GOODSHOOTER.COM
The bottom line was that DI, DC and setting were NOT cheating as long as:
1. The dice flew in the air
2. The dice bounced on the table surface at least once
3. The dice hit, but didnt have to bounce off, the back wall
Copher said dice setting and an attempt at a controlled or influenced roll were "an expected part of the game."
And if anyone wants to challenge my memory on this I can pull up the article that I also had on my website from the Way Back Machine.
So... let's not have any crazy arguments about DIs and DCs cheating.
Or... go call the NGC yourself. They take calls 24/7.
I believe all of that. Why would anybody not?Quote: AlanMendelsonYears ago when I was a reporter at KCAL-TV I interviewed Keith Copher who was chief of enforcement with the NGC about dice setting, controlled throws, DI and all the rest of it.
The bottom line was that DI, DC and setting were NOT cheating as long as:
1. The dice flew in the air
2. The dice bounced on the table surface at least once
3. The dice hit, but didnt have to bounce off, the back wall
Copher said dice setting and an attempt at a controlled or influenced roll were "an expected part of the game."
And if anyone wants to challenge my memory on this I can pull up the article that I also had on my website from the Way Back Machine.
So... let's not have any crazy arguments about DIs and DCs cheating.
Or... go call the NGC yourself. They take calls 24/7.
link to original post
Because years ago the anti setting crowd called it cheating because they claimed it was an attempt to alter the odds of the game.
The Internet yelling went on and on till Copher went on the record with me.
Quote: OnceDearHmmmm. So.... Shaking the dice and recanting a secret prayer is cheating? Having the hot brunette blow on the dice is cheating?. Both attempts to influence the odds. And people argued about that. LMAO. I really need to study this game. Sounds like fun.
link to original post
I'm not an expert in the law, but NOBODY that I know of even suggested that any legal process to play the game (as described by Alan) constitutes cheating.
This entire discussion began as a result of Axel's comments that you can AP any table game, in general. My suggestion is that one should be careful talking about methods to gain an advantage that might work at any casino table game in general because of the probability that such a discussion may cross the legal line into criminal activity in the state of Nevada (given the qualification that it hinges upon a human-operated game, for example).
I am not an attorney nor do I specialize in law. I am merely suggesting caution to anyone who wishes to display impunity towards ANY law ESPECIALLY if it relates to the "gaming industry," and also making the point that it's your job to know the law and to stay out of trouble. Not anyone else.
Quote: OnceDearHmmmm. So.... Shaking the dice and recanting a secret prayer is cheating? Having the hot brunette blow on the dice is cheating?. Both attempts to influence the odds. And people argued about that. LMAO. I really need to study this game. Sounds like fun.
link to original post
Blowing on the dice is not cheating, in my book.
Putting her lipstick on the dice might be.
Quote: DieterBlowing on the dice is not cheating, in my book.
Putting her lipstick on the dice might be.
link to original post
Good point about a sticky substance.
I probably can't beat that.Quote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfI can't top it in craps, but I can blow it out of the water if we take it to the poker room.Quote: heatmapIve had dice thrown at me top that one...
link to original post
link to original post
I had a drunk rush me at the Taj poker room in the 90s. I tackled him into a half chokehold and he proceeded to bite a piece of my skin on my wrist off before security for there. I still have an itty bitty scar.
link to original post
Your advantage is not coming from the game itself, that's just not possible on any -EV game. The money you make comes from the casino marketing you and promotions.Quote: lilredroosterQuote: AxelWolf
He said nothing about a controlled throw. One can absolutely get an advantage while playing craps(even you Alan). I don't know what they could make per year if they went full-blown, or how scalable it is. Here's the problem, most of the guys that are really into craps aren't interested in doing what it takes to gain an advantage. The guys that have what it takes and the knowledge are probably using that information to get a much better earn by avoiding craps. FYI, I'm talking live tables only.
link to original post
please explain - I don't know any way to get an advantage at craps
unless it's some kind of secret that shouldn't be made public for some reason
.
link to original post
I'm not going to debate DI or other posable methods that involve hustling other players for tips or buying out bets that have an advantage. None of those things seem very realistic.
Let's ask my wife if haveing a brunette blow on my dice is cheating or not.Quote: OnceDearHaving the hot brunette blow on the dice is cheating?.
