Can You Accept The Possibility That You're Wrong?

Discussion in 'Dice Influencing' started by kaysirtap, Jan 17, 2012.

?

Which statement best describes your general beliefs about dice control/influencing?

  1. I believe dice control works, and nothing will convince me that I'm wrong.

    54.2%
  2. I believe dice control works, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong.

    12.5%
  3. I don't believe dice control works, and nothing will convince me that I'm wrong.

    25.0%
  4. I don't believe dice control works, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong.

    8.3%
  5. I don't know whether or not dice control works.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  1. Heavy

    Heavy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Back 10 - 12 years ago when "dice control" became a hot topic and my pal Irishsetter founded dicesetter.com the terms "dice control" and "dice setter" were the ones most often bandied about by folks talking about what is essentially an attempt to influence the outcome of the roll. After we were a few years into things someone - and I think it was Irishsetter - came up with the term "dice influencing" as a term that was more reflective of what dice setters attempt to do.

    Are there dice controllers out there? Sure. I've seen guys who can call their shots with amazing accuracy. Most are old school dice mechanics who utilize what informed table game supervisors will tell you is an "illegal" toss. Basically we're talking about whip-toss experts. There used to be an old guy who played the Tunica market who had it down. He'd play a table minimum Don't Pass wager. Once it was established he started playing hop bets for a nickle each. I watched him hit something like twelve of fifteen numbers tossed before sevening out one day. That's pretty good control.

    Dice influencers, on the other hand, are using what the casinos would consider to be a "legal" toss, where the dice tumble and hit the back wall versus spinning around the inside of the tub. They're trying to do two things (if they fall into the traditional schools of thought) by controlling the axis AND the pitch of the dice. You want to increase your on-axis performance while keeping the dice rotating together at the same speed. Instead of tossing one or two specific dice combinations (e.g. 5-4 or 4-5) they focus on getting the possibilities down to around 16 combinations (as opposed to 36). I sometimes refer to DI's as "percentage shooters" rather than "precision shooters."

    There's not really any glossary where all of these terms are narrowly defined, although it might be something worth adding to Maddog's language of the game glossary over on my craps forum.

    Dice Control or Dice Influencing is one of those hot topics that generates a lot of emotional response. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. The first time I saw a guy setting the dice, tossing to the same spot on the table, and hitting repeater after repeater after repeater, I knew there was something to it. I started emulating this guy's set and toss and sure enough, my own results improved. This was back in the mid-to-late 90's. I've been successful with it ever since.

    I realize a lot of guys think players like me who teach this stuff for a fee are essentially vultures feeding off the sheep in the casino. Fact is, back in the late 90's on into the 00's I was routinely hooking up with players in the casino and showing them the basics in live play gratis. The whole seminar thing came out of a supply/demand situation. I was very active in several craps forums back in those days, and I was continually being asked for dice control lessons. After attending a competitors class in Vegas back in 2001 I mentioned to Irishsetter that "we could do a better class for less money than these guys." A few months later I did my first seminar in Tunica. I recall Jerry Patterson telling me that I'd never get more than 7 or 8 people to sign on for a seminar in Tunica. We had 23 attendees at that first class. One of the students went to the casino afterward and tossed an hour-and-a-half hand. Another attendee made something like $183K off that hand. From there things just sort-of took off.

    Two years ago I pulled the plug on the seminar business. Demand was off due to the economy. But more importantly, I was not having a whole lot of fun doing the gigs. Much of that was due to the fact that I was having some health issues and just didn't have the stamina for teaching a ten hour class, then playing early bird and late night casino sessions. Over the course of that two years I focused more on my own play rather than that of others. I hit the tables three to four days a week - almost all hit-and-run play. Started enjoying the game more. Demand for the classes continued, and I'd do an occasional private lesson out at my home in East Texas. My health improved along with my endurance. So, after taking a couple of years off I held a reunion-type "come back" seminar in Biloxi this spring. I actually DID enjoy that one, although I did not get nearly as much table time in as I would have liked.

    Anyway, that's the Heavy story to date. Back on topic - can I accept the possibility that I'm wrong (about dice control)? No, I can't. If I didn't believe in it I wouldn't be teaching it to others. I have more then enough documentation accumulated through the years to substantiate my position. Some people will always question the validity of the data. Hardly a month goes by without someone tossing out some absurdist challenge (I'll bet $100,000 you can't do this or that). For those who are oppen to the possibility that dice influence works - there's more than enough supporting documentation. For those whose minds are closed to the idea - no proof will ever be sufficient. And that's fine. As long as there are enough non-believers out there the casinos will continue to let us toss the dice. But frankly, the casinos new direction in electronic craps games where you never touch the dice have me concerned. Not because they're trying to beat the dice setters - but because of all of the dealers they're going to put out of business when they replace them with a machine.

    Enough thread hijacking.

    Cheers -

    heavy
     
    #41

  2. JHPA

    JHPA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    suburban philadelphia
    I have no probelm with anyone on this site expressing opinions on this subject. I have mine and you have yours. If you want to set the dice, throw them a certain way and spend hours in your basement "perfecting" your techique, go for it. I think dice setters add to the color and lure of the game.

    I am concerned when someone uses these boards to attempt to make money "teaching" or selling books or advice on a concept that is not proven and is against so many well established laws of physics and statistics. There are too many people in the world looking to grasp at straws and make the "sure bet". It is like a cancer patient being suckered in to spend money on the latest "cure" that will benefit noone but the person selling the snake oil. I am glad there are enough non-believers willing to throw some rationality on the subject, to give new players something to consider before believing craps is a game than can be beaten with any degree of certainty.
     
    #42

  3. Heavy

    Heavy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Well, first off you have not seen me promoting any of my books, videos, or seminars. Fact is, I give away more e-books than I sell. I talk about things relative to the seminars - usually in the form of a trip report or in answer to another poster's questions - because people find those things interesting. I will be the first to say that 80% of the players who sign on for any kind of dice control seminar will still be a loser at tables when all is said and done - not because they can't develop a measure of control or influence over the dice - but because they continue to approach the game with the same old betting strategies that simply cannot win over the long run - particularly if you're betting on every shooter that touches the dice. Ultimately these guys aren't looking for a way to win - they just want to hang out with a bunch of decent shooters and - hopefully - lose less than they have been losing. It is what it is.

    Of the few players I know who play professionally - most are lone wolf type players - most adhere to the "get in, get ahead, get gone" philosophy. Most are playing at a level substantially higher than most of you would be comfortable with. None of them are "random rollers."

    To those of you who think you cannot beat the game through dice influence - how are you going to win? On the variance? That can't last long. If you're playing a negative expectation game you can't win over the long run. So why do you even try? I think these kinds of players are the ultimate suckers - not the ones who look for a way to win. To me, when the casino pushes a pair of dice to me and essentially says "beat us if you can," well, that's a challenge I take seriously and I'm going to give it my best shot. My best shot is not rubbing the dice on the deck, schooling the dice, blowing on them, or shaking them a certain way before flinging them out on a wing and a prayer. Einstein said something to the effect of "God doesn't play dice." If you're tossing the dice and praying you'll get your number - guess what? God doesn't give a flip whether you win or lose. You might as well pray for peace in the Middle East.

    Hey, you don't need a dice class to figure this stuff out. Nobody took me aside and showed me anything. I just started watching the good shooters (consistent hands of at least 12 rolls with a Pass or two included) and did what they did. Pick a dice set. Learn how to set it quickly and consistently. Grip the dice the same way every time. Toss them to the same spot on the table every time. Try to toss at an angle that will result in a very low bounce off the back wall - preferably off the flat portion at the base of the back wall. Watch for repeating numbers and bet those repeaters. Bam. There's your dice class. Now go get 'em.

    Oh, and we don't have basements in Texas.
     
    #43
  4. falcon, May 8, 2012

    falcon

    falcon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    6
    Heavy: I greatly appreciate you taking the time and effort to give us all, in my humble opinion, an intellectually honest answer to my questions. The "autobiography", for me, was a nice plus.

    Is the so-called "whip-toss" similar to "sliding"? Do they still exist today? Are the casino pit bosses and boxmen fully aware and prepared to call out and negate their illegal tosses that these folks use?

