# Why casino craps cannot be beaten

Discussion in 'General Craps Discussion' started by TDVegas, Dec 13, 2016.

1. TDVegas, Dec 13, 2016

### TDVegas Member

Joined:
Jan 4, 2014
Messages:
19,247
14,222
I thought this was a well thought out, FACTUAL report on AP craps.
Light the fuse!

"If only Isaac Newton had been right, if only he'd been right, then maybe, just maybe, there might really be such a thing as AP casino craps. But he wasn't, and there isn't. And therein lies a fascinating tale that is worth a little trip down history lane.

For, you see, at its core, the potential to beat craps comes down to the nature of kinetic energy. But Newton didn't believe in energy, kinetic or otherwise. For him there was no such thing! For Newton, there was mass and there was motion. And that was it. Newton knew that unless acted upon by an outside force bodies in motion stayed in motion, and bodies at rest stayed at rest. So, Newton reasoned that when an outside force acted on a body at rest to create motion it had to impart an "impetus" to the body which overcame the body's inherent inertia. This force imparted an impetus, P, sufficient to move a mass, m, to a velocity, v. Hence, the impetus (now called "momentum") must be equal to the product of the mass times the velocity, or P = mv. And that was all there was to it. But Newton, perhaps the greatest genius of all time, had a bitter rival of almost equal genius. His name was Gottfried Leibniz. And Leibniz had a different idea. He thought there was more to motion than momentum. He said there was also a "vis viva" or "life force," proportional to the square of the velocity, that a mass acquires when it's accelerated to a given velocity with respect to another inertial frame. Newton countered by mocking the whole idea of a putative so-called "life force" as superstitious nonsense, and sarcastically asked Leibniz if perhaps the laying on of hands were necessary to impart this special force to masses, and, if so, did it come by the power of God or perhaps Beelzebub. Leibniz replied that, like everything else, it came by the power of God, and if Newton doubted that perhaps he should take it up with the Pope, or maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury. Oops. Touché Leibniz. And so back and forth it went, year after year, such that during their lifetimes this bitter little tête-à-tête remained unabated, undecided and unresolved -- just one more schlong slam in a long list of schlong slams by two of the greatest minds and brittlest egos in the entire history of great minds and brittle egos.

And then, in 1738, several years after both Newton and Leibniz had died, along came a rather comely young minx by the name of Mme Gabrielle Émilie du Châtelet. Now, Mme du Châtelet, who happened to be the wife of the Marquis du Châtelet, was not only a libertine deluxe of impressive imagination, but she was also the mistress of Voltaire, several of his friends, and a gifted young woman who somehow amid all the frolicking found time to be an accomplished natural philosopher, as well. This was definitely not your everyday wench, royalty or not. Now, Mme du Châtelet was a keen student of both Leibniz and Newton (in fact her French translation of Newton's Principia is still the standard), and she marveled that this dispute regarding the fundamental nature of masses in motion had gone on for decades without a resolution. So, she decided to set up an experiment to settle the matter once and for all. She reasoned that in an inelastic collision of a rigid undeformable mass with a non-rigid deformable one all of Newton's momentum or Leibniz's vis viva would be absorbed by the deformable mass, and the degree of deformation would determine who was right. So she set up a simple but elegant experiment in which a small steel cannonball was dropped from a height of several feet into a bucket of potter's clay and the depth of the depression left by the ball was measured. Then, using Newton's gravity equations, she dropped the ball from a greater height, such that the velocity at impact was calculated to be exactly twice the velocity of the first drop, and, again, measured the depth of the depression left by the ball. She then reasoned that since Newton's "impetus" was linear (mv) and Leibniz's "vis viva" was exponential (mv^2), if the second depression were twice as deep as the first one, then Newton was right. But, if the second depression were four times as deep as the first one, then Leibniz would be right. So, she performed the experiment and measured the results and, voilà, the second depression was, indeed, four times as deep as the first one. Leibniz had been right all along. Poor Leibniz, he had waited a lifetime to beat Newton at something important, and when he finally did he wasn't alive to enjoy it. Sometimes, the Gods really do have a twisted sense of humor. Anyway, today we call Leibniz's vis viva "kinetic energy," and we describe it by the equation E = (1/2)mv^2. Leibniz would be proud.

