# Can You Accept The Possibility That You're Wrong?

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

?

54.2%

12.5%

25.0%

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

0 vote(s)
0.0%
1. falcon, May 17, 2012

### falcon Member

Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
Messages:
420
6
[/quote] 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.

[/quote]

I eliminated the stuff above because the repetition was unnecessary. I do appreciate the thoughtful comments and setting me straight on a couple of points namely #4 below and the definition of "statistical method" above. Now allow me to provide my experiences with computer "simulations" as I practice with one every day. I use Sim Craps. To my knowledge, it is the only product available that has the hop bets. It uses RNG to produce "dice rolls." I practice as if I were playing at the tables betting on various gambits during each session. I never use the product to "experiment" with various systems using "simulations" with "long term" results. I can BEAT it for huge \$\$\$ 85% + of the time. The so-called RNG is highly flawed and in no way resembles real play and real randomness. Computing "probabilities" by "analyzing" prior events, i.e., dice rolls would also be just as flawed for the same reasons.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]I have to run, but I will continue later.
falcon

#61
2. The Midnight Skulker, May 17, 2012

### The Midnight Skulker Member

Joined:
Jan 28, 2010
Messages:
4,089
4,336
Gender:
Male
Location:
Idaho, USA
Not knowing what betting strategies you use to beat Sim Craps 85% of the time, I can neither agree nor disagree with your assessment of its RNG. I can say only that a low win-goal-to-bankroll ratio combined with a rational negative progression, which BTW is how the roulette players are testing their program, is expected to win many more sessions than it loses, but the total amount lost in the losing sessions is expected to leave the player in the red overall.
I guess you're going to have to explain those reasons to me. Suppose I throw the dice some number of times, under actual or simulated casino conditions, and record the results. When I analyze those results I get a Chi-square value of .0003, meaning that if I were having no influence over the dice there would be only a 0.03% chance of being so lucky as to get the distribution of results that I got. I therefore conclude that I am successfully influencing the dice. How is that reasoning flawed?

#62
3. falcon, May 17, 2012

### falcon Member

Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
Messages:
420
6
[/quote MS]: Not knowing what betting strategies you use to beat Sim Craps 85% of the time, I can neither agree nor disagree with your assessment of its RNG. I can say only that a low win-goal-to-bankroll ratio combined with a rational negative progression, which BTW is how the roulette players are testing their program, is expected to win many more sessions than it loses, but the total amount lost in the losing sessions is expected to leave the player in the red overall.

[/quote]

My "strategies" are quite mixed in that I play with betting patterns that give me a numbers edge over the house for a limited number of rolls or I might play the dark side by just hopping the 7 after the point is established for five consecutive rolls or place three numbers; hop the other two; plus a very small crap check, AND lay the point for an amount almost equal to the right side bets. On come out I hop the 7 for \$9 plus \$25 on the field. The RNG will produce some patterns that I can rely on repeating itself for up to four hands. Even when the "table" is choppy, I can basically "read" it and produce winning results. To say that I use real "strategies" that the "establishment" favors is erroneous. When I play for real, I do the same thing and literally have to "teach" the dealers my different approaches so they might anticipate or even ask what I am going to do next. I also do variations of the above by doing some pressing, coming down early, turning bets off, and/or reducing bets to ride out a shooter with pressing. I have found that Sim Craps like all computer generated games can be quite predictable. Finally, I set a money goal both for winning and losing. When those goals are reached - positive or negative - I stop my play. It is because of this mindset that my "red" numbers do not come close to my wins or black numbers.

[/quote]

I guess you're going to have to explain those reasons to me.

