I'd like to discuss a the technique of throwing the dice with a high angular velocity about the 1-6 axis, with that axis parallel to the short side of the table, and the minimum linear velocity required to hit the wall.

If given significant angular momentum, the dice should have some resistance to rotating along the other two axes after hitting the wall when the impulse from the bounce is minimized. If the dice have a greater-than-even chance of showing 2 through 5, the chance of rolling a 7 is increased (under perfect conditions, to 0.25 from 0.17). By using this technique on the come-out, and then taking odds and throwing naturally when rolling for the point, the player's expected value might be slightly increased.

Using more common language, I think you mean you want the dice to spin rapidly while otherwise being thrown gently . Not sure what the short side of the table is, but maybe you mean also throwing them the shortest distance possible?Quote:AlexRI may be wrong in my assumption, but in general, discussions of dice influence seems to be concerned with rolling specific numbers or avoiding sevens, particularly in hopes of making prop bets.

I'd like to discuss a the technique of throwing the dice with a high angular velocity about the 1-6 axis, with that axis parallel to the short side of the table, and the minimum linear velocity required to hit the wall.

in fact some of the smarter people investigating the problems cite that you do indeed need to get the dice to the target with as little energy as possible, and with kinetic energy each extra bit of velocity beyond what is need gets squared; the formula is e=mv^2 where m is mass and v is velocity . I would say you might succeed up to a point but might find the angular momentum spills off into kinetic once the dice land. You'd want to experiment I thinkQuote:If given significant angular momentum, the dice should have some resistance to rotating along the other two axes after hitting the wall when the impulse from the bounce is minimized.

what set are you using?Quote:If the dice have a greater-than-even chance of showing 2 through 5, the chance of rolling a 7 is increased (under perfect conditions, to 0.25 from 0.17).

Are these kinds of conversations welcome here? Not too much, as proponents tend to be very defensive without backing it up with anything anybody can confirm .

Quote:AlexRI may be wrong in my assumption, but in general, discussions of dice influence seems to be concerned with rolling specific numbers or avoiding sevens, particularly in hopes of making prop bets.

I'd like to discuss a the technique of throwing the dice with a high angular velocity about the 1-6 axis, with that axis parallel to the short side of the table, and the minimum linear velocity required to hit the wall.

If given significant angular momentum, the dice should have some resistance to rotating along the other two axes after hitting the wall when the impulse from the bounce is minimized. If the dice have a greater-than-even chance of showing 2 through 5, the chance of rolling a 7 is increased (under perfect conditions, to 0.25 from 0.17). By using this technique on the come-out, and then taking odds and throwing naturally when rolling for the point, the player's expected value might be slightly increased.

Welcome to the forum. I do not believe there is any legal way to roll the dice that can alter the chances of any number not having a 1/6 chance of appearing. Neither do casinos. Or mathematicians who would require evidence to back up your claim. I'm willing to bet you can't get your chance of showing 2 through 5 increased even to 0.2 each, let alone 0.25.

proficiently execute it.

To add enough spin yet not also add too much forward motion to the pyramids is a really

hard nut to crack. Adding spin/energy should enhance the tendency to be on-axis in an

"ideal" toss. What actually happens: the dice don't hit and bounce exactly the same way.

If the corner of a razor-edged die hits first, or its edge isn't perfectly flat on contact,

it will will lose its original axial orientation and collide into the other die, hop into

the pyramids at an unpredictable angle, change into a sideways motion, spin in circles, hit

the side walls, puck, chips, etc.

In effect, the more the spin the more ideal the toss must be in order to avoid increasing the

randomizing effects of an imperfect landing and its bad kinetic effects.

And that is before the pyramids get their "hands" on the dice.

Note the poor control in the slo-mo videos of DI's who've practiced their

"beautiful" toss for several years. They produce a random result, despite the

toss having "good looks" and the huge effort and expense made for it. Eventhough

they don't show their "scattershot" tosses, you still can't bet on their best

tosses and think you have an edge unless you drink their Kool-Aid and put on blinders.

Quote:SOOPOOWelcome to the forum. I do not believe there is any legal way to roll the dice that can alter the chances of any number not having a 1/6 chance of appearing. Neither do casinos. Or mathematicians who would require evidence to back up your claim. I'm willing to bet you can't get your chance of showing 2 through 5 increased even to 0.2 each, let alone 0.25.

I got results from maybe 6,000 or so rolls over a long enough period of time to demonstrate the possibility of this theory holding water.

I beat the Silverton visiting every day for a period extending for more than a year.

It was boring as hell, and I came up only maybe $1,000 winning no more than $100 per session. I had a sequence of betting that had me setting the dice differently based on what numbers were covered. It was very thorough.

I'll give you the rules that I used, and you can certainly try it.

36 41 set on the comeout with single unit on the pass no other bets

after point is established, keep the set on 36 41 with a single unit on the come and single unit on the pass

if that come bet travels, depending on what two points are set, use a hardway set with the ace face to the left. I would use hard-six set for a point of six, hard eight set for a point of 8, and if either of those is hit, go back to a single unit on the come with the 36 41 set again.

