Thread Rating:

Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
December 30th, 2020 at 4:54:45 PM permalink
There'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?
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22293
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
December 30th, 2020 at 5:36:08 PM permalink
Quote: Chapz

There'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?

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.

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.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 11006
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
December 31st, 2020 at 5:16:57 AM permalink
Quote: Chapz

P.S. Am I allowed to post the videos?

As a new user here, your options may be limited.

However, videos can be imbedded in posts rather easily with YouTube tags:
[youtube=____]
Just fill in the video痴 ID number.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ 覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧 Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 4918
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
December 31st, 2020 at 5:54:46 AM permalink
I saw one video of Hawaiian sharpshooters who were going to have a long rollers tournament. They didn't fare well on camera, subject to the same point 7-outs as the rest of us. But they were supposed to play through the weekend and the top winners were expected to roll between 40 to 70 rolls on a turn.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
December 31st, 2020 at 8:09:51 AM permalink
My pet peeve with DIs is their condescending attitude with random rollers. They pull their bets or go on the darkside once they identify a random roller. All these live videos do is expose them for not being any better than a random roller.

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.
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2428
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
December 31st, 2020 at 1:34:43 PM permalink
I always assumed "dice setters" were "random rollers". If my assumption is wrong, there has never been a good piece of evidence to dispute it.
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 4918
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
December 31st, 2020 at 1:49:57 PM permalink
Don't hop the 7's if it's not a come out roll, unless you have over $10,000 in chips and you can't think to tip the dealers.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
December 31st, 2020 at 4:32:10 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

I 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.
pwcrabb
pwcrabb
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 185
Joined: May 15, 2010
December 31st, 2020 at 11:34:44 PM permalink
A significant test of Dice Inflluence must include a large sample of dice rolls. I would insist upon a minimum of 3600 rolls. No such video would be endurable.

A combination of wishful thought, determined effort, and clustered random favorable outcomes provides fertile ground for selective memory.
"I suppose I was mad. Every great genius is mad upon the subject in which he is greatest. The unsuccessful madman is disgraced and called a lunatic." Fitz-James O'Brien, The Diamond Lens (1858)
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 4918
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
January 1st, 2021 at 12:47:29 PM permalink
Dice Influencers may only shoot 7's on the come-out and their turn never ends.
Ahigh
Ahigh
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 5197
Joined: May 19, 2010
January 16th, 2021 at 6:25:53 AM permalink
Quote: Chapz

There'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.
aahigh.com
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 528
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
Thanked by
unJonYoyomama
January 17th, 2021 at 11:14:53 AM permalink
My take on the DI controversy: Pascal's Wager
My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
January 17th, 2021 at 12:59:52 PM permalink
Quote: TumblingBones

My 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.
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 528
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
January 17th, 2021 at 1:41:15 PM permalink
Quote: Chapz

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.



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.
My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 4918
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
January 17th, 2021 at 1:51:50 PM permalink
Is 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.
DeMango
DeMango
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 2958
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
Thanked by
Johnzimboodiousgambitdcjohn
January 17th, 2021 at 3:20:35 PM permalink
Quote: ChumpChange

Is 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痴 in a row.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 4918
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
January 17th, 2021 at 4:48:23 PM permalink
People are struggling to hit their 3 hard way parleys.
Yoyomama
Yoyomama
  • Threads: 47
  • Posts: 208
Joined: Oct 11, 2010
January 17th, 2021 at 5:26:34 PM permalink
Quote: TumblingBones

My 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.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
January 17th, 2021 at 5:50:42 PM permalink
Quote: TumblingBones

I 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?
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 528
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
January 18th, 2021 at 5:45:54 AM permalink
Quote: Chapz

Quote: TumblingBones

I 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: Pascal

But 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.
My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
January 18th, 2021 at 7:02:48 AM permalink
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.
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 528
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
January 18th, 2021 at 7:27:20 AM permalink
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.
My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
January 18th, 2021 at 8:31:27 AM permalink
Quote: TumblingBones

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.



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.
unJon
unJon
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 4655
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
January 18th, 2021 at 10:57:59 AM permalink
Quote: Chapz

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痴 not missing the point. You keep misconstruing what he is saying.

He痴 saying that if someone is going to play craps, you might as well set the dice and try DI. At worst it doesn稚 change your outcome.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
January 18th, 2021 at 11:27:54 AM permalink
Quote: unJon

He痴 not missing the point. You keep misconstruing what he is saying.

He痴 saying that if someone is going to play craps, you might as well set the dice and try DI. At worst it doesn稚 change your outcome.



No, at worst you lose your wager.

Pascal's Wager says if you lose, you lose nothing.
unJon
unJon
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 4655
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
January 18th, 2021 at 11:28:50 AM permalink
Quote: Chapz

No, ar worst you lose your wager.

Pascal's Wager says if you lose, you lose nothing..



Lol. Keep carrying on the conversation with yourself.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
camz1969
camz1969
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 42
Joined: Dec 6, 2016
Thanked by
TumblingBones
January 19th, 2021 at 3:27:40 PM permalink
I have never played craps but I'll put some clarity into this PW debate. The reason you two are disagreeing is it depends on what gambler X will do anyway. If 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.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
January 19th, 2021 at 3:54:13 PM permalink
My point from the start is you can't apply Pascal's Wager to known events like casino games or craps. The probabilities are known and there is no potential for a fat tailed event or black swan event.