Nothing I was thinking of involved any cheating. I do not consider anything illegal a legitimate way of gaining an advantage or Advantage Play. I guess there are some grey areas and technicalities I would consider Advantage Play. I.e. If I were to make a +EV sports bet with a bookie, I would call that Advantage Play, even though it's probably illegal. Making cards or rigging a slot machine, I would not consider Advantage Play.Quote: AhighQuote: lilredroosterplease explain - I don't know any way to get an advantage at craps
unless it's some kind of secret that shouldn't be made public for some reason
Note this point from shouselaw who specializes in cases involving charges from NRS anti-cheating laws.Quote: https://www.shouselaw.com/Also note that a defendant may be convicted of cheating even if he/she merely attempted to cheat or conspired to cheat. It does not matter whether the accused actually carried out the cheating or whether he/she personally played the gambling game.
Simply describing a process that might work could land you in jail.
Everyone who talks on this message forum should ALWAYS be concerned about the law more than ANY other guideline for behavior on this forum. I have been all over the internet to see good people commiting crimes in ignorance of the law where the law is blind.
link to original post
how did you get an advantage? I'm assuming you don't mean just getting over-comped. I can pull that off too.Quote: AhighPlaying with an advantage and beating the game are two independent things.
I believe that I demonstrated an ability to play with an advantage, and at my bet levels, it allowed me to profit playing for 1-hour per day for approximately a year,
otherwise I'm OK with these comments up to hereQuote:... but just like the house-edge for perfect play it is nothing compared to volatility of larger-action, and to wade through the volatility to get to the edge is EXTREMELY unlikely ....
Well, what's this about? Bonehead other players cramping your style? Or dealers preventing you from winning? All because they're dumb, low IQ jerks? You gotta explain.Quote:given the target demographic's (of the game of craps) average IQ.
you might elaborateQuote:The other thing that I learned in doing this play is that dealers really don't like being required to do their job for such little tips as is required to pull this off at low bet-denominations.
You need to elaborate, because it sounds like you believe one of two things:Quote:It's just generally-speaking, next-to-impossible to gain an advantage through a lifetime-of-play on craps.
But for a given roll, advantages CAN be had. And therein lies the attraction. Especially for big betters who believe in good shooters.
*your dice setting works when you can get everybody else in line
*any shooter can be the hot shooter if you can identify him
You do realize this contradicts your previous statement, unless you mean something like, Ivey was making the right move selecting me but those dumb, low IQ dealers messed it all up.Quote:Phil Ivey lost $1,000,000 during a session when he paid $100 to have me shoot.
link to original post
just about everybody knows that casinos may sometimes thru comps or promos give a player more than he is likely to lose on his trip
that often hinges on calculating what they give you based on their retail prices - and that is dubious
I wouldn't consider their $400 per night hotel rooms worth anywhere near that - the same applies to their $75 dinners
although technically I can see how that could be considered advantage play I don't really consider it as such
to me, advantage play is when you beat the game itself for $$$
.
I'm excluding RFB comps from the equation. Free bets, free play, certain gift cards and other things like free tournament entries all = cash.Quote: lilredrooster_________
just about everybody knows that casinos may sometimes thru comps or promos give a player more than he is likely to lose on his trip
that often hinges on calculating what they give you based on their retail prices - and that is dubious
I wouldn't consider their $400 per night hotel rooms worth anywhere near that - the same applies to their $75 dinners
although technically I can see how that could be considered advantage play I don't really consider it as such
to me, advantage play is when you beat the game itself for $$$
.
link to original post
Many casinos will give you well above your expected loss in the form of those things. Obviously, they are not going to let you scale up past a certain point and do it all day long. Offers will dry up if you don't play your dice right and learn the system. Even then things change but, there are many casinos you can hop around to since you can't just park yourself at one location all day getting +EV.
it's work moving around from location to location while carefully figuring out the right amount of action needed to be profitable.
Quote: Ahigh
https://imgur.com/a/kHneBMQ
https://imgur.com/a/hpXggRL
link to original post
Harassment by PM. Seven-day suspension.
Quote: AlanMendelsonBecause years ago the anti setting crowd called it cheating because they claimed it was an attempt to alter the odds of the game.
No, the argument went as follows: If dice setting worked as claimed, it would be cheating as there would not be a random roll.
It doesn't, so it isn't.
Quote: MrVQuote: AlanMendelsonBecause years ago the anti setting crowd called it cheating because they claimed it was an attempt to alter the odds of the game.
No, the argument went as follows: If dice setting worked as claimed, it would be cheating as there would not be a random roll.
It doesn't, so it isn't.
link to original post
No. Dice setting and controlled throws are an expected part of the game. ~ Nevada Gaming Commission
From a report I did years ago:
The former Chief of Enforcement of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, Keith Copher, has given extensive interviews on the subject of the legality of dice control. He has called setting the dice and "controlled shooting" an "expected part of the game" and a legal way to play.
I spoke with him shortly before his retirement several years ago. Here are some exact questions about dice control and his answers:
Q: "Does the Gaming Commission recognize the efficacy of so-called 'dice setting' by gamblers as a means to reliably produce non-random results of dice throws, in the same way it recognizes the efficacy of dice sliding?"
A: "Sliding (dice) is illegal because in sliding they don't bounce or roll the dice, and the dice don't bounce off the back wall. In sliding the same numbers are always known, and that's cheating. But if the dice bounce and hit the back wall that's okay and they can set them (the dice) any way they want to. The difference with a controlled throw is that there is still a bounce and the dice are in the air."
Q: "Does the Gaming Commission then consider 'dice setting' to fall under the definition of 'cheating'"?
A: "No, as long as the dice fly in the air, bounce on the table, and hit the back wall. In some cases the casinos are lenient about the dice not hitting the back wall, and these are still legal throws, no cheating."
Q: "Why is dice sliding banned, but dice setting not banned, if both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?"
A: "Dice sliding is a method of cheating, but as long as dice fly in the air, bounce and hit the back wall it doesn't matter how they are set. It's not cheating as long as the dice fly in the air and bounce."
Those are YOUR words, not his, at least based on what you quoted above.
Fact is, he's telling you in a round about way that dice setting does NOT work, therefore they allow it.
Quote: MrVYour expert did NOT say dice setting was an effective means to alter the random outcome of the dice.
Those are YOUR words, not his, at least based on what you puoted above.
Fact is, he's telling you in a round about way that dice setting does NOT work, therefore they allow it.
link to original post
Let's let everyone call the NGC. They're open 24/7 and will take calls from the public.
The phone number for 24/7 access is 702-486-2020
You've been on my case since AOL had its rec gambling craps newsgroup. That has to be 20+ years.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MrVYour expert did NOT say dice setting was an effective means to alter the random outcome of the dice.
Those are YOUR words, not his, at least based on what you puoted above.
Fact is, he's telling you in a round about way that dice setting does NOT work, therefore they allow it.
link to original post
Let's let everyone call the NGC. They're open 24/7 and will take calls from the public.
The phone number for 24/7 access is 702-486-2020
You've been on my case since AOL had its rec gambling craps newsgroup. That has to be 20+ years.
link to original post
Why would I need to make a phone call? Dice setting does not alter the random nature of the results. So it is legal. Are you arguing that anything I just stated is not true?
That's the crux.
Looks to me like you're trying to put words into his mouth that never crossed his mind.
Bottom line:
If it works: Ban Hammer.
If not: let the sheeple play.
Quote: MrVYour expert did NOT say dice setting was an effective means to alter the random outcome of the dice.
Those are YOUR words, not his, at least based on what you quoted above.
Fact is, he's telling you in a round about way that dice setting does NOT work, therefore they allow it.
link to original post
You are correct. That are saying setting, controlling, influencing doesn't alter the odds, so it's not cheating and they don't care about it.
ZCore13
Do you see, Mr. M?
The people have spoken, and your argument is made of tissue paper.
Move on ...
I estimate there are about two people total that could ever accomplish acquiring an exact replica of a table and then have the dedication to do what it takes in order to gain a slight advantage.
How dice are thrown does not alter the odds. There are six faces on two dice. The math defines the odds.
Do you see, Mr. V?
Quote: MrVMr. M, Where does your expert state that dice setting is an EFFECTIVE MEANS to alter the random outcome?
I never said it did nor was the question asked.
The point is the NGC has no rule against dice setting or a controlled throw.
Dice setting and/or a controlled throw does not alter the odds because the odds are determined by the combinations of the faces of two dice.
You have a 1/36 chance of rolling midnight whether you're a dice setter/controller or not.
However if you're a dice slider you might have a 100% chance of getting a 12. Know any good dice sliders?
https://youtu.be/wPkgvNV_IuE
Quote: SOOPOODice setting does not alter the random nature of the results. So it is legal. Are you arguing that anything I just stated is not true?
link to original post
I'm afraid your concept of what is legal and what is not legal is wrong.
There are no rules against altering a random nature of results. If there were such a law using video poker strategy cards would be illegal as would card counting in blackjack be illegal.
What the NGC governs is the minimum return on games. In Nevada the minimum return is 75% and that holds true for machines and table games. (For table games it pertains to the average of all bets.)
If you dont believe call the NGC and ask them.
There is no rule against dice setting because the casinos view it the same as blowing on the dice: a superstitious affectation.
But now you are shifting to dice sliding, which is a completely different thing altogether.
Oh wait a minute, I think I see the semantic game you are playing here: you claim the NGC expert told you that dice setting (NOT dice sliding) is an "effective means of dice control."
I ask because your original post implies that is in fact what he told you.
Did he actually say that dice setting was in fact "an effective means of dice control?"
I am certain he said no such thing; I suppose the chances I am wrong on this are equivalent to the chances of me seeing a random roller toll eighteen yo's in a row.
Quote: MrVOf course I understand how "the pips tell the tale."
There is no rule against dice setting because the casinos view it the same as blowing on the dice: a superstitious affectation.
But now you are shifting to dice sliding, which is a completely different thing altogether.
Oh wait a minute, I think I see the semantic game you are playing here: you claim the NGC expert told you that dice setting (NOT dice sliding) is an "effective means of dice control."
I ask because your original post implies that is in fact what he told you.
Did he actually say that dice setting was in fact "an effective means of dice control?"
I am certain he said no such thing; I suppose the chances I am wrong on this are equivalent to the chances of me seeing a random roller toll eighteen yo's in a row.
link to original post
I don't understand you. You seem to be creating a dialogue that did not happen. I posted the transcribed questions and answers.
Whatever, move on.
Quote: MrVYes, and it does not seem to support your claim.
Whatever, move on.
link to original post
What claim?
The only thing I said was that DI/DC/Setting was not illegal. It was the anti setting crowd on RCG that came up with some allegation that setting and DI were illegal because they altered the odds of the game.
All I did was confirm with the NGC Enforcement Chief that it was not illegal and it was an expected part of the game.
That's the story.
No, I was admonishing you for attempting to put your own words in your expert's mouth; words he never spoke.
When comparing dice setting to dice sliding, you asserted, while framing a question to him: "both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice..."
He never said that dice setting was an effective means to alter the random outcome of dice, nor did he imply it; you created that calumny out of whole cloth.
But hey, that's modern day "journalism," eh?
But I have made my point and once again this hoary chestnut begs to be put to rest; but if care to shoot another volley across the net I'll be happy to return it.
Quote: MrVWrong claim: but I recall it, and responding "Casinos allow it because they've concluded it doesn't work."
No, I was admonishing you for attempting to put your own words in your expert's mouth; words he never spoke.
When comparing dice setting to dice sliding, you asserted, while framing a question to him: "both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice..."
He never said that dice setting was an effective means to alter the random outcome of dice, nor did he imply it; you created that calumny out of whole cloth.
But hey, that's modern day "journalism," eh?
But I have made my point and once again this hoary chestnut begs to be put to rest; but if care to shoot another volley across the net I'll be happy to return it.
link to original post
I gave a transcript of exactly what was said.
The subject of dice setting as an effective way to alter the outcome of dice WAS NOT discussed.
The subject of the interview was whether dice setting was legal.
You are creating a conversation that did not happen. Stop it. My interview was ONLY about legality and NOT about effectiveness. STOP persuing this line of discussion. It didnt happen.
Here is the exact transcript again. YOUR QUOTE DOES NOT APPEAR IN THIS TRANSCRIPT. YOUR ALLEGED CONVERSATION DOES NOT APPEAR IN THIS TRANSCRIPT.
Quote: AlanMendelson[Q: "Does the Gaming Commission recognize the efficacy of so-called 'dice setting' by gamblers as a means to reliably produce non-random results of dice throws, in the same way it recognizes the efficacy of dice sliding?"
A: "Sliding (dice) is illegal because in sliding they don't bounce or roll the dice, and the dice don't bounce off the back wall. In sliding the same numbers are always known, and that's cheating. But if the dice bounce and hit the back wall that's okay and they can set them (the dice) any way they want to. The difference with a controlled throw is that there is still a bounce and the dice are in the air."
Q: "Does the Gaming Commission then consider 'dice setting' to fall under the definition of 'cheating'"?
A: "No, as long as the dice fly in the air, bounce on the table, and hit the back wall. In some cases the casinos are lenient about the dice not hitting the back wall, and these are still legal throws, no cheating."
Q: "Why is dice sliding banned, but dice setting not banned, if both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?"