[/quote]

Suppose I throw the dice some number of times, under actual or simulated casino conditions, and record the results. When I analyze those results I get a Chi-square value of .0003, meaning that if I were having no influence over the dice there would be only a 0.03% chance of being so lucky as to get the distribution of results that I got. I therefore conclude that I am successfully influencing the dice. How is that reasoning flawed?[/quote]

What you have written here is foreign to my simple thought processes regarding my simplistic mathematical approach above. It is the "actual" casino conditions that are most important. Unless you are the only player or there are just a couple of others at the table, casino conditions are really slow and sometimes very tedious. So let me ask; how many rolls must you complete during "actual" play are needed to compute a value of .0003 or 0.03%? How does one identify positive "influencing" if points are not converted, but one rolls 12 times with limited betting and hitting only a couple of numbers before the SO? Suppose you convert three points in three rolls, i.e., point; convert; point; convert; point; convert; point; SO?

I could ask variations of the above ad nausium, but that would be wrong and counter productive to this discussion.

falcon

#63
4. The Midnight Skulker, May 17, 2012

### The Midnight Skulker Member

Joined:
Jan 28, 2010
Messages:
4,089
4,336
Gender:
Male
Location:
Idaho, USA
Well, it is of course quite possible that you are one of those few players whom variance has favored, or that the RNG in Sim Craps is indeed flawed. The roulette program testers claim success over 100,000 spins, impressive if true even though the program does not bet on every spin. Nevertheless, what little of their data that I analyzed showed that the program picked winning columns and dozens with the same or less frequency than would be expected by random chance (e.g. by throwing a die or picking the same column/dozen every time). IOW their success is due to their betting strategy, a little luck, and probably a little fudging as in "forgetting" to report a failure, or calling a failure a mistake after tweaking the betting progression. One tester did report hitting the wall, and was soundly criticized for not using the program properly. IOW, and I once stated as much, believing is seeing.
To be sure, simulation of actual casino conditions would have to include wait time between hands.

As for how many rolls needed to compute a specific Chi-square value, that depends on the level of influence the shooter has. The greater the influence the fewer rolls necessary to get a specified value, and of course if there is no influence a low value might never be obtained. Notice I say "might" BTW; statistical tests never prove anything beyond all doubt, they merely attach a confidence level to a conclusion. A Chi-square value of .0003 could be used to justify a statement like, "We are 99.97% confident that the shooter is exerting some influence over the dice."

Finally, the definition of "influence" is left to the tester. If you require points to be converted, perhaps within a certain number of rolls after being established, then that is what you should measure. OTOH if you classify getting more or fewer sevens than expected then that is what you should measure. For some definitions Chi-square, which looks at the entire distribution of results, may not be the statistic of choice. I lack the interest to calculate the probability of having a hand of 12 or more rolls, or of converting at least three consecutive points on the turn, but I suspect such accomplishments, while not expected to be routine, are also not so rare as to generate a shaft of light from the heavens and a chorus by a choir of angels. Now, do these things a few times in a row and you might get a light bulb to explode above the table and some birds to chirp outside.

#64
5. falcon, May 17, 2012

### falcon Member

Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
Messages:
420
6
As for how many rolls needed to compute a specific Chi-square value, that depends on the level of influence the shooter has. The greater the influence the fewer rolls necessary to get a specified value, and of course if there is no influence a low value might never be obtained. Notice I say "might" BTW; statistical tests never prove anything beyond all doubt, they merely attach a confidence level to a conclusion. A Chi-square value of .0003 could be used to justify a statement like, "We are 99.97% confident that the shooter is exerting some influence over the dice."

Your definition of the .0003% Chi-square value leaves no doubt of what you are conveying.
[/quote]

Finally, the definition of "influence" is left to the tester. If you require points to be converted, perhaps within a certain number of rolls after being established, then that is what you should measure. OTOH if you classify getting more or fewer sevens than expected then that is what you should measure. For some definitions Chi-square, which looks at the entire distribution of results, may not be the statistic of choice. I lack the interest to calculate the probability of having a hand of 12 or more rolls, or of converting at least three consecutive points on the turn, but I suspect such accomplishments, while not expected to be routine, are also not so rare as to generate a shaft of light from the heavens and a chorus by a choir of angels. Now, do these things a few times in a row and you might get a light bulb to explode above the table and some birds to chirp outside.

