Video Proof: Random Rollers vs Dice Setters
The dice influence debate is over. Video proof is being uploaded on a weekly basis and proving it doesn't help you win more.
P.S. Am I allowed to post the videos?
I think DI is bunk either way, however, I don't think videos showing results is a good measure, especially since videos can be cherry picked.Quote: ChapzThere's been an onslaught of youtube videos of live craps tables recently due to some casinos now allowing it to be filmed. Some are shared by dice setters. What I noticed from these video samples is the random rollers did just a well if not better than these so called dice setters.
The dice influence debate is over. Video proof is being uploaded on a weekly basis and proving it doesn't help you win more.
P.S. Am I allowed to post the videos?
We would have to find a few people who the DI crowd are convinced are the best and have them roll a significant amount of rolls. That would end the debate one way or the other. OR JUST WATCH SOME SLOW MOTION VIDEOS.
As a new user here, your options may be limited.Quote: ChapzP.S. Am I allowed to post the videos?
However, videos can be imbedded in posts rather easily with YouTube tags:
[youtube=____]
Just fill in the video’s ID number.
To be fair, most of the DIs that upload their live videos aren't instructors or selling a school or program. I don't think a program selling DI would dare post a live session in a casino for the public to view.
Quote: TomGI always assumed "dice setters" were "random rollers". If my assumption is wrong, there has never been a good piece of evidence to dispute it.
Dice setters are easily fooled by randomness.
A combination of wishful thought, determined effort, and clustered random favorable outcomes provides fertile ground for selective memory.
Quote: ChapzThere's been an onslaught of youtube videos of live craps tables recently due to some casinos now allowing it to be filmed. Some are shared by dice setters. What I noticed from these video samples is the random rollers did just a well if not better than these so called dice setters.
The dice influence debate is over. Video proof is being uploaded on a weekly basis and proving it doesn't help you win more.
P.S. Am I allowed to post the videos?
You're allowed to make flatly false claims in your message and you're allowed to make a click-baitish title as well.
Upload the videos to youtube and use the tags to embed a youtube video into the message.
If your interest in the answers to your questions is as persistent as your interest in creating messages here, anyway.
Your claim, "Video proof is being uploaded" seems to misunderstand what "video proof" might imply to a reader here, as an independent claim of the type of video being described.
If you believe that video evidence of rolls proves anything at all, I would love to see a formal proof with said video evidence of, well, anything at all. Even video proof that the video is not generated by a computer would be entertaining; yet I doubt you could assert from the video that it is even a real-world craps table as good as computer generated video content can be made to defraud any system intended to infer actual provable hypothesis from said video about how dice setting can or cannot work.
Quote: TumblingBonesMy take on the DI controversy: Pascal's Wager
Not a good take.
1. If Di doesn't work:
Buyers of DI programs are duped into throwing away money. And losing money betting on DI players while missing out on random rollers on streaks. Who benefits? DI program and book sellers.
2. If DI works,:
Where are these millionaire winners?
Where is the Craps Ball celebrating lifetime winners?
Where are all the DI that are trespassed?
DI believers are fooled by randomness.
Quote: ChapzNot a good take.
1. If Di doesn't work:
Buyers of DI programs are duped into throwing away money. And losing money betting on DI players while missing out on random rollers on streaks. Who benefits? DI program and book sellers.
2. If DI works,:
Where are these millionaire winners?
Where is the Craps Ball celebrating lifetime winners?
Where are all the DI that are trespassed?
DI believers are fooled by randomness.
I think your logic is flawed.
Quote: Chapz
Buyers of DI programs are duped into throwing away money. And losing money betting on DI players while missing out on random rollers on streaks. Who benefits? DI program and book sellers.
- Nothing in the "wager' requires, or even advocates, purchasing books. Nor is it necessary given the amount of freely posted info on You Tube, blogs, etc.
- As to the "missing out on streaks" that sounds exactly like "believers (who) are fooled by randomness". In this case however it's the non-DI-beliver making the mistake.
Keep in mind that I am not claiming DI is a valid approach. Neither am I seeking to either prove it or discredit it. I simply point out there is no downside to a pro-DI mindset.
Quote: ChumpChangeIs five 7-winners in a row too much? Will there be unbelievable heat for such a feat? Maybe I wasn't paying the pit no mind.
Get back to us when you roll 18 Yo’s in a row.
Quote: TumblingBonesMy take on the DI controversy: Pascal's Wager
Good call! Who cares. If you're a dice setter or a chucker, what's the downside to either? Shoot however you like.
Quote: TumblingBonesI think your logic is flawed.
- Nothing in the "wager' requires, or even advocates, purchasing books. Nor is it necessary given the amount of freely posted info on You Tube, blogs, etc.
- As to the "missing out on streaks" that sounds exactly like "believers (who) are fooled by randomness". In this case however it's the non-DI-beliver making the mistake.
Keep in mind that I am not claiming DI is a valid approach. Neither am I seeking to either prove it or discredit it. I simply point out there is no downside to a pro-DI mindset.
Where did I say the wager requires or advocates buying books? I was referring to the BUYERS of these DI programs and books. They have money to lose (books, subscriptions, classes, equipment) and hours of worthless practicing.
'Missing out on streaks' refer to the snobby attitudes of DIs when they pull their bets thinking a random roller will PSO but they end up watching on the sidelines as these chicken feeders go on a tear.
There is clearly a downside for the BUYERS/CONSUMERS of DI.
You haven't answered the 2nd part of Pascal's Wager...... What is the UPSIDE of DI?
Quote: ChapzQuote: TumblingBonesI think your logic is flawed.
- Nothing in the "wager' requires, or even advocates, purchasing books. Nor is it necessary given the amount of freely posted info on You Tube, blogs, etc.
- As to the "missing out on streaks" that sounds exactly like "believers (who) are fooled by randomness". In this case however it's the non-DI-believer making the mistake.
Keep in mind that I am not claiming DI is a valid approach. Neither am I seeking to either prove it or discredit it. I simply point out there is no downside to a pro-DI mindset.
Where did I say the wager requires or advocates buying books? I was referring to the BUYERS of these DI programs and books. They have money to lose (books, subscriptions, classes, equipment) and hours of worthless practicing.
'Missing out on streaks' refer to the snobby attitudes of DIs when they pull their bets thinking a random roller will PSO but they end up watching on the sidelines as these chicken feeders go on a tear.
There is clearly a downside for the BUYERS/CONSUMERS of DI.
You haven't answered the 2nd part of Pascal's Wager...... What is the UPSIDE of DI?
I think you need to get a better understanding of the nature of Pascal's Wager. Whether the buyers or sellers of DI books/classes gain or lose money is irrelevant to our hypothetical bettor (i.e., "Pascal"). As to your objection that I have not addressed the 2nd part of your argument (i.e., "You haven't answered the 2nd part of Pascal's Wager...... What is the UPSIDE of DI?") the nature of Pascal's Argument is that the "upside" is always based on the assumption that the belief in question (in this case that DI works) is true. Proving that belief is not only not required but is also assumed to be beyond the bettor's capabilities:
Quote: PascalBut to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Finally, as to your objection re missing out on winning streaks I will simply note that craps is a game with a negative EV with losing streaks as well as winning streaks. If it is a truly random game and DI is fantasy, which is your belief, then watching from the sidelines means fewer bets and, therefore lower loses due to the -EV property. This in turn means that even if DI does NOT work, there is an upside to making the wager.
Quote:
I think you need to get a better understanding of the nature of Pascal's Wager. Whether the buyers or sellers of DI books/classes gain or lose money is irrelevant to our hypothetical bettor (i.e., "Pascal"). As to your objection that I have not addressed the 2nd part of your argument (i.e., "You haven't answered the 2nd part of Pascal's Wager...... What is the UPSIDE of DI?") the nature of Pascal's Argument is that the "upside" is always based on the assumption that the belief in question (in this case that DI works) is true. Proving that belief is not only not required but is also assumed to be beyond the bettor's capabilities:
Finally, as to your objection re missing out on winning streaks I will simply note that craps is a game with a negative EV with losing streaks as well as winning streaks. If it is a truly random game and DI is fantasy, which is your belief, then watching from the sidelines means fewer bets and, therefore lower loses due to the -EV property. This in turn means that even if DI does NOT work, there is an upside to making the wager.
"If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
I understand Pascal's Wager very well.