    What you have described above, from a physiological stand point, seems to take a great deal of skill and talent. Have you ever informed a student or participant that his observed motor skills would not permit him to succeed at "influencing"? To be blunt, I cannot play basketball on ANY level because my hand/eye coordination is so poor that sinking a simple free throw might be at 10-15% even with practice.

    falcon
     
    #44

  5. JHPA

    JHPA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    suburban philadelphia

    First of all, I was not naming you as someone who makes money off of trying to teach someone else how to do the physically and statistically impossible. But maybe I struck a nerve: if the shoe fits....

    And the 80% who go to your seminar and are not successful - it is all their fault for not following your advice closely enough, right? I guess you never thought i is possible that the 80% loss rate is a rather normal distribution for craps players and the 20% who win would have won regardless of your class or not. But you win 100% of the time, because each and every one of those class members paid you a fee. 100% house advantage on that one.

    I assume that if you are teaching this stuff - in classes, ebooks or anywhere else - you must be pretty adept at it yourself. I am wondering what you used to do to earn money before you became independently wealthy? Surely you are, because practiciing what you preach must earn you a rather hefty income. I am so jealous of you - working, what, 2 or 3 day a month to pick up $50k or so and then the rest of the time on a beach somewhere.

    Actually, I don't care what you used to do for a living. But if you are not making millions a year playing craps, you are either wasting your talent or proof that it does not exist.
     
    #45

  6. Heavy

    Heavy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Sliders do just what the name implies - they "push" the dice down the layout - on certain types of layouts the dice will slide fairly easily. Most casinos put "speed bumps" under the layout on either side of the prop bos to "trip" the dice and make them tumble forward. Often these do not go all the way across the table, so some sliders will try go make an end run around the speed bumps. In any case, the dice never really get airborn. They remain in contact with the surface of the table all the way to the back wall. Often a third party distractor is used to draw attention away from the shooter and the dice. In some cases, as apparently happened at Wynn's a few months back, there is some sort of collusion between the shooter and the dealers.

    The whip shot is generally a stack shot. Both dice are stacked - usually with the sixes faced up. They are thrown sort of like you'd throw a Frisbee. The dice spin on axis but do not tumble. The idea is to toss the dice beyond the speed bumps. You want at least one die to end up with the six face up. If you can control one die to that extent then you know you'll be tossing "uptown" numbers and can bet appropriately - to your advantage. Some of these guys are quite good at tossing specific numbers.

    I saw a whip shot tosser removed from the casino in Kansas City way back about 15 years ago. The box warned him about his toss twice. On the third warning he was ejected. Conversely, I saw a Detroit kid who didn't really understand what he was doing - he'd learned the ship shot on the street - Toss a hand that stretched to just under an hour with about a million (exaggeration) twelves in the mix. He was a Field bettor and cleaned up. He was using a whip toss combined with a little spit to get the job done. He'd lick his fingerd before picking up the dice and get a little spit on top of the bottom die - then stack the second die on top of it. It would stick like glue when tossed. I couldn't believe he got away with it but he never even drew a warning.

    As for people who just couldn't get it down - yeah, I've seen plenty of them. You encourage them to practice but if that doesn't work you tell them, "Look. The traditional type of controlled toss obviously isn't working for you so let's try something else." There are several other types of throws you can use. They may not be as effective as the old backhand toss, but if you can develop a measure of consistency in the toss you can also gain an edge.

    It's important to note that when you analyze a players tos stats you'll often come up with a report that shows the player is "worse than random." Show me a player who is worse than random and I'll show you a guy who needs to learn how to play the Don'ts. So if your SRR is 5.1-1 instead of 8.1-1 you shouldn't despair. You either learn to bet your advantage on the Don'ts or you do a little work and determine which dice arrangement will give you better results. We do that with BoneTracker, a free program designed by my friend Maddog that runs on MS Excel and slices and dices your toss results about a zillion different ways.