[/quote]

Your candid honesty is absolutely refreshing. Without putting words in your mouth or a keyboard in your hands, I interpret you as saying that "influencing" is in the eye of the beholder or in the hand of the shooter. The last two sentences convinced me of your intellect and sense of humor which I am really enjoying. You have allowed my skepticism with great grace. Thank you.

falcon

#65
6. cardshark, May 23, 2012

### cardshark Member

Joined:
May 18, 2012
Messages:
13
0
there is no dice set for stick change, die out. money in the middle of a roll. cocktail waitress. etc. set em up if it makes you feel better. just be fast about it. let the foam rubber at the other end sort it all out. if dice control really works you would still be shooting.

#66
7. \$nakeEye\$, May 23, 2012

### \$nakeEye\$ Member

Joined:
Mar 13, 2011
Messages:
4,070
998
Appears to me - cards did work out too well for you -

What makes you think craps is your panacea ?

#67
8. JGreen6918, May 26, 2012

### JGreen6918 Member

Joined:
May 3, 2012
Messages:
118
1
I just posted a similar comment in a different thread you responded to by kaysirtap. I don't understand why you are getting so mad. These are not dumb questions. It's a simple question that many have seemed to answer. You called this guy a "major pain" on this board, but honestly it seems like you are the aggressor not only to him, but other people on this board. "Coffee shop do nothings"? C'mon. I guess epenak put it correctly when he said that anyone who disagrees with you is a pain. In my opinion, you are the one with troll like activity. Maybe this is why you complained that you were bored when the major pains were quiet. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just calling it like I see it. But epenak also said that newbies are also generally pains, so go figure.

I, for one, am willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong about DI. I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong about a lot of things. Hell, I read somewhere some time ago that an airplane's wing may not fly because of the ways we thought we understood it. I see no reason why it can't be proved that something we thought was happening actually wasn't. But that doesn't mean I won't stop trying.

#68
9. DeMango, May 26, 2012

### DeMango Member

Joined:
Dec 20, 2010
Messages:
5,602
2,404
Gender:
Male
I got a little warm because at that time it was non stop questions, topped of by this "poll" He has settled down, maybe he realizes that there is no substitute for hard work. I don't have the patience like say Midnite S with Falcon. You missed Hard8, that was a meteor. I don't suffer fools well and it shows. No apologies.

#69
10. The Midnight Skulker, May 29, 2012

### The Midnight Skulker Member

Joined:
Jan 28, 2010
Messages:
4,089
4,336
Gender:
Male
Location:
Idaho, USA
You rang? I remind you that that patience was rewarded; falcon did eventually accept, or appear to accept, that if one had even an only slightly open mind about dice influencing one could be persuaded that it was being accomplished, assuming of course that it was being accomplished. I have not been as successful on other occasions, but I do not consider my efforts wasted on those occasions; hopefully they have shown others that my polemic opponent was being foolish. Rather more convincing than simply calling him/her a fool, don't you think?

#70
11. falcon, May 29, 2012

### falcon Member

Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
Messages:
420
6
I also heard some "ringing." It was like tenitis. DeMango reminds me of an Obama supporter in that facts never get in the way of a flawed mindset, and regardless of any form of intellectual component to a discussion, such is always dismissed, ignored, or requires some form of excuse or defense or the blame of some outside circumstance to justify poor results.

To my mind, if "influencing" or "controlling" is to be considered reliable, there MUST be valid results that are specifically defined that happen the vast majority of play. The results must be set forth in terms of goals, and those goals MUST happen often. I define OFTEN as 75% of all sessions played. I shall be even more specific: Schoblete states that he wins about 30% of the time. He is suppose to be the "controlling" icon. Losing 70% of the time is unacceptable and beyond any relm of recovery by winning at a 30% clip.

I have personally witnessed many more "hot" shooters that are random rollers and "chicken feeders" than those who would be considered "influencers/controllers." I have never witnessed a "DI/C" converting a fire bet, but I have seen several randomers complete the task.