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."
camz1969
camz1969
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 42
Joined: Dec 6, 2016
January 19th, 2021 at 4:17:11 PM permalink
Your belief is that DI is a known then (in that it will never work). The only known is the -EV on a completely random game of craps which can be tested with a computer simulation but if someone can actually control dice then it can absolutely be +EV and you cannot prove that nobody is capable of it. You would have to get all 8 billion people in the world to try to control dice for a number of trials that is statistically significant. Even then, people that have died already or people that will be born in the future may be capable. On this note though, I am assuming we're talking about the current tables with the spikes...I remember watching a documentary a while back about somebody or a team that was able to DI on the old flat sides. They even got banned and all. It's been a while though so I'd have to search it down again. To keep it simple, we're talking with spikes. Again, the funny part is I could care less about craps and personally very skeptical about DI with the current tables but it's interesting conversation. The bottom line is if I tell you I am going to blow my whole life savings on craps either way...there is no loss to adding DI. The loss is 100% on my decision to blow all of my money on a known -EV game. Adding DI does not change my result at all but adds that tiny possibility I can actually turn it +EV and make a lot of money. Now, if you buy a table, practice all day every day, etc...those are costs but again my point is the debate depends on the details of the scenario. You don't have to do anything but try to DI next time you play craps if you were going to play anyway.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
January 19th, 2021 at 4:38:56 PM permalink
I do believe people can influence the dice...... by not hitting the spikes. In other words, they are cheating at craps by short rolling.

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?
camz1969
camz1969
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 42
Joined: Dec 6, 2016
January 19th, 2021 at 4:56:02 PM permalink
I agree. I was just putting clarity into the Pascal's Wager debate in that you were both right depending on all of the details of the individual gambler. It could apply or it could not. As far as craps though, yea I don't think you can ever overcome the spikes and all casinos will make you hit them as far as I know which is why I have no interest in craps and stick to blackjack. I will say this though...if I actually realized I could control the dice with the spikes I would not tell anybody except for a trusted few if I needed a team. Lol
camz1969
camz1969
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 42
Joined: Dec 6, 2016
January 19th, 2021 at 5:08:45 PM permalink
Well, 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.
unJon
unJon
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 4655
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
January 19th, 2021 at 5:16:47 PM permalink
Quote: camz1969

Well, 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痴 not worth it. He doesn稚 want to see the analogy. It痴 become semantics.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
January 19th, 2021 at 6:16:26 PM permalink
Quote: unJon

It痴 not worth it. He doesn稚 want to see the analogy. It痴 become semantics.



Weird. I thought I was having a conversation with myself.
unJon
unJon
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 4655
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
January 19th, 2021 at 7:09:47 PM permalink
Quote: Chapz

Weird. I thought I was having a conversation with myself.



Another elucidation of a facet of PW. Clever.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 528
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
January 20th, 2021 at 7:25:56 AM permalink
Quote: camz1969

If 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.
My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.
unJon
unJon
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 4655
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
Thanked by
TumblingBones
January 20th, 2021 at 7:34:11 AM permalink
Quote: TumblingBones

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.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 528
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
January 20th, 2021 at 8:14:53 AM permalink
An excellent session suggestion but I fear we must first address a taxonomic issue: under which forum topic would "Philosophy and Gambling" threads go? None of the existing ones fit.
My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
January 21st, 2021 at 2:07:44 PM permalink
Quote: TumblingBones

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.



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.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
Thanked by
Mission146
January 21st, 2021 at 5:09:59 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Quote: TumblingBones

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.



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.
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 4918
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
January 21st, 2021 at 5:20:31 PM permalink
Everybody sets their dice to a flying-V, so I'll bet on the PB 6. Maybe it'll work.
Chapz
Chapz
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
January 21st, 2021 at 5:24:31 PM permalink
Quote: ChumpChange

Everybody 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!" ;)
Tanko
Tanko
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1200
Joined: Apr 22, 2013
January 22nd, 2021 at 3:29:34 AM permalink
Quote: Chapz

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?



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

Yoyomama
Yoyomama
  • Threads: 47
  • Posts: 208
Joined: Oct 11, 2010
January 22nd, 2021 at 5:11:54 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

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.

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
Last edited by: Yoyomama on Jan 22, 2021
Ahigh
Ahigh
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 5197
Joined: May 19, 2010
Thanked by
RogerKint
January 22nd, 2021 at 2:20:02 PM permalink
Generally speaking, people who believe in being able to get an advantage by throwing the dice in a particular way are below the intelligence level of the average population. That being said, a small percentage of these people are correct, IMO. And even out of those who are correct that they have a mathematical advantage, most of THEM, still, despite any advantage to a shot per the math, lose.

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
aahigh.com
onebok
onebok
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 72
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
January 31st, 2021 at 5:44:11 PM permalink
There is a similarity between average "so-called DI"'s and those who are
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.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
  • Threads: 327
  • Posts: 9618
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
February 1st, 2021 at 1:16:41 PM permalink
Quote: Yoyomama

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

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.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: 典hanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
onebok
onebok
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 72
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
Thanked by
odiousgambit
February 1st, 2021 at 2:56:56 PM permalink
If 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.
Ahigh
Ahigh
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 5197
Joined: May 19, 2010
February 15th, 2021 at 11:03:29 AM permalink
Quote: onebok

If 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.
aahigh.com
HiOpt2Poor
HiOpt2Poor
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 8
Joined: Mar 28, 2021
Thanked by
Mission146Taxreform
March 31st, 2021 at 11:11:17 PM permalink
I had an excellent win dice setting a couple weeks back.

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
  • Jump to: