Why dice control does not work.
Quote: SOOPOOI have no proof that people cannot influence dice. [snip] I know, in the real world, without having proof, that the above 4 things cannot be accomplished. Simple.
Here is a kind reminder of two monitored dice influencing trials which have been mentioned before on this forum.
In both cases, the dice influencers significantly prevailed.
Each trial was closely monitored by both sides, with one trial hotly contested. Furthermore, Wizard participated in both experiments (one directly and the other through a large wager).
Quote: AhighThat's a good point. I enjoy following the stick's calculations for complex payouts on the inside bets. And there are quite a few dealers who are more adept at coming up with those numbers than I am. Also, the motor memory of dealing and pre-calculating payouts to be smooth when the call is made is something that I do not have a dealer's level of motor memory. But I can absolutely deal and make correct payouts better than many dealers in this town. But I'm not a better-than-AVERAGE dealer in terms of actually being a good dealer as you are right that I don't have the motor skills and practice. But math? No I can do it, and I often correct dealer payouts. Very often. It something that I do .. especially if a player is being shorted.
Most dealers that meet me for the first time refuse to believe that I am not a dealer. They will then go on to asking me if I used to be a dealer and am now in the pit. I've been challenged to count up all the money in the bank when they thought I worked the pit. I'm not as fast at that as someone who does it all the time either, but I'm not slow either.
Gentlemen,
Please allow me to contribute experience vs text book table top mathematics as frequently biased in this most excellent forum. From a 'physics' point of view there are far too many variables that a dice setter cannot overcome on a consistent basis to 'call numbers' with precision accuarcy. That is fact.
However, from a very realistic and experienced observation (and practice) dice setting MOST DEFINATELY can give a player a slightly better advantage to a random toss. Setting the dice can improve your chances of hitting (or avoiding) combinations of desired numbers BUT it WILL NOT guarantee you can consistently hit or avoid numbers you 'call' in advance. Nor does it give you long term advantage over the house.
Anyone who gets out from behind the desk, puts away the slide rule, and belly's-up to a live craps table on a regular basis WILL confirm that charting the table has distinct advantages. Charting the table includes observing players & dice setters.
Although I have no 'raw data' or 'live study' in hand I can assure you from countless hours of live play that a dice setter DOES have a higher 'average rolls' than a random shooter's 8.532 AND has a higher % than .68 hitting points.
In closing, anyone saying 'dice setting' assures winning has a better prescription than myself......and lives in fantasy land. But it is equally important to inform all you text book math major's you need to get out from behind your desk and witness the modest advantage dices setting can give a seasoned shooter.
My final statement is this. Time is public enemy #1 against the player. Craps is a very beatable game for experienced players with multiple systems they can use to adapt to changing table conditions. It is also important to consider taking what the table gives you and not believe that one system will prevail under all table conditions.
In an unrealistic world where the Player plays or throws or is involved in 1 billion decisions, the house ALWAYS wins. 'Water always seeks it own level"
However, there are those Professionals who can win...and win consistently. Winning takes into account myriad factors of which at the top of the list involve exemplary discipline including the much needed belief in yourself that you can win (which is why math majors typically lose).....and not by some hocus pocus belief that anyone can 'call' numbers consistently based on dice setting.
As SooPoo has been privy (although not witnessed), I personally have winning systems in both BJ & Craps....but they are NOT for sale and ONLY available to my clients. Those interested can PM me. Those who wish to witness the same and benefit from earnings I have programs to accomodate you.
Anyone with a winning system or combinitorial winning system does not put it up for sale....but winning information and winning experience does have a cost.
Just read this thread and it will explain why it doesn't work.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/12072-blew-out-my-bankroll/
Being a so-called DI is all about the money; it has nothing to do with having fun. Most people when I was growing up knew what losing was, but with our new generation they give out trophies for being a loser. Just go to any Little League end of the year game, everybody now gets a trophy, there are no longer losers!
I don't care how good of a shooter you think you are, without smart betting, you are going to lose. We all lose sometimes, I can't win playing a negative game every time I play, if I could, the casinos would kick me out!
