GOODSHOOTER.COM
Quote: MrVQuote: 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."
link to original post
Another false statement. I used efficacy. I did not use effective.
Everyone can see what I said here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/dice-setting/36019-goodshooter-com/2/#post827910
Quote: AlanMendelson
Another false statement. I used efficacy. I did not use effective.
link to original post
Quote: AlanMendelson
Q: "Why is dice sliding banned, but dice setting not banned, if both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?"
link to original post
Quote: AlanMendelson
Q: "Why is dice sliding banned, but dice setting not banned, if both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?"
link to original post
Setting dice not illegal. If, hypothetically, I can influence the dice while setting and throwing (not sliding) and hitting back wall: not illegal. If I did it enough that casinos knew I was influencing outcomes (“efficacy”) they would change rules (maybe make me hit diamonds or two walls): still not illegal, but casino might 86 me from craps if I didn’t follow new rule.
AM and Mr V agree on all above. But they fight fight fight because . . . not sure why.
Quote: unJonMr V and AM love talking past each other.
link to original post
I tend to agree.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: 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.
link to original post
Sliding has provable efficacy. Dice control does nothing. It's made up. Why would you lump the two together in a question like that? Did you notice he ignored part of your question and probably laughed inside?
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13
Sliding has provable efficacy. Dice control does nothing.
If sliding has provable efficacy and dice control.doesnt, does it make sense to say "both are considered effective means"?
Of course not.
I know that sliding can be very effective. I cant vouch for dice control.
I think V will 100% agree.
Then how could I say "BOTH ARE CONSIDERED EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ALTER THE RANDOM OUTCOME OF DICE"?
Answer: I couldn't. The quote is a fabrication.
And taking other comments NOT from my interview transcript with Copher are not germaine to this discussion.
Quote: MrVWhen 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.
link to original post
Quote: AlanMendelson
...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.
Quote: AlanMendelson [bolding is mine]
Q: "Why is dice sliding banned, but dice setting not banned, if both are considered effective means to alter the random outcome of dice?"
link to original post
So. Alan. Drop the accusation of misquoting that sentence. I see that MrV omitted the trailing question mark, but he did use ellipses appropriately. Whether he is somehow converting a question asked by you into an implied assertion by you is far too nuanced for we moderators to get involved in.
I agree with Dieter. Misquoting accusation dismissed. AGAIN.
Alan. You used the word 'Efficacy' in the exact same post where you used 'effective'. Jumping up and down and asserting that you used 'Efficacy' but not 'Effective' will not wash. You used both words. MrV quoted one of them.Quote: AlanMendelson
Another false statement. I used efficacy. I did not use effective.
Everyone can see what I said here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/dice-setting/36019-goodshooter-com/2/#post827910
link to original post
Get over it.
Quote: AlanMendelson...
You've been on my case since AOL had its rec gambling craps newsgroup. That has to be 20+ years.
link to original post
Quote: unJonMr V and AM love talking past each other.
...
AM and Mr V agree on all above. But they fight fight fight because . . . not sure why.
link to original post
I don't even know what you guys are scrapping over. And guess what. I'm past caring. If it's a 20 year old disagreement, take it back to AOL groups. Yes. I know the groups are dead and buried.
As MrV has said. MOVE ON.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: Zcore13
Sliding has provable efficacy. Dice control does nothing.
If sliding has provable efficacy and dice control.doesnt, does it make sense to say "both are considered effective means"?
Of course not.
I know that sliding can be very effective. I cant vouch for dice control.
I think V will 100% agree.
Then how could I say "BOTH ARE CONSIDERED EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ALTER THE RANDOM OUTCOME OF DICE"?
Answer: I couldn't. The quote is a fabrication.
And taking other comments NOT from my interview transcript with Copher are not germaine to this discussion.
link to original post
Alan, you misquoted yourself then. This has now become super bizarre.
MrV has left out the "if" turning my question into a declarative statement.
I am going to post the transcript of the Q&A again here to show you how i was misquoted when MrV turned my question into a declarative statement.
Here is the exact transcript again. And this should wrap up this discussion about what was said because you will see how i was misquoted. The word "if" in the third question is vital:
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."
Quote: AlanMendelsonI discovered the problem. I did not say "both are considered" but I did ASK if both are considered.
MrV has left out the "if" turning my question into a declarative statement.
link to original post
Yes. I saw that yesterday. The similarities are extremely nuanced. I agree with OnceDear.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI discovered the problem. I did not say "both are considered" but I did ASK if both are considered.
MrV has left out the "if" turning my question into a declarative statement.
I am going to post the transcript of the Q&A again here to show you how i was misquoted when MrV turned my question into a declarative statement.
Here is the exact transcript again. And this should wrap up this discussion about what was said because you will see how i was misquoted. The word "if" in the third question is vital:
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
The question infers that the asker (you) believes them to both be effective ways to alter the random outcome.
ZCore13
Quote: DieterQuote: AlanMendelsonI discovered the problem. I did not say "both are considered" but I did ASK if both are considered.
MrV has left out the "if" turning my question into a declarative statement.
link to original post
Yes. I saw that yesterday. The similarities are extremely nuanced. I agree with OnceDear.
link to original post
Since the first two pages of this thread were no more than site promoting spam from AHigh, this thread has mutated into an ugly squabble between members. I reckon it's run its course.
Alan and MrV are invited to shake hands or kiss and make up, or whatever the covid safe way of being friendly is. Or if they wish to continue to duel over whatever, they are invited to take it outside.
Thread closed.