My point is you can't apply Pascal's Wager to an event that is known. The probabilities in casino games are known. The lack of effectiveness of DI is known.
PW is applied to the question of the existent of God, which is an unknown unknown. It is convex to believe in God, that is point of PW.
Again my point about "missing out" is the incorrect belief that betting on DI shooters is more advantageous than wagering on random rollers. This aligns with your thinking.
Bottom line, if you truly want to apply Pascal's Wager to the game of craps (DI or not), you don't make the bet.
Quote:My point is you can't apply Pascal's Wager to an event that is known. ........ The lack of effectiveness of DI is known.
That's your assumption but it is an arguable point in the opinion of others. Let's call you a "non-believer" (or DI atheist) and your opponents "believers" (aka DI theists). I myself am an agnostic. Hence PW applies.
That said, as an agnostic I've found arguing with both theists and atheists is never worth the time and energy expended so I'm going to sign-off from this thread.
Quote: TumblingBonesThat's your assumption but it is an arguable point in the opinion of others. Let's call you a "non-believer" (or DI atheist) and your opponents "believers" (aka DI theists). I myself am an agnostic. Hence PW applies.
That said, as an agnostic I've found arguing with both theists and atheists is never worth the time and energy expended so I'm going to sign-off from this thread.
Pascal believed one should wager that God exists because there is little or nothing to lose. Hence,
"If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
Like I said, your mistake is applying Pasacal's Wager in a casino environment where probabilities are known. Where is this Pascal Casino where if you win, you win all, if you lose, you lose nothing?
Here's the thing, unlike PW, there is something to lose with believing in DI. For example a bettor can be fooled into making bets based on the ability of a DI to throw 12s so the bettor bets his bankroll on it.
On the other hand, there is nothing to lose by NOT believing in DI.
You keep missing the point. It's not about your belief or my belief, it's about you misapplying the use of Pascal's Wager.
He’s not missing the point. You keep misconstruing what he is saying.Quote: ChapzPascal believed one should wager that God exists because there is little or nothing to lose. Hence,
"If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
Like I said, your mistake is applying Pasacal's Wager in a casino environment where probabilities are known. Where is this Pascal Casino where if you win, you win all, if you lose, you lose nothing?
Here's the thing, unlike PW, there is something to lose with believing in DI. For example a bettor can be fooled into making bets based on the ability of a DI to throw 12s so the bettor bets his bankroll on it.
On the other hand, there is nothing to lose by NOT believing in DI.
You keep missing the point. It's not about your belief or my belief, it's about you misapplying the use of Pascal's Wager.
He’s saying that if someone is going to play craps, you might as well set the dice and try DI. At worst it doesn’t change your outcome.
Quote: unJonHe’s not missing the point. You keep misconstruing what he is saying.
He’s saying that if someone is going to play craps, you might as well set the dice and try DI. At worst it doesn’t change your outcome.
No, at worst you lose your wager.
Pascal's Wager says if you lose, you lose nothing.
Quote: ChapzNo, ar worst you lose your wager.
Pascal's Wager says if you lose, you lose nothing..
Lol. Keep carrying on the conversation with yourself.
Craps with DI is still a -EV game so that in itself disqualifies it from the idea of PW: "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
Casinos will no roll you, bowl dump you, or at worst back you off only if you keep missing the spiked wall. Ever wonder why casinos don't care how you throw as long as you hit the spikes?
So these DIs bragging that they were trespassed or banned for their throws were in reality just reprimanded for not hitting the wall.
Adding DI may increase your chances as much as me blowing on the dice And it may also ruin your bankroll faster due to the false sense of security that leads a person to bet bigger.
Again, the idea with DI that you have nothing to lose, only to gain is simply not true. The only people that gain are the sellers of books and programs on DI.
Here's the million dollar question: Why are DIs not treated like card counters by casinos?
Quote: camz1969Well, I meant I agreed with everything you said except "the idea with DI that you have nothing to lose, only to gain is simply not true"...you don't have to buy a book or do anything except try to DI next time you were going to play anyway. If you are referring strictly to people that are going to invest money or invest in some type of training then yes those are costs that will end up losses if it doesn't work. I'll also add IF I ever decide to play craps I will absolutely try to control the dice in some way. Why wouldn't I? If I can't I can't but why wouldn't I at least try? It costs me nothing to try vs just pick them up without even looking and throw them wildly.
