The top face will be more probable
The key line is that the top face will be more probable.
Here's one mention of the research.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random
I also read of an MIT study that found the same thing. It might have been the same study.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI'm starting a new thread so I wont divert from MDawg's thread.
The key line is that the top face will be more probable.
Here's one mention of the research.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random
I also read of an MIT study that found the same thing. It might have been the same study.
link to original post
Could gamblers use the knowledge from this paper to their advantage, by placing the desired value of their roll as the highest-lying face of their die?
"I don't know how to use it practically in casino," Kapitaniak wrote. Players would have to know everything so precisely--most importantly, the exact position of the die--to be able to predict the results with certainty.
These are two relevant paragraphs from the "study" you profess to show the "probable" dice toss outcomes. It basically states that your conclusion is WRONG. There were no studies in a casino at a craps table throwing against table walls with pyramids.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: AlanMendelsonI'm starting a new thread so I wont divert from MDawg's thread.
The key line is that the top face will be more probable.
Here's one mention of the research.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random
I also read of an MIT study that found the same thing. It might have been the same study.
link to original post
Could gamblers use the knowledge from this paper to their advantage, by placing the desired value of their roll as the highest-lying face of their die?
"I don't know how to use it practically in casino," Kapitaniak wrote. Players would have to know everything so precisely--most importantly, the exact position of the die--to be able to predict the results with certainty.
These are two relevant paragraphs from the "study" you profess to show the "probable" dice toss outcomes. It basically states that your conclusion is WRONG. There were no studies in a casino at a craps table throwing against table walls with pyramids.
tuttigym
link to original post
Show me something more exact. This report wasn't written for craps players but the info is surprising, isnt it?
Of course you can nit pick everything to death. That's par for the course.
By the way, what's the science behind those pars for the course? LOL
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/more/news/how-is-par-on-a-golf-course-determined/yln8cjdj9lne1trmiqwt8tv15
Back when I was a kid... like 60 years ago... i was told that par was set after some pro golfers played at a new course. I dont know if that's true now -- but when I was a kid there weren't that many golf courses in America. (Nor were there that many people or casinos.)
Quote: AlanMendelsonThe key line is that the top face will be more probable.
link to original post
(trimmed)
How much more probable?
Quote: DieterQuote: AlanMendelsonThe key line is that the top face will be more probable.
link to original post
(trimmed)
How much more probable?
link to original post
I think that's a good question.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI think everyone will agree that this opens up some validity for dice setting. Maybe it's not a whole lot of validity but it's no longer superstition.
link to original post
no I don't agree
from the article:
"they show that dice thrown with a 1 on top are 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 more likely to land as a 1___________"
they do not define slightly___________which is unfortunate____________even so
I would tend to believe that to a scientist "slightly" means far less than what would be necessary to overcome the HA
until they clearly define what 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 means, dice setting remains a pipe dream
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelsonI think everyone will agree that this opens up some validity for dice setting. Maybe it's not a whole lot of validity but it's no longer superstition.
link to original post
no I don't agree
from the article:
"they show that dice thrown with a 1 on top are 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 more likely to land as a 1___________"
they do not define slightly___________which is unfortunate____________even so
I would tend to believe that to a scientist "slightly" means far less than what would be necessary to overcome the HA
until they clearly define what 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 means, dice setting remains a pipe dream
.
link to original post
What is "slightly" is a valid question. But it is no longer random.
There's a huge difference between the slightest of slightest and random.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI'm starting a new thread so I wont divert from MDawg's thread.
The key line is that the top face will be more probable.
Here's one mention of the research.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random
I also read of an MIT study that found the same thing. It might have been the same study.
link to original post
AlanMendelson,
I read the article you linked, then searched for what it mentioned as the upcoming publication in the journal Chaos and found this:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4746038
The abstract contradicts the claim that "the top face will be more probable": in fact, it says just the opposite (emphasis added):
ABSTRACT
A three-dimensional model of a die throw which considers the die bounces with dissipation on the fixed and oscillating table has been formulated. It allows simulations of the trajectories for dice with different shapes. Numerical results have been compared with the experimental observation using high speed camera. It is shown that for the realistic values of the initial energy the probabilities of the die landing on the face which is the lowest one at the beginning is larger than the probabilities of landing on any other face. We argue that non-smoothness of the system plays a key role in the occurrence of dynamical uncertainties and gives the explanation why for practically small uncertainties in the initial conditions a mechanical randomizer approximates the random process.
