TDV I provided data from trips and my practice table results......that data was accurate, I claimed nothing other than this is what I see.... you seemed to think it was more than you or anyone else could do.....that is 100% false, anyone can learn to shoot to some extent and any one can learn set and general dice information, Koko made this comment this morning.... What I find as more of a hoot is the thought of controlling chaotic, random dice outcomes, but to each his own. that is not an accurate indication of what can happen on a table, I wil show that later. I only present what i see, your the one that makes it much larger than it is because i honestly believe any one can do what i do or much better... TDB
Of course it's accurate to HIS experience and what he has seen over his lengthy craps career. I will also surmise he has seen his fair share of shooters who set and toss mechanically or DI shooters. This is his experience. You have your own. You stating otherwise doesn't mean anything other than your own personal belief HERE. If you think listing some short sequence of rolls, set change and more rolls is going to somehow settle the subject as "I'm right and KKJ is wrong"..... Then you are on Mars. No one is proving or disproving ANYTHING on dice influence here in this forum. That doesn't take away from our own personal belief. You say yes. He and others say no. No one can prove or disprove DI over 50-100-250-400 rolls....but as long as the parameters are set up PRIOR to any tossing, I'm sure he or I would be willing to watch. Again, you are under some belief that you set the rules, guidelines and judgement for what constitutes proof. Thats NOT how it works if you are trying to convince others. You don't get to be judge and jury for others. Only for yourself.
Non-believers do NOT doubt or question GREAT rolls. What we question is whether the shooter has any influence over this result. We suggest it is luck, not skill.
I totally agree that victory can be its own reward, particularly when one is expected to lose. I have recently taken to playing a lot of chess against various computer engines. Being as I am merely a journeyman player I almost always get wiped. Nevertheless, I persevere, using my defeats to avoid making the same mistakes twice, and eventually get to the point where I can hold the engine to a draw in a fair game (i.e. one where I do not force the engine to play an inferior opening or start in an inferior position) when it plays that particular opening or variation thereof. I gather you take a similar approach with craps. You know you are expected to lose but you persevere, trying different sets and shots until you find a combination that works. Then you venture forth into battle to seek your fortune with that combination and alternative plans. Lamentably, the nature of the games we play are not comparable. Chess is classified as a game of perfect information: both players know exactly where every piece is (i.e. nothing is hidden) and there are no random elements, indigenous to the game at any rate, to influence the result. Hence the only factors that determine the outcome derive from the players' skills relative to each other, and the player who wins does so because he/she/it played that game better than in than his/her/its opponent. OTOH Casino craps is structured to give the house a calculable monetary advantage if the rolls are random. Knowing this the casino institutes rules and uses equipment to defeat any skill players may be able to employ to obtain results more favorable than those from random rolls. History suggests their efforts in that regard have been at least successful enough to keep them in business. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine if a player won, lost, or drew, because of a high or low level of skill, or by favorable or unfavorable variance, an element inherent in random processes. Beating the unbeatable foe is a glorious quest, and as I stated up front is a worthy pursuit if the thrill of a victory is deemed to exceed the agony of a defeat, but to attribute such a victory to anything but luck without extensive analysis is done at your peril. Regardless of which side I am on I increase my flat line bet to the next level in my progression after a natural winner (but take/lay odds at the multiplier of what my bet would have been without the increase). You may recall that in The Before Time, for a long time, even Mason supported the one-bet strategy of putting $10 on 12 (or 2) straight up to turn it into $300. Then some wise ass actually ran the numbers and found that a five-level full parlay on the Pass Line not only turned $10 into $320 but also had a better probability of success: 0.0291 vs 0.0278. (Only time I remember Mason admitting he was wrong BTW.) Edit addition Forgot to include that a few years ago I saw a player use a five-level parlay on both the Pass Line and one Come bet. He of course lost more times than he won, but on that night he won several times (at $310 a pop) and I am quite sure more than doubled his starting bankroll.
My longest is ~75......18 pass line winners in a row. Mr. Martingale on the "don't" now has the day shift in the apple orchard.
Tdv I am under the belief I set the rules for me, I determine how and when I am going to play and I present my data anyway and anytime I want. you dictate none of that ….for me TDB
midnight I really like the game of chess...…. it like craps presents a set of problems unlike craps those problems come from the person or computer your playing. the problems craps provides comes from you and only you. TDB
Correct Also correct. Yep...correct Correct. What you don't get to do is dictate to others how your data is looked at, analyzed, interpreted or perceived by others as far as influence goes. They do that.
TDV I dont have to do that, you have been doing a good job of that for a couple of years.... Your the only one trying to make a determination of what other players should do, how they look at craps and what they should believe in terms of the results of others.... Your ego is writing checks your pocketbook cant cash TDB
I beg to differ. I do not think TDV presumes to tell others what to believe, and I certainly do not. Rather I dismiss the evidence you present as not supporting the conclusion you reached and give my reasons for doing so, which is not the same as dismissing the conclusion itself. The late Al Krigman occasionally took some flak on the Usenet newsgroup for advancing a betting strategy he had analyzed mathematically in a weekly (IIRC) syndicated column. The only times he used the word "good" and "bad" (and their equivalents) were in statements like, "If this is your goal then this as a good/bad way to reach it." I suggest you are doing TDV the same disservice. Non sequitur in this context. One's wealth is irrelevant when discussing logic.
midnight ah...but you see it needs no conclusions, I offer my opinions based on what I have seen over 43 years of playing craps, 12-13 years of dice influence work number of classes and play with some pretty good players..... that is enough for me to make up my mind as to how to play I never asked TDV to consent Anything I post can be taken or not???? that is a players choice....what again were the credentials of TDV ???? to determine what I have seen is really what I have seen??? TDB
TD's credentials are, that he has take more pictures of bubble screens, than anybody else, and more than anybody else would ever want to. Never shows a bet, and probably for a good reason.
Credentials? Is that like “papers” or something? Where do we present those so we know who is a “who”...?.....and who is a “not”. what are yours?.....living 6 hours from the nearest casino? Well done!
