Nobody needs to watch you. They only need to know what bets you make.
And "The Captain and crew" are fictitious!
Printable View
Nobody needs to watch you. They only need to know what bets you make.
And "The Captain and crew" are fictitious!
I've never seen such a Frankenstein table but as regnis pointed out there are casinos with tables with good table conditions and casinos with bad tables.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
If you are going to try DI I would avoid Caesars Palace now. The new layouts are too fast and too bouncy. And it's to the point dice are coming right off the tables. Even with my soft throw I have had dice bounce into the rail.
OneHitWonder: I'd rather read what regnis posts than your regurgitated nonsense. Please don't push regnis away. Why don't you just leave if the info is just nonsense?
Alan is probably the only one that's figured out how to influence the dice against himself. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Masochism is the uncontrollable (DI) urge to get kicked in the balls for attention. His ex-wives finally figured it out, too, and gave him what he wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfAlan is probably the only one that's figured out how to influence the dice against himself. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I bet the box numbers. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I bet the pass. Odds will range from 1x to full 3, 4, 5x odds depending how I'm doing.
I do not bet hardways or field.
I have a horn high ace deuce on the come out to insure my passline bet.
Now jbjb, how can you determine my edge without watching me throw?
Rob Singer is back. The SOB was running two IDs simultaneously.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneHitWonderMasochism is the uncontrollable (DI) urge to get kicked in the balls for attention. His ex-wives finally figured it out, too, and gave him what he wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfAlan is probably the only one that's figured out how to influence the dice against himself. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Remember you owe me dinner for losing the stock market bet.
If you try to influence the dice, but can't, then your "edge", or lack thereof, is the same as the house edge. For reference: https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/2/Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI bet the box numbers. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I bet the pass. Odds will range from 1x to full 3, 4, 5x odds depending how I'm doing.
I do not bet hardways or field.
I have a horn high ace deuce on the come out to insure my passline bet.
Now jbjb, how can you determine my edge without watching me throw?
But I tend to throw outside numbers using my cross sixes set. Unfortunately 2, 3, 11 and 12 are not points and they are hard to repeat. This is why my rolls don't last long. However, where I make money at craps is hitting the Bonus bets, and there hitting the outside numbers just once is essential.
So I am going to ask again: who wants to watch me play? Perhaps one of you math guys might determine that my edge would improve if I changed my betting? I'm open to advice.
Earlier you said you try to influence the dice (but can't). Now you're saying you tend to throw outside numbers, implying you do influence the dice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Make up your mind.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is being very wasteful, how true that is. "Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
--- Dan Quayle
Unfortunately you can't win at craps just hitting outside numbers one time.
You don't play, do you RS__? And you even claimed to be a craps dealer once?
Yes you claimed to be craps dealer before you told us you were a Seven Stars player.
I think it's time I disappear again.
Adios.
Betting strategy, and hence selection; or betting amount? The standard line to negative-expectation casino games is that you can't measurably hurt any more than help yourself beyond a certain point with any strategy. But, is that really the case? As it is universally easier and faster to wreck something than to build it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The theorists focus exclusively on direct improvements to play rather than on indirect reversals of the "worse than losing" betting selections and amounts. If we can consistently engineer or "massage" wins and losses so that our losses occur before wins, instead of always going for the win all along, then a very mild negatively increasing progression, simplistically speaking, can work well for two mathematical reasons. Firstly, we can, to a degree, have the losses "out of the way" for each and every cycle or series of bets, and secondly, we can "sacrifice" the smaller bets for the larger ones.
The trick, of course, is to maneuver more of the losses to the front of the queue. The other thing too, don't play until you know that you can beat 'em, and well without years of specialized practice, or other investment. No harm in sitting on your ass, and thinking about crazy stuff, as long as it's crazy enough.
From a guy who couldn't spell worth potatoes, ha. Insanity has no other definition than pure imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Ooooh, a spelling critic.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneHitWonde
Curious, I checked out this clown's posts.
His SECOND post on this forum has a classic spelling error.
see:
====================
05-07-2015, 09:54 AM
Thread: Question for Math/Gambling/Craps Experts
by OneHitWonder
"As far as I understand your apparently unique... "
====================
It's "you're" not "your."
Trolls who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
ha
I'm not seeing any posts by OHW before 5-19-2015. :(
What're you rambling on about now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Good riddance.
The objective of DI's is to change the frequencies from what the math says they are, like changing the frequency of rolling a seven to 1 in 7 or longer. If that frequency can be changed from 1 in 6 to something longer then the frequencies of the other numbers will be shortened, like the frequency of rolling a four would change from 1 in 12 to 1 in 11 or a fraction between 11 and 12.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, that's the problem with figuring one's expectation in these spots. No purveyor of dice influencing that I know of has ever covered this subject. The only way to figure those odds is with an empirical study. Replicate casino conditions and have a "good dice influencer" make a few thousand throws with independent reputable observers recording the results. This would tell what the odds are on his throws and a strategy could be built around that.
This type of experiment could have been done a long time ago but for some reason the purveyors of dice influencing have avoided it.
The gurus have NOT avoided it Mickey. In the early days we had get-togethers at places like Ellis Island and we played on real tables and we kept our counts. Yes the SRRs were better than 1 in 7 but frankly a random shooter often can step up to the table and roll eight, nine or ten times before a seven out. So the SRR was no proof.
What could be proof is the actual delivery: the soft toss, the dice in parallel on axis, hitting the center of the back wall gently. And as I watched I realized not even the gurus could do that.
This is why I say I've only seen three true dice influencers.
But I also say it doesn't hurt to try.
Frankly I don't know why Axel argues with me? I'm saying what he should agree with. Is it just that he objects to even one true DI being alive? Do three true DIs make his life unbearable?
I've never seen regnis roll. Perhaps he's the fourth and Scoblete is the fifth?
With millions of people in the world who have thrown dice and with thousands who practice is it not reasonable to think someone can have the skill?
We're not all able to be professional golfers or pro bowlers or NFL quarterbacks but some people are.
For the AP community to say no one is a DI is ridiculous.
Recording the results in a casino is a slow cumbersome method. Ahigh owned his own craps table. Scoblete and others didn't give classes at the casino craps table. They either owned or leased craps tables to give classes. Doing it outside the casino is the fastest way to get the stats. You do it on at least a few thousand throws. You want to know what your frequencies are before you go to the casino. You can devise a strategy around the stats. Those guys never did such an emprical study with independent verifiers--and it could have easily been done. Excuses for not having done it are worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Mick-you are overlooking one important factor. Every table in every casino is different. What you do on your practice table at home does not carry over to the casino. At the casino, you then have to practice your throw and make adjustments. That is also why you can't just take your show on the road to all the various casinos. You first have to practice on each table and make the necessary adjustments.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmRecording the results in a casino is a slow cumbersome method. Ahigh owned his own craps table. Scoblete and others didn't give classes at the casino craps table. They either owned or leased craps tables to give classes. Doing it outside the casino is the fastest way to get the stats. You do it on at least a few thousand throws. You want to know what your frequencies are before you go to the casino. You can devise a strategy around the stats. Those guys never did such an emprical study with independent verifiers--and it could have easily been done. Excuses for not having done it are worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You mickey, obviously don't play craps. If you played you'd know how exhausting it is to properly throw the dice even 40 times.
Emphasis is on the word properly.
Ahigh had zero skill. I saw his videos. A bullshit artist. His dice bounced uncontrollably.
Regnis is correct. No two tables are alike. What you do at home is practice your grip and toss. When you get to the casino you use your first throws or turns to judge the table conditions. HOPEFULLY the table conditions will be okay.
What's interesting here, is guys like Alan will try to employ techniques that have never been proven to work (DI/DC, playing bad VP trying to get "lucky", etc.) to try and profit off of casinos but will not use proven techniques (card counting, HC'ing, vulturing, etc.) to accomplish this same feat.
Quit being scared of getting kicked out of these places and go for the jugular!
I forget who said this, but it was on one of the AP sites:Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
"If you're not being kicked out of casinos, you're doing something wrong!"
So these supposed DIs are throwing tens of thousands of rolls at their home setup but they aren't even verifying they can influence the dice on their own (optimal) setup? That's like someone practicing card counting on their kitchen table and not verifying they are playing with proper strategy nor verifying their actual counting is accurate.
On the premise that dice influencing is possible, "trying it" could definitely hurt you, since you could be influencing the dice in a negative way such that you expect to lose more. Just like a someone "trying" to count cards but not doing it properly -- he'll may be betting more at the wrong time, altering from basic strategy at the wrong, such that he loses even more. Not to mention, if he (the person trying to DI or CC) thinks he's playing properly but isn't and thinks he's just running bad, then he may continue to play because he thinks he has an advantage, when he otherwise wouldn't be playing.
MGM, NYNY and Bellagio all kicked me out of their craps pits. Care to restate your post?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbI forget who said this, but it was on one of the AP sites:Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
"If you're not being kicked out of casinos, you're doing something wrong!"
I don't know what to say except that I've only seen three true DIs, but on this forum and the WOV and others I've seen hundreds of armchair quarterbacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
You THINK you saw three true DI's, just as you THINK you saw a shooter roll eighteen yo's in a row.
I KNOW your powers of observation and reporting are wholly suspect, unreliable, and not to be taken seriously.
So go ahead, spew more drivel.