I'm not sure what to make of all this, as I haven't yet read the whole paper.
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandQuote: AlanMendelsonI'm starting a new thread so I wont divert from MDawg's thread.
The key line is that the top face will be more probable.
Here's one mention of the research.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random
I also read of an MIT study that found the same thing. It might have been the same study.
link to original post
AlanMendelson,
I read the article you linked, then searched for what it mentioned as the upcoming publication in the journal Chaos and found this:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4746038
The abstract contradicts the claim that "the top face will be more probable": in fact, it says just the opposite (emphasis added):
ABSTRACT
A three-dimensional model of a die throw which considers the die bounces with dissipation on the fixed and oscillating table has been formulated. It allows simulations of the trajectories for dice with different shapes. Numerical results have been compared with the experimental observation using high speed camera. It is shown that for the realistic values of the initial energy the probabilities of the die landing on the face which is the lowest one at the beginning is larger than the probabilities of landing on any other face. We argue that non-smoothness of the system plays a key role in the occurrence of dynamical uncertainties and gives the explanation why for practically small uncertainties in the initial conditions a mechanical randomizer approximates the random process.
I'm not sure what to make of all this, as I haven't yet read the whole paper.
Dog Hand
link to original post
It says to me dice throws are not random. The key line is:
"the probabilities of the die landing on the face which is the lowest one at the beginning is larger than the probabilities of landing on any other face"
Hence the title of the article.
In other words a quarter that flips tails 51% and heads 49% is still random, it’s just not “fair”.
Quote: ChumpChangeIf I set a 3-4 on top for a 7 Come-out winner and win 5 times in a row, but 3 of those times it came up a yo, maybe my set isn't getting a 7 all the time, but it is getting me a winner.
link to original post
Well, there are six ways to throw that 7, so if you set the dice 3-4, how do you know the result is not 4-3? And if those two 7's were a 5-2 or 1-6, how is that relevant to the discussion?
Quote: AlanMendelson
It says to me dice throws are not random. The key line is:
"the probabilities of the die landing on the face which is the lowest one at the beginning is larger than the probabilities of landing on any other face"
You may want to read up on the definition of random. I believe what you are implying is that one outcome may be more likely than another but that doesn't have anything to do with being random.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: DogHandQuote: AlanMendelsonI'm starting a new thread so I wont divert from MDawg's thread.
The key line is that the top face will be more probable.
Here's one mention of the research.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random
I also read of an MIT study that found the same thing. It might have been the same study.
link to original post
AlanMendelson,
I read the article you linked, then searched for what it mentioned as the upcoming publication in the journal Chaos and found this:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4746038
The abstract contradicts the claim that "the top face will be more probable": in fact, it says just the opposite (emphasis added):
ABSTRACT
A three-dimensional model of a die throw which considers the die bounces with dissipation on the fixed and oscillating table has been formulated. It allows simulations of the trajectories for dice with different shapes. Numerical results have been compared with the experimental observation using high speed camera. It is shown that for the realistic values of the initial energy the probabilities of the die landing on the face which is the lowest one at the beginning is larger than the probabilities of landing on any other face. We argue that non-smoothness of the system plays a key role in the occurrence of dynamical uncertainties and gives the explanation why for practically small uncertainties in the initial conditions a mechanical randomizer approximates the random process.
I'm not sure what to make of all this, as I haven't yet read the whole paper.
Dog Hand
link to original post
It says to me dice throws are not random. The key line is:
"the probabilities of the die landing on the face which is the lowest one at the beginning is larger than the probabilities of landing on any other face"
Hence the title of the article.
link to original post
Mr. Mendelson: You continue to spin your position. There is nothing above that shows ANY scientific consistency or certainty. The jargon used in the paper is nothing more than lofty scientific meaningless prattle.
tuttigym
Quote: unJonSuper interesting thread. One technical point, I don’t see anything to indicate that the throw isn’t “random” still. Just because one face has a different probability of coming up, doesn’t change the randomness of the outcome.
In other words a quarter that flips tails 51% and heads 49% is still random, it’s just not “fair”.
link to original post
I think the research is suggesting that setting the dice with aces on top is NOT a random throw.
A random throw would be picking up two dice and shaking and chucking.
What the article says is that when two dice are thrown with certain faces on top those two faces have a higher probability of finishing on top.
In a random throw any two faces could be on top and if they happen to be 4-3 this study says 4-3 will have a higher probability of being the final result.
Quote: tuttigymQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: DogHandQuote: AlanMendelsonI'm starting a new thread so I wont divert from MDawg's thread.
The key line is that the top face will be more probable.
Here's one mention of the research.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random
I also read of an MIT study that found the same thing. It might have been the same study.
link to original post
AlanMendelson,
I read the article you linked, then searched for what it mentioned as the upcoming publication in the journal Chaos and found this:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4746038
The abstract contradicts the claim that "the top face will be more probable": in fact, it says just the opposite (emphasis added):
ABSTRACT
A three-dimensional model of a die throw which considers the die bounces with dissipation on the fixed and oscillating table has been formulated. It allows simulations of the trajectories for dice with different shapes. Numerical results have been compared with the experimental observation using high speed camera. It is shown that for the realistic values of the initial energy the probabilities of the die landing on the face which is the lowest one at the beginning is larger than the probabilities of landing on any other face. We argue that non-smoothness of the system plays a key role in the occurrence of dynamical uncertainties and gives the explanation why for practically small uncertainties in the initial conditions a mechanical randomizer approximates the random process.
I'm not sure what to make of all this, as I haven't yet read the whole paper.
Dog Hand
link to original post
It says to me dice throws are not random. The key line is:
"the probabilities of the die landing on the face which is the lowest one at the beginning is larger than the probabilities of landing on any other face"
Hence the title of the article.
link to original post
Mr. Mendelson: You continue to spin your position. There is nothing above that shows ANY scientific consistency or certainty. The jargon used in the paper is nothing more than lofty scientific meaningless prattle.
tuttigym
link to original post
Whoa. I didnt write the article or research the throws or use a camera with 1500 frames per second. My TV cameras have only 30 frames per second.
I didnt write the headline that says throwing dice isnt completely random.
I'm just reading it like you are.
I think you should tell these PhDs that they've got it wrong.
Don't kill the messenger, folks. It ain't my research.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelsonI think everyone will agree that this opens up some validity for dice setting. Maybe it's not a whole lot of validity but it's no longer superstition.
link to original post
no I don't agree
from the article:
"they show that dice thrown with a 1 on top are 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 more likely to land as a 1___________"
they do not define slightly___________which is unfortunate____________even so
I would tend to believe that to a scientist "slightly" means far less than what would be necessary to overcome the HA
until they clearly define what 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 means, dice setting remains a pipe dream
.
link to original post
What is "slightly" is a valid question. But it is no longer random.
There's a huge difference between the slightest of slightest and random.
link to original post
the whole idea behind dice setting is to overcome the HA
if as I expect, the scientists reveal that their use of the word "slightly" means something like one quarter of one percent then it's basically insignificant info
if so, a dice setter could theoretically reduce his long term disadvantage on a pass line bet from 1.41 to 1.16%
I doubt that this will cause the dice setting community to engage in a wild celebration
.
Quote: DogHandQuote: AlanMendelsonI'm starting a new thread so I wont divert from MDawg's thread.
The key line is that the top face will be more probable.
Here's one mention of the research.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/dice-rolls-are-not-completely-random
I also read of an MIT study that found the same thing. It might have been the same study.
link to original post
AlanMendelson,
I read the article you linked, then searched for what it mentioned as the upcoming publication in the journal Chaos and found this:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4746038
The abstract contradicts the claim that "the top face will be more probable": in fact, it says just the opposite (emphasis added):
ABSTRACT
A three-dimensional model of a die throw which considers the die bounces with dissipation on the fixed and oscillating table has been formulated. It allows simulations of the trajectories for dice with different shapes. Numerical results have been compared with the experimental observation using high speed camera. It is shown that for the realistic values of the initial energy the probabilities of the die landing on the face which is the lowest one at the beginning is larger than the probabilities of landing on any other face. We argue that non-smoothness of the system plays a key role in the occurrence of dynamical uncertainties and gives the explanation why for practically small uncertainties in the initial conditions a mechanical randomizer approximates the random process.
I'm not sure what to make of all this, as I haven't yet read the whole paper.
Dog Hand
link to original post
I read "landing on" in the context of the excerpt to mean that the face that starts down is likely to end down. By extension, the face that starts up is likely to end up.
I renew my prior question. How much more probable?
Once more in two dozen seems useful. Once more in twelve dozen seems grossly unuseful.
Quote: lilredrooster
if as I expect, the scientists reveal that their use of the word "slightly" means something like one quarter of one percent then it's basically insignificant info
if so, a dice setter could theoretically reduce his long term disadvantage on a pass line bet from 1.41 to 1.16%
I doubt that this will cause the dice setting community to engage in a wild celebration
.
link to original post
But don't people on this site get excited about an extra one-tenth of one-percent on free play?
The impact of this research comes down, I think, to the pregnancy question:
"When is a little bit pregnant really pregnant?"
I see what you did there! ;)Quote: DieterOnce more in twelve dozen seems grossly unuseful.
Quote: DeMangoMy computer results definitely finds that the top faces result in greater occurrences.
link to original post
Mr.DM, When your computer can grow arms and hands, take the dice in those hands, and toss them across the table to hit the back wall like a human can, then I will perhaps give that statement credibility.
tuttigym
it's a done deal Mr T! I'm a dice counter so these are actual casino results!Quote: tuttigymQuote: DeMangoMy computer results definitely finds that the top faces result in greater occurrences.
link to original post
Mr.DM, When your computer can grow arms and hands, take the dice in those hands, and toss them across the table to hit the back wall like a human can, then I will perhaps give that statement credibility.
tuttigym
link to original post
Slightly = not enough to make any noticeable difference in your craps resultsQuote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelsonI think everyone will agree that this opens up some validity for dice setting. Maybe it's not a whole lot of validity but it's no longer superstition.
link to original post
no I don't agree
from the article:
"they show that dice thrown with a 1 on top are 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 more likely to land as a 1___________"
they do not define slightly___________which is unfortunate____________even so
I would tend to believe that to a scientist "slightly" means far less than what would be necessary to overcome the HA
until they clearly define what 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 means, dice setting remains a pipe dream
.
link to original post
THAT is the relevant question.
The scientists should tell people (expressed in minute fractions of a percent most likely) the amount of change from the expected result which they allegedly discovered.
But hey, it's nice to have that hoary old gamblng chestnut, dice setting, to kick around again.
I believe the article as published does nothing to validate the theory behind dice setting, and that is why Alan posted it: he wants some form of scientific proof that dice setting is something other than superstition.
.
Quote: Ace2Slightly = not enough to make any noticeable difference in your craps resultsQuote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelsonI think everyone will agree that this opens up some validity for dice setting. Maybe it's not a whole lot of validity but it's no longer superstition.
link to original post
no I don't agree
from the article:
"they show that dice thrown with a 1 on top are 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 more likely to land as a 1___________"
they do not define slightly___________which is unfortunate____________even so
I would tend to believe that to a scientist "slightly" means far less than what would be necessary to overcome the HA
until they clearly define what 𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙡𝙮 means, dice setting remains a pipe dream
.
link to original post
link to original post
So... is being a little bit pregnant being pregnant?
If dice can be influenced by even one-one-thousandth of one percent aren't they still being influenced?
