Dice Setting - Real or Myth?
Poll
 | 23 votes (82.14%) | ||
| | 5 votes (17.85%) |
28 members have voted
I'll answer first -
I say that from a physics standpoint that yes it is possible. It might even be possible to do it somewhat consistently. But every table differs from every other table and individual tables differ depending on climatic factors, moon gravitational pull (earth tides) and a number of other unknown knowns. Because of this variance and the fact that any individual does not have the dice long enough to work out the necessary combination of set, speed, rate and bounce for any particular table it is not practical.
I "set" the dice and throw them in the same way each and every time. I try to hit a specific spot on the table consistently and I have had quite a few rather longish rolls (through three or four stick changes). But in no way do I believe that I am influencing the roll or length of time that I hold the dice or any other outcome that can't also be attributed to just plain luck.
So how about it fellow degenerate craps shooters - what say ye?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/3195-controlled-dice-shooting-is-bs/
HERE
Never heard if any one accepted the dice influence challenge or if one now even exists.
dice control, influence, what ever you want to call it, and the jokers selling their lessons, books...all BS in my book.
Quote: JerryLoganWhy do you think they SELL all their crap on it instead of PLAY winning craps??
Because Frank Scoblete and his side kicks have all been banned from almost the craps tables every where. They are that good, so they claim.
They make their money selling books, dvds and stories.
I agree it is bs of the highest order but as P.T. Barnum is said to have said - there's a sucker born every minute and two born to take him.
-- There are a finite number of variables that control the outcome.
-- Unlike other games, the shooter is one of the variables.
-- If the shooter can minimize the randomness of the variables (s)he controls (well, influences,) it is possible that the outcome will be less "random".
The question is, "Are the variables that the shooter does not control so random that it makes no difference what the shooter does?"
So, playing in joints with the least amount of "randomizers" is a good thing for those working to control/influence their shooting.
The fact that a casino would employ those kinds of tactics only lends credence to the possibility. Why go through all the trouble of making a non-standard table if foam pyramids, stacks of chips, and heat from the pit boss was enough?
That being said, tossing dice isn't like that. Tossed dice are more like water in a fast stream, or currents in air; they are uncontrollable chaos as soon as they bounce. I don't have the math for it, but think of that strike of the table like it erased everything that influenced it before, leaving maybe a ghost of influence. Then figure that the dice have to hit the back wall, and the ghost is gone.
Quote: HeadlockI agree with Martin that it is physically possible, but the skill necessary to achieve profitable results is very unlikely. I would compare it to the skill necessary to hit a golf ball into a hole 200 yards away. We all know it can be done, but rarely.
I like this comparison. But what if the holes on one course had windmills over them? Wouldn't your chances be better at a place where the greens were more, "predictable".
Quote: MoscaThat being said, tossing dice isn't like that. Tossed dice are more like water in a fast stream, or currents in air; they are uncontrollable chaos as soon as they bounce. I don't have the math for it, but think of that strike of the table like it erased everything that influenced it before, leaving maybe a ghost of influence. Then figure that the dice have to hit the back wall, and the ghost is gone.
Well said.
The rules a shooter MUST follow. Dice must hit table then the back wall while not throwing the dice higher than the sticks eyes. All to produce a random roll.
DIs think they control the dice.
They are only seeing randomness in action.
Quote: MoscaDon't underestimate "physical skill". We've all seen Cirque du Soliel. If you haven't seen it, find and watch Sid Crosby knocking off a pyramid of pucks from 50 feet away, one by one, with slapshots. Top darts players can hit whatever they want. Top archers can put an arrow into the back of an arrow, repeatedly. There's guys out there juggling chainsaws and ping pong balls, simultaneously. Just because I can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
That being said, tossing dice isn't like that. Tossed dice are more like water in a fast stream, or currents in air; they are uncontrollable chaos as soon as they bounce. I don't have the math for it, but think of that strike of the table like it erased everything that influenced it before, leaving maybe a ghost of influence. Then figure that the dice have to hit the back wall, and the ghost is gone.
But if a machine were tossing the dice with a high degree of precision, so that they would always start from the same position, release and rotate consistently, and land on the same spot, don't you think the outcome would be less "random", perhaps even "controlled" if you were to set the toss to land just below the "pyramids"?
I think this is what the dice setters are "shooting" for, machine like precision.
Well, if you are willing to pay a small fortune to attend my all day seminar and to buy my DVD on Dice-Setting then its REAL.
If you are not that stupid to pay me any money, then its a MYTH.
If I could actually produce ANY number with consistently greater frequency that normal variance, I could make far more money DOING it rather than trying to sell seminars ABOUT it.
The casinos are not worried about dice setting, they are concerned about delays and rolls that don't hit the back board.
Quote: AyecarumbaI approach it this way:
-- There are a finite number of variables that control the outcome.
-- Unlike other games, the shooter is one of the variables.
-- If the shooter can minimize the randomness of the variables (s)he controls (well, influences,) it is possible that the outcome will be less "random".
The question is, "Are the variables that the shooter does not control so random that it makes no difference what the shooter does?"
So, playing in joints with the least amount of "randomizers" is a good thing for those working to control/influence their shooting.
The fact that a casino would employ those kinds of tactics only lends credence to the possibility. Why go through all the trouble of making a non-standard table if foam pyramids, stacks of chips, and heat from the pit boss was enough?
If I bump a table does the characteristic of the table change immediately? Yes, of course, but how will that factor into the next throw? And how will the shooter know how it will factor into the throw? Two days ago he was shooting on an old felt, today it is brand new. Will the nap change the effect of the bounce? Of course it will much as a new felt affects the speed of a cue ball or object ball in a game of billiards.
Building a device to test this is fairly simple and fairly inexpensive. Build a tower that drops a pair of dice a certain distance directly on to a felt covered slab of any kind. Always have the same faces up.
By doing this you will have eliminated over 90% of all of the variables. Then record the results of each event and test for bias.
For a period of time you might experience a bias towards a certain result. Then as the felt and the table begin to wear you might experience a bias towards a different result. Maybe the device itself changes orientation and you discover yet another bias. Then ask yourself is it possible for a human being to be so controlled as to be able to deliver a pair of dice in this manner consistently over a period of time.
But then you also have to ask yourself when did I first notice the bias in my test results? Was it early enough in the event horizon to permit me to take advantage of it for some kind of craps bet?
Note that I left out the biggest randomizer of all - the diamonds on the wall. I contend that the test I have proposed is sufficient to prove that while it might be possible it just isn't probable. And that is because a person can not control all of the variables for a sufficiently long enough period of time to permit that person to take advantage of any bias that might occur such as fewer than expected 7's.
Quote: AyecarumbaQuote: MoscaDon't underestimate "physical skill". We've all seen Cirque du Soliel. If you haven't seen it, find and watch Sid Crosby knocking off a pyramid of pucks from 50 feet away, one by one, with slapshots. Top darts players can hit whatever they want. Top archers can put an arrow into the back of an arrow, repeatedly. There's guys out there juggling chainsaws and ping pong balls, simultaneously. Just because I can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
That being said, tossing dice isn't like that. Tossed dice are more like water in a fast stream, or currents in air; they are uncontrollable chaos as soon as they bounce. I don't have the math for it, but think of that strike of the table like it erased everything that influenced it before, leaving maybe a ghost of influence. Then figure that the dice have to hit the back wall, and the ghost is gone.
But if a machine were tossing the dice with a high degree of precision, so that they would always start from the same position, release and rotate consistently, and land on the same spot, don't you think the outcome would be less "random", perhaps even "controlled" if you were to set the toss to land just below the "pyramids"?
I think this is what the dice setters are "shooting" for, machine like precision.