A: "Dice sliding is a method of cheating, but as long as dice fly in the air, bounce and hit the back wall it doesn't matter how they are set. It's not cheating as long as the dice fly in the air and bounce."
link to original post
You're trolling me... just as you have for 20 years.
Not only am I fully aware of the transcript, I quoted portions of it to support my argument, to wit:
"Q: "Why is dice sliding banned, but dice setting not banned, if both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?"
Did he EVER agree with YOUR assertion, the one you seem intent on ascribing to him, that dice setting is considered by the casinos to be an effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?
Based on what you posted of the conversation he never stated or implied that, so I have to wonder why you bothered to include that little gem?
Oh, what you call "trolling you" I identify as "correcting / arguing with you" as some of your prior claims and assertions have been, shall we say, controversial.
Old adage, and one I suggest you take to heart: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MrVWrong claim: but I recall it, and responding "Casinos allow it because they've concluded it doesn't work."
No, I was admonishing you for attempting to put your own words in your expert's mouth; words he never spoke.
When comparing dice setting to dice sliding, you asserted, while framing a question to him: "both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice..."
He never said that dice setting was an effective means to alter the random outcome of dice, nor did he imply it; you created that calumny out of whole cloth.
But hey, that's modern day "journalism," eh?
But I have made my point and once again this hoary chestnut begs to be put to rest; but if care to shoot another volley across the net I'll be happy to return it.
link to original post
I gave a transcript of exactly what was said.
The subject of dice setting as an effective way to alter the outcome of dice WAS NOT discussed.
The subject of the interview was whether dice setting was legal.
You are creating a conversation that did not happen. Stop it. My interview was ONLY about legality and NOT about effectiveness. STOP persuing this line of discussion. It didnt happen.
Here is the exact transcript again. YOUR QUOTE DOES NOT APPEAR IN THIS TRANSCRIPT. YOUR ALLEGED CONVERSATION DOES NOT APPEAR IN THIS TRANSCRIPT.Quote: AlanMendelson[Q: "Does the Gaming Commission recognize the efficacy of so-called 'dice setting' by gamblers as a means to reliably produce non-random results of dice throws, in the same way it recognizes the efficacy of dice sliding?"
A: "Sliding (dice) is illegal because in sliding they don't bounce or roll the dice, and the dice don't bounce off the back wall. In sliding the same numbers are always known, and that's cheating. But if the dice bounce and hit the back wall that's okay and they can set them (the dice) any way they want to. The difference with a controlled throw is that there is still a bounce and the dice are in the air."
Q: "Does the Gaming Commission then consider 'dice setting' to fall under the definition of 'cheating'"?
A: "No, as long as the dice fly in the air, bounce on the table, and hit the back wall. In some cases the casinos are lenient about the dice not hitting the back wall, and these are still legal throws, no cheating."
Q: "Why is dice sliding banned, but dice setting not banned, if both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?"
A: "Dice sliding is a method of cheating, but as long as dice fly in the air, bounce and hit the back wall it doesn't matter how they are set. It's not cheating as long as the dice fly in the air and bounce."
link to original post
You're trolling me... just as you have for 20 years.
link to original post
Pretty poor interview if you didn't follow up with a question asking if they ever seen any proof of a controlled/set/influenced situation that changes the house edge.
ZCore13
Quote: MrV"both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice..."
Now allow me to refresh your memory. The questions were actually suggested by members of the rec.gambling.craps newsgroup when I announced that I had an interview coming up with Keith Copher. Those particular questions were NOT worded by me. To clear up the issue on the RCG newsgroup I asked the group members to give me the precise wording for the questions. And those precise questions were given to Copher.
I also interviewed Copher about other issues outside of this one.
Quote: AlanMendelsonMr V where in my transcript does this quote appear?
It is in a question you asked him.
YOU are the one saying that "both are considered effective ..."
That is not the case; few if any long time craps players, especially those poor saps who paid GTC and other such "dice shooting schools" would agree.
The expert avoided responding to your claim, at least in the portion you quoted, perhaps out of politeness.
But please clarify: at any time did the expert agree with your opinion and affirmatively state that the casinos believe that dice setting, as actually observed in Las Vegas casinos, is considered an effective means to alter the random outcome of dice...?"
I think not, and THAT is my point.
I’m sure he saw the guy successfully ‘control the dice’ right after he saw 18 yo’s in a row…..
1. Efficacy does not mean 100%. The efficacy of a slide is not the efficacy of a throw (in craps) and the efficacy of the Moderna vaccine is not the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine in stopping Covid.
