the dice with enough limited rotation to convince myself or anyone else that I can alter what are otherwise random results.
However, I keep trying. :-)
Sliding dice has nothing to do with DI. I'm certain Mike knows about dice sliding. Why not just show a video of someone placing the dice on the table?
Because it doesn't exist. Apparently all the supposed DI's are either retired, dead or mystery men. 15 years later and still not one shred of real evidence. It's always hearsay and rumors.Quote: AlanMendelsonAll the rest of you have never seen it.
Quote: AxelWolfBecause it doesn't exist. Apparently all the supposed DI's are either retired, dead or mystery men. 15 years later and still not one shred of real evidence. It's always hearsay and rumors.
It doesn't exist because you never saw it.
end of story.
the problem all of you are having is that you can't understand that DI is a skill. It is not a math equation that anyone can learn. It's a fine motor skill. I think a school might give you the gist of what's involved, just like a school can teach the techniques of painting and sculpture and even hitting golf balls. But then nature takes over.
Either you've got it or you don't.
You can't find it in a book. You can't find it in a simulator. You can't find it in an equation.
I can tell you right now that after going to and meeting with and playing with many of the so called DI experts, not one of them really showed me true DI. It took being at a table to come across three guys out of nowhere to show me they actually had it.
Seriously, what convinced you that they had THE GIFT?
Quote: MrVWhat convinced you that you saw something other than three guys who had a smooth shot and a good deal of luck?
Seriously, what convinced you that they had THE GIFT?
What I saw was consistency: set, toss, bounce, roll, numbers. What more is there?
And in the case of the surgeon from Washington, remember that I played with him several times.
Quote: MrVCould you please provide a bit more info about the "bounce, roll, numbers?"
unfortunately I didn't have my high definition video cameras there to give you a slow motion, stop frame analysis.
Quote: Pinit2winitLets say he has seen a couple REAL LIFE D.I.'s..... If i told you i saw a D.I. and made money off it then there is no way you could tell me otherwise, because i lived it. Has he seen this.... the only person who knows is himself. Maybe he is so set in stone because he has by his word seen 3-4 people do this is in life search. There really is no way to tell until a D.I. comes forward and does it in front of a group of us or we send this to Mythbusters.
Mythbusters is being cancelled....
Quote: AlanMendelsonunfortunately I didn't have my high definition video cameras there to give you a slow motion, stop frame analysis.
That is flippant.
I ask only what you saw, which you've NEVER SEEN ANYONE DO BEFORE, that convinced you that these guys were the real deal?
Or is DI like the court once viewed pornography: "I know it when I see it?"
Alan, without a shred of corroboration / verification your claim is very weak.
I believe that these DI's are being kept under wraps at nearby Area 51 and only come to town when there is a full moon in odd-numbered months, and only roll dem bones if you happen to be there.
It could happen.
What amazes me is, particularly on this board, the people that have not tried, ones that
don't have any skin in the game are the ones that do all the talking about what
some one can or can not do.
You know my position, complete dice control.... the kind you that you want shown to you
does not exist. In truth I don't think you would believe if you saw it anyway, you have made
up your mind.... fair enough.... a right we all have.
It is incredibly easy to work on a shot enough to get to the point where a change of set results
in a change to the number orientation you can get...... to not believe that is to believe the world
is still flat, however dice have certain tracts and no matter how you throw or what set you use
there is a standard of results which more or less fall into a 33% -67% ratio which makes the result
random. To change the result in terms of win or loss out come you need to do one of two things
1....first you need to extend your SRR so that on each roll you get additional pay opportunities
2...You have to develop a shot which is consistent enough to increase 67% side of the random
results ratio.
The idea that a good shot could do one of these two things is a certainty.
Guys that are against the idea that anyone can have any influence set up an impossible test, like
the one you are setting up for Alan.... well his shot looked good, well that does not mean
anything.... well he was winning, well did he win yesterday...... well he was repeating numbers
differently than random... well ok did you do a slow motion review.....
There is always a next question But what I would ask with all due respect..... if you always have
a "next question" on the tip of your tongue....why even bother to read the answers.
dicesetter
I wish I could believe in DI, but I do not, because its efficacy has not been PROVEN to exist.
As with Alan's claim of three magi, we only get anecdotal stories, which frankly just aren't entirely credible, let alone probative.
Your claim that "It is incredibly easy to work on a shot enough to get to the point where a change of set results in a change to the number orientation you can get...... " is disputed by me because it has NEVER been shown that any result other than random can / will ensue once the dice hit the felt and bounce off the wall.
Please continue in your efforts to prove that there is anything other than FALSE HOPE: I'd love to be a convert to the cause.
