Thread Rating:

Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 5139
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.
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 437
Thanks for this post from:
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
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 23
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.
"To beat a random game you have to be good at being random."
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 437
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 
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 1950
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
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2665
Thanks for this post from:
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 Yos 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 
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 1950
January 17th, 2021 at 4:48:23 PM permalink
People are struggling to hit their 3 hard way parleys.
Yoyomama
Yoyomama
Joined: Oct 11, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 171
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
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 23
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?
"To beat a random game you have to be good at being random."
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 437
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.

  • Jump to: