Bill Zender's take on Dice Control

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: AlanMendelson

What short memories on this forum.

A few months ago there was the European research that proved dice setting had a small advantage.

That research was thoroughly discussed here.
link to original post

Not in real casino conditions.
link to original post

I'm puzzled why you cant accept research that says the faces set on top have a tiny edge for being the end result after the roll?

Did you make some life or death commitment to criticize anything positive about anything that might indicate DI exists?

Will you lose your first born?

I've heard of True Believers. Now there are True Denyers. They never waver.

It's actually funny.
link to original post

It seems that I have been outed, and now the truth must come out...

I can't afford to have the True Believers messing up my money steam- ya know.

Quote: AlanMendelson

My typical play was $25 pass with double odds ($50) plus $130 or $135 across.
]

You should switch to $25 Three Point Molly with 3-4-5 odds on everything. Your average total amount wagered should be about the same but the house edge will be about 90% lower than place bets

Only downside with pass/come is “you have to hit “your number’ twice” 😆

With a Three Point Dolly you can get the edge even a little lower.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: AlanMendelson

The elephant in the room that is being ignored here is that the casinos believe there can be dice influencing otherwise they wouldn't have their rules and the NGC wouldn't have its rule about what is a legal dice throw.

And I wouldn't have been tossed from Bellagio, NYNY and MGM Grand... and I wasn't tossed for delaying the game with setting.

I'm glad the casinos have their rules. Otherwise we'd be left with Bubble Craps or dealers throwing the dice.

Carry on.
link to original post

The rules about what a legal dice throw is are because there are some very skilled people with techniques, such as sliding, that certainly can certainly alter the outcome in the players favor.

I have no doubt there are some humans that work in casinos who think DI is possible, they would rather be safe than sorry. From my understanding, there was a time when casinos actually thought coolers worked. I have no clue if coolers were a real thing or not, that was before my time.
link to original post

As you know Axel, the Las Vegas Review Journal interviewed me about the Wynn dice sliding case. I have a video on YouTube demonstrating a dice slide.

To prevent a dice slide you only need one condition: the dice must go in the air.

But a valid throw has 3 rules:

1. Dice must be in the air.
2. Dice must bounce off the table surface at least once.
3. Dice must hit (not bounce off) the back wall.

My problems at MGM Grand and Bellagio were over #3. My dice didnt bounce off the back Wall far enough.

You guys seem to be arguing the same point.

When someone says DI doesn't work in the real world what they mean is the world of casino rules that make any control over the dice ineffective.

So when I see Alan arguing that DI definitely works and that's why the casinos instituted their rules, that's the same as the rest of us arguing it doesn't work in the real world - because of the rules.

Quote: darkoz

You guys seem to be arguing the same point.

When someone says DI doesn't work in the real world what they mean is the world of casino rules that make any control over the dice ineffective.

So when I see Alan arguing that DI definitely works and that's why the casinos instituted their rules, that's the same as the rest of us arguing it doesn't work in the real world - because of the rules.
link to original post

Yes.

Had Caesars not ordered longer tables the three DIs I saw there might still play there. Lengthening the table damaged the effectiveness of the dice influencing.

I am arguing that the almost entirely anecdotic nature of the skill combined with math and physics makes the skill nigh impossible. Just based on my own understanding, which I readily admit could be improved which is why I am here, even without taking the rules of the game into account, DI is a skill that relies heavily on confirmation bias.

Quote: AitchTheLetter

I am arguing that the almost entirely anecdotic nature of the skill combined with math and physics makes the skill nigh impossible. Just based on my own understanding, which I readily admit could be improved which is why I am here, even without taking the rules of the game into account, DI is a skill that relies heavily on confirmation bias.
link to original post

Good. End of thread.

Is that a tacit admission the skill relies on confirmation bias? Because that's how it reads.

Quote: AitchTheLetter

Is that a tacit admission the skill relies on confirmation bias? Because that's how it reads.
link to original post

No. It's an observation that there's nothing new to discuss here.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: AitchTheLetter

Is that a tacit admission the skill relies on confirmation bias? Because that's how it reads.
link to original post

No. It's an observation that there's nothing new to discuss here.
link to original post

Oh man, I thought this was the never ending horse thread!

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: Wizard

Quote: AlanMendelson

In reality true DIs come to the table, have a decent roll, dont overstay their welcome and live to play another day.

It's actually what other APs do.

It's not what you read in fictional accounts.
link to original post

Let's keep in context this is coming from the same person who allegedly witnessed 18 yo's in a row (1 in 39,346,408,075,296,500,000,000 chance).
link to original post

That is a personal attack and you should be ashamed of yourself. (boldface added by moderator)

No one including you has ever proven that I didnt see a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row.

This is not the first time you used the 18 yos to discredit me.

Well, i never used your failed website to discredit you -- and you admitted your website failed when you asked for donations and then sold out.

Touche.
link to original post

Somewhere in this (interesting) thread The Wizard invited another moderator to comment on whether his above post was a personal attack as alleged by AlanMendelson (also above). My answer is NO, in my opinion this was not a personal attack. Nor was it trolling because Wizard doesn't constantly nag AlanM in a harassing way about the 18yo claim.

About this thread:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

I do not play craps, have no prejudices about dice control, and have searched the scientific literature on the subject (as we have all discussed in other threads on dice throwing.) There is amazing diversity of abilities in the world's population of humans and it is rather brash to say that no person anywhere can do something just because you and I cannot do it. Dice setting is an interesting thought to entertain, and I have found this thread to be entertaining. I imagine Aristotle would have been entertained as well.

Quote: gordonm888

There is amazing diversity of abilities in the world's population of humans and it is rather brash to say that no person anywhere can do something just because you and I cannot do it.

So would it be brash to call telekinesis fake?

Obviously, that's a ridiculous comparison, but I'm taking cues from Alan.

The real question is... can someome gain an advantage via DI and use it to make money in the casinos? The answer is..... NO.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: gordonm888

There is amazing diversity of abilities in the world's population of humans and it is rather brash to say that no person anywhere can do something just because you and I cannot do it.

So would it be brash to call telekinesis fake?

Obviously, that's a ridiculous comparison, but I'm taking cues from Alan.

The real question is... can someome gain an advantage via DI and use it to make money in the casinos? The answer is..... NO.
link to original post

"Without cheating" is an important requirement.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: gordonm888

There is amazing diversity of abilities in the world's population of humans and it is rather brash to say that no person anywhere can do something just because you and I cannot do it.

So would it be brash to call telekinesis fake?

Obviously, that's a ridiculous comparison, but I'm taking cues from Alan.

The real question is... can someome gain an advantage via DI and use it to make money in the casinos? The answer is..... NO.
link to original post

There is at least a theory as to how DI would work--via exquisite control of all the forces imparted to dice when they are thrown. There are also some assumptions (the surface is level and force-absorbent; that the back wall is hit in such a manner that no die receives a two-face spin). It is thus possible. Whether it has been achieved is debatable, since we haven't yet defined success and have no agreed upon standard of proof.

Telekinesis, however, has no known process whereby thought alone can externally affect an object. All telekinetic phenomena so far presented, as far as I know, have been shown to be fake.

Yeah, I know--it's just an internet forum, it's not Nature or the National Academy of Science. Still, once we get a clear definition of what we're talking about, what constitutes success, and how one can prove their fides at mastering this, these debates will continue forever and never resolve.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: gordonm888

There is amazing diversity of abilities in the world's population of humans and it is rather brash to say that no person anywhere can do something just because you and I cannot do it.

So would it be brash to call telekinesis fake?

Obviously, that's a ridiculous comparison, but I'm taking cues from Alan.

The real question is... can someome gain an advantage via DI and use it to make money in the casinos? The answer is..... NO.
link to original post

That is one question of interest to gamblers and casinos, but not the only question, in my opinion. My answer is: No, with moderate to high confidence, unless a casino introduces a new dice-rolling game that has been poorly designed.

I think the "real question" is: can people influence the outcome of a dice roll? If they can, then to what extent and subject to what conditions? If people can influence a dice roll, but not one that bounces off a pyramidal back-wall, then I find that to be interesting. If they can influence a dice roll, but only to 0.0001%, I still find that to be interesting. It just isn't significant to the point of mattering to the game of craps. But my curiosity is not limited to craps.

