concerning the validity of so-called DI suggests to me that it ain't happening. We all know what we see when playing craps with money at risk in the casino. We see a wide variety of results. Sometimes a shooter who sets the dice and tosses them softly has a great roll. Other times, the same shooter has a three roll hand. Good and bad results happen for all of us all of the time. Because of the rules of the game we play, outcomes can be expected to be more bad than good for each and every wager we make, except for one, the one that is paid fairly. Physics does NOT support DI. Rather, it allows for the fact that dice display kinetic energy in translational, rotational and gravitational forms, and then convert these energies into other forms as the dice hit various objects before finally coming to rest. (Max and LID can explain the specifics of this energy conversion, if they care to). Dice are not unique in this respect, All objects and movements are described by the same laws. Do some people shoot better than others? Absolutely, but IMO, this has nothing to do with so-called DI. Rather it is the variability that is inherent in everything we do.
I consider it to be when the so-called DI shows continuous statistical evidence of better results than predicted for whatever bet he makes. For example, for the 3V shooter looking to produce those on-axis sixes and eights - when his results are better than 5:6 vs the seven. Not occasionally, but the majority of the time. This will convert him from the average Joe into an "advantaged player'. Everybody can achieve this some of the time. The so-called DI can do it almost at will. Since this isn't happening, I rest my case.
I was up at RWC on Monday night, playing at the $10 table. Guy next to me said the current shooter (a dice setter) throws 'ones'. I said "what?".... Then he proceeded to throw a 1-3, 1-2, 1-4, 1-4, 1-3 winner I said "what the hell?" Then he rolled 1-4, 1-5, 1-1, 1-6 out! Is that a thing in DI? One of the dice always being the same? Or was this bias dice?
Ill explain one more time. Di is nothing more than a belief. Like religion, anyone can believe in it. If it makes one feel good to believe in it, great. Noone can walk up to a table and say, ok, Im going to throw one 7 at least every 3 rolls. If he did, he would own the casino. when someone bets a five and hits 4 fives during his roll, DI is working when someone bets a five and 7 outs continously without hitting any 5s, hes having an off day. whatever justification one needs to soothe the pain of their addiction. And secondly, DI is an internet myth, all the great DI shooters exist on the internet. santa claus, the easter bunny, and superman all exist on the internet also. Last night, I took out my time machine and travelled back 80 years because I wanted a charlotte russe made in my great grandfathers bakery. Theres no difference between my time machine and DI shooting.
Koko, So your requirement for a person to be a DI, is when his results are better than 5:6 vs the seven. Not occasionally, but the majority of the time. This will convert him from the average Joe into an "advantaged player'. Koko, Highly, Highly Likely BIASED DICE! By a ""COUNT"" measurment, as there are 6 sides to a DIE, for a fair Die you would get 1 in Six Throws for any Fair #. Counting BOTH DICE, that equates to 1 of each # 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,& 6 occurring every 3 throws. In the example above there were 10 ONES Thrown, when FAIR DICE would have Yielded 3 1/3 Ones. No DI has the ability to THROW, THREE + Times the Statistical Quantity of any #. When dealing with Biased DICE, I frequently COUNT about TWO Times the BIASED #, with the example above, yielding 3 1/3 times the Statistically Expected number, the DICE are highly BIASED. So, bet the Don't side; or hit the road to another Casino. Thus the diagnosis of BIASED Dice in play. eagleeye2
Das ist der Max Planck, Das Thema Würfelkontrolle war für mich, Barney und die Heisenburger, von größtem Interesse. Aufgrund der Unschärferelation ist es unmöglich, die Würfelsteuerung zu beweisen oder zu widerlegen, ähnlich wie er sagte, dass sie "Was" gesagt hat, was heute auf dem Televsion steht. Auch nachdem ich die großartigsten Münzauswürfe der Würfel gesehen habe, würde ich geneigt sein zu glauben, dass die Verringerung der Zufälligkeit eine Persönlichkeit mit höchstmöglicher Fertigkeit und anerkanntem DI - Kaufhaus und Wissen vom Lesen eines genehmigten DI - Bestsellers wie die LIDs "The Game of Craps", um konsequent bei den Craps zu gewinnen. Vielen Dank
Das ist Max Planck, Ich habe die LID studiert, wobei ich die Würfel sehr vorsichtig geworfen habe und sogar kurze Zeit als Dealer der Würfel gearbeitet habe, um den Meister bei der Arbeit zu beobachten, und kann ohne Zweifel sagen, dass die LID den Hausrand manchmal schlagen kann. Vielen Dank
The biggest issue , here is the limited number of people you have personally seen play , I am sure over the years you have seen very many , but what percentage of all players has anyone actually seen play?. A so called DI is a whole different animal than a DI. People have a very strong tendency to see someone setting dice and automatically labeling them a DI. Even among those who could fairly be labelled a DI there are numerous levels of skill much of that depending on the amount and quality of training and then of course how much time they spend practicing , the quality of practice , what the practice on , a table or a practice rig etc. The question must always be Have you been watching a DI in action or a dice setter with the wish of , BEING A DI???
Some people who practice DI work on that principle , the problem is theoretically the 6 on the other die is still expected to show once every six rolls. Having said that if you can have the other die come up with PFHs on an axis where the 6 does not appear you can reduce the number of sevens. There are tosses which enhance the likelihood of both of those eventualities.
Koko, Highly, Highly Likely BIASED DICE! By a ""COUNT"" measurement, as there are 6 sides to a DIE, for a fair Die you would get 1 in Six Throws for any Fair #. Counting BOTH DICE, that equates to 1 of each # 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,& 6 occurring every 3 throws. In the example above there were 10 ONES Thrown, when FAIR DICE would have Yielded 3 1/3 Ones. No DI has the ability to THROW, THREE + Times the Statistical Quantity of any #. When dealing with Biased DICE, I frequently COUNT about TWO Times the BIASED #, with the example above, yielding 3 1/3 times the Statistically Expected number, the DICE are highly BIASED. So, bet the Don't side; or hit the road to another Casino. Thus the diagnosis of BIASED Dice in play. eagleeye2
Denying it's existence does not make it non existent . The inability to perform it simply means you don't know how.
Bet the "don't" ? What the hell is wrong with you? How about, hop the . . What's not to like. If you can find bias dice, play the bias. Why wouldn't you?
Extremely difficult if not impossible to prove or disprove. Yep Yep Yep Yep Sure. Winning bets are paid less than fair and losing bet are taken in total. Ok While not getting into it too deep, I'm going to side with Liman in that it is a belief. Is it a viable belief? That's going to be left up to the individual player. If I had to make a suggestion...it would simply be for a DI to believe in himself. If his intention is that others must (should) believe---you are probably in a fight that will end in a draw. There's no need to make others believers. As long as you believe is what is important. A win is not evidence DI works. A loss is not evidence DI doesn't work.
Max, Ich nehme an, dass in Ihrer Analyse der LID, die manchmal den Hausvorteil schlagen, das Wort manchmal betont werden sollte?