Quote: AlanMendelson
If dice can be influenced by even one-one-thousandth of one percent aren't they still being influenced?
link to original post
I definitely believe that dice can be influenced but I am not aware of anyone that can influence them enough to cover the house edge. Does that person exist? Maybe
did not even presume to take into account the effects of two dice being thrown
that have interactions with each other and also have to hit the pyramids in a
legal toss.
"Practically, the predictability can be realized only when the die is thrown
by a special device which allows to set very precisely the initial conditions."
Such conditions are when the value of epsilon(inaccuracy of initial conditions)
is very small. The need for epsilon to be extremely small(ie: for the toss
to be nearly robotically precise) could allow the toss to land without the
edge/corner-contact with table surface that cause dice to collide or splay in
a way that voids any idea of predictable "dynamical mechanics".
The very low epsilon that allows dynamical elements of the mechanics being
"slightly" sufficient to increase the odds of the bottom number appearing in
the result were given for a SINGLE die being tossed via robot arm. I suspect
robotic arm used was initially setup to avoid the first contact with the
table surface from contacting edges/corners. That would enable their "soft
landing" model which allows for a toss where the die avoids any bounces.
IMHO. from a practical point of view:
The need to toss TWO dice with enough speed to have both dice hit the back wall
provides another significant randomizing factor, not even mentioned or
modelled in this paper. The paper mentions how important the speed of rotations
are in enhancing the tendency of a die to be more random...
Anyone who's experimented with tossing knows that one of the first things one
must do to avoid obvious toss-chaos is knock down the speed and spin of the
dice as they bounce multiple times before contacting the pyramids of
the BACK wall in a legal toss.
I wouldn't expect setting/betting the Bottom of the die face to magically
provide a significant increase in profitable results.
I guess "Hope springs eternal..."
Quote: MrVDidn't AHigh pretty much debunk the notion of dice setting with his home built dice throwing contraption?
I guess "Hope springs eternal..."
link to original post
I don't recall Ahigh having a dice tossing machine but I do remember him videotaping his own erratic rolls then pronouncing that DI is a fallacy.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI don't recall Ahigh having a dice tossing machine but I do remember him videotaping his own erratic rolls then pronouncing that DI is a fallacy.
I may be misremembering, but I seem to recall a forum member, I thought it was Aaron, posted videos of his in home craps table and a device he'd built to toss the dice in a replicable, seemingly controlled manner.
Quote: DeMango
it's a done deal Mr T! I'm a dice counter so these are actual casino results!
link to original post
But you posted "my computer results." Whose tosses are you counting? I have seen your incredible play with consistently symmetric throws, however, I believe your dice setting was also consistent, but the resultant numbers were very different. In any event, some would probably say that your "sample" is inadequately sufficient to generate reliable results. I personally believe you are a craps rock star.
tuttigym
Quote: AlanMendelson
If dice can be influenced by even one-one-thousandth of one percent aren't they still being influenced?
link to original post
No. That is not a reliable statistical measurement.
tuttigym
tuttigym
Can anyone tell us how the above statement is 100% mathematically wrong?Quote: ChumpChangeIf you're not taking odds, you need more Come-out 7-11 winners. If you are taking odds, you need to roll the point more.
link to original post
At a later point in time dice results are inputed into dice software. Then the magic of Excel takes over. one of the functions tallies the six resultes of each die. Certainly not the most important measurable pattern,, but yes actionable to a ceryain extent.Quote: tuttigymQuote: DeMango
it's a done deal Mr T! I'm a dice counter so these are actual casino results!
link to original post
But you posted "my computer results." Whose tosses are you counting? I have seen your incredible play with consistently symmetric throws, however, I believe your dice setting was also consistent, but the resultant numbers were very different. In any event, some would probably say that your "sample" is inadequately sufficient to generate reliable results. I personally believe you are a craps rock star.
tuttigym
link to original post
Quote: onebokThe Kapatiniak paper released in December following the Sept.article in the OP
did not even presume to take into account the effects of two dice being thrown
that have interactions with each other and also have to hit the pyramids in a
legal toss.