It’s not worth it. He doesn’t want to see the analogy. It’s become semantics.
Quote: unJonIt’s not worth it. He doesn’t want to see the analogy. It’s become semantics.
Weird. I thought I was having a conversation with myself.
Quote: ChapzWeird. I thought I was having a conversation with myself.
Another elucidation of a facet of PW. Clever.
Quote: camz1969If gambler X is going to spend Y amount of dollars ANYWAY until he/she loses it all to -EV then PW type logic applies because there is no loss created from trying DI. The total loss from -EV is going to happen either way so DI itself has zero risk in that scenario. The loss really has zero connection to the DI itself. Like it was stated earlier, if they sit out some rolls DI actually becomes a gain as far as rate of loss. However, if gambler X "learns" DI to begin playing craps or plays MORE craps because they think it will work, it becomes a loss if they are wrong. So you're both right depending on the intentions of the gambler.
Spot on. Pascal's Wager is not the chips on the pass line but rather a supplemental bet 'placed' in the sense of making the effort to toss the dice in a controlled manner. If, as Camz points out, the DI mind-set does not induce Pascal to gamble a greater amount of $$, then the scenario matches the criteria of PW.
Now for next week's seminar on "Philosophy and Gambling" I would like to suggest the topic of Poker and the Open World Hypothesis.
I like that. If we are voting, I would toss in a session on Naïve Inductivism and Blackjack: Lessons from the Turkey in November.Quote: TumblingBonesSpot on. Pascal's Wager is not the chips on the pass line but rather a supplemental bet 'placed' in the sense of making the effort to toss the dice in a controlled manner. If, as Camz points out, the DI mind-set does not induce Pascal to gamble a greater amount of $$, then the scenario matches the criteria of PW.
Now for next week's seminar on "Philosophy and Gambling" I would like to suggest the topic of Poker and the Open World Hypothesis.
Quote: TumblingBonesSpot on. Pascal's Wager is not the chips on the pass line but rather a supplemental bet 'placed' in the sense of making the effort to toss the dice in a controlled manner. If, as Camz points out, the DI mind-set does not induce Pascal to gamble a greater amount of $$, then the scenario matches the criteria of PW.
Now for next week's seminar on "Philosophy and Gambling" I would like to suggest the topic of Poker and the Open World Hypothesis.
The slight difference between DI and Pascal's Wager (not that it's a bad comparison otherwise) is that one of the prepositions leading to Pascal's Wager is that he was absolutely going to die no matter what AND had no choice but to participate in the God/no God game, on the other hand, nobody has to play Craps.
Quote: Mission146Quote: TumblingBonesSpot on. Pascal's Wager is not the chips on the pass line but rather a supplemental bet 'placed' in the sense of making the effort to toss the dice in a controlled manner. If, as Camz points out, the DI mind-set does not induce Pascal to gamble a greater amount of $$, then the scenario matches the criteria of PW.
Now for next week's seminar on "Philosophy and Gambling" I would like to suggest the topic of Poker and the Open World Hypothesis.
The slight difference between DI and Pascal's Wager (not that it's a bad comparison otherwise) is that one of the prepositions leading to Pascal's Wager is that he was absolutely going to die no matter what AND had no choice but to participate in the God/no God game, on the other hand, nobody has to play Craps.
Pascal's Wager: "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
The problem with PW is it is false that you lose nothing. There is always an opportunity cost. For example if you believe God exists and you religiously attended church every Sun (even though you don't want to go at times) and it is later determined God does NOT exist, you just LOST the opportunity to have gone to a football game or a round of golf every Sunday.
Same with DI. I'm talking about DIs that purchase books, programs, classes, equipment and spend countless hours practicing and recording their throws on spreadsheets and videos. I'm not talking about the person that watches youtube videos or read blogs on DI and then decides to try it. Those people aren't really affecting the dice. That's like me watching a youtube video or reading a book on brain surgery and then calling myself a brain surgeon.
PW does not apply to casino games with (DI or not) because it clearly fails if you lose, you lose nothing.
If DI doesn't work, the real DI students lost money spent on books, classes, equipment, and hours of wasted practice. And they will have lost money on their wagers. And the 'well you're gonna lose money anyway, doesn't hurt to try DI" doesn't work either because you are assuming a random roll would have lost too. What if the DI roll lost, and the random roll won?