You interpret efficacy to have one value.
2. I asked the question supplied by RCG. Frankly, I don't talk that way.
3. What do you want from me? I'm on the record saying I've only seen two and possibly three shooters who I think have what can be described as a controlled throw. I am not one of them. I've only said it doesnt hurt to try.
Why dont you carry on your campaign against DI and DC without me.
My only concern is pointing out DC and DI are not illegal.
And you manufactured a quote I did not say. MODERATORS TAKE NOTE. I WAS MISQUOTED.
Stop trolling me.
Quote: SOOPOOI believe (not 100% sure) that AM has stated that he has seen a few (at least one?) rollers that DID ‘control the dice’ effectively using ‘dice setting’. If he did say that, how could he NOT ask the Gaming Guy about it? I mean, it’s not just someone else who saw successful DI, it was AM himself!
I’m sure he saw the guy successfully ‘control the dice’ right after he saw 18 yo’s in a row…..
link to original post
I didnt ask because whether or not Keith Copher believed in DI/DC was not the issue. The issue was the legality of setting dice.
What MrV is not saying is that there was a member of RGC who opposed DI and said that if DI worked it should be considered illegal because it altered the odds of the game.
This comment was faulty on two grounds:
First the odds of the game are determined by the combinations of two dice and their payoffs. Its math and has nothing to do with how the dice are thrown.
Second the NGC Chief of Enforcement said dice setting was an expected part of the game.
V has been trolling me for 20 years over this and will not stop.
So now I have a question for V:
Do you accept that setting dice is LEGAL?
Answer the question please MrV.
Quote: AlanMendelsonMODERATORS TAKE NOTE. I WAS MISQUOTED.
link to original post
Noted. I don't see it. Sorry.
Combatants take note:
Relax and fight nicely, please.
I requoted YOU when you told the expert, presumably expecting him to agree with you that: "... both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?"
As for your query: I said it before and I'll say it again: yes, DI is legal because the casinos believe it does NOT work to alter the expected odds / outcomes of the game; if they felt it did, it would be barred.
It's like holding a rabbits foot while rolling dem bones, but with no risk of offending PETA.
Quote: MrVMisquoted?
I requoted YOU when you told the expert, presumably expecting him to agree with you that: "... both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?"
As for your query: I said it before and I'll say it again: yes, DI is legal because the casinos believe it does NOT work to alter the expected odds / outcomes of the game; if they felt it did, it would be barred.
It's like holding a rabbits foot while rolling dem bones, but with no risk of offending PETA.
link to original post
SHOW WHERE I SAID "BOTH ARE CONSIDERED EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ALTER THE RANDOM OUTCOME OF DICE."
Show it. You can't because I didnt say it.
I used the word "efficacy" and efficacy has a scale of effectiveness. You not only misquoted me but you used an incorrect definition of the meaning of efficacy to alter the meaning of the question... and a question that was submitted by the RGC newsgroup.
Now V do you accept that DI and DC are legal?
Quote: AlanMendelson
SHOW WHERE I SAID "BOTH ARE CONSIDERED EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ALTER THE RANDOM OUTCOME OF DICE."
Show it. You can't because I didnt say it.
link to original post
AHEM.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/dice-setting/23803-ngc-and-dice-setting/#post488149
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/dice-setting/36019-goodshooter-com/2/#post827910
Quote: DieterQuote: AlanMendelson
SHOW WHERE I SAID "BOTH ARE CONSIDERED EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ALTER THE RANDOM OUTCOME OF DICE."
Show it. You can't because I didnt say it.
link to original post
AHEM.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/dice-setting/23803-ngc-and-dice-setting/#post488149
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/dice-setting/36019-goodshooter-com/2/#post827910
link to original post
Look up the definition of the word efficacy.
Efficacy does not mean 100% effectiveness.
"Efficacy?"
Quote: MrVDI is permitted / is "legal" only because the casinos believe it does not affect their anticipated edge against the player.
"Efficacy?"
link to original post
You have a question about efficacy?
Here's a question for you and everyone.
Do you consider the efficacy of a dice slide equal to the efficacy of two dice that are thrown in the air and bounce on the table before hitting the back wall?
Do both deliveries of two dice have the same efficacy?
Quote: AlanMendelsonYou have a question about efficacy?
No, I only question why you are attempting to put words in my mouth.
I quoted YOU when YOU used the word "effective."
I did not say "efficacy."