If you just want to have fun at playing craps, they always have WinCraps, where it won't cost you anything to play except the price of the software!
I think we all could learn from this quote from Scarne on Dice page 27
Quote:
In 1952 a New York City gambler know as “Fat the Butch” lost $49,000 by betting that he could throw a double-six in 21 rolls.
Fat the Butch, although a smart gambling-house operator who has made millions booking dice games, went wrong on the bet because he figured it this way: There are 36 possible combinations with two dice, and a double-six can be made only one way-so there should be an even chance to throw a double-six in 18 rolls. Consequently, when “The Brain,” a well-known bigtime gambler, offers to bet $1,000 that a double-six would not turn up in 21 rolls, Fat the Butch thought he had the best of it and jumped at the opportunity.
After twelve hours of dice rolling, Fat the Butch found himself a $49,000 loser and he quit because he finally realized something must be wrong with his logic.
John Scarne was the best known author on gambling in his days. Ahigh you should have read his book before you made the statement that you knew more then anybody else on the game of craps.
I have to give you credit for admitting that you ended up a loser and would like to now admit you into what all the locals find out when they are playing someone else’s game. Let’s just call it the losers! The best piece of advice that I can give anybody that thinks of them self as a so-called DI, is to never play the game like someone else does. Stick to how you always play and never play in large group of so-called DI’s when they come into town for one of their classes!
The one thing that stick in my mind is quitters never win, sometimes you have to reinvent the way to think, we all should be looking at some of ahighs videos, where the dice are bouncing all over the table when they land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYo1XHjBNOw&feature=channel&list=UL
superrick
Theoretically, one should be able to simulate a dice throw, put in the properties of the crap table and the pyramids and program in throws. You will get the same result time after time. In fact, you might be able to calculate 10,000 rolls with slightly different parameters on each throw (errors) to take into account the human condition of not being able to replicate each throw.
These variables (the human condition) are measurable. You can do some high speed video with an "established dice setter" to figure out all of the parameters of the throw (position, velocity, spin) and then use the properties of the table and pyramids to calculate a result. Take high speed photographs to figure out the errors in the throw and put them into the simulator.
With those initial conditions, you can figure out where the dice will land, how they will bounce, where on the wall they will hit, how they will bounce back, how they will hit the table, and what the end result will be. It's all classical mechanics. Complex classical mechanics, but all newtonian in nature.
You check the simulator's accuracy by matching the parameter's throw to the actual result vs the simulator's results.
Once you have all of that, you can easily put any condition into the simulator and predict the results. You can see whether the human errors in the dice setter's throw (changes in velocity, spin, and release point from the first throw) has an effect on the end result of the dice, and by how much.
From that, you can easily figure out whether dice control is possible, via simulation. At some point, you could start analyzing particular throws with the human error built in and start to calculate which throws and patterns produce the most predictable results with the error built in.
We just need a programmer who can do it.
Quote: superrickIt's very simple why it doesn't work. We are all humans, which have to bet with reasoning. You are playing a negative game; you are playing a random game once the dice hits the tables.
Just read this thread and it will explain why it doesn't work.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/12072-blew-out-my-bankroll/
Being a so-called DI is all about the money; it has nothing to do with having fun. Most people when I was growing up knew what losing was, but with our new generation they give out trophies for being a loser. Just go to any Little League end of the year game, everybody now gets a trophy, there are no longer losers!
I don't care how good of a shooter you think you are, without smart betting, you are going to lose. We all lose sometimes, I can't win playing a negative game every time I play, if I could, the casinos would kick me out!
If you just want to have fun at playing craps, they always have WinCraps, where it won't cost you anything to play except the price of the software!
I think we all could learn from this quote from Scarne on Dice page 27Quote:
In 1952 a New York City gambler know as “Fat the Butch” lost $49,000 by betting that he could throw a double-six in 21 rolls.
Fat the Butch, although a smart gambling-house operator who has made millions booking dice games, went wrong on the bet because he figured it this way: There are 36 possible combinations with two dice, and a double-six can be made only one way-so there should be an even chance to throw a double-six in 18 rolls. Consequently, when “The Brain,” a well-known bigtime gambler, offers to bet $1,000 that a double-six would not turn up in 21 rolls, Fat the Butch thought he had the best of it and jumped at the opportunity.
