Question for the Wizard regarding on-axis shooting.

*Edit* I cannot post links due to new member restrictions. I am referring to your Expectation for the Dice Setter article.

This article has been very helpful. In this article you describe correlation theory, which states that a controlled shooter keeps the dice on axis as much as a random roller, but when they do stay on axis, the pitches are correlated, thus decreasing a double pitch (7) roll.

What about a shooter who CAN keep the dice on axis more than 44.4% of the time? It seems that the hardway set would not be the optimal set. The optimal set would be the 3-V set, that is where the 3's are put face up in that they form a V shape. The reason for being so is that there is only two was a 7 can show when those dice are on axis: 3-4 or 4-3, as opposed to four ways with a hardway set.

My question is, what is the advantage to the shooter when he/she can keep them on axis 45% of the time? 46%? 47%? 48%, etc.? Assume the 3-V set. What would the theoretical edge be on the Place 6/8, as well as Pass/Come with odds?

Thanks

Dyvan13


None

First you need to look at the basic premise... on axis shot??? really not
an accurate suggestion, by any one or the on axis schools.

First the dice don't stay on axis enough to matter and second what they
suggest is an on axis shot may or may not even be one.

Let me explain... I fyou have a pair of dice set them in front of you
with a 5/3 5/3 hardway set., You will see the 1/6 6/1 in the x axis or the
axis the dice revolve around if you stayed on axis and the 3/2 is in the
Y axis and 4/3 in the Z.

If you unwrap the dice you will see the 5,3,2,4 in the throwing plain of
each die. Some schools suggest if you get any of those 4 numbers on
either dice it was an on axis shot..... sorry..... nope.

You can get many finishes like that and not be on the axis you started on.
To be an on axis the shot it must finish with 1/6 6/1 on the X axis.

I have found over many years of practice that 20% is huge number
of rolls to actually finish " on axis" and that you can average as much as
50% 7/s with that finish in a hardway set start.

Ignoring all that crap about on axis, there are times where the 3v or 2v
set will work and I use that when I am getting 3/4 4/3 to much.

You cant determine an edge or advantage for an on axis shot when
what you are finishing may or may not be one and more than likely is
not

dicesetter

opps

the 5/2 is in the y axis

dicesetter

Hello DS:

What are your thoughts on the following? Say I set the dice using an all 7s set for the come out as follows:

left die: 4 on top, 5 facing
right die: 3 on top, 2 facing.

Then I roll the following points on the comeout.

5,3 = 8
3,3 = 6
2,3 = 5
4,2 = 6
4,4 = 8
4,5 = 9

All the above numbers and results would be theoretically 'on axis'

Using these results as a form of 'data feedback' try and make your point using a 3-V set, since the results were on axis. The more courageous might also play the inside numbers.

I;m thinking this would be about the best ploy, assuming ANY dice influence that may exist?

Any thoughts?

Quote: Dyvan13

What about a shooter who CAN keep the dice on axis more than 44.4% of the time?

Sorry, I never looked into it. What you see with that article is pretty much all I have to say on the matter.

I've had days where I was on axis 85% of the time, weeks where I always got a number on every roll (up to 23 rolls, always at least 1 number and for about 2 weeks) but the times when things aren't going my way make me question dice control. Here is the problem, dice control cannot be proven mathematically; because a person can under perform on some days. In card counting, you can do drills to see if the person has forgotten how to count; it's not that easy in dice. All the computer can do is calculate an edge on an individual bet (the edges vary) based on SRR (maybe axis or7's to inside number ratio), but if you are not controlling them as desired; it all fails. In BJ, if you lose a shoe in a +3 count; as long as you know the count was accurate, it's just variance and it might go in your favor next time; you know you're edge. In dice, if it doesn't work every session people stop believing it. This is the reason it's harder to start a dice team than a bj team, blackjack is proven and dice control is still theory. Dice control is more like shuffle tracking, many people think they can do it and there are ways of testing accuracy; but it's hard to be sure if you have the edge.

