We are all Beginners, according to those websites that profess: If you can not Control the Dice, you have no Control over your Craps System. As far as they are concerned, you may see, but are Craps Blind. WikiCraps members do understand why Craps Players need to be distracted and ARE encouraged to ignore everything they know and understand. If you are not distracted, you cannot afford to consistently lose at the Craps Table. You, yes you... are encouraged to spend more time at home practicing your delivery style of a pair of biased dice to the opposite end of a 14 foot Craps Table. Also to purchase well written books, in large type, and illustrated to enlighten you to the methods of true winners... The WikiCraps Players Craps Guide. Yet to be leaked to all Forum Members. The CrapsForum has, or possibly had, a diverse group of experienced Players and Player Critics. If you are a Beginner, it is recommended that you read a number of Threads and Posts before posting. Your question(s) may have already been solved or debated. Although some members may sound shrill like a ballerina with a sprained ankle, it is also because we have professionals from other fields of study as members. It may include Cat Jugglers from Las Vegas or Gambling Therapists from New Jersey, posing as experts in Craps. Some could possibly be frustrated house wives with a parasitic Craps Player as a husband or boyfriend. But this is outside the purpose of the Craps Forum. Please contribute useful information. It may not necessarily concern Craps, as most of the Threads on Dice Influencing are expressing mostly 'attitude' towards the ignorant and biased members. If a Blind Pinball Player can smell a rolling steel ball and win... any Craps Player with glasses should be able to discuss the subject without tilting or throwing out fifteen letter curse words... Beginners: How do you play Craps? Have you been successful? Do you raise chickens?

Great topic for a coffee shop. You know what a coffee shop is right? That's where a bunch of do nothings sit down and agree that nothing can be done.

******* (Word substitutions.) Great topic for a Craps group. You know what Craps is, right? That's where a bunch of Narcissuses sit down and agree that Dice Influencing is possible.

Ever hear of Chi Square? That's where math tells you whether you influence the dice or not. I could prove that you are wrong but it wouldn't shut you up for one minute.

Everyone can Google Chi Square and download all you want. Craps players want to take an answer and then find something to come to that conclusion. Chi Square Statistics or Distribution Tables using Biased Dice alters outcomes... if you throw the Dice... too hard. If that is a revelation for your wanting to shut me up... something better is needed. Proving me wrong is easy. I have not made one dollar at the Craps Tables in 2015 nor 2016. I posted the numbers in Advanced Craps a week or so ago. When most Craps Sessions last two to five rolls... who actually cares? This is another example of wanting to solve a predetermined ANSWER and this seems to work for Biased Dice outcomes... if you believe biased dice ALWAYS favor those losing to the table. In that event, play totally opposite of your 'losing' strategy, which will also be found not to work, as well. Attacking the messenger that stands behind the common mathematics of Craps will bankrupt even the richest players in the World. If it is not Bad Dice today... it will be the static on the felt layout tomorrow.

GO and visit under Dice Influencing: Dice Bias with Casino Dice? Follow up on the information and tell everyone what you discovered to be TRUE. These are groups and individuals that work with and for Casinos for actual deviation of all gaming options. Many of these studies are done for prestige among their peers. Once you follow through on a number of additional leads on the Google Search... you will know and understand more than the average DI.

Chi Square analysis is simple. Compare observations and expectations. You can in fact get a mathematical proof that your current results exceed the results predicted from mathematical expectation, but don't count on it. In this case, you might be a dice influencer. You might also be lucky. The statistical analyzer, aka as the DI, must keep in mind that each and every roll and result must be included in the analysis. As a result, his mathematics change with every toss, oftentimes not for the better ( or is that bettor?). In a negative expectation game, where there are many, very highly disadvantageous wagers that can be made all at the same time, good luck using your skills getting and staying ahead. Even if you were to concentrate all efforts on one highly expected number, good luck tossing it frequently enough to beat the math of the game. This IS the best way to attempt to succeed. Specialize in one number, making only one wager. Take your pick. Six and Eight will show the most but pay the least. Four and Ten pay best but show worst. We are taught as children or possibly as young adults about probability, chance and variability. Topics of discussion in these learning experiences are one coin and two dice. Taken for granted at the beginning of this learning experience, and presented as fact, is the notion that both the flip of the coin and the toss of the dice are random affairs. Consider that because of their use in a financial game of chance, the concept of de-randomization of dice has sprung into existence. No such skill has been shown with the coin, which should be easier, shouldn't it? Experts have arisen who will teach you how to control, no make that influence the dice. Possibly for a price. The thirty-six possible dice outcomes are all equally probable. With the coin, heads and tails are equally likely. With the cubes, a outcome is exactly as likely as . Yes, we know that the table of 36 is weighted most heavily towards its center, but this is because of the cumulative and additive effects of two die being used to play the game. The above example does not say that a two is as likely as a seven. It says that a one and a three are equally likely on the left die and that and one and a four have the same likelihood on the other die. Math and dice is one thing. They have also brought physics into the discussion.