    Now, the most challenging folks I work with are not the ones who are just uncoordinated and inconsistent. It's the guy or gal who has physical issues to overcome. One of the best shooters I know had a gun accidentally discharge and shoot the end of his middle finger off. Made it extremely difficult to toss the dice with that hand. I tried to switch him to southpaw but he wouldn't have it. Eventually, through hundreds of hours of practice, he was able to develop a toss that gave him great results. This guy could play professionally at any time. Another fellow had broken a finger when in high school and had never had it set. He had a 90 degree turn on his middle finger. Terrible grip. I did convert him to southpaw and he did very well with it. Another one that comes to mind is a Hawaiian gent who had a rotator cuff problem that prevented him from using the traditional backhand toss. We flipped him to an underhand lobber and he ended up being the best shooter at the seminar that weekend.

    Now, here's a funny story. There are a lot of players who come out to the seminars I do simply because they've made friends with a lot of the other people who have attended these deals. Basically they use the seminars as an excuse to get a quick toss tune-up - then they hook up with all of their pals and play all weekend. At one such event we were playing a live session down at Binions in Vegas. One of our guys - I'll dub him Grizzly Adams - was having a lot of trouble keeping the dice on the table. He was tossing at about a 45 degree angle from the end of the table. The dice would land about 15 inches from the back wall then hop right over it. After about six consecutive off-the-table throws I shouted "Hey you! (this was all an act for the dealers) Keep the dice down eye level with the box. (I tore a corner off of a match book and put the piece of paper on the table, about 6 inches from the back wall). That's your spot. Hit that spot with the dice and they won't bounce off the table. Hit out there where you've been throwing and they'll continue to bounce off. " The chick dealer on my end of the table looked down at the shooter and said something to the effect of "Listen to the man." So, my pal starts hittng that spot over and over and the hand just continues forever. Finally, they're refilling the table and the TGS came down to watch the game. He pointed to the paper on the layout and asked the dealer "What's that piece of paper doing there." To which she replied "That's the shooter's spot. That's where he has to land the dice to keep them from bouncing off the table." To which he angrily replied "Get that off the table!" and picked it up himself. Well, the next couple of rolls went off the table - then it was seven out time.

    Funny how this stuff works.
     
    #46
  7. falcon, May 14, 2012

    falcon

    falcon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    6
    Heavy: I will be up front and tell you that I am extremely skeptical of the "influencer/controller" which I am sure does not phase you in the least, and that is a good thing. I have devised a "test" which I will outline here. First, I want you to tell me if you think this "test" is fair on YOUR terms. If not, please tell me why.

    The ground rules:

    1. The only tosses that will count are those produced after any point is establisned.

    2. Any toss that produces ANY number that is not a 7 out is a WIN.

    3. You and nine of your very best "influencers" are the only shooters.

    4. I am the only one who will place bets. I will only bet the "Iron Cross." The wagers will be $400 on the 5, 6, & 8 plus $200 on the Field for the first four tosses after the point is established.

    5. I will buy in for $10,000. The goal is to win at least $3,000.

    The challenge or "test": Each team member is to establish any point and then toss at least four consecutive numbers (wins) that is not a 7 out. The total results should reflect that at least seven out of the ten team members can toss four consecutive "wins" before any 7 out.

    If you will notice, this "test" does not mandate point conversions or throwing specific numbers or calling ones "shot."

    The rationale is that if someone is truly skilled at "influencing" or "controlling" dice using a highly practiced and skilled toss, then there should be enough confidence in that toss to not to 7 out for at least four tosses after any point establishment and that one should wager in such a way so that a win results from every toss when all the numbers are covered, and that occurrence should happen seven out of ten times.

    What say you?
     
    #47

  8. Heavy

    Heavy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    You are correct. I am not phased by this statement. Nor am I intimidated by "tests" to determine whether or not such skills exist. My terms? Who cares. A few years back Stanford Wong hung out with us and tracked a lot of rolls. After that he told me something to the effect of "I'll hook up with you for play whenever you come to Vegas." Seems like that should satisfy most folks, but hey. What the heck. The problem, of course, is that once these types of "tests" are done there's always someone with an excuse as to why the test was flawed. Anyway, le't look at what you have to suggest.