The goal is to get to the pass line and use that 36 41 set to do your best for natural wins.

This is a "no odds" strategy and it tends to help your average bet if you are benefitting for comps in a casino that does not rate the odds.

It also puts more pressure on your ability to get favorable results instead of trying to simply lower the cost.

Hedging with a come bet on top of a pass line bet also attempts to reduce the volatility in order to squeeze out any edge with your throw.

If you want to cover more numbers, You can bet the come bet for two units after you have two points covered with pass and come, and if that bet travels, you can go up to four units on the come, and so on. Still shooting for that seven-eleven and banking on a reduced instance of aces/ace-deuce.

It's sort of a "no crap" strategy in that you get creamed when you roll a crap roll with a big come bet.

I charted and practiced for months to come up with what set to use including knowing which was the left die and which was the right die on a table at home in Vegas that was as near to identical as possible to the table at the Silverton.

I have since been 86'd from the Silverton (not related to my ability to beat them for a year playing almost every day). They have never been afraid of my action, and I am a lifetime loser at the Silverton, by less than $10,000 in losses over the course of seven years or so of play. I wasn't 86'd until 2016, and I played almost every day from 2010 until 2016 there.

I have no interest to fire all of this back up, frankly. But I do believe that with diligence, it might be possible to eke out an edge at this game. The hardest part of it all is getting an empty table where you can dominate the shooting for an hour. What I did was that I would play from noon to 1pm during my lunch hour, in general. I would also play on the weekends, but mostly to socialize and get free drinks.

I doubt that this is helpful, but I don't reject the idea that it's possible to eke out an edge at craps. But when you're fighting the peer pressure to bet bigger while the casino has an edge, it's really easy to wipe out hours of progress with a few oversized bets while someone else is shooting, for example. It takes mountains of diligence to keep your bet-levels consistent and your strategy the same. You get bored and the dealers get really annoyed after an hour a day for a year.

Quote:Ahigh

I have since been 86'd from the Silverton (not related to my ability to beat them for a year playing almost every day).

Do you mind sharing why you were evicted from the Silverton?

Quote:AlexRI may be wrong in my assumption, but in general, discussions of dice influence seems to be concerned with rolling specific numbers or avoiding sevens, particularly in hopes of making prop bets.

I'd like to discuss a the technique of throwing the dice with a high angular velocity about the 1-6 axis, with that axis parallel to the short side of the table, and the minimum linear velocity required to hit the wall.

If given significant angular momentum, the dice should have some resistance to rotating along the other two axes after hitting the wall when the impulse from the bounce is minimized. If the dice have a greater-than-even chance of showing 2 through 5, the chance of rolling a 7 is increased (under perfect conditions, to 0.25 from 0.17). By using this technique on the come-out, and then taking odds and throwing naturally when rolling for the point, the player's expected value might be slightly increased.

Welcome to the forum! I am a physicist - perhaps the only one among the forum regulars - and I am at least open to your ideas. Don't let all these "kneejerk naysayers" shout you down - they do this to everyone and often can't tell the difference between 'ideas with substance' and 'smoke and mirrors from know-nothing con-men.'

I think I understand what you are trying to accomplish. You are trying to establish a high angular momentum along a selected axis, such that the result of contact with the wall and subsequent contact with the felt will not completely randomize the spin of the die. Ideally, the rotational force on the die, when thrown, would be comparable to or larger than the forces involved in the collision with the wall - and that would be hard to accomplish, I think, but perhaps not impossible. I can imagine this being possible when throwing one die, but I have a hard time visualizing how you can spin two die that way when tossing them. Could you comment on that?

Also, could you clarify: Is the rotational spin of the 5-2 axis in the same direction as the motion into the wall? Or is the rotation of the dice parallel to the wall they are being thrown into?

What makes me think dice setting could be possible:

I often see things that I would have thought to be impossible had I not see them with my own eyes, such as:

(1) Basketball players throwing a ball into a goal only slightly larger than the ball, from dozens of yards away. If someone can manipulate a ball like that, someone being able to manipulate dice doesn't seem implausible.

(2) Expert videogamers playing games like Guitar Hero or similar games that are hand-based, where they're interpreting graphic symbols and reacting to them accurately at near impossible speeds.

(3) Cirque du Soleil performers such as in Mystere, who do things with their bodies that are simply amazing.

What makes me think dice setting probably isn't possible: Someone, I think Bill Zender, did an experiment by having a machine align two dice to the same position and then drop them onto a craps table thousands of times. The results were random, with no bias.

So, I can't say that it's impossible, but it seems likely that no one has been able to successfully master the concept thus far, since that kind of thing would be very hard to keep a lid on.

I admit that would be quite impressive. I don't think I have seen such a feat performed ever. At least not with the ball going all the way through the smaller hoop.Quote:MichaelBluejay(1) Basketball players throwing a ball into a goal only slightly smaller than the ball, from dozens of yards away.