If you place a feather in a wind current, at the exact same place and the exact same position, will it always travel the exact same path?
Quote: MoscaQuote: AyecarumbaQuote: MoscaDon't underestimate "physical skill". We've all seen Cirque du Soliel. If you haven't seen it, find and watch Sid Crosby knocking off a pyramid of pucks from 50 feet away, one by one, with slapshots. Top darts players can hit whatever they want. Top archers can put an arrow into the back of an arrow, repeatedly. There's guys out there juggling chainsaws and ping pong balls, simultaneously. Just because I can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
That being said, tossing dice isn't like that. Tossed dice are more like water in a fast stream, or currents in air; they are uncontrollable chaos as soon as they bounce. I don't have the math for it, but think of that strike of the table like it erased everything that influenced it before, leaving maybe a ghost of influence. Then figure that the dice have to hit the back wall, and the ghost is gone.
But if a machine were tossing the dice with a high degree of precision, so that they would always start from the same position, release and rotate consistently, and land on the same spot, don't you think the outcome would be less "random", perhaps even "controlled" if you were to set the toss to land just below the "pyramids"?
I think this is what the dice setters are "shooting" for, machine like precision.
If you place a feather in a wind current, at the exact same place and the exact same position, will it always travel the exact same path?
No, but if you crushed the feather to reduce the surface area, could you get it to land with one side up, more often than the other? Perhaps...and that is the important thing about this game. Working the variables you can influence to reduce the randomness of the ones you can't.
Quote: AyecarumbaQuote: MoscaQuote: AyecarumbaQuote: MoscaDon't underestimate "physical skill". We've all seen Cirque du Soliel. If you haven't seen it, find and watch Sid Crosby knocking off a pyramid of pucks from 50 feet away, one by one, with slapshots. Top darts players can hit whatever they want. Top archers can put an arrow into the back of an arrow, repeatedly. There's guys out there juggling chainsaws and ping pong balls, simultaneously. Just because I can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
That being said, tossing dice isn't like that. Tossed dice are more like water in a fast stream, or currents in air; they are uncontrollable chaos as soon as they bounce. I don't have the math for it, but think of that strike of the table like it erased everything that influenced it before, leaving maybe a ghost of influence. Then figure that the dice have to hit the back wall, and the ghost is gone.
But if a machine were tossing the dice with a high degree of precision, so that they would always start from the same position, release and rotate consistently, and land on the same spot, don't you think the outcome would be less "random", perhaps even "controlled" if you were to set the toss to land just below the "pyramids"?
I think this is what the dice setters are "shooting" for, machine like precision.
If you place a feather in a wind current, at the exact same place and the exact same position, will it always travel the exact same path?
No, but if you crushed the feather to reduce the surface area, could you get it to land with one side up, more often than the other? Perhaps...and that is the important thing about this game. Working the variables you can influence to reduce the randomness of the ones you can't.
Yeah, but not if you had to bounce it off a table and a back wall 5 feet away, with diamonds on it. Once it hits that surface all influence is erased.
"Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos." Hitting the table, or back wall, overwhelms the system with chaos.
Quote: MoscaHitting the table, or back wall, overwhelms the system with chaos.
I understand what you're saying, but I'd still like to see some proof that the impact of the dice on those surfaces completely wipes out all deterministic elements. Part of chaos theory is recognizing that deterministic elements linger even in systems we call "chaotic".
Humans are just that though.
So we go to plan "B". Try to throw as consistently as possible and try to believe that it makes a difference. Negate the influences outside of your throw. Eliminate your spin, or maximize your spin, whatever. Try to eliminate the influence of the pyramids on the back wall and the table. In that way, perhaps you will get more consistent results. Maybe you'll believe that the dice will be more "on axis".
DI classes and systems are successful because there will always be about 4 in 10 who will come out ahead in craps, and 1 out of 10 that you could say is having a great deal of "positive variance" because of their throwing "technique". The problem with that fallacy is that it's not outside of the general population either.