Alan left the board so I guess I'll never get an answer to the question I asked him.
Alan understands a good deal about the game of dice, don't sell him short.
My point, and I surely cant speak for Alan is that trying to convince you of anything
is not worth the effort. Don't take that personal, I understand your point of
view, 98% of the people in the world of gambling share it.
But, In every thing you do, craps included there are things you can do to improve your
results, hunting fishing, golfing playing BJ and craps, there are things certain people
do to do better than others, and they do that over and over.
I don't believe in dice control, I don't think it is possible to go to the table and
each and every time your results are the same, giving you a statistical advantage
over the casino. But I am 100% certain you can do some things to give yourself
an edge over the average player.
For me that is enough. After 40 years of playing this game, 7 years of hard work
on my throw I know a little about this, and most real good players make
my efforts pale by comparison.
Craps is an exciting game... your missing out on the best parts of it.
dicesetter
LOLQuote: MrVFalse Hope+Faith-Reality=DI
From my understanding It's illegal to shoot a bigfoot in washington state.
They must know something?
Or because they don't want idiots shooting pranksters in a monkey suite?
Gee whiz golly, I thought it was a bigfoot so I shot it.
Quote: MrVFalse Hope+Faith-Reality=DI
Oh I thought that was the equation for theism :o)
DI=Theism ... Sorta makes sense: Both hard to validate with evidence, logic and maths. Both contentious.
Quote: OnceDearOh I thought that was the equation for theism :o)
DI=Theism ... Sorta makes sense: Both hard to validate with evidence, logic and maths. Both contentious.
Isn't DI pretty easy to prove ? Don't all you have to do is set a baseline by rolling the dice *normally* and then roll them whilst trying to influence them a sufficient amount of times until you can say with adequate confidence that the observed outcome is not within expected deviation ?
I really wish you would stop wasting your time talking about dice control. You have made your point about that more times than you have rolled the dice. Not even the crazy people believe in dice control.Quote: dicesitterMrV
What amazes me is, particularly on this board, the people that have not tried, ones that
don't have any skin in the game are the ones that do all the talking about what
some one can or can not do.
You know my position, complete dice control.... the kind you that you want shown to you
does not exist. In truth I don't think you would believe if you saw it anyway, you have made
up your mind.... fair enough.... a right we all have.
It is incredibly easy to work on a shot enough to get to the point where a change of set results
in a change to the number orientation you can get...... to not believe that is to believe the world
is still flat, however dice have certain tracts and no matter how you throw or what set you use
there is a standard of results which more or less fall into a 33% -67% ratio which makes the result
random. To change the result in terms of win or loss out come you need to do one of two things
1....first you need to extend your SRR so that on each roll you get additional pay opportunities
2...You have to develop a shot which is consistent enough to increase 67% side of the random
results ratio.
The idea that a good shot could do one of these two things is a certainty.
Guys that are against the idea that anyone can have any influence set up an impossible test, like
the one you are setting up for Alan.... well his shot looked good, well that does not mean
anything.... well he was winning, well did he win yesterday...... well he was repeating numbers
differently than random... well ok did you do a slow motion review.....
There is always a next question But what I would ask with all due respect..... if you always have
a "next question" on the tip of your tongue....why even bother to read the answers.
dicesetter
Discounting dice control does not add more credibility to people advocating dice influence.
I guess it should be. So now we have the great philosophical debate about why such strong statistical evidence isn't available.Quote: DiscreteMaths2Isn't DI pretty easy to prove ? Don't all you have to do is set a baseline by rolling the dice *normally* and then roll them whilst trying to influence them a sufficient amount of times until you can say with adequate confidence that the observed outcome is not within expected deviation ?
Some might use the Holy Grail argument: 'The Holy Grail has been discovered and is keeping the finder immortal. But he's not so stupid as to reveal it' This elite DIer or even this discreet inner circle of Influencers must be pretty good at keeping the evidence buried. Maybe the evidence will surface when they have finished their collective takeover of all the casinos in Vegas.
They remain well hidden too.Quote: OnceDearI guess it should be. So now we have the great philosophical debate about why such strong statistical evidence isn't available.
Some might use the Holy Grail argument: 'The Holy Grail has been discovered and is keeping the finder immortal. But he's not so stupid as to reveal it' This elite DIer or even this discreet inner circle of Influencers must be pretty good at keeping the evidence buried. Maybe the evidence will surface when they have finished their collective takeover of all the casinos in Vegas.
Only one person(Alan M) Has ever seen all 2 real DI's, just after or before he seen 18, YES I SAID 18!!!! Yo's in a row and his son hit 5 single line Royals in one day.
