Dice setting

Some of the other threads have recently talked about dice setting. I play a lot of craps, and I do indeed set the dice when I shoot. Do I really think I am changing the odds? Maybe, maybe not. I ceertainly seem to be shooting longer since I started, but I certainly don't have enough evidence. I look at it as a match play coupon. I can't lose by setting the dice. If a Seven has a 1 in 6 chance, the best setting could do is tick the odds in my favor a little. The worst it could do is nothing. You shouldn't compare it to playing keno or Martingaling. If you think that by setting, I'm inadvertantly "messing up the dice" and causing a 7 every once and a while that would not have shown up without the setting, you would have to argue that my setting changed the 7 to a different number just as often (much like a third baseman at blackjack "taking" the dealer's bust card). Again, the WORST case scenario is that it has ZERO effect on the game. I set within 3 seconds, so it does not affect speed, perhaps another complaint of the anti-setting crowd. An ancillary reason for setting the same dice the same way every time is that I have complete control of the outcome, not the stickman, or the way the previous roll was bounced, etc. The roll aways starts from scratch when put in front of me. Just my thoughts.

Quote: cclub79

If a Seven has a 1 in 6 chance, the best setting could do is tick the odds in my favor a little. The worst it could do is nothing... Again, the WORST case scenario is that it has ZERO effect on the game.

Actually, it could have a negative correlation. There is no evidence that the correlation must be positive. But, most likely it has no long term effect.

IMO, the number of setters who practice hours a day, know the handful of layouts in the country that are beatable, are adequately capitalized, and are able to travel at a moment's notice, probably numbers in the mid to high single digits.

--Dorothy

Quote: DorothyGale

... the handful of layouts in the country that are beatable...

I didn't think the table would matter. Unless you mean one where the pit boss doesnt yell at you for rolling short?

Quote: DorothyGale

Actually, it could have a negative correlation. There is no evidence that the correlation must be positive. But, most likely it has no long term effect.


--Dorothy

But that's just it. If there is a correlation in craps, you can bet the correlation. There's no such thing as a negative correlation if you are choosing where to bet.

Quote: cclub79

Quote: DorothyGale

Actually, it could have a negative correlation. There is no evidence that the correlation must be positive. But, most likely it has no long term effect.


--Dorothy

But that's just it. If there is a correlation in craps, you can bet the correlation. There's no such thing as a negative correlation if you are choosing where to bet.

Agree. But you have to know WHAT the correlation is to know what to bet.

--Dorothy

Quote: DorothyGale

the number of setters who practice hours a day, know the handful of layouts in the country that are beatable, are adequately capitalized, and are able to travel at a moment's notice, probably numbers in the mid to high single digits.

And all it would take is for a routine change in the felt padding to alter some layout's resilency yet the would-be dice setter still has all those hours he has put into his "skill".

You're right: the preset is an integral part of precision shooting.
However, I'd say if you can't keep the dice perfectly on axis then you're doing nothing to decrease the house advantage.

I think that for setting the dice to work, you need to take as much randomness out of the roll as possible. I've seen people set the dice and then whip the dice down the table without a care... what good can that possibly do?

So how do you take the randomness out of the roll? That's the great mystery that DVDs, dice setting courses, craps sets, software, and hours of rolls will teach you to do. I think not only do you set the dice, but you have to minimize spin, twists, and the reaction of the dice with the table and the back wall. And you can't be perfect. But all you really need to do is move the % of times you roll 7s from 16.6667% to 16% to make a real difference in your play results.

The problem with this is that the analysis to prove that you actually do have an advantage with statistical certainty is that you have to have about 10,000 trials to prove that you actually have this skill. In a real life scenario in a real casino, it would take about 1,500 come-outs to prove this. During a session, you may only get the dice once an hour... so think about a year of play full time to prove that you have the skill in a casino setting.

Quote: cclub79

I play a lot of craps, and I do indeed set the dice when I shoot...I can't lose by setting the dice... the WORST case scenario is that it has ZERO effect on the game...

I'm thinking about paying more attention to setting the dice for these reasons. And I kind of get a kick knowing people wonder what the heck I'm doing even when I have forgotten how to set them.

While reviewing the wizard's page , something jumped out at me that I paid no attention to before: he says a random shooter keeps the dice on axis "44.44% of the time". This startled me this time around, since it is known that the dice can be set in such a way that if they stay on axis, a '5' or '9', for example, cannot be rolled. Thus it would seem to be worth it to set the dice for your points, playing the dark side, even if you can't improve on random results . I can't be the first person to notice this, so tell me where my thinking is all wet.

What you are trying to do is make one die the mirror image of the other.
you use one set and measure results.
you change sets to get different results.
you bet appropriately.
there are many ways to accomplish the first but it does take physical skill which is where we lose the blackjack AP crowd.
outside of that there are no rules, but this can be done more effectively on the don'ts.

In relation to my mental stability, I have no doubt that people might indeed use the phrase "off axis" but have no idea what it means in relation to a die being thrown. As long as it does not take too long to accomplish, I've no particular objection to a dice setter doing their thing at the table but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe that anything is happening unless I consistently see a dice setter walking away from the table with a rack of chips.