Quote: gordonm888

I think the "real question" is: can people influence the outcome of a dice roll? If they can, then to what extent and subject to what conditions? {snip}
link to original post

So long as casinos believe in the ameliorating effect that the pyramidal back wall has on DI, then I'm happy. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, Craps has many things going for it, not the least of which is the Odds bet, and the fact that the gambler may actually touch and throw the randomizer.

We gamblers can't shuffle the cards, can't spin the roulette ball, can't do whatever it is they do with tiles, and just forget about slots. I for one hope the casinos never resort to bubble craps or automatic dice shooters, or have dealers throw the dice. Only in craps do we have the illusion of control, and I will only patronize casinos that allow us to keep that.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: gordonm888

There is amazing diversity of abilities in the world's population of humans and it is rather brash to say that no person anywhere can do something just because you and I cannot do it.

So would it be brash to call telekinesis fake?

Obviously, that's a ridiculous comparison, but I'm taking cues from Alan.

The real question is... can someome gain an advantage via DI and use it to make money in the casinos? The answer is..... NO.
link to original post

That is one question of interest to gamblers and casinos, but not the only question, in my opinion. My answer is: No, with moderate to high confidence, unless a casino introduces a new dice-rolling game that has been poorly designed.

I think the "real question" is: can people influence the outcome of a dice roll? If they can, then to what extent and subject to what conditions? If people can influence a dice roll, but not one that bounces off a pyramidal back-wall, then I find that to be interesting. If they can influence a dice roll, but only to 0.0001%, I still find that to be interesting. It just isn't significant to the point of mattering to the game of craps. But my curiosity is not limited to craps.
link to original post

Well since this is a gambling forum, and since the beginning of time, as far as DI talk goes, the entire debate is 99% about actually doing it in casinos with an advantage. It's all about winning at the game of craps.

I can predict winning sessions with 100% accuracy at any given time when playing certain games at the casinos, but it's meaningless unless I have a long-term advantage.

Quote: BillHasRetired

We gamblers can't shuffle the cards, can't spin the roulette ball, can't do whatever it is they do with tiles, and just forget about slots.
link to original post

Technically, I touch the slots every time I spin.

______________


the link is to a scholarly study on dice control published in the UNLV Gaming & Review Journal

the authors built a machine believing the machine would have greater skill and consistency than humans

they recorded and studied 7,557 rolls from this machine

their results from testing led to conclusions that were basically negative - they don't believe it can be done - but they admitted their study was not conclusive

this quote from the study was very interesting and illuminating to me:



"In addition, craps players are susceptible to the illusion of control, which is
a concept developed by Ellen Langer (1975; 1977). She found that people had greater
confidence in an outcome when they were in control of initial conditions. Coincidentally,
one of her experiments involved throwing dice and whether being the thrower of the dice
influenced their confidence or not (which, of course, it did). Thus, craps is the perfect
game to induce illusion of control—it is the only casino game someone has control
over the gambling objects (dice), so the feeling of control is higher than in a game such
as roulette where bettors are mere bystanders to the croupier"



https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=grrj



.

Quote: lilredrooster

______________


the link is to a scholarly study on dice control published in the UNLV Gaming & Review Journal

the authors built a machine believing the machine would have greater skill and consistency than humans

they recorded and studied 7,557 rolls from this machine

their results from testing led to conclusions that were basically negative - they don't believe it can be done - but they admitted their study was not conclusive

this quote from the study was very interesting and illuminating to me:



"In addition, craps players are susceptible to the illusion of control, which is
a concept developed by Ellen Langer (1975; 1977). She found that people had greater
confidence in an outcome when they were in control of initial conditions. Coincidentally,
one of her experiments involved throwing dice and whether being the thrower of the dice
influenced their confidence or not (which, of course, it did). Thus, craps is the perfect
game to induce illusion of control—it is the only casino game someone has control
over the gambling objects (dice), so the feeling of control is higher than in a game such
as roulette where bettors are mere bystanders to the croupier"



https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=grrj



.
link to original post

This is obviously complete nonsense, because some guy on a forum told us that he knew 3 or 4 people that could do it.