"Practically, the predictability can be realized only when the die is thrown
by a special device which allows to set very precisely the initial conditions."
Such conditions are when the value of epsilon(inaccuracy of initial conditions)
is very small. The need for epsilon to be extremely small(ie: for the toss
to be nearly robotically precise) could allow the toss to land without the
edge/corner-contact with table surface that cause dice to collide or splay in
a way that voids any idea of predictable "dynamical mechanics".
The very low epsilon that allows dynamical elements of the mechanics being
"slightly" sufficient to increase the odds of the bottom number appearing in
the result were given for a SINGLE die being tossed via robot arm. I suspect
robotic arm used was initially setup to avoid the first contact with the
table surface from contacting edges/corners. That would enable their "soft
landing" model which allows for a toss where the die avoids any bounces.
IMHO. from a practical point of view:
The need to toss TWO dice with enough speed to have both dice hit the back wall
provides another significant randomizing factor, not even mentioned or
modelled in this paper. The paper mentions how important the speed of rotations
are in enhancing the tendency of a die to be more random...
Anyone who's experimented with tossing knows that one of the first things one
must do to avoid obvious toss-chaos is knock down the speed and spin of the
dice as they bounce multiple times before contacting the pyramids of
the BACK wall in a legal toss.
I wouldn't expect setting/betting the Bottom of the die face to magically
provide a significant increase in profitable results.
link to original post
From a purely physics point of view I disagree that minimizing spin is beneficial. Angular momentum of increased spin to stay “on acces” should outweigh the benefit of increasing the chance of the right side of the dice landing on bottom and then not spinning after landing.
(Note: I’m not endorsing dice influence. Just staring what seems obvious when you think about the modeling of the issue.)
spins/sec or high velocity of forward motion will result in a higher level
of obvious toss chaos.
I can understand that when dealing with relatively low levels of spin involved
with typical DI tosses there may be a reason to increase spin to overcome
table-top friction or some other specific condition.
Jon said:
"Angular momentum of increased spin to stay 'on acces' should
outweigh the benefit of increasing the chance of the right side of the dice
landing on bottom and then not spinning after landing."
Sorry, I don't understand your sentence. However, tossing a highly spinning
die will definitely increase the chance of it landing and continuing
to spin/tumble, etc.
Per Kapitaniak's paper:
The probabilities of landing on any face approach the same value 1/n only for
the large values of the initial rotational energy and a great number of die
bounces on table..." (n=6 for a die/cube.)
In general, increase spins and speeds and you approach equal probabilities
for any side of the die to be the result. I found that to be the practical
result from my own experiences as well.
Like a bicycle being easier to balance when it’s moving (angular momentum of the wheels). Or a rifle being a more accurate way to fire a bullet (the bullet rotates creating angular momentum). Or the reason a knuckle ball pitch is hard to hit (the lack of angular momentum makes its trajectory unpredictable).
Quote: unJonAgain, just spitballing with you for fun. But that’s the wrong theory of dice control. You don’t angle to make a particular face land on top. You angle to make two particular faces not land on top. Those two faces being the two on the sides of the dice when you set. Angular momentum is your only friend there.
Like a bicycle being easier to balance when it’s moving (angular momentum of the wheels). Or a rifle being a more accurate way to fire a bullet (the bullet rotates creating angular momentum). Or the reason a knuckle ball pitch is hard to hit (the lack of angular momentum makes its trajectory unpredictable).
link to original post
Unjon is using the hardways set, and the backspin is probably no more than six rotations to make the dice brake when they hit the table so they bounce softly off the wall.
Few people know these basics of dice influencing. Good job unjon.
Quote: AlanMendelson
Few people know these basics of dice influencing. Good job unjon.
link to original post
It truly is an intellectual wasteland here when it comes to the physics of di.
As someone who has been a manager of an organization with hundreds of engineering research scientists, I very much doubt that the research scientists in this study are knowledgeable about the house advantage of various casino games (which is a niche expertise peculiar to the forum), so their use of the word "slightly" should probably not be interpreted in the context of the HA of craps. We will need to read the actual scientific article that was published in the Journal named Chaos to see if the deviation from randomness is of order 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, or 1 in 1 million or whatever.