Okay, so why is it so important that Newton was wrong and Leibniz was right? It's important because it says that a small change in velocity results in a large change in kinetic energy, which means that when, say, two dice are thrown simultaneously with only a small difference in initial velocity, the differences in their behavior at impact will be large. Very large. Processes in nature tend to either damp or amp as they propagate through space and time. In those that damp, small differences in initial conditions (the Δ of the initial complex Lagrangians) become even smaller over time. But in those that amp, small differences in initial conditions grow large over time. And because kinetic energy is an exponential function of the square of velocity, tossing dice at craps is an amping process, whereby small differences in initial conditions result in large chaotic differences in the final results.

Now, over the last five years a number of serious, legitimate researchers, including Stanford Wong, and others, have sought to determine the truth about so-called AP craps. Some of these researchers have hoped to show that craps could be beaten, and some have just been intellectually curious. But, regardless of motive, all of them have diligently searched for the truth. Now, because simulations of precision shooting at casino craps are not feasible, these researchers have generally utilized carefully monitored casino sessions of statistically significant duration with recognized "professional" p-shooters, as well as slow-motion videos of such experts throwing the dice on regulation craps tables, to obtain valid useful data. The results of such studies have been telling. Virtually without exception, with the monitored "professional" p-shooters the larger the number of trials the more random the results appear (with each die face converging on a random frequency of 1 in 6). And with the slow-motion videos, it is obvious to everyone viewing them that, no matter how good the throw might look at normal speed, in slow motion it is apparent that a huge amount of uncontrollable randomizing occurs. In fact, in February, 2009, Wong stated in a post on the bj21.com craps page, in referring to the results of slow-motion video studies of skillful throws, "The truth is, there is much bouncing around, even in dice tosses that look great at real-time speed. Watching slo-mo video of dice tosses can be discouraging, and can be harmful to sales of dice books and to sales of dice-tossing instruction." No one viewing such videos would ever disagree with that. So, while it is true that no one study is ever completely conclusive, over a five-year period the evidence has piled up as study after study by capable researchers has consistently pointed to only one conclusion: Real-world casino craps cannot be legitimately beaten -- by anyone, anywhere, at any time. And the exponential, amping nature of kinetic energy is the fundamental reason why.

To see this more clearly consider this analogy: Suppose a world-class MLB pitcher were told to throw curve balls one after another such that each successive pair of curve balls must be thrown at the same speed to within a small fraction of a mile per hour, and have the same curving trajectory within a small fraction of an inch. No pitcher could ever do this, or would ever even want to, for that matter. It's not humanly possible. But that is exactly the kind of control a p-shooter would have to have to have any chance of influencing the dice at all. And even if it were possible, which it isn't, it STILL wouldn't be enough! Why? Consider this: The theory of so-called AP craps is built on two plausible-sounding conjectures. The first one, promoted by Frank Scoblete and Golden Touch Craps, says that if the dice are set properly, thrown on axis with synchronicity, and don't hit the pyramid-studded back wall (or at most just "kiss" it lightly with a dead-cat bounce), it is possible to exert a sufficient degree of control of the dice to achieve a positive ev. We'll call this the GTC conjecture. The second one, promoted by Wong, says that if the dice are set properly, and initially thrown on axis with synchronicity, even if they do hit the pyramid-studded back wall hard, a degree of "correlation" between the two dice can survive that is sufficient to achieve a positive ev. We'll call this the Wong conjecture.

Let's consider the GTC conjecture first. On the face of it, it sounds reasonable. It's definitely a plausible-sounding conjecture. If the dice are set properly, and stay on axis with synchronicity right to the end, there is no question that sufficient control to achieve a positive ev would result. That's why it's so seductive. It sounds doable, if difficult. It sounds like all it takes is practice. But, as it turns out, it takes a hell of a lot more than that. Slow-motion studies of expert throws have repeatedly shown that even if the dice apparently remain on axis with synchronicity right down to the landing (something extraordinarily difficult to do), if the dice differ by even 0.25" in their rotational synchronicity at landing then, because of the exponential amping nature of kinetic energy, the combination of elastic (rebounding) and inelastic (skidding) collisions with the table will impart a huge amount of different rotations across the x, y, and z axes (pitch, roll, and yaw) between the two dice. Such tosses look great at normal speed, but in slow motion, even on a relatively "dead" table surface, their true random nature can be seen and measured. As with a pitcher trying to throw successive pairs of identical curve balls, the precision necessary to do it with dice is beyond human capability. Period. And that's not even counting the pyramid-studded back wall! When you factor in the pyramids, the whole concept becomes laughable.

Now, let's take a look at the last best hope for AP casino craps, namely, the Wong conjecture. Wong is a bright fellow, and he recognized from his early dice studies that maintaining on-axis synchronicity was a pipe dream. So, still hopeful that craps could be beaten, he developed a more sophisticated theory that posits that, although the dice do not remain on axis with synchronicity after contact with the table and back-wall pyramids, there is a surviving correlation between the two dice's rotations that can potentially reduce double-pitch 7s resulting in a positive ev for the player. Specifically, Wong asserted that although the pyramids scramble pitch, roll and yaw such that the axis that each die finally assumes will be effectively randomized, a surviving correlation between the two dice may still remain because, (1) due to the law of conservation of energy, (2) the assertion that both dice start off with the same initial kinetic energy, and (3) the assertion that translational kinetic energy is not preferentially converted into rotational kinetic energy, the number of rotations the two dice undergo across their x, y, z axes, respectively, will remain closely correlated. In Wong's own words: "Ideally, the dice are still on axis and have equal speed and equal rotation when they hit the pyramids. The pyramids then randomize the axis of rotation of each die, and reduce the energy of each die approximately equally. As they leave the wall the dice have random and independent axes of rotation, but will rotate approximately the same number of times before coming to rest. Being approximately identical in position and motion when they hit the pyramids, and then rotating approximately the same number of times after hitting the pyramids, (the end result should be) a scarcity of double pitches."

Unfortunately, however, beyond the dubious theoretical soundness of Wong's conjecture, in practice there are two fatal flaws with it. The first one is the fallacy that both dice start off synchronized with the same initial kinetic energy. They don't. Numerous empirical studies have shown that there is always a slight difference in the initial velocities and axial alignments of the two dice and, as previously discussed, because of the exponential amping nature of kinetic energy, these small differences result in big differences in the final results. And secondly, and just as important, the assertion that a rotational correlation between the two dice is maintained during the toss because translational kinetic energy is either not converted into rotational kinetic energy, or, if it is, it is converted to the same degree in both dice, is manifestly false. This is easily verified when slow-motion videos of expert tosses on regulation craps tables are examined and analyzed. For example, one die, say, bounces up from the table and squarely hits the base of one of the pyramids and rebounds back with little to no conversion of translational kinetic energy into rotational kinetic energy; the other die, however, bounces up and hits another pyramid, say, a little off center or a little higher up from its base and a significant amount of translational kinetic energy gets converted into (primarily roll and yaw) rotational kinetic energy. Anyone watching slow-motion videos of expert throws knows that this kind of scenario occurs on virtually every toss; and when it does any surviving rotational correlation potentially reducing double-pitch 7s is lost to randomness because one die ends up with significantly less translational kinetic energy than the other die, which results in less pitch rotation (and more roll/yaw rotation and skidding) than the other die when it lands and rolls to a final random result.

So, with pitch, roll, yaw and rotation randomized by the table and the pyramids, the assumptions underpinning Wong's correlation conjecture, just as with the GTC on-axis conjecture, do not stand up to either theoretical analysis or the empirical evidence, and, consequently, no surviving correlation between the two dice can be assumed to survive a legal toss in real-world casino craps. And, again, extensive empirical studies over a five-year period back this conclusion up.

And finally, in April 2011, in a tacit admission that he had been wrong in believing casino craps could be legitimately beaten, Wong removed craps from the list of "Beatable Casino Games" on his popular bj21.com website, and also removed the "Craps" discussion page from his site, as well (since restored as primarily an historical archive). In addition, a few months later, in October 2011, in an interview about craps on Bob Dancer's popular KLAV radio program, "Gambling With an Edge," Wong admitted that, rather than craps, "if you want to get serious about making money from casinos ... get into blackjack or get into video poker or get into poker." That pretty much says it all.

So, blame it on Leibniz, blame it on God, or blame it on the exponential amping nature of kinetic energy, but real-world casino craps cannot be beaten. Period. But, hey, cheer up, maybe in another universe, far, far away Newton was actually right ;-).

Now, compare this modern casino game to the primitive WWII-era "blanket-roll" game, where the consensus is that a highly-skilled virtuoso p-shooter could, indeed, potentially gain a winning edge. What is apparent in such a comparison is that the two things that prevent beating the modern casino game -- namely, the exponential amping nature of kinetic energy, and the randomizing power of the back-wall pyramids -- were absent or neutralized in the blanket-roll game. In the blanket-roll game there were no back-wall pyramids, and the soft, relatively high-friction army-style blanket was perfect for burning off kinetic energy very rapidly, thus effectively neutralizing kinetic energy's amping nature. This makes for two very different games, one potentially beatable, and the other not. They say casinos are born at night, but clearly not last night, as they have very effectively eliminated the exploitable weaknesses in the primitive blanket-roll game.

Now, even though all this means that so-called AP casino craps is left without any credible operational theory or supporting evidence, whatsoever, justifying a belief in its validity, I know none of it is going to have the slightest effect on the so-called AP craps gurus. They'll just keep on beatin' the drums, pounding out that voodoo vibe for their faithful fans who are all too happy for a rationalization, any rationalization, to justify their inveterate gambling habits. And does any of it prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that casino craps can't be beaten? No, it doesn't. We'll probably never have that kind of proof. But it does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that casino craps is unbeatable, and in an existential world that is enough for reasonable men. Are you reasonable? Well, are you?"

#1
Last edited: Dec 13, 2016
2. random_roller, Dec 13, 2016

### random_roller Member

Joined:
Apr 30, 2015
Messages:
4,486
6,241
Hey TDV, perhaps you should get TomP to edit the above post.

#2
3. Dave G Ct, Dec 13, 2016

### Dave G Ct Member

Joined:
Mar 15, 2015
Messages:
8,245
1,485
Gender:
Male
TD
I saw that rant 2 years ago.These people who form a crusade to disprove DI.His article & \$1.89 gets you a small cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

#3
eagleeye2 and hartzehn22 like this.
4. hartzehn22, Dec 13, 2016

### hartzehn22 Member

Joined:
Jul 20, 2015
Messages:
1,037
394
TDV-
Dave G CT- whose rant was it? TDV?

#4
5. TDVegas, Dec 13, 2016

### TDVegas Member

Joined:
Jan 4, 2014
Messages:
19,247
14,222
You go get em, Dave.
No one is gonna tell you no.

#5
yacraps likes this.
6. lone irish digit, Dec 13, 2016

### lone irish digit Member

Joined:
Jan 3, 2015
Messages:
4,400
5,502
Now I may be mistaken but you should give references to some of the paragraphs because they look familiar. But You don't want to pull a Trump's wife speech error. I haven't read a book in 40 years and I feel like I almost did. Not with standing here's a link to a video of an average DI out in Linaway's territory that at least counters part of your argument.

#6
yacraps, hartzehn22 and Twelve4s like this.
7. Dave G Ct, Dec 13, 2016

### Dave G Ct Member

Joined:
Mar 15, 2015
Messages:
8,245
1,485
Gender:
Male
Come on TD
You have to credit that author

#7
eagleeye2 likes this.
8. TDVegas, Dec 13, 2016

### TDVegas Member

Joined:
Jan 4, 2014
Messages:
19,247
14,222
Is that The Rock N Roller?

#8
9. TDVegas, Dec 13, 2016

### TDVegas Member

Joined:
Jan 4, 2014
Messages:
19,247
14,222
#9
yacraps and Pressit like this.
10. Dave G Ct, Dec 13, 2016

### Dave G Ct Member

Joined:
Mar 15, 2015
Messages:
8,245
1,485
Gender:
Male
TD
You could have helped me out on Heavy' s board the other night lol

#10
yacraps likes this.
11. TDVegas, Dec 13, 2016

### TDVegas Member

Joined:
Jan 4, 2014
Messages:
19,247
14,222
Hitting the Strip tonight. See you boys later.