After twelve hours of dice rolling, Fat the Butch found himself a $49,000 loser and he quit because he finally realized something must be wrong with his logic.
John Scarne was the best known author on gambling in his days. Ahigh you should have read his book before you made the statement that you knew more then anybody else on the game of craps.
I have to give you credit for admitting that you ended up a loser and would like to now admit you into what all the locals find out when they are playing someone else’s game. Let’s just call it the losers! The best piece of advice that I can give anybody that thinks of them self as a so-called DI, is to never play the game like someone else does. Stick to how you always play and never play in large group of so-called DI’s when they come into town for one of their classes!
The one thing that stick in my mind is quitters never win, sometimes you have to reinvent the way to think, we all should be looking at some of ahighs videos, where the dice are bouncing all over the table when they land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYo1XHjBNOw&feature=channel&list=UL
superrick
I have and have read Scarne's book, Rick. And you misinterpreted what I said and made up in your mind what you wanted to hear. Let me quote what I said so you can correct how you interpreted wrong:
Quote: AhighBut just in case some people think I'm being outwardly arrogant, it is an absolute fact that I know more about the game than most people including the pit crews and certainly everyone I have met from this forum. We could argue about it if you wanted to argue about it, but it's fact.
The phrase "so-called DI" means very little to me and I do not consider myself a DI, nor do I use that term in general.
You like to point out how the dice are "bouncing all over the place" a lot. Let me point out something: this is evidence of what I have done, not proof for how to do it. You and possibly other people are looking at this as evidence that when it happens that it is random. But I just don't think you're qualified intellectually to know what a pair of correlated dice even looks like. I'm not sure that I am either, which is why I have the video evidence. But I do, in fact, think I know more about the physics of how dice bounce than you do, and you're comments about "see they bounce all over the place" implying that any idiot can see that it's random means absolutely nothing to me.
Quote: boymimboTheoretically, of course, dice control is possible. It's really classical mechanics at work. If you match all of your initial conditions and throw the dice from the same position with the same velocity (in all three dimensions) and the same spin, you will get the same result, time after time after time. The table's condition doesn't change, the pyramid's elasticity doesn't change, and the air currents don't affect the dice at all (or do they?).
Theoretically, one should be able to simulate a dice throw, put in the properties of the crap table and the pyramids and program in throws. You will get the same result time after time. In fact, you might be able to calculate 10,000 rolls with slightly different parameters on each throw (errors) to take into account the human condition of not being able to replicate each throw.
These variables (the human condition) are measurable. You can do some high speed video with an "established dice setter" to figure out all of the parameters of the throw (position, velocity, spin) and then use the properties of the table and pyramids to calculate a result. Take high speed photographs to figure out the errors in the throw and put them into the simulator.
With those initial conditions, you can figure out where the dice will land, how they will bounce, where on the wall they will hit, how they will bounce back, how they will hit the table, and what the end result will be. It's all classical mechanics. Complex classical mechanics, but all newtonian in nature.
You check the simulator's accuracy by matching the parameter's throw to the actual result vs the simulator's results.
Once you have all of that, you can easily put any condition into the simulator and predict the results. You can see whether the human errors in the dice setter's throw (changes in velocity, spin, and release point from the first throw) has an effect on the end result of the dice, and by how much.
From that, you can easily figure out whether dice control is possible, via simulation. At some point, you could start analyzing particular throws with the human error built in and start to calculate which throws and patterns produce the most predictable results with the error built in.
We just need a programmer who can do it.
I am a programmer and this is along the lines of my long term vision. I'm currently building custom hardware in order to be able to use computer vision to capture the physics state of the real dice to do exactly this. You should get onto my website and follow up if you're interested.
A lot of the things that I am doing are sort of parallel endeavors. Doing video, doing throwing devices, going out and doing gambling binges and losing.
But the idea that you're in tune with here that's already under way, if you're interested, you should hook in with it.
