Burden of Proof

Discussion in 'Dice Influencing' started by kaysirtap, Jan 16, 2012.

  1. kaysirtap, Jan 16, 2012

    kaysirtap

    kaysirtap Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    19
    Now we're getting somewhere... Okay, if your memory were successfully erased, I would guess that you no longer had an opinion one way or the other about whether or not dice control actually works. Now the question is... what could someone do to convince you that it didn't exist/work?
     
    #21
  2. Southern-Comfort, Jan 16, 2012

    Southern-Comfort

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    27
    This is getting weary. It would take consistancy of a long period of time. And barring any obvious DI's to note, experience over a long period of time would probably be negative. Noting a few DI's being successful consistantly over a long period would probably have a positive bend to it.
    You do have a knack at having the answer but continuing to pound away... I guess in hopes that the answer will change.
     
    #22
  3. eagledice, Jan 16, 2012

    eagledice

    eagledice Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio

    777


    Great Quote



    EagleDice
     
    #23

  4. JHPA

    JHPA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    suburban philadelphia
    As a current non-believer, I would like to educate the beliewers on this board as to why I have trouble accepting your arguments.

    In my 30 years of playing have seen hot streaks and cold streaks and choppy tables. I have seen chuck and duckers on some great runs and I have seen them PSO. So when I hear someone say "I set the dice and I had a great run" I have no way of knowing whether the shooter would have been just as successful if they just picked up the dice and threw them down the table. Anecdotal reports are not proof.

    Further, The physics just seem too daunting. Imagine how little force it takes to change a die from landing on one face versus another. And this variation in force could come from the shooter throwing a little harder or softer, or a fraction higher or lower, or hit the back wall harder or softer, or hit a pyramid a fraction of an inch to the left or right or higher or lower. There are just too many variables.

    I have nothing against dice setters. Some of my favorite co-players I have met in at craps tables seem to try to set the dice. If it increases their enjoyment of the game, great. I am all for fun

    But I do have a problem with people profitting on selling the "sure thing" that has not been proven.The same way I have contempt for people who sell unproven cures for a disease or sell sure-fire stock tips. If a stock tip was such a guarenteed winner, why would someone make money selling the information....just invest your money and take your profits and go sit on a beach. That is what I see when I read posting after posting on the internet selling one craps book or another. Yesterday I googled Frank Scoblete. I read through 30 pages of results - all about his books and his classes. Not one citation providing any statistical proof of its effectiveness.

    So I will continue to play craps and enjoy myself and those I play with. And I will continue to search for any kind of logical proof that dice controll or dice influencing works.

    Nothing personal...
     
    #24
  5. kaysirtap, Jan 16, 2012

    kaysirtap

    kaysirtap Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    19
    I'm not trying to be a pain, nor am I trying or hoping to change anybody's opinion about dice control.

    In the other thread, you (SC) stated that you like to know what some people (non-DI believers) want to see as proof. I thought this was very interesting. I don't personally believe that people are able to influence the dice in Craps, but I'm open to the idea that it may be possible... and I've already given what would be necessary for me to believe it. I, just as you, want to know what non-believers expect as far as convincing proof is concerned. JHPA seems to want only statistically significant proof, whereas 777 only needs more wins than losses (or something to that effect).

    But this is only one-sided. This is what's required to change the minds of non-believers. I am also curious about the opposite. What can change the minds of believers? What I was trying to get at with my questions to you was, what would it take to show you that what you experienced was not caused by what you thought it was? If GTC or Dice Doctor came out and said that it was all a scam, would that change people's minds? Would it be convincing if there was slow motion video of supposedly "controlled throws" that demonstrate that there is no control? Maybe if all the dice controllers you've ever seen came to you and said, "I was just pretending to control the dice"?

    "Experience", as you (SC) put it - is not proof enough for me... although I accept that it's enough for other people. This is because my experiences tell me that DI doesn't work, but I still believe that it may be possible. If I were to rely only on my experiences, I would likely take a harder stance in saying that it's not possible... but I would rather stay open-minded and think that it might be possible, but just hasn't been proved to me yet.

    My belief is that people win and lose all the time without the help of dice control. And it is absolutely possible that someone who thinks they are controlling the dice are actually not... yet they still win consistently. It is also possible (however improbable) that it's just a coincidence that everybody who claims they are controlling the dice are winning.