Thanks Kjoe. Input and analysis, that's all Chi Square does. Who said anything about biased dice? Who said anything about throwing the dice too hard? No one, my dear ignoramus, stands accused of ignoring the mathematics. Chi square will tell us to put up or shut up, you do or you don't. 7down simply cannot wrap his mind around that.

Chi Square or Reduced Chi Square... that is the question? ******* Testing Dice for Bias- Textfiles.com (Google Search) ********* In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Allan Longley) writes: [..stuff deleted..] >testing dice for bias. Well, here is a test to use. I haven't actually >tested this yet, but it should -- in theory -- work. And no, this is not >a copy out of the old Dragon magazine, but it is the same test -- its a >pretty standard test. I will use simple terms -- so all you math/stat >people out there, don't correct the fine points, I know. [description of chi-squared goodness-of-fit test deleted] Since Allan asks for no correction of fine points, I will attempt to limit myself to major problems. This is not intended as a flame on Allan, but this is fairly important stuff, and should be explained correctly. If at any stage I get less than pleasant, please accept my apology in advance. While the calculations that Allan describes give the correct value of a chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic (which he calls "Indicator"), you should be *very* wary of interpreting the results in the way he describes, as I will explain: Let us assume you have 40 dice that (unknown to you) are all perfectly fair, and you wish to test all of them, to see if any are "biased". The way Allan has set his test up, you'd expect 2 of them to give results below "Probably Fair", which he says indicates the die is probably unbiased. That is, you have 40 fair dice, and you will expect to regard only *two* of them as probably O.K.! Similarly, you will expect to consider two of your "purely fair" dice as probably unfair. Of the remaining 36, you will expect 18 scores between "Probably Fair" and "Maybe" and 18 more between "Maybe" and "Probably biased". For these 36, you have to do the test again, under Allan's scheme. If you get both results below "Maybe" (you expect 9 of these) you say "Probably Fair". Similarly you expect 9 above "Maybe" on both trials. So we have (after repeating the test for 90% of the dice): Number of Fair Dice: 40 Expected number "probably fair": 11 Expected number "probably biased": 11 Expected number which we don't know about: 18. So over a quarter of perfectly fair dice will be called "probably biased". If we continue testing those remaining 18 we are still undecided about, the problem gets worse. ********

This stuff goes on and on. Some since 1992. There are pages and pages of this stuff. When would anyone have any time to even shoot Craps, being totally consumed with finding minute differences in expectations and deviation of those expectations? The information is all derived from previous outcomes. Strictly a way for those who enjoy mathematics and having something to do. In Post #9, that is just an excerpt of findings. Those who believe this is usable information, never are able to explain to the ignorant, as myself, what good is achieved. Those who find it total nonsense have to PROOVE that is nonsense, or you are ignorant. Again... a Canadian Source. Much like the same kinds I added to a Thread on Dice Influencing and their toy Las Vegas Dice for their testing outcomes. Count me as a: Nonbeliever

So what you are saying is, if I give you the proof, mathematically, that I influence dice you are still a nonbeliever? And you ask me not to insult you? Really?

DM, What do your numbers say? I recall that, like me, you are usually a one bet at a time player who is not averse to playing the other way. Does your data show a signature number? Do you often play for the seven to show? Not looking for trade secrets, just curious about how you use your data.