I agree with Alan that the departure from randomness is intellectually important even if it is small.
Quote: unJonAgain, just spitballing with you for fun. But that’s the wrong theory of dice control. You don’t angle to make a particular face land on top. You angle to make two particular faces not land on top. Those two faces being the two on the sides of the dice when you set. Angular momentum is your only friend there.
Like a bicycle being easier to balance when it’s moving (angular momentum of the wheels). Or a rifle being a more accurate way to fire a bullet (the bullet rotates creating angular momentum). Or the reason a knuckle ball pitch is hard to hit (the lack of angular momentum makes its trajectory unpredictable).
link to original post
Few people indeed know the basics of DI.
That's why the simple knowledge of backspin and braking is so utterly
inadequate for attaining any certainty of avoiding a seven.
Keeping the dice on axis means fewer sides to be landed upon. This is the
theory behind this one particular DI-issue of backspin.
It assumes you can do this with great skill. You probably have
experienced what happens when a DI with a BT SRR of 9 piles a lot of cash on
the live layout and gets a big fat PSO more than not.
This argument avoids all the other issues of double pitches, dice interactions,
table-surface issues, and of course there are the pyramids, etc.
BTW, When did I ever use the word "angle", etc.?
Bicycles and bullets miss the confounding dice-issues surrounding the fact that
spinning does indeed make bicycles and bullets more stable. Dice also, but
only to an extent. Then all of the other crap gets into the mix and makes it
just one of so many hurdles.
J. Grabski, J. Strzalko, A. Stefanski, P. Perlikowski and T. Kapitaniak: "Understanding coin tossing", The Mathematical Intelligencer (2010), Math. Intelligencer., PDF
The PDF link is: Understanding coin tossing pdf
"In our experiments [9] we observed that a typical
coin falling from the height of 186 cm bounces on a wooden
floor about 8-14 times.
The probability (we consider 106 different initial conditions)
that a coin side which is up initially will still be up after 15
impacts is equal to 0.50987 and after 1000 impacts to
0.50006. This indicates that in the case of n equals infinity this
probability tends to 0.5."
They also consider the case of a coin that does not bounce but is simply flipped, although all they show is a chaos-style graph of probabilities for that scenario.
Quote: AlanMendelsonKeep in mind the Super Bowl toss is on turf. No bounce. Gravity.
link to original post
turf or astroturf? Indoors or outside? Wind direction and velocity? Dew point?
Quote: onebokQuote: unJonAgain, just spitballing with you for fun. But that’s the wrong theory of dice control. You don’t angle to make a particular face land on top. You angle to make two particular faces not land on top. Those two faces being the two on the sides of the dice when you set. Angular momentum is your only friend there.
Like a bicycle being easier to balance when it’s moving (angular momentum of the wheels). Or a rifle being a more accurate way to fire a bullet (the bullet rotates creating angular momentum). Or the reason a knuckle ball pitch is hard to hit (the lack of angular momentum makes its trajectory unpredictable).
link to original post
Few people indeed know the basics of DI.
That's why the simple knowledge of backspin and braking is so utterly
inadequate for attaining any certainty of avoiding a seven.
Keeping the dice on axis means fewer sides to be landed upon. This is the
theory behind this one particular DI-issue of backspin.
It assumes you can do this with great skill. You probably have
experienced what happens when a DI with a BT SRR of 9 piles a lot of cash on
the live layout and gets a big fat PSO more than not.
This argument avoids all the other issues of double pitches, dice interactions,
table-surface issues, and of course there are the pyramids, etc.
BTW, When did I ever use the word "angle", etc.?
Bicycles and bullets miss the confounding dice-issues surrounding the fact that
spinning does indeed make bicycles and bullets more stable. Dice also, but
only to an extent. Then all of the other crap gets into the mix and makes it
just one of so many hurdles.
link to original post
When did I say you ever used the word “angle”, etc.?
When did I say DI works?