I can't say that I make any impact on probability at all when I roll the dice, but I do take a few seconds to set them and I also try to roll them the same each time. Never works, I always manage to vary the speed, but I get out of it what I want. Those few seconds are my time to enjoy the roll. When it is a good roll, we all take the time to enjoy it together. I don't take a long time to do all of this and I do not think it changes anything but the speed of play by a slight amount. It is just part of the pleasure of playing...

I do like to slow the play down slightly. I have never heard anyone but the dealers say to hurry things up between rolls (not just mine); everyone else seems to enjoy having time to place bets and get their hands back before the dice go down the table. The casino wants us to play faster--it isn't in our best interest to do so.

Quote: FleaStiff

I have no doubt that people might indeed use the phrase "off axis" but have no idea what it means in relation to a die being thrown.

I haven't seen a good definition, but the concept will come to you if you look into it. You could look at the provided link above. Basically, if I have this right, if you can set dice and get them to tumble end over end in the direction you threw them *only*, no tumbling 90 degrees from the direction you threw them, then you've kept them on axis. If they stay on axis and one die tumbles differently than another, that is variance by correlation. These terms comes from those who attempt to study it.

Clearly the dice could go off axis and wind up back on axis. I guess by accident this staying on axis happens one way or the other about 44% of the time. My current question relates to the benefit of setting the dice when you are playing the 'don't' and have a point of 5 or 9. It seems that you would want to set the dice so that those numbers are not possible staying on axis, even if you are only shooting for the 44% of the time you stay on axis accepting you can't improve on that. If you just go with anything, you'd have to have inferior results to the person who set the dice at least in this circumstance. Can you see my point?

I half expect the Wizard or someone to say what is meant by the 44.44% statement is not what I am thinking.

[edited]

Quote: FleaStiff

In relation to my mental stability, I have no doubt that people might indeed use the phrase "off axis" but have no idea what it means in relation to a die being thrown.

It means that if you set a die with 3 on top, 5 facing you and 1 and 6 on the sides, you throw it and it stays with the 1 and 6 on the sides, so that the only numbers you could roll are 2,3,4,5 on that die.

well, I didnt get an answer to the specific question yet. I wonder if that means "very good Grasshopper, you are learning" or "such a dumb concept can't be dignified with a response" ? [g]

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm thinking about paying more attention to setting the dice for these reasons. And I kind of get a kick knowing people wonder what the heck I'm doing even when I have forgotten how to set them.

While reviewing the wizard's page , something jumped out at me that I paid no attention to before: he says a random shooter keeps the dice on axis "44.44% of the time". This startled me this time around, since it is known that the dice can be set in such a way that if they stay on axis, a '5' or '9', for example, cannot be rolled. Thus it would seem to be worth it to set the dice for your points, playing the dark side, even if you can't improve on random results . I can't be the first person to notice this, so tell me where my thinking is all wet.

I didn't find any such statement on his page, but I think what was meant is that the result will LOOK LIKE the dice stayed on axis 44.4% of the time, because there are 16 on-axis outcomes and 16/36 = .444. IOW, the dice should show one of those 16 combinations 44.4% of the time - RANDOMLY! If the dice actually never leave the set axis, those combination are the only ones possible, and would show 100% of the time. For a combination of on-axis and off-axis throws, then, the percentage of apparently on-axis results should be higher than 44.4%, much higher if the skill level is high.

My feeling is that it's pretty pointless, but harmless, to set the dice, as any legal throw is going to be randomized by the felt and the pyramids.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: odiousgambit

My current question relates to the benefit of setting the dice when you are playing the 'don't' and have a point of 5 or 9. It seems that you would want to set the dice so that those numbers are not possible staying on axis, even if you are only shooting for the 44% of the time you stay on axis accepting you can't improve on that. If you just go with anything, you'd have to have inferior results to the person who set the dice at least in this circumstance. Can you see my point?

I half expect the Wizard or someone to say what is meant by the 44.44% statement is not what I am thinking.

[edited]

Exactly, it is not what you are thinking. If you set the dice so that no 5 or 9 can be rolled if they stay on axis, and you actually keep them on axis from the time the dice leave you hand until they come to rest, then you will never get a 5 or 9. If you don't keep them on axis at all, you will get them each 11.11% of the time. The 44% is just 16/36, the random expectation for getting one of the "on-axis" combinations. Of course, you only win the DP/DC with a seven, not any on-axis combo.

The biggest drawback to using "controlled" shooting on the don't side is that you lose the dice as soon as you seven out.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

that explains it, thanks!

Quote: goatcabin

I didn't find any such statement on his page, but I think what was meant is that the result will LOOK LIKE the dice stayed on axis 44.4% of the time, because there are 16 on-axis outcomes and 16/36 = .444.

OK, now I found it, and I think the Wizard worded it very poorly. A random shooter would almost NEVER keep the dice on axis from the time they leave his/her hand until they come to rest. I think it's a very, very rare event. The 44% figure is just the probability that one of the 16 on-axis dice combinations will show.
Cheers,
Alan Shank