BWAHAHAHA! Yes silver laced wyandots and guinea hens. Played craps twice, won 150 then lost 250 a few weeks later. played the same way as the 1st time too. However players around me were winning by playing outside, the field and C&E. They spotted a trend and adapted. I was convinced the prop bets were not in my best interests...so I never played any. They were betting $25 field bets at a $5 table and cleaning up. Anyway I was happy they were winning cause that just proves it can be done...they played on intuition and it payed off... ...so lately I'm paying close attention/researching prop bets. Lessons learned; If it's not working , change something with my betting procedure. Turn off my PB's earlier than 5 passes. And with that ^ if non box #'s are rolling prepare to segue into the field, any craps. Also I'm looking into the DP-DC for an alternative simple cold table strategy...but I don't fully understand it yet. Maybe by Thanksgiving... I dunno, it kind of has an unclean feel to me. meh, perhaps at first glance it appears overwhelming. Still though it has issues... hummmm. And a pleasant good afternoon to all CrapsForum colleagues.

I am a geologist. When someone needs 'investors' to open up an abandoned gold mine in Nevada... reach for your Smith & Wesson, not your checkbook. Same with a Winning Craps operation. It is not going to hit 'pay dirt'. There is, or was, more gold and silver to be found Metal Detecting Swimming Beaches IN THE WATER at old swimming holes in the Midwest USA! Not picking out bottle caps and pull tabs in the sand on the beaches, near these 1950's to 1970's cess pools. Today, not the case, but in the early 1970's with some caulk to seal the metal detector head where the cable enters the head... float the electronic portion on a styrofoam float... you were in the Gold Business! The 10K class rings and 14K wedding bands and engagement rings lost forty years earlier were easy pickings. Unlike a gaming table, where losers in the 1930's are no different than today's. Same game. Same high hopes. Same conclusions.

Results for up to 1200 rolls per table position and toss are translated into a Hard Ways file. Then BT will tell me the best CO set and best PC set for best (predicted) results. Now if I can take wisdom (One bet DP + odds + negative progression) I'll be OK. Most gamblers do the opposite.

You can never go too badly wrong with one bet on the table at a time. There is only one roll of the dice where you are underdog when playing DP or DC. If I were a regular Don'ter, which I am not, I would probably try getting behind two numbers, if not three, simply to make a favored result pay in (dup/trip)licate. How high above table minimum is your wager starting at in order to be able to regress with multiple (winners) in a row?

Yes. Really i know your post wasn't directed towards me but "we", meaning many of us would, yes, "ask" you to not hurl personal insults. ------------------------------------------------- i digress a little here but it is all talk...when asked to DO ANYTHING ALL those that claim skill at bank craps have nothing but excuses...it is true that there are some very valid excuses...such challenges, win or lose, would prove nothing...would mean nothing...you (iirc) and others are correct in this reasoning: success would be written off as "luck"..so along with obvious lack of confidence in your abilities that is an understandable dismissal when it is "proof" that one purports to demonstrate. never mind that "proof" of bank craps skill is not possible...a high level of mathematical confidence is the best you can hope for...just as with the theory of gravity which also cannot be "proven" ...possibly just semantics, yes, but when the scientific rubber meets the road, i think not, especially so regarding trials of random events... you have no "mathematical proof" nor even a scientifically rigorous level of confidence...NEVER has such been demonstrated nor even scientifically ATTEMPTED. -------------------------------------------------- while those babblings are in fact true, like i said, i digress. i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt but more than that i believe that there is a very high probability that you personally would never so frequently as you do here insult people like that face-to-face, even given the weak rationalization like the one you have offered here...so why do it here?... frankly while having no manifest reason for believing so, i honestly and sincerely believe that you are a more likable, even better, maybe even terrific, in person than your personal insults here indicate ...i am serious...i really believe that...it is simply a known fact that peoples say things on internet chat rooms that they would never say in person... In short, You Are Wrong. neither disbelief in your "mathematical proof" nor skepticism regarding your skills at bank craps is NOT a good excuse to hurl personal insults. Yes. many "really" would "ask" that you not do so... Really. tom p -g. geist: talkin' to the wall again? --tom p: i know, i know ---g. geist: your campaign for civility on public forums is futile ----tom p: i know, i know