I think it may be akin to throwing an unhittable curveball in baseball. There's a lot of pitchers who can throw such a pitch. They spend countless hours and years of their lives perfecting such a pitch. The ones who perfect it make millions. But they can't throw that perfect pitch every single time. That's why no-hitters are so rare. But if you can throw the perfect pitch consistently, and some pretty good pitches the other times, you will be a hero to a city and rich beyond your wildest dreams.
Is it possible for some zen master of craps to throw the dice perfectly -not all the time- but on a somewhat consistent basis? Maybe. But my hunch is, perfecting your curveball is probably easier than perfecting this hypothetical craps technique.
Dice setting? You'd be better off practicing baseball. I vote myth.
This is from an avowed believer in Dice Influencing/Dice Setting.Quote: DeMangoI voted myth. Let's keep it that way.
Want to keep something a myth because there are these few True Believers somewhere who are making a mint at the craps table keeping the dice acting as if they were conjoined twins? Well where are those few True Believers who can actually control the dice?
"On axis" or "one die went off-axis" ... or any other such incantation is about as meaningful as the incantation about needing shoes or getting a chicken dinner. Your results will be just as random if you think "off-axis" while throwing the dice as if you think "on-axis" while throwing the dice.
There has never been any known case of a professional craps player, irrespective of on axis or off axis.
Quote: FleaStiff
There has never been any known case of a professional craps player, irrespective of on axis or off axis.
Why would we know if there were?
There are professional gamblers who play at all sorts of games with far greater negative expected values than craps. And make a living at it. For example the vig that professional horse players face is severe (in fact it is that vig that has killed horse racing in America but that's another story.) Unless they write a book or do something otherwise we would never know their names.
Quote: boymimboThe physics of the dice are quite predictable, actually. You can make some assumptions and use newtonian mechanics to figure out where a dice is going to land knowing all of the variables. If you throw the dice with the same velocity (in all three planes) from the same location, spin, and hit the back wall in exactly the same place, and there is no difference in the state of the table where the dice land, you will get the same result. You could probably negate breaths, a slight table bump, and things of that nature. I am certain that a dice machine could be manufactured with enough precision that the same dice thrown at the same place will get the same result.
The key phrase in the above quote is "and there is no difference in the state of the table where the dice land" which is one of the known unknowns - the effect of friction on the equation. In order to overcome that variance you have to vary some other variable by just enough. And you have to be able to make that variance calculation in a split second or your dice will rebound with a slightly different vector and a completely different result.
But let's just say for sake of argument that a person can overcome all of the above (or the casino allows Adjunct Professor I. Shoot Craps to bring his machine to the joint to play the table.) Then there are three questions - how long do you have to roll to be able to establish the variance, how will you know when you have established it, and exactly how will you bet in advance of the established variance so as to take advantage of the variance when it projects itself.
Quote: mkl654321I understand what you're saying, but I'd still like to see some proof that the impact of the dice on those surfaces completely wipes out all deterministic elements. Part of chaos theory is recognizing that deterministic elements linger even in systems we call "chaotic".
I think there's proof in the statistical results from the craps tables, isn't there? For all the talk of dice-setting, there are no huge surveys of favorable results, only murky reports of isolated instances of success. IMO it is more reasonable to assume the randomness, and then prove definitively that it can be overcome, which hasn't happened.
Quote: boymimboI am certain that a dice machine could be manufactured with enough precision that the same dice thrown at the same place will get the same result
I disagree. If so, it would have been done already. I believe that the randomizing factors out weigh the mechanical ability to hit the 'exact' same spot on the wall, at the 'exact' same speed, at the 'exact' same angle, with the 'exact' same rotation, with no change in relative humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind currents, the bimbo leaning on the table, the dealer stacking chips, routine seismic variations, the air conditioner going off and on, but most of all, the felt changing from being hit over and over in the 'exact' same spot.
It's a while ago, but I think I have a 'dice setting challenge' out there.