    1. Why not include come-out rolls? What if I am setting FOR the seven (the easiest number to roll) and string together seven or eight naturals on the Come Out? Why would I want to give up the opportunity to make money on these rolls just to satisfy your test? I'm assuming we're doing this in a live casino session, so this is something I'd want to consider.

    2. So you're going to play a Field strategy to capitalize on the trash numbers. Why? This is not the best strategy, despite what its proponents claim.

    3. Why nine of the best? Why not four? Clearly most DI's prefer SL1, SL2, SR1, or SR2. Very few prefer to shoot from the hook or straight out. Even fewer are good at it. Why not give yourself every opportunity to "win."

    4. Uh . . . but . . . shooters have to play a Pass Line bet or they cannot toss the dice. Shooters also want to get paid for what they do, so I am assuming you are going to split your winnings evenly among the shooters, right? And no, I don't think they'd be reimbursing you for losses since, after all, this was your idea. Here's an idea. Split the first $3000 of the win with the shooters and keep 100% of everything over $3000.
    Hey, here's an idea. Why don't we just meet up at a casino that has the 4 rolls - no seven wager and bet that?
    Couldn't agree more. But there are plenty of mathematical methods for determining whether or not you have an edge, including thing like Wong's Dice Tool and the Chi Test built into BoneTracker.

    Look, I have no problem hooking up with you if you want to follow me around and hit the tables. I don't really care how you bet. But in the real world anything can and will happen over the next 100 or so rolls of the dice. I might toss six consecutive twelves on the come out (been there - done that) or some other nonsense. I might toss a hand with 23 sixes (done EXACTLY that many sixes in two different hands, which I thought was odd). A few years ago I tossed back-to-back hour plus hands at Binions in Vegas. Then my next three times at bat I went point seven out. That's the natural volatility of the game. It happens. But because better DI's have an overall edge over the game they are ultimately going to win over the LONG run. What you are proposing a short-run experiment, and while it might be fun - it wouldn't prove anything.

    Catch me in Vegas, Biloxi, or Tunica sometime and we'll toss a few for grins and see where it goes.

    -heavy
     
    #48

  9. JHPA

    JHPA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    suburban philadelphia
    So Mr Heavy: When did you join Mr Wong in Vegas? How did you do? Surely with this endoresement from him, I would have mortgaged my house, taken a private jet to Vegas and bought in for a hundred grand.

    So tell us - what wa the result of your session in Vegas with Mr Wong?

    And I think this was the first time I ever heard that dice influencer have short run variation from thier winning, but long run they hold the advantage over the house. Imagine - statisticians actually believe the opposite is true.
     
    #49
  10. Southern-Comfort, May 15, 2012

    Southern-Comfort

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    31
    DI's deal with a small window of oppurtunity with many distractions amnd no set that has absolutely no chance of a seven showing. Yes, even the best DI's (except Snakeeyes I'm sure) have the occasional Point-Seven-out. In the wise words of the prophet Jim Croce... "Sometomes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you".
     
    #50
  11. $nakeEye$, May 15, 2012

    $nakeEye$

    $nakeEye$ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,070
    Likes Received:
    998
    Wrong, S-C, wrong _

    Kindly exclude me from your short list of " Best DI's " -

    I am no where close to wearing that hat -

    And -

    YES - I do have too many PSO 's !

    Few - but too many !!!!


    Expounding upon your Jim Croce cliche -


    Add this to your repotouire - ( that's mis-spelled )


    " Some days you be the pigeon - and some days you be the statue " - unknown - at least to me anyhow !

    For those who have trouble with the above analogy - the following interpertation is provided -

    " Some days you sh*t on people - some days people sh*t on you " !
     
    #51
  12. falcon, May 16, 2012

    falcon

    falcon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    6
    You are correct. I am not phased by this statement. Nor am I intimidated by "tests" to determine whether or not such skills exist. My terms? Who cares. A few years back Stanford Wong hung out with us and tracked a lot of rolls. After that he told me something to the effect of "I'll hook up with you for play whenever you come to Vegas." Seems like that should satisfy most folks, but hey. What the heck. The problem, of course, is that once these types of "tests" are done there's always someone with an excuse as to why the test was flawed. Anyway, le't look at what you have to suggest.