It's a hobby, not an investment towards unlimited riches. But the technical experience of doing this is worth a lot in and of itself.
I do physics simulation in my professional career as a video game programmer, and I have experience with many physics simulation engines. One really good one for doing dice is the Newton Physics Engine. When I get to the stage to feed dice physics state to a physics engine, that's the engine that I will use.
This is legal because the crap on the dice wasn't put there by you. If you did try to bias the dice yourself, for example by applying alcohol, that would be cheating.
60-95% of the collisions are corner to surface collisions until resolution is near determination, and then it's edge to surface for the final few milliseconds.
The 60% figure is generally when the dice land dead.
The dice could be made in a hollow metal skeleton form a few millimeters thick and if the had the same total mass and corner sharpness, the only difference in behavior would be aerodynamic from my perspective (except for the pyramid, chip, and puck examples -- or die-to-die collision).
Some people talk about the material of the dice making a difference, but I believe the dice are generally rigid in relation to the give of the felt and the rubber diamonds. All that matters is sharpness, mass, and size, and to a lesser extent after initial touchdown, aerodynamics.
The aerodynamics have the greatest affect prior to initial touchdown. The aerodynamic forces become much more negligible as the dice slow down.
Aerodynamics, bah! The tumbling of dice is affected by the tits of the women at the opposite end of the table and the karma of your tipping.Quote: AhighThe aerodynamic forces become much more negligible as the dice slow down.
Quote: Ahigh... The dice could be made in a hollow metal skeleton form a few millimeters thick and if the had the same total mass and corner sharpness, the only difference in behavior would be aerodynamic from my perspective (except for the pyramid, chip, and puck examples -- or die-to-die collision).
Perhaps you are overlooking the fact that a hollow shell has different moments of inertia about each axis than does a uniform cube of the same mass. When an edge or corner of the die strikes a pyramid, I think this difference in moments of inertia would affect the relationship between linear and angular velocities in the rebound motion. Maybe I haven't read the earlier posts in sufficient detail, but I'm not sure why discussion of a "hollow metal skeleton form" is relevant anyway. Just stick to what real dice would do.
Edit: now I see that you disallowed collisions in your statement. I guess the importance of the moments of inertia in that case would be in the initial throw -- how much rotation vs. linear motion would result from the toss.
Quote: FleaStiffThe tumbling of dice is affected by the tits of the women at the opposite end of the table...
You seem to be confusing "dice control" with "dick patrol."
It happens.
Quote: AhighI am a programmer and this is along the lines of my long term vision. I'm currently building custom hardware in order to be able to use computer vision to capture the physics state of the real dice to do exactly this. You should get onto my website and follow up if you're interested.
A lot of the things that I am doing are sort of parallel endeavors. Doing video, doing throwing devices, going out and doing gambling binges and losing.
But the idea that you're in tune with here that's already under way, if you're interested, you should hook in with it.
It's a hobby, not an investment towards unlimited riches. But the technical experience of doing this is worth a lot in and of itself.
I do physics simulation in my professional career as a video game programmer, and I have experience with many physics simulation engines. One really good one for doing dice is the Newton Physics Engine. When I get to the stage to feed dice physics state to a physics engine, that's the engine that I will use.
Unfortunately, between my full time day job (consultant) and full time night job (parent), it leaves me little time to engage in the activities that you describe. Plus, to be frank with you, it's been a long time since I did physics modelling and programming.
Quote: AhighNot from my research. By the time a face touches anything (besides the point of a rubber pyramid, a chip, or the puck), resolution has been determined.
The dice could be made in a hollow metal skeleton form a few millimeters thick and if the had the same total mass and corner sharpness, the only difference in behavior would be aerodynamic from my perspective (except for the pyramid, chip, and puck examples -- or die-to-die collision).
Some people talk about the material of the dice making a difference, but I believe the dice are generally rigid in relation to the give of the felt and the rubber diamonds. All that matters is sharpness, mass, and size, and to a lesser extent after initial touchdown, aerodynamics.
Not sure if this was a response to my post or not, but if it is, then you are over-intellectualizing it. Using some adhesive substance (eg whisky) to bias a die is a well-known crossroader trick. The edge is quite large for a % move.