    Your answer to the original "what would change your mind" question is mind erasure and new experiences... and that's basically the kind of answer I was curious about. I wasn't trying to pester you, criticize you, or change your mind, so please don't take my questions the wrong way. Like JHPA said... "nothing personal".

    For other people who believe in DI, I'm hoping to hear some other ideas about what could convince them that it doesn't really exist. And of course, I'm still curious about what non-believers would need as proof that DI does exist.
     
    #25
  6. basicstrategy777, Jan 16, 2012

    basicstrategy777

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    8,003
    Likes Received:
    6,276
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT.
    This is a little off track but UFO's are a subject of conversation in my household.

    It was brought up that UFO's could be the subject of a great TV show. The subject of the existence of UFO's would be debated in a courtroom setting. Two high powered, prominent attorneys would present their case.....one putting forth the best arguments for...the other the best argument against. A jury would decide based upon whatever evidence ( there are many kinds/levels of evidence ) and logical arguments that could be made. The standard should probably be the civilian one , as "beyond a resonable doubt" would probably be too tough.

    "Can the dice be Influenced" would be the second show.

    I think it would be interesting to see the arguments presented by both sides and the decision of the jury.

    777
     
    #26
  7. eagledice, Jan 16, 2012

    eagledice

    eagledice Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    kaysirtap


    Maybe the proof of Dice Control being real is based on the player themselves. I am one of the dice control believers. This is based on my own personal experience.


    Mr first year playing craps ( about 5 years ago ) I was a shaker, chucker and a gentle tosser. My results were from horrific to pathetic. I played around 20 sessions and of the 20 sessions my tossing was profitable 2 or 3 times.


    After a frustrating year came across dice control information on the net. I, by my own free will, researched it, bought books and tapes, attended classes and religiously practice a few times per week.


    My personal tossing ability improved hands down and I am now a true believer. Profit wise I am on the positive side since starting.


    So, I am asking the question,

    If I believe that Dice Control works for "ME" and I personally have proof ( profits ) that it does, does it really matter if others do not have that same belief?


    EagleDice
     
    #27
  8. kaysirtap, Jan 16, 2012

    kaysirtap

    kaysirtap Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    19
    Absolutely not - it doesn't matter if others share your belief. But it also wouldn't change my question to you - what would it take to convince you that it was purely a coincidence that you started winning when you started dice control... and you were not actually controlling the dice?
     
    #28
  9. Southern-Comfort, Jan 16, 2012

    Southern-Comfort

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    27
    Don't waste you life away with questions of the "what would it take" variety. What would it take to convence you that we don't actually exist.. that we are just part of some cockroaches dream? I mean, these questions may or may not even have an answer.
     
    #29
  10. jhansen, Jan 16, 2012

    jhansen

    jhansen Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    This really doesn't seem like it would be a difficult thing to test.

    1) Find one or more self-professed "dice controller/influencer" who is willing to prove their "skill" to the world, the more the better!

    2) Agree on some sort of target (i.e. - The shooter says they plan to throw as many 7s as possible....or as few 7s as possible...whatever). Also, agree upon how this is going to be achieved (i.e. - the intended behavior of the dice, the axes, etc...just to check if the intended behavior was being accomplished...does not qualify/disqualify a throw though), as well as strict rules (the dice must both hit the back wall for a throw to count).

    3) Get a table and rig it with a slow motion phantom camera, or some other camera capable of recording at a level where the flight/behavior of the dice can be identified.

    4) Have the shooter take part in multiple sessions (say, 5-10 sessions of 300 throws), spread out over multiple days (as to not run into issues of poor performance to due fatigue), or one after another (if the shooter feels he/she is "hot"...no need to make them stop) .

    5) Compare the shooter's results with the expected results.


    This really doesn't seem like it's worth debating to me. It's a very simple thing to test for, if people were willing to step up and do it.

    The only evidence I found (in my very short search) of such a test of skill was the Standford Wong Experiment: http://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/3/

    However, a single test does not make a fact, otherwise clinical trials and science papers would be much shorter :) I'd be very eager to see such tests set up with the self-proclaimed 'masters' of such an art.

    -Justin

    edit: typos
     
    #30
  11. Southern-Comfort, Jan 16, 2012

    Southern-Comfort

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    27
    Something suddenly intrigues me. Your last name wouldn't happen to be Forte or Zender, would it?
     
    #31

  12. idoc

    idoc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    TN

    I have to agree. A dice throwing machine that could throw precisely and consistently should provide the evidence needed to prove dice control/influencing is possible. If such a machine could throw a certain number with a certain dice set, then we have the proof.