    Your point is well taken and since the shooter is required to make a PL bet, it would behove the shooter to make the minimum wager and pick up those PL come out wins as well as absorb the PL craps losers, but why set for the 7 when the "test" is all about rolling numbers after the point is established?

    2. So you're going to play a Field strategy to capitalize on the trash numbers. Why? This is not the best strategy, despite what its proponents claim.

    [/quote]

    The "test" is not about betting "strategy." It is all about winning something (minimum $200) on every roll for four consecutive rolls. The play after those "winning" rolls would allow me to come down and then play $64 across the board until each shooter does the 7 out thingy so that the maximum loss would only be $64 against the $800+ I have won. The DI can continue to throw numbers for as long as his hand will allow until his SO. If the shooter wants to play his own strategy with his own $$, so much the better, but that should have no effect on the basic body of the "test."

    3. Why nine of the best? Why not four? Clearly most DI's prefer SL1, SL2, SR1, or SR2. Very few prefer to shoot from the hook or straight out. Even fewer are good at it. Why not give yourself every opportunity to "win."

    [/quote]

    There are actually ten - nine of your best plus yourself. The idea is to show that (again simplicity) 70% of the time ( seven of 10) DI's can be relied upon to throw numbers other than an early SO and in case of the early SO, the $3,000 goal can still be reached by the successful DI's picking up the slack of any losses. All shooters would be allowed to position themselves at their most "preferred" table position.

    [/quote]

    4. Uh . . . but . . . shooters have to play a Pass Line bet or they cannot toss the dice. Shooters also want to get paid for what they do, so I am assuming you are going to split your winnings evenly among the shooters, right? And no, I don't think they'd be reimbursing you for losses since, after all, this was your idea. Here's an idea. Split the first $3000 of the win with the shooters and keep 100% of everything over $3000.

    Hey, here's an idea. Why don't we just meet up at a casino that has the 4 rolls - no seven wager and bet that?

    The rationale is that if someone is truly skilled at "influencing" or "controlling" dice using a highly practiced and skilled toss, then there should be enough confidence in that toss to not to 7 out for at least four tosses after any point establishment and that one should wager in such a way so that a win results from every toss when all the numbers are covered, and that occurrence should happen seven out of ten times.

    [/quote]

    Couldn't agree more. But there are plenty of mathematical methods for determining whether or not you have an edge, including thing like Wong's Dice Tool and the Chi Test built into BoneTracker.

    [/quote]

    We are not talking strategy, math methods, or computer simulations; it is simply about the claims of DI skills against what is a random game.

    [/quote]

    Look, I have no problem hooking up with you if you want to follow me around and hit the tables. I don't really care how you bet. But in the real world anything can and will happen over the next 100 or so rolls of the dice. I might toss six consecutive twelves on the come out (been there - done that) or some other nonsense. I might toss a hand with 23 sixes (done EXACTLY that many sixes in two different hands, which I thought was odd). A few years ago I tossed back-to-back hour plus hands at Binions in Vegas. Then my next three times at bat I went point seven out. That's the natural volatility of the game. It happens. But because better DI's have an overall edge over the game they are ultimately going to win over the LONG run. What you are proposing a short-run experiment, and while it might be fun - it wouldn't prove anything.

    [/quote]

    I understand and have seen the same (not 23 six's) with random rollers or chicken feeders. The term "long run" has little meaning for me and is somehow always used as a hedge against multiple "short term" real time losses. And yes it probably is true that the "short-run experiment" really might not prove anything, however, if seven out of ten highly skilled DI's cannot throw any four consecutive numbers before a SO in a single session, it would or could damage the credibility of "influencing."

    [/quote]

    Catch me in Vegas, Biloxi, or Tunica sometime and we'll toss a few for grins and see where it goes.

    [/quote]

    I would really enjoy that; I am sure the "war stories" would be quite memorable.

    falcon
     
    #52
  13. The Midnight Skulker, May 16, 2012

    The Midnight Skulker

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    3,973
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Idaho, USA
    In the words of an ESPN program, please pardon the interruption. I have a couple comments about the falcon-Heavy test.

