koko What the data shows is that different sets produce different grouping of numbers and can without question change the type of seven you get...that in itself negates all the talk about influence...end of story... The real question that matters is when you change sets to avoid certain dice reaction are the new one better or worse.....if I am getting 6/1 1/6 and make the change to avoid that, it wont help if all I accomplish is getting the same number of 5/2 2/5 . that is the basis of Linaways material... you have to get into group 2 more than 66% of the time . example....just went to the table threw a couple to warm up and then set 3/v 3/2,3/1,4/5,2/2,6/4,5/3,5/6,6/6,4/6,1/3,4/1,1/1,4/3 and I hit half of the ATS bet and had 11 out of 13 shots in group 2 I changed sets and had 5/2,3/5,5/4,1/3,2/2,1/6,1/5,5/4,1/1,6/5,4/3,1/6,4/10 4 sevens in same number of rolls with only 7 out of 13 rolls in group 2. if your not in group 2 you are not going to have long rolls and you never know for sure what sets work better on different days as you throw slightly different. the first set which worked well is a set I dont like nearly as much as the second, but today it worked better.... by the way my 90 year buddy in SL had longest roll of his life couple of days ago...he was excited some buy made over $20,000 on the roll and gave him $200 TDB

TD I also like 3 numbers betting. Only exception is betting inside with 4 numbers. In either case like to be profitable with just 2 hits. No across for me.

As Linaway will tell you, it is a hell of a lot easier to shoot for a Group 2 outcome than it is to snipe a number. Since by probability you should end in G2 384/576 of the time, anything the shooter can do to enhance the G2 outcome should and probably will give him a better chance at success. Regardless of HOW we look at the possibility of improving our results, we NEVER know what the the next result will be, and this is precisely why I do not accept the notion of DI.

...6&8 + 1-2 come= 3-4 numbers TD...why do you argue for saying the same.. You can say you like to play plain come for HA reasons...but Risk of ruin is to consider too. You're almost never going to play long enough for maths to balance out. And matter.

I wasn't arguing with you..I was agreeing with you. i think every player here understands the math will not "balance out" during our short sessions....and just like positive "math" helps us win, negative "math" can wipe us out. I use the word variance, others might say good or bad shooting. You've never been on the 4-6-9 and the only thing rolling are 5-8-10 before a 7 out? You've never seen sub 5 SRR over short term? sub 4? I have. Anyone telling me they aren't on the tables playing when pretty bad negative variance hits...I don't put much credence in their thoughts. I've seen good and great many times. I've also seen bad and worse. Short term results (math) can and does run both ways...for and against us.

Koko Knowing what the next result will be has nothing to do with it......you dont have to predict what it is just as you dont need 100% group two finishes to beat probability you need to beat 66%. I never know what the next number will, all I know is if I am using a set that matches my performance that day I will average much longer rolls than if I did not. That is what influence is all about...….knowing what the next number will be is dice control. Having said that when your shot is on and your set is marched you will see 2-3 numbers much more than others and in that expectation you may well bet those more than others. Look at the small set of only 13 shots. there are 11 possible numbers I could hit and 3 numbers made over 50% of those and none of those were the expected 6 & 8. It completely baffles me that anyone would judge the effect of influence only by whether you knew what the next number was going to be. TDB

TDB, "Judging the effectiveness of influence" will most importantly depend on the"judge's" notion on the question of whether or not dice outcomes can be influenced. I look at this question from two points of view. (1) The use of a coin and a pair of dice to demonstrate the concept of probability to school students. Without going through the entire lesson (), it is a GIVEN that these processes are random, that is, beyond our influence. This seems to make perfect sense, doesn't it? (2) My experiences from years of observing dice outcomes at the craps table, where I have seen terrible results, poor results, mediocre results, good results and phenomenal results - all these from chuckers, chicken-feeders, stackers and so-caller DI's. Math and probability tell us what to EXPECT with dice outcomes, but precisely because there are 36 possible outcomes that can display 576 different permuted ways,ANYTHING is possible. Probability tells us to expect random variability. We see random variability. I think that "DI's" read too much "influence" into good and great results when they see them. Obviously, they do not see them regularly. Why? Random variability.

koko Who says they dont see them regularly ????? I see your point of view, but dont agree at all....just because anyone can have a good roll has nothing to controlling how many good rolls another guy can have....I have gone to my table for years and recorded data what I showed you yesterday, I could show you tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. This is not conjecture, set change by a thrower with a consistent shot will have different results... The coin makes no sense because you can alter the way you toss the coin up and get different results just like I can alter the results I get with dice.... all you have to do is try it....either of them. I think you have made up your mind to something and no matter what is shown to you, you cant change...so be it....how players have you watched play, or recorded their play or any period of time that restricts the tables they play on, determines the shot they use by the reaction of the table they are playing on and makes set changes based on dice reactions at the time.......Koko I know of only a hand full of guys that play like that.....how many of those 4 guys have you played with ???? TDB

................. TDVegas, Your statement above is correct & it also points to the requirement that ""BETTING"" is also a major component of ones ability to ""WIN @ CRAPS"". eagleeye2