Quote: SOOPOOI disagree. If so, it would have been done already. I believe that the randomizing factors out weigh the mechanical ability to hit the 'exact' same spot on the wall, at the 'exact' same speed, at the 'exact' same angle, with the 'exact' same rotation, with no change in relative humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind currents, the bimbo leaning on the table, the dealer stacking chips, routine seismic variations, the air conditioner going off and on, but most of all, the felt changing from being hit over and over in the 'exact' same spot.
It's a while ago, but I think I have a 'dice setting challenge' out there.
I agree with this analysis - that's why I proposed designing a machine that just dropped the dice from a specified height with the same face up at all times. I contend that eventually a bias will appear which will then disappear to be replaced by a different bias and so on.
I don't think a "challenge" is possible because of the random nature of the beast you could have hundreds and hundreds of sets of 36 rolls that only contain five 7's in millions and millions of tests. Let's say that there will be periods where a low number of 7's per 36 rolls appear and other periods where a normal number of 7's appear and still other periods where a high number of 7's appear.
How could you control for knowing whether or not the shooter was in one of the "low 7's sets" vice a "normal number of 7's sets" vice being in the "high number of 7's sets?"
Quote: MartinWhy would we know if there were?
There are professional gamblers who play at all sorts of games with far greater negative expected values than craps. And make a living at it. For example the vig that professional horse players face is severe (in fact it is that vig that has killed horse racing in America but that's another story.) Unless they write a book or do something otherwise we would never know their names.
Doesn't that provide strong evidence that the "professional craps player" (in a casino, at least) doesn't exist? After all, you *do* know about those professional gamblers in other sports/games. Stories about beating poker, horses, blackjack, or football abound. Nobody's writing stories about how they've beaten keno, slots, craps, or roulette (without computers). I don't mean the system hucksters, I mean someone who's actually playing (or did actually play). The closest you can find in craps are the actual cheats - dice sliders using accomplices, switch-out artists, etc.
There are a lot of craps players who write books - I've got a book case full of them. With the exception of Scoblette and John Patrick who offer theories - Scoblette and the 5-step advantage play made famous by "The Captain and his crew" and Patrick's dancing place bets (up and back and back and up and over and over again - now let's try for $10 ...) most of the books are just How To or largely useless in the age of the internet.
But there are a lot of professional gamblers who don't write books who do play various games and they make a living at it just simply playing the edge. Most are not cheaters, sliders or switch-out artists either.
I knew these guys when I was a kid growing up in New York's pool halls. Gamblers, grifters, and just "guys who hang out." They played dice and horses and cards and pool and sometimes they were walking tall and other times they were looking for a handout. They didn't write books they just played for a living.
Did any of them make their living exclusively playing craps? I don't know - I do know they played a lot of craps because all you needed was a pool table, a cardboard box and a pair of dice and you were in business. I can pretty much guarantee you did not wish to cheat at one of those informal soirees.
So I don't think that we would necessarily know if someone were out there actually making a living at the game. I think it is possible but I'll explain my ideas on that in another thread because I think that topic will generate a lot of steam.
Quote: MathExtremistNobody's writing stories about how they've beaten keno, slots, craps, or roulette (without computers). I don't mean the system hucksters, I mean someone who's actually playing (or did actually play).
If your slots category includes video poker (which is how the casinos classify VP), it would be a good idea to check out players like the writers who go under the names of Bob Dancer and Jean Scott, among others.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIf your slots category includes video poker (which is how the casinos classify VP), it would be a good idea to check out players like the writers who go under the names of Bob Dancer and Jean Scott, among others.
It doesn't. That's how the tax and revenue figures classify VP, but that's not how slot managers or vendors think of it. There's a very big difference between reel slots and VP to anyone who sells or operates both kinds of machines. Of course, a loose VP paytable + good marketing comps can frequently be +EV. That's basically never true (consistently) with reel spinners.