Just using the mugginess of a humid enviroment isn't as strong but you are still looking at a verifiable SRR of somewhere between 1:7 and 1:8. Test it.The problem is that the edge tends to decline with each trials so it is non-trivial getting in enough trials to support a sustainable profit.
Any bias from a sticky face is only going to matter on outcomes where the sticky part touches something. So I suppose if you could land the dice with the flat side hitting exactly square on the felt, it would have an effect. It's just harder than one might think! Just 1 degree off and your bouncing off a corner and the face doesn't touch.
But one thing I didn't think much about is when you are close enough and the felt is squishing down, some contact could be made with the sticky surface. But in general I don't think the effect would be as much you as might think at first is all.
Rounding out specific corners is MUCH more effective (burning the corners) at biasing the outcome.
Quote: superrickI think we all could learn from this quote from Scarne on Dice page 27
Quote:
In 1952 a New York City gambler know as “Fat the Butch” lost $49,000 by betting that he could throw a double-six in 21 rolls.
Fat the Butch, although a smart gambling-house operator who has made millions booking dice games, went wrong on the bet because he figured it this way: There are 36 possible combinations with two dice, and a double-six can be made only one way-so there should be an even chance to throw a double-six in 18 rolls. Consequently, when “The Brain,” a well-known bigtime gambler, offers to bet $1,000 that a double-six would not turn up in 21 rolls, Fat the Butch thought he had the best of it and jumped at the opportunity.
After twelve hours of dice rolling, Fat the Butch found himself a $49,000 loser and he quit because he finally realized something must be wrong with his logic.
This is a far older idea than that. Antoine Gombaud took a similar bet for this reason, and everyone knows how that turned out.
But asserting that the dice are unbiased "once they hit the table" isn't really "why" it doesn't work, but simply an assertion that it doesn't work.
I suspect, but can't prove, that a series of not much effects at all will have very much effects indeed when looking at the numbers rolled. I think that the "small" effects of any slight deviation in speed, friction, spin, air, elasticity of the felt and pyramids will have a greater effect on the final result. With a sufficiently detailed enough simulation we could show how such a small change can have a large effect (or not).
Quote: AhighNo a hollow symmetrical cube with the same mass would have the same moments if the cube is the same mass, same size, same total angular momenum along a given axis, and uniform density, I think. A cube and a sphere, hollow or otherwise, if symmetrical has an inertia tensor that is also symmetrical and therefore only varies according to the mass and average distance from the center for that mass. Exactly the details of where the rigid parts of the mass exist don't matter to the moment calculations if the object is 100% rigid AND symmetrical and has the same angular inertia along each of the three axes.
Perhaps I misunderstood something in an earlier post, but the section of text in your post that I put in bold above is what I was getting at.
Comparing a hollow cube of mass M with a uniform cube of mass M will not conclude that they have the same moments of inertia nor that they have their masses at the same distances from their centers. Perhaps its easier to see with a sphere -- an air-filled ball of a given mass has a higher moment of inertia about an axis through its center than does a solid uniform ball of the same mass and diameter. The mass of the "hollow" ball is concentrated very close to the maximum radius, while the uniform ball has mass at distributed distances.
If you throw a uniform solid die and a hollow die of the same mass with the same linear and rotational impulses, they will move differently, and the same kind of effects should be observed each time they have collisions.
Still, the whole topic of hollow cubes is irrelevant in considering what real dice would do.
Quote: AhighAny bias from a sticky face is only going to matter on outcomes where the sticky part touches something. So I suppose if you could land the dice with the flat side hitting exactly square on the felt, it would have an effect. It's just harder than one might think! Just 1 degree off and your bouncing off a corner and the face doesn't touch.
But one thing I didn't think much about is when you are close enough and the felt is squishing down, some contact could be made with the sticky surface. But in general I don't think the effect would be as much you as might think at first is all.
Rounding out specific corners is MUCH more effective (burning the corners) at biasing the outcome.
With the greatest respect, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the physics involved here. However, you don't seem to be as conversant with advantage gambling.
