Oh, but you do. You have something to prove to the entire forums if you're going to come in here and make wild un-mathematical claims. The majority of these forums (thankfully) believe in math and more/less like to see "real" proof... Not "hey guys I won $2k tonight!" That's not proof of anything. . . .
Wrong again. MATH is not debatable. Your stories, are. They are just that, stories with no mathematical backing or basis.
Romes, you are one of my favorite posters and I agree with almost everything you post. But the claim of Dice Control is not refuted by math. If anything, the scientific objections to dice control arise out of physics and the objections are not fundamental, per se. The issue is whether microscopic variations in the throw of the dice (or the environmental conditions) make such a large difference in the outcome of the dice roll that the outcomes are 'essentially random' no matter how much a human being tries to control the throwing motion. I've seen one scientific journal article that claims that dice throws are '"essentially random" and I suspect that's right - but I'm personally not 100% sure.
I imagine you also are challenging the statistical significance of any interpreted correlations in the OP's data. But even here, I would challenge your statements.
There are two extremes for establishing statistical significance:
- A very large number of trials, so that even small influences can be detected with high confidence.
- A small number of trials with an outcome that is highly non-random.
For example, if a gambler can throw a single die and roll the same number 10 times in a row I think you would agree he can control the dice. This sequence is so extreme that if you observed it once it would be highly significant evidence that dice control exists.
So, we do not always need a large number of trials to create statistical confidence that dice throws are non-random. However, I agree that when the departure from randomness in the dice throw is small, i.e. when a small edge exists, then it will usually (but not always) require a large number of trials to establish confidence that it exists.
Can I send my money now to Joel and have it doubled during the fall's NFL season?
Simple question, just 2F
Appreciate the compliment gordon, but I will too disagree with you here. There is literally only 1 reason it hasn't be yet refuted... No "successful" Dice Controller has stepped up to the plate to record a large enough sampling size of throws. Anytime there's every been a bet made with 25k throws, 50k throws, or ideally 100k throws... No one will ever do it. "A moment ago it was like a night at the Apollo in here, now it's quiet as a mothaf*ckin church!" Just because something hasn't been proven false doesn't inversely make it true.Quote: gordonm888
Romes, you are one of my favorite posters and I agree with almost everything you post. But the claim of Dice Control is not refuted by math....
There's exact replicas of us on the first planet just outside of our telescopes vision... Hey, you can't prove I'm wrong. Sometime people treat this as "then I must be right" when in reality it's "well, no, I can't mathematically prove it yet... but let's be honest."
I disagree. The very first thing I'd say is "Where's the proof? Do you have video?" etc. That's like me telling you right now, hey I can roll 18 yo's in a row on demand... I just proved dice control! When in reality it's just a flat out lie. I never rolled 18 yo's in a row and I couldn't if I wanted to. Yet if I bring that statement to the forums and post it where people "want" to believe everyone is being truthful then that's an issue. This is why most anyone who comes here with "wild" claims often end up leaving one way or another because they bring absolutely no proof with their story.. just as our OP.Quote: gordonm888
For example, if a gambler can throw a single die and roll the same number 10 times in a row I think you would agree he can control the dice.
Now if there were un-edited, un-tainted, video evidence of someone rolling 18 yo's in a row (with fair dice)... Then I would believe that person could control the dice if they announced prior they were going to do that. Like most math people I'm entirely willing to change my view of something, given the right evidence and reasoning.
If you're going to focus on the shorter number of throws and higher number of standard deviations, this is ALL the more reason it MUST come with evidence. Again, it's literally the same as me saying "I made $480,000 in craps last night playing $10 pass line single odds!" It's nothing more than a short term story with no evidence and yet I'm being told repeatedly "it's the truth" when the summation of what the OP's posted in multiple threads is quite easy to disseminate as bullshit. Hell, his first thread was more/less to promote his NFL picks.
For goodness sakes.. If you can control the dice why wouldn't you make $100,000 from me??? Instead it's always "eh, I've got nothing to prove all the sudden." When one side is willing to put their money where their mouth is and the other isn't, that should speak for itself.
If a roulette dealer said he could land the ball on 00 (or within 2 spaces on each side), 95% of the time after seeing him do this 18 out of 20 times, would you say, "I want 99,980 more trials!" ?
Now if a roulette dealer said he could do that but 15% of the time (when you expect it to occur 5/38'ths of the time or 13.15% of the time), and after 100 spins he did it 15 times......then yeah, you're going to want more proof than that.
Not at all for a potential $100k bet. I stated in the offer it would take a couple days at least... Is $100k in 1 week not worth it?Quote: RS
And how many throws can you get off in an hour? You don't think that's a bit ridiculous?
Or a notable person of his stature capitalized on something non-provable with a large audience. Perhaps he does believe, perhaps not, but how much do you think the book made? I still love his books/etc, just think that one squeaked in with the others =p.
How much did he make from that book? I don't know for a fact but I would guess very little. I was in the book business for many years. Very few, other than best selling writers make good money from writing and/or publishing books. If you're not familiar with the book business (and maybe you are, I'm not saying that you are not), you would be shocked at how little some authors make especially considering the hundreds of hours many put into writing their books. For a great many it works out to be way less than minimum wage. Wong is well known but mainly by a rather small group of people in a rather esoteric undertaking. The book "Wong on Dice" did not attract much attention. He probably did better than most because he was very wise about self publishing and marketing his books; but still not a lot.
Why challenge someone to a number of trials that 'ain't happening'?
The Wizard has never demanded that, and he always wants these bets. Why? because of his motto, "not whether you win or lose but whether you had a good bet" [or something like that]
I'd go on about why ... but surely a group of gamblers already gets this! Quit demanding so many trials! You still have a good bet [assuming you are right]
Whereas OP has the ability to control the dice when he is shooting; only it's his lack of patience when others are rolling that is keeping him from winning the multi-millions of dollars anyone who could control dice with even a 1% edge could expect?
So then the solution is obvious. OP should simply bet don't pass and 6x his flat bet on the odds every time a point is established as long as he is not shooting. Then when those uneducated shooters throw the dice like "ice cubes at a frat party" (is that a thing?), he should clean up. And as a bonus, when it's his turn to shoot, he can control the dice!
I must admit that my own craps play has been revolutionized in recent years. Whereas before I never set the dice, and always asked the stickman to dump the bowl when a die rolls off the table, now I set the dice religiously and insist on "same die" every time.
These measures have the benefits of slowing the game down, keeping the comp meter running, and making me look like a moron, which is also good for the comp rating.
Sometimes I even sit out a few shooters because they just throw the dice too haphazardly for me to bet on. I find this improves my expectation at a rate exactly equal to my average bet times the house edge.