#11
yacraps likes this.
12. lone irish digit, Dec 13, 2016

### lone irish digit Member

Joined:
Jan 3, 2015
Messages:
4,400
5,502
No that's Barney messing with the dice while I knocked the old ladies back out.

#12
Last edited: Dec 13, 2016
13. Twelve4s, Dec 13, 2016

### Twelve4s Member

Joined:
Apr 2, 2016
Messages:
6,379
6,485
Gender:
Male

Wait until JH sees this.

#13
yacraps likes this.
14. Twelve4s, Dec 13, 2016

### Twelve4s Member

Joined:
Apr 2, 2016
Messages:
6,379
6,485
Gender:
Male
Meeting James at the bubble?

#14
yacraps likes this.
15. hartzehn22, Dec 13, 2016

### hartzehn22 Member

Joined:
Jul 20, 2015
Messages:
1,037
394
TDV- I read your post and enjoyed it. Did you write that? If you did, I found it very interesting. Thanks for posting. I'm changing my tune towards you after this post. You ask why?? well, I think Newton is great and the physics and the science behind movement and control or lack thereof is very interesting especially as it relates to craps. I've been drawn to physics and human movement, the effects of gravity and external objects on human movement for years.

As the laws of physics relates to craps, I have to agree that the die reaction is chaotic, often appearing random and completely uncontrollable. Such random shooting of the die can appear even more chaotic with certain types of shooting styles. This gets very interesting to observe. Now having said that, I do believe in controlled chaos, I like to think of it as dice influence. LOL.

I know DI to be a fact because I am able to effectively influence the die and their outcome, consistently defying random distribution. Sometimes hitting specific numbers comes in the form of sniping albeit challenging but given the right conditions, it can happen and happen consistently beyond "normal" random distribution. Now because I have witnessed hitting numbers beyond the normal random distribution over and over again with my own shooting, I can state with certainty that dice control exist.

Now I can't say that DI is easy but I can say that most will never attain it. Why because the controls that casinos have in place in today's casinos make it virtually impossible except for those that are gifted in one way or the other. I can't speak for other DI's but I'm sure they are out there.

If I didn't find you such a annoying member of this forum, I'd love for us to get together and frequent some casinos together. You can shadow me and watch my DI and then decide for yourself if it exists or not. Oh wait, I already offered but you said my DI challenge wasn't DI. Part of me wants to show you but part of me wants to just say c'est la vie because you have been such a turd. I wouldn't gain anything from meeting with you so I don't think it will ever happen but you never know.

Despite your lengthy historical diatribe on the no can do re: dice influence, it really does exist! Good Luck on your next visit to the casinos.

#15
amzngguy and \$nakeEye\$ like this.
16. James Hall, Dec 13, 2016

### James Hall Member

Joined:
May 15, 2016
Messages:
16,881
2,405
Gender:
Male
Did anybody besides me see the flaw in his delivery ?

#16
17. Twelve4s, Dec 13, 2016

### Twelve4s Member

Joined:
Apr 2, 2016
Messages:
6,379
6,485
Gender:
Male

Looked good to my untrained eye? Is that on axis?

#17

18. ### Liman Member

Joined:
May 4, 2013
Messages:
9,945
9,877
well, hartz says its possible, Im 100% sure its possible now.

and it took me time to figure out, that all those seniors of the bubble mafia, are not locals at all.
the casino knew I was there, from checkin, from my players card, and from security surveillance cameras, they conspired with whomever and purposely filled the seats of the bubble so I couldn't clean them out.

#18
yacraps and random_roller like this.
19. James Hall, Dec 13, 2016

### James Hall Member

Joined:
May 15, 2016
Messages:
16,881
2,405
Gender:
Male
yes it is and they are rotating together , which is also very difficult
whoever is throwing the dice would appear from that throw to be trained and
obviously spends a good deal of time practicing

#19
20. Twelve4s, Dec 13, 2016

Joined:
Apr 2, 2016
Messages:
6,379