    1. Assuming the purpose of the test is to determine if dice influencing is possible under casino conditions then I suggest confining the test to determining if dice influencing is possible under casino conditions. Specifically, don't bother betting anything, just toss the dice. There are statistical methods (the Chi-square statistic, which I presume is the same as the Chi Test in BoneTracker which Heavy referenced) for determining the probability of observing a distribution of results by random chance, and those methods include consideration of the number of trials (tosses) made. The more trials that are made the less influence there has to be to show that there is indeed some influence.

    Over in the Roulette Forum a program called Project X [Insert theme music from Twilight Zone here.] is currently all the rage. Claims are that the program has yet to fail after 100,000 spins, but proponents have yet to analyze the results of its betting recommendations! Instead they cite profits made from using the program at online casinos, and IMHO are constantly redefining success and tweaking their betting progressions. IOW I and a couple other nay-sayers contend their reported positive results could easily be due to extremely low win goals and a conservative negative betting progression. (Oh yes, and the program does not bet on every spin, making the 100,000 spin claim a bit disingenuous.)

    Bottom line: construct a test to test only what it is you want to test.

    2. Do not conduct your test in a casino where it can be observed by the gaming industry. If you prove that the dice can be influenced sufficiently to give the player an advantage, do you really think the industry will simply shrug its shoulders and take its lumps? Surely Heavy and the DIs -- the crapshooters, not the rock group -- can find a private table and are sufficiently familiar with casino policies to simulate actual casino conditions.
     
    #53
  14. DeMango, May 16, 2012

    DeMango

    DeMango Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes Received:
    2,171
    Gender:
    Male
    Heavy said it all;"What you are proposing a short-run experiment, and while it might be fun - it wouldn’t prove anything." Case closed, move along, nothing more to see.....
     
    #54
  15. falcon, May 16, 2012

    falcon

    falcon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    6

    MS: Thanks for the "interruption" with some really good comments. However, I need to rebut.

    1. Casino conditions are necessary because money on the line creates some forms of pressure to produce positive results that DI's claim their skills will happen. Besides, casino conditions requires adherence to casino rules enforced by casino dealers w/o having anyone screaming fraud.

    2. In order to prove a hypothesis, valid research must be presented, disected, and reviewed. In my own terms, if you make the claim; play the game.

    3. There seems to be great faith among forum dwellers in computer "simulations" and "statistical methods." Many believe it is reality; I do not. I dwell in the reality of the game as it is played/when it is played, and always in the short term. There is nothing else especially when it comes to trying to prove that a particular physical skill actually works. In short, the computers and their "statistical methods" do not throw the dice.

    4. Your debunking of the roulette "program" is how I feel about any gaming simulation.

    [/quote]

    [/quote:MS]: Bottom line: construct a test to test only what it is you want to test.

    [/quote]

    I did that just that and on the broadest possible terms to allow for success with a five to one advantage for the DI over the house on every given toss.

    [/quote]

    [/quote MS]:

    2. Do not conduct your test in a casino where it can be observed by the gaming industry. If you prove that the dice can be influenced sufficiently to give the player an advantage, do you really think the industry will simply shrug its shoulders and take its lumps? Surely Heavy and the DIs -- the crapshooters, not the rock group -- can find a private table and are sufficiently familiar with casino policies to simulate actual casino conditions.

    [/quote]

    Casinos observe every play in every venue. The short term "experiment" will have no effect even if the outcome is wildly successful especially since most would agree that the "Iron Cross" is not a really good strategy. Winning $3,000 + in one particular session does not give the industry "lumps." Further, what makes you think they would even know what was going on? It is not to become a standard of play throughout the gaming world. I have been informed that some individuals have been banned from play in certain casinos. This experiment would not create any such bans. It is too isolated.