Dyvan13:

If someone could truly toss on-axis as verified by hi-speed camera, they would
know their shot so well from having practiced it to death that they wouldn't
need to know their on-axis percentage to the level of precision you requested.

The "schools" can't teach it and their principals don't know how to do it.
However they will talk it up enough to make the unwary who attend believe
they are tossing a few rolls "on-axis" after a few minutes of "training" and have
the ability to increase their on-axis tossing "skills".

The so-called "correlation" shot is still a bottomless pit for one's bankroll.
Perhaps with DS's discipline, perseverance and daily practice he can generate a
positive EV with the help of toss tweaks as he claims. However, it will not
come anywhere as easy as the "Schools" and their followers would have you
believe. The correlation shot is by definition a raggedy shot needing to get
cleaned up to the point that you have a "handle" on it, if that is even possible
for the particular way you are trying to toss.

In general, most DI's love to play craps and gamble on others and that makes
them unlikely to have the discipline to measure only their own skills. They consider
it a "win" when their good sessions were primarily a result of other shooters
better rolls. If you only track your own W/L, not session W/L where you include
other shooters, you will realize that your shot is not profitable for years, even
though you may practice your shot every day.

To answer your question more directly:
The hardways set as just described by DS could be the better set for a
truly on-axis shooter with only 33% on-axis. How? If his off-axis tosses are
predominantly from just one dice ending on a 1 or a 6. Of course, technically
speaking, such a highly skilled shooter should properly be called an "off-axis shooter",
but that would really muddy up the "DI School" lingo.

I rarely bet on others rolls, it makes for a very boring session; but I suspect with a large buy in, may be decent for comps. If they put your average bet as what you bet when you actually play and buy in and time at the table etc. If they note you only bet on your roll or divide your bet by number of players at the table, it's not gonna be much comps. 80% of people I've met who claim dice control abilities lose enough to buy a house each year and those with skill often overbet or get discouraged and stop trying. I can't prove it, so I digress. I still think it's a good point that in card counting if you have a bad streak, you can say it's just variance. With dice control, you may never know if you have the edge; unless you sneak a high speed camera into the casino (which would not go over well if caught.)

Quote:

I still think it's a good point that in card counting if you have a bad streak, you can say
it's just variance. With dice control, you may never know if you have the edge; unless you
sneak a high speed camera into the casino (which would not go over well if caught.)

With BJ I would agree that variance can cause a bad streak but with the caveat that the counter
is actually any good. As with all of this AP stuff the killer is the overwhelming
denial that takes over once a belief in one's skills-level takes over. Most counters are
only fair at it, using predominantly Basic Strategy with only a simpler counting system
that they know only a limited number of the particular counts or ratios needed to execute
it to fullest advantage. Unlike craps, it still works to the extent that it provides
an increase in advantage as long as the executor isn't making dumb mistakes by remembering
badly and executing plays incorrectly. If they use one of the more complex and better counting
systems they are in for a long and difficult slog unless they have a real talent for keeping
all the counts straight and being able to make quick ratios/decisions with them.

With craps you have a far bigger problem to deal with which I've gone into detail with in a
prior post. I call it a "catch-22 training hell".

catch-22 training hell

Above link not working to page 41 of "CHARTING A TABLE" in "CRAPS" forum. wov... /forum/gambling/craps/24843-charting-a-table/9/#post522172

You can easily hi-speed camera at home. If you don't see OBVIOUS control at home, I
guarantee you won't have any at a casino where differing chair-rail heights, table surface
heights, surface composition, chips, heat, etc. are not likely to help.

Onebok. I failed to acknowledge your insightful replies to some of my questions in this thread and on the 'charting a table' thread. I was trying to digest too much information at the time and overlooked your helpful comments. It has helped me to gain a better understanding of dice setting/influence as well as possible ways to improve my game. I thank you for sharing your experiences.