"DI/C's" NEVER back up their "skill" with betting patterns that would allow them to win on every roll. If they are unsuccessful, it is because of a distraction, the toss was "off axis," the chips on the table were in the landing area, the table bed was too "bouncy," or whatever. Lastly, casinos, on a wholesale level, have NOT banned the "toss" or the player especially Demango or MS or \$eye\$ or Schoblete or Dom or Heavy or the Dice Dr. or anyone. If they go to the tables, they are NOT ushered off the premises as soon as they buy in or turned away if recognized by the pit boss or dealer or stickman or security.

falcon

#71
12. DeMango, Jun 1, 2012

### DeMango Member

Joined:
Dec 20, 2010
Messages:
5,602
2,404
Gender:
Male
To the mighty Falcon;
Do you really think anyone, with any skills, is really going to prove to you or the casinos that it can be done? Um several of your poster boys have been barred from casinos in MS and LV,NV. One has been dead for years. But there you go again making things up as you go along and proving yourself the top fool of the gaming boards, well maybe second to John Patrick.

#72

13. ### JHPA Member

Joined:
Nov 20, 2011
Messages:
242
2
Location:
Just so I understand - your contention is that it will never be proven, because the people who can prove it will never want to show that it can be done. So we just have to take it on faith.

...as the Church Lady said "How conVEEnient"!!!

#73
14. basicstrategy777, Jun 1, 2012

### basicstrategy777 Member

Joined:
Jul 4, 2010
Messages:
9,470
8,774
Gender:
Male
Location:
CT.
Everything you want to know about setting dice is on the internet......everything. It is available for ALL to see.....ALL.

What the casino loses to setters....verses what it makes from setters, appears to warrent letting people set to their hearts content. They will make much, much more from pousers, those grasping at straws looking for that edge, than the very, very very few that can gain a very, very small advantage......from the casino's point of view, it's good busness to keep these dice setting schools and the internet going.

Hope........" My theory has always been, that if we are to dream, the flatteries of hope are as cheap, and pleasanter, than the gloom of despair. "

777

#74
15. tercol58, Jun 1, 2012

### tercol58 Member

Joined:
Feb 28, 2010
Messages:
402
56
Gender:
Male
ALL true but if someone is rolling good controlling the dice or random as the day is long you can be sure if there are very many at the table the house will do well off of many but also a few making every bet under the sun will donate their share and more.

#75
16. falcon, Jun 1, 2012

### falcon Member

Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
Messages:
420
6
DM: I cannot believe you are that shortsighted. Why not try this? The gaming mecca you frequent has at least six casinos.

THE PLAN: Casino # 1 - you buy in for \$800; you toss and "influence" and win \$400; you color and leave. You proceed to casino # 2 and # 3 and so on and do the exact same thing. Your take for the day is \$2,400. Now you do this gamet at different times of the day so that you can go back time after time for three days. Since there are shift changes and since you have only won \$400 per shift per session, no one would be the wiser and \$400 is just not a big deal, AND you come home with \$7,200. Do that once a month at different geographical venues and your annual take is \$86,400 tax free. As far as proving that your "skill" is for real, there should be many players that could vouch for your accomplishments without calling attention to yourself in that you are only winning \$400/clip.

Now show us all how really creative you can be and come up with a set of excuses that will put us off.

falcon

#76
17. DeMango, Jun 1, 2012

### DeMango Member

Joined:
Dec 20, 2010
Messages:
5,602
2,404
Gender:
Male
Didn't read a word I posted did he?
Thanks BS777!

#77

18. ### JHPA Member

Joined:
Nov 20, 2011
Messages:
242
2
Location:
care to share a link?....any link....one reference on the internet?. SInce you say it is available for all to see.

#78
19. JGreen6918, Jun 1, 2012

### JGreen6918 Member

Joined:
May 3, 2012
Messages:
118
1
Has there been a case where a strong non-believer converted? If so, what made this person change their mind?

#79
20. falcon, Jun 2, 2012

Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
Messages:
420