    Hey DM, why not try this "test" on your own. With your skills, you might create such a stir that like the original card counter, and have your picture plastered all over the casino world for ex-communication.

    falcon
     
    #55

  16. Heavy

    Heavy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    That's all well and good, gentlemen, but the "test" proposed would not be tolerated under live casino conditions in most the place I'm familiar with. I'm not going to engage in the whole fireman's drill of changing places with someone at the table like we're playing scrub softball. And the casino is going to tolerate that whole scenario for about two players. Then the pit is going to call "time out" and tell you to shoot from where you are because you're slowing the game down and confusing the dealers. And really, all they're concerned about is that someone is going to pull a fast one on them or pick up someone else's chips. And again - you're talking short run - I'm talking long run. My offer to hook up and hang out stands if we're ever in Vegas at the same time.
     
    #56
  17. Southern-Comfort, May 16, 2012

    Southern-Comfort

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    31
    Add to that... the casino suits keep track of your play by where you are on the rack, as well as the dealers. Even if it would otherwise be ok with well tipped dealers, I really doubt they'll risk the heat from confused and anxious bosses who are seeing something they are not used to.
    Besides, one should be able to prove it can be done, just as well as several. We all know what the averages are, beating those consistantly should be implication enough.
    As for money play, thats an entirely different aspect. What you do with the dice, and what you do with your chips are not tied together, chip count cannot proce dice influence.
    Look at it this way, there are those who say they are only there to win money. And then theres the gamblers (me for instance) who are there for the fun. Can't DI's just have fun too??? Please?
     
    #57
  18. DeMango, May 16, 2012

    DeMango

    DeMango Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes Received:
    2,171
    Gender:
    Male
    The only test is the bottom line. With minimal assistance from my fellow crapsters.
     
    #58
  19. falcon, May 17, 2012

    falcon

    falcon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    6
    Well you might be right about the Chinese fire drill, but it would have been fun. I guess my skepticism will remain for the time being as my personal experiences have not left me with much in the way of positive outcomes for myself or the "influencers/controllers" I witnessed. Their accomplishments mirrored the random rollers. I will say this about the casino dealers in the south and that is they do not exhibit the kind of paranoia for changing positions at the table as those in Vegas. They kinda roll with the flow because Biloxi, unlike Vegas, is growing and jumping and bumping.

    Living in Georgia, Biloxi is my destination of choice, so if you get there, hooking up and hanging out would be my pleasure.

    falcon
     
    #59
  20. The Midnight Skulker, May 17, 2012

    The Midnight Skulker

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    3,973
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Idaho, USA
    1. (Re: casino conditions necessary) OK, I concede the possible significance of the "choke" factor. Still, influence exhibited without monetary pressure would constitute proof of concept.

    2. (Re: valid research necessary) Agreed. In statistical terms, the null hypothesis is that the results are random. The test would be observed by a neutral third party and the results of it analyzed mathematically to determine if the observed distribution deviated sufficiently from "what theoretically should have happened" to warrant rejection of that hypothesis (and therefore a conclusion that the shooter was influencing the dice).

    3. (Re: computer simulations and statistical methods) These are not the same thing! A computer simulation uses a random number generator (RNG) to produce "dice rolls"; the statistical methods to which I referred analyze actual dice rolls. One more time: the Chi-square statistic computes the probability that the difference between the distribution of the actual dice rolls observed and the expected distribution of those dice rolls is due to random variance.

    4. (Re: the roulette program) The roulette scenario is not a simulation. The program being tested accepts the results of spins and occasionally tells its user to bet on a particular column or dozen. The program is being tested by making actual bets at online casinos using a negative betting progression. Some of those casinos use live tables while others use RNGs. The testers cite their consistent profits as proof that the program works. My contention is that the program is actually giving the players no advantage whatsoever, and that their success is due entirely to their betting strategy, which will eventually fail and wipe out all of their profits.
    If you say so.

    I used to think casino bosses were so arrogant as to think their games could not be beaten. After all, it took Ken Uston tweaking their noses on national television to get their attention on card counting. Once that attention was gotten, however, the reaction was almost instantaneous. I see the same thing happening with dice influencing. IMHO casinos are enforcing the rules for shooting and discouraging setting a little more than they did previously. IOW they do not seem to be as arrogant as they were before Thorpe (author of Beat The Dealer, AFAIK the first book on card counting) and Uston.
     
    #60
Reminder: This is the Dice Influencing section.