Quote: camapl

As usual, the sarcasm of your post does not go unnoticed…
link to original post

Mr. canapi: I was NOT being sarcastic. The post was genuine, real, and right on.

tuttigym

Quote: darkoz

Quote: BillHasRetired

We gamblers can't shuffle the cards, can't spin the roulette ball, can't do whatever it is they do with tiles, and just forget about slots.
link to original post

Technically, I touch the slots every time I spin.
link to original post

As VP is my second game, I agree! But I have no 'degree of control' in the engineering sense that a dice roller does. My only hope is that you hit 'spin/deal' at the same time that the number out of the RNG. Even if I come across a slot machine that is +EV, I still need that RNG to come through for me.

Quote: lilredrooster

______________
the link is to a scholarly study on dice control published in the UNLV Gaming & Review Journal

the authors built a machine believing the machine would have greater skill and consistency than humans

they recorded and studied 7,557 rolls from this machine

their results from testing led to conclusions that were basically negative - they don't believe it can be done - but they admitted their study was not conclusive

{snip}

https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=grrj
.
link to original post

LRR: I want to first state that the following is a critique of the paper, and not of you or any other DI-skeptic. Thank you for digging this up. You went through all that trouble, the least I could do is read the paper and comment. Here goes:

I scanned the paper--life is short, after all, and I need to be editing my next novel tonight--but I have significant problems with this paper and their conclusions. Here's a partial list:

• The machine they used 'punched' the dice instead of lobbing them using a pendulum motion and releasing the dice during the arc of the arm. Dice rotation is induced by a 'rounded aluminum bar' impacting the dice. This does not mimic real dice throws, and induces rebound in the dice themselves.
• Photo shows the rammer bar spring laterally displaced relative to the launch angle. Such buckling is boound to be inconsistent across trials, and is a source of systemic error.
• Sole criterion of 'success' is the distribution of 1s and 6s results per die after impact with the back wall. This differs greatly from the Seven-to Rolls Ratio, which is what the gambler seeks.
• Number of rolls is 'per die' not 'per pair'. So they didn't do '7557' throws, they did half that.
• 2700 of the one-die rolls were 'short rolls', in other words, not-legal throws.
• 3400 of the one-die rolls were 'legal rolls', or 1700 actual two-dice throws.
• 1557 of the one-die rolls were 'extreme rolls', where they tried doing everything they could to (paraphrase) 'make DI work', like shooting horizontally across a formica surface. These are illegal throws as well.

I think their experiment is wrongly conceived, their 'rig' incorrectly designed, and their criterion of success ridiculous.
I could spend all night (but life is short) listing the sources of systemic error. The researchers did their homework in researching DI, but their execution of the experiment was awful.

Everything about the 'Lucky Lil' shooter is rife with systemic errors sufficient to overwhelm any signal with noise. For instance, the device is free-standing on four little rubber feet. There's nothing about ensuring the dice are aligned with the back wall, nor ensuring the actual yaw of the device remains zero throughout the trials.

Their criterion of success: "If Lucky Lil’ can successfully throw the dice on their horizontal axes (i.e., around the ones and sixes) consistently then we should observe statistically significantly fewer ones and sixes." But that's not what a gambler cares about. The vast majority of craps gamblers 'right way' bettors, and if we have a point to make, we don't care about rolling snake eyes or midnight, so long as we don't roll seven. Besides, most DI books talk about 'one-face' errors in roll, pitch, or yaw. So having a one or a six show doesn't matter, as long as only one die deviates this way.

Lastly, they measured 'on-axis' rolls, at least on the legal rolls, _after_ the dice impacted the back wall with the deadly diamonds, which does induce all kinds of roll-pitch-yaw movements, particularly since Lucky Lil is aiming all over the place. They measured 1700 shots of randomness. No kidding.

This paper is not science. It has the gloss of science, and probably wowed the attendees, but other than the experimenters' use of "AAA" level dice, it has little connection to the real world of casino craps.