If the effect I was talking about was extremely strong, or could be achieved without effort, then, almost certainly, others would have discovered it and cleaned up, as happened with dice sliding.
Fortunately any change in the true odds does not need to be significant. A shift of a couple of percent is quite enough to make millions. The question is not whether the effect I am talking about works every time, it is a question of whether it works one time in fifty when the random factors all align.
Note that card counters have made millions exploiting what is statistically a very subtle effect.
Of course, outright cheating moves like rounding, shaving, bevelling etc are all moves which can demolish the casino bottom line if left unchecked. But, there is no way to employ such methods without risking jail time.
I have +3 SD SRR on my results using this approach under casino conditions. It was a limited number of trials so it might have just been a huge fluke, but I think if you try this approach you'll appreciate that it is having a significant effect when the random factors align-it can be visually confirmed to some extent.
Quote: AhighWell, this would be a good test to do. I have all the tools. We could call it "project buccaki."
I think you mean "bukkake."
<hides>
Quote: MrVI have never seen a dice setter 86'ed for being successful.
The funny thing is crews/managers at three casinos have either taken the dice from me, told me I could not shoot, or refused to pay my winning bets because they claimed I was a dice controller when in reality I was only lucky. In my case at Bellagio, I was told the dice must bounce off the back wall a minimum of six inches when, by luck or coincidence and certainly not be design, the two dice came to rest leaning against the back wall... three times in a row showing the same faces of 5-4. I swear, it was luck.
This talk about dice infleuncers and dice controllers delaying the game is ridiculous.
It takes only a second to set dice. Anyone who has ever practiced dice setting for more than five minutes can look at the dice as the stick man brings them to you to know how to change the faces of the dice to make the desired set. Anyone who has ever realistically attempted dice influencing is not going to delay the game. There are more delays by random shooters who shake the dice, have their girlfriends blow kisses, order drinks while the dice are in their hands, yell out mumbo jumbo about what number they are about to roll, than by dice influencers who in one smooth motion can set the dice and make their "controlled throw."
Dice setting means nothing. Even random shooters who throw the dice like a pitcher trying to pick off the runner at first set the dice. If there is any measure of true dice influencing or dice control it would be how the dice fly in the air, bounce, hit the back wall and come to rest in an orderly manner. And the emphasis is on the word "orderly."
I would like to believe in dice control and theoretically it is possible. But, I just haven't seen it. I have seen "good shooters" who appear to influence the dice, but with the exception of one person who I saw hold the dice only once for about 25 minutes (and never seen again) no one has ever been able to repeat great hands with any consistency.
Even those who run the schools cannot show you any record of any consistency. Their "records" have frequently been posted on the web. Show me one player's record that is consistent.
Dice influence is not the Holy Grail.
It’s just a method to try …. in an effort to gain an advantage.
Does it work all the time, NO.
However, some of us …. who play Craps consistently believe there is a relationship in the DI method to get better than normal results.
But not everyone believes it, and attempts to prove its value creates challenges to prove it.
From my perspective Dice Influencing is not for everybody.
There are too many Pro’s and Con’s.
My advise, try it and see if it adds value to your game.
There is plenty of free information on the web, or go to the library
before investing money.
Remember ….. Dice Influencing can also be used shooting from the DON’T.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThe funny thing is crews/managers at three casinos have either taken the dice from me, told me I could not shoot, or refused to pay my winning bets because they claimed I was a dice controller when in reality I was only lucky.
Alan, I can certainly understand the box taking the dice from you or saying you cannot shoot again, even mid-roll, if you repeatedly disobey his instructions to make sure that at least one of the die hit and bounce off the back wall.
I have seen that myself, where a shooter has the dice unceremoniously yanked mid-roll, and that makes sense.
BUT your comment that the casino "refused to pay my winning bets because they claimed I was a dice controller" simply begs for amplification and clarification.
Did they balk, but then pay, or have they yet to pay?
If they refused, what did you do about it?
To my mind, a casino refusing to pay a winning bet because they claim the shooter was a "dice controller" is unheard of; it's an open invitation to at minimum a complaint to the gaming authorities, and at most a law suit.
Details, please!