    Somebody call Myth Busters.
     
    #32
  13. basicstrategy777, Jan 16, 2012

    basicstrategy777

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    8,003
    Likes Received:
    6,276
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT.
    If the machine bellied up to the table and threw down 10 bennies, would they let him play ?

    777
     
    #33
  14. Southern-Comfort, Jan 16, 2012

    Southern-Comfort

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    27
    No "gambling devices" allowed.
     
    #34

  15. idoc

    idoc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    TN
    I guess if it was old enough.

    Seriously though... where are all the scientist and the engineers in this bunch? We've got the math geeks with their super computers crunching number on their simulations testing all kinds of betting systems. So why can't someone build a dice throwing machine and bench test it on a real table?

    Maybe someone could pitch this idea to Scoblete, Dicecoach or to some other guru that has the necessary resources.

    We want answers!
     
    #35
  16. Southern-Comfort, Jan 16, 2012

    Southern-Comfort

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    27
    I'll pitch in two bucks to get it built.
     
    #36
  17. kaysirtap, Jan 17, 2012

    kaysirtap

    kaysirtap Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    19
    No.
     
    #37
  18. basicstrategy777, Jan 17, 2012

    basicstrategy777

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    8,003
    Likes Received:
    6,276
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT.
    The title of this thread is "Burden of Proof".

    The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists i.e. I can influence the dice.

    "In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data.) and I'll add, dice influencing.

    The concept of a “burden of proof” is important in debates ”” whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to “prove” their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn’t have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported. "


    Who has the burden of proof ? When people are unable to reach some sort of agreement on that issue, it can be very difficult for the rest of the debate to accomplish much. Therefore, it is often a good idea to try to define in advance who has the burden of proof.

    The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” ”” the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.

    Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others ”” but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.

    An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it

    The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true ”” indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong.

    If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position of disbelief is justified. We can see this principle expressed in the United States justice system where accused criminals are innocent until proven guilty (innocence is the default position) and the prosecutor has the burden of proving the criminal claims.

    Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn’t have to do anything ”” and occasionally, when the prosecution does an especially bad job, you will find defense lawyers who rest their case without calling any witnesses because they find it unnecessary. Support for the prosecution claims here is so obviously weak that a counter-argument simply isn’t deemed important.

    In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those required to support their claims do offer something ”” and then what? At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said (something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and actual case).

    Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is important to remember here is that some response is expected. The “burden of proof” is not something static which one party must always carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as true, but if you insist that a claim isn’t reasonable or credible, you should be willing to explain how and why. "

    777
     
    #38
  19. Southern-Comfort, Jan 17, 2012

    Southern-Comfort

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    27
    The way I see it, I say that I can inflence the outcome of a roll of the dice on a casino standard table, to a degree. I have made a statement. If someone wants to call me on it, I figure its up to them to bring proof that *I* can't. If they want me to prove it I tend to just say, ok then I can't. Its far more important to me for the world to believe I can't, than for it to believe I can. Doesn't matter who has the "burden" of proof.. if they want proof its up to them.
     
    #39
  20. jhansen, Jan 17, 2012

    jhansen

    jhansen Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let us use two examples for a moment, perhaps this will make burden of proof a bit more clear......

    Example 1:

    Sam: "Hi Larry! Guess what, I've been practicing a few hours a day, and if I concentrate really hard, close my eyes and focus....I can make my dog bark three times in a row with my mind!"

    Larry: "Sam, that's ridiculous. There's no way you can control your dog's barking with your mind, the two actions are entirely unrelated, and any correlation between the two is merely a convenient coincidence."

    Sam: "I can too! Allow me to demonstrate..." (Sam assumes the burden of proof correctly in this example. He's making the claim of being able to accomplish a specific feat or possess a certain skill.)




    Example 2:


    Sam: "Hi Larry! Guess what, I've been practicing a few hours a day, and if I concentrate really hard, close my eyes and focus....I can make my dog bark three times in a row with my mind!"

    Larry: "Sam, that's ridiculous. There's no way you can control your dog's barking with your mind, the two actions are entirely unrelated, and any correlation between the two is merely a convenient coincidence."

    Sam: "Oh yeah!? Prove I can't do it then!!" (Burden of proof is on Larry, which is unrealistic. Sam is making the claim, and thus is subject to the burden of proof. Larry is skeptical, and carries no burden of proof.)
     
    #40
Reminder: This is the Dice Influencing section.