If you are talking about my number crunching, it is true that I am showing less 7-outs without showing increase in hitting numbers to be resolved. This is what I meant when I said it is a little wonky, and the house edge would actually be reduced more than I show.Quote: Gabes22
In craps, not only do you have to minimize 7s but you have to prove you are able to make more points. If you can get the 7 up from 1 in 6 rolls to 1 in 6.25 rolls you have to equally prove you can hit the 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 at higher rates once that particular point is established
So I don't want to continue with even higher rolls to sevens factors until I can fix that. The conundrum is once you stipulate rolling less 7-outs, you do have to figure it will mean a better rate for resolving in favor of the rightside bettors. If the shooter doesn't roll a 7-out, something else will be rolled, and a proportion of the time it will be a meaningless number and a proportion of the time it will 'hit' the number. I think this is a matter of just figuring out the proportions and I am working on that.
I don't want to switch to a special set that targets the number to resolve, though, but want to know the answer sticking to just trying to roll less 7-outs.
Anybody out there who can use this feel free
And as a matter of fact, in this thread I have plenty of disclaimer about the prospects for dice setting, as much as the Wizard, I'd say, who did in fact put on his site a ton of information about it, along with that disclaimer. As for this thread, even the title is a disclaimer of sorts.
As for casino personnel, they should just admit they're paranoid about dice setting. I've seen them with their hair on fire about some dice setters who, as I watched them with 'their stuff', was able to conclude there was no possibility whatsoever they were getting anything but random results. You can only conclude these hair-enflamed paranoids might try to spend some time educating themselves about it instead of making themselves look like morons.
Was the person who made the image a craps player having a laugh?
image from today's article "the-dicey-economics-of-investing-in-oil-during-covid-19"
on-axis from start to finish of a Dice-Influenced or DI toss is very unlikely.
Assuming you have enough skill to toss the dice so that they hit the table surface, roll to the pyramid wall and react off of it and
come to rest of their own lost energy, rather than, along the way, hitting the side wall, chips, puck, the other die, etc., the dice are
still likely to be tumbled and rotated at the contact with the table top or contact with the pyramid rubber, and usually both.
High speed video shreds the idea of distinguishing on-axis vs. correlation for modes of executing a controlled toss.
Any DI-wannabee who can reduce the occurrence of sevens by 3 standard deviations will be more than happy to accept any
percentage of off-axis or on-axis tosses that simply aren't sevens.
IMO, Wizard data for SRR of 6.04 vs. 6.08, etc. is strictly statistics. From a practicable point of view, any DI with 6.08 or even 6.5
could spend their lifetime never knowing whether they were having a good Variance win or skill-based win. This goes toward your
desire to measure +EV while not knowing the bucket of good or bad numbers those non-sevens should be placed.
My guess as to how you might proceed in your "wonky" quest:
Place results of 2,3,4,10,11,12 in the garbage bucket(non-winner, non-wagered) and 5,6,8,9 in the winner bucket for all
post-comeout tosses...it is likely that most DI's will limit themselves to betting inside numbers, especially with $25 and $50
minimum bets becoming the norm around larger cities in these Covid times.
I believe that one can only hope to reduce sevens without an ability to target inside vs garbage buckets unless hugely familiar
with the table being used.
I would be very interested in what you might come up with. Without your results, I am leaning more towards the ballpark of
3 or 4 standard deviations before you can really have a +EV that is practicable and even measurable without requiring large
and troublesome sample size.
I do want to be wrong about that ballpark.