The only way to not lose is to not play.
Quote: ChumpChangeEverybody sets their dice to a flying-V, so I'll bet on the PB 6. Maybe it'll work.
And right behind you I throw a green chip in and yell "Lay the 6 for 24!" ;)
Quote: ChapzThe dice influence debate is over. Video proof is being uploaded on a weekly basis and proving it doesn't help you win more.
P.S. Am I allowed to post the videos?
Dice setting doesn't work, but I always do a quick set. Some players appreciate the effort.
Part 1 of 2: Random Roller vs Dice Setter
Quote: AxelWolfI think DI is bunk either way, however, I don't think videos showing results is a good measure, especially since videos can be cherry picked.
We would have to find a few people who the DI crowd are convinced are the best and have them roll a significant amount of rolls. That would end the debate one way or the other. OR JUST WATCH SOME SLOW MOTION VIDEOS.
This doesn't prove anything, but these dice look like they are glued together til they hit the table. It's in slow motion and looks pretty cool!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC-sHstkIHA
The thing that just blows me away is how much belief in obvious falsehood is going on here.
I used to do live-broadcasts from my craps table eight years ago from Vegas.
It's been so long that I have, honestly, forgotten about the obvious lacking of intelligence of the average "so-called DI."
It's NOT personal, but honestly, most people who believe in DI just are NOT that SMART.
#mostlyLosers
susceptible to joining a cult or similar group of like-thinking people who
believe in something that ignores important facts and/or logic.
While there is no reason to think that it is impossible to have some control
over dice results, there are many DI-related technical facts that they
simply find convenient to ignore.
For example: the smallest inaccuracy of an axial toss that results in a 4-3
rather than a preferred 3-3 is a distance of merely two die faces or
1.5 inches(using 3/4" dice and assuming an incredibly well-behaved toss).
Why would anyone think that their most frequent practice-table dice result of,
let's say, 5-4, would occur with equal frequency on an unfamiliar live casino
table environment where the table-length likely differs from one's practice
table environment by a couple inches or more. Not to mention that the depth
of the deck surface alone may differ from one's practice table by a couple
inches as well.
To let Bonetracker software find obscure dice sets that provide more
frequent desirable dice results from a series of practice-tosses is asking for
almost certain betting losses on an unfamiliar casino table. Of course, happy
variance can be the source of self-delusion about one's DI abilities, especially
when they are non-existent.
This fully supports the notion that dice setters often are complete morons. This guy is showing off, surely. Yet the dice bounce hard and then hit the rubber pyramids on the back wall. It is incredibly stupid to think that could result in anything but a random result. Youtube is full of these.Quote: YoyomamaThis doesn't prove anything, but these dice look like they are glued together til they hit the table. It's in slow motion and looks pretty cool!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC-sHstkIHA
That gives an SRR of 4 in spite of having control of one's own video recordings. If anything clearly supports Ahigh's arguments it is that video's creator ;-)
It is not surprising how poor his results are since the toss is clearly a tumbling disaster once the dice hit the deck. Looks photogenic up until then.
Quote: onebokIf you carefully and repeatedly stop-start this video you will notice that there were 3 sevens in approximately 12 tosses that you could discern by careful examination.
That gives an SRR of 4 in spite of having control of one's own video recordings. If anything clearly supports Ahigh's arguments it is that video's creator ;-)
It is not surprising how poor his results are since the toss is clearly a tumbling disaster once the dice hit the deck. Looks photogenic up until then.
Any conclusion made based on the opinion of the observer on what it "looks like" is generally suspect to be fallacy, IMO.
You need the law of large numbers and scientific experiments to form the kind of conclusions that would matter.
And with 100 rolls per hour as your mean fast-moving table, large numbers are just hard to come by.
It's all by design that you're going to be guessing on trends no matter how you slice it at the casino unless you really KNOW something.
And when it comes to epistemology, most can't spell the word, much less discuss the relevance of the notion.
100% true story. I won 3K not sure it had anything to do with the dice setting. But the nice person next to me called his host to the table and got me a comped room and the place was sold out. Maybe I'll keep practicing my Dice Set. lol