Ya, but, you also claim to have seen 18 yos in a row.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI don't know what to say except that I've only seen three true DIs, but on this forum and the WOV and others I've seen hundreds of armchair quarterbacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
There is no way you know if they were true DIs or not(you have no clue if they have an advantage). Just because their shot looked good and they made money doesn't mean anything. Your statement should always be, there are only 3 people who I think are DIs.
You make me laugh. All I need is a shooter with a shot that looks good and makes me money. What else do you need, bozo? LOL
Remind us, which year did you have a net win in gambling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That proves nothing; random rollers can have great rolls, per the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No other clowns are necessary, at least not until you pull your "adios" act again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Or are you claiming that Bozo is an accomplished dice setter?
Never have I had a net win in gambling. Never.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__Remind us, which year did you have a net win in gambling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
of course random rollers can have great rolls. that lady in Atlantic City was a random roller. The guy in Vegas for the consumer electronics show who held the dice for more than four hours was not only a random roller but I was told he never played craps before in his life. And that shooter who threw eighteen yos in a row also had a random throw.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVThat proves nothing; random rollers can have great rolls, per the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No other clowns are necessary, at least not until you pull your "adios" act again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Or are you claiming that Bozo is an accomplished dice setter?
Ive been at tables when I made the most money off of random rollers.
But I never LOST money with those three DIs. That makes all the difference.
OK, so how did your method of play adjust to the seeming realization that these guys were actual DI's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
One might assume that the light bulb went off in your noggin at some point while they were rolling: "Whoa, he's a real DI!"
At that moment, how did you respond?
Logically one would think you'd then press the hell out of your bets, as you'd believe that you're riding a +EV wave.
Or did you sit idly by and do nothing, as when the alleged eighteen yo's in a row were rolled? (In which event is the term "DI" a contraction for "Deer In [the headlights])?
Okay, so conditions are different in the casino. But doing an empirical study on a practice table would go a long way in establishing that the dice can be influenced. A sample space of about 5000 rolls would suffice. The rolls don't have to be done all at once either. They should only be done when the shooter is in his best form. A supposed top DI should be used, like maybe Scoblete.
Mick-I easily threw 500,000 trials at home on my table, and probably a lot more. Do you think that didn't give me empirical evidence? Do you really think I woke up one day and decided I was a shooter/ You guys are looking for exact numbers and percentages for each number thrown to determine an exact edge. If you have played craps, and RS should know better, once it was determined that I could avoid the 7 for lengthy periods, and that during those periods I could throw a disproportionate amount of 10s and 8s, why do I need anything more. Why do I need exact percentages. I bet the 8 and 10---duh!!!!!
Now. I don't disagree that I could have possibly optimized my bets better with that exact knowledge, but again, it is craps. There is nothing exact about it.
And don't think there weren't days where my shoulder hurt from hockey or my hand or wrist was sore that I knew immediately I couldn't throw and quickly quit. My edge was my throw--nothing more.
Sure, you personally don't need to know your exact edge but that is not the point. An empirical study using a top DI and independent observers with published results would prove to everyone that dice influencing is possible. In other words, the guys that write the books should put up that kind of evidence. Why haven't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Not unlike Kewl or any of the APs, I would never have taken part in anything proving publicly that it could be done. Like the BJ players, we also used some deceptive practices from time to time as a cover.
I pressed and pressed and pressed. And collected and collected and collected.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVOK, so how did your method of play adjust to the seeming realization that these guys were actual DI's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
One might assume that the light bulb went off in your noggin at some point while they were rolling: "Whoa, he's a real DI!"
At that moment, how did you respond?
Logically one would think you'd then press the hell out of your bets, as you'd believe that you're riding a +EV wave.
Or did you sit idly by and do nothing, as when the alleged eighteen yo's in a row were rolled? (In which event is the term "DI" a contraction for "Deer In [the headlights])?
Are you sure you have played craps?
Craps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Oh, I thought we were talking about crops.
This is the Modern Farmer site, isn't it?
The word 'your' is the correct word in that spot. Please include a link when posting such trivia, or, at least, don't garble stuff of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
"As far as I understand your apparently unique position: there is one die to show a two, either one; hence the other one will show a 2 one-sixth of the time. If you follow my earlier argument - about there being no question or matter of any chance of both dies showing a 2 when the initially read-looked at die does not show a 2, ..."
P.S. I do recall having made a few typos from time to time. I misspelled voyeur, a while back, too, which, ironically, is sort of what you seem to be about. It was an obvious typo, so I left it. Not to mention that you have made a few spelling errors of your own. Like millennium, which has two n's. But I saw no reason to point it out. You are no Dan Quayle, haha. Just a "neighbor boy" across the gambling forums.
P.P.S. Some book says not to add a slap when berating others. Now, I see the reason.
I've come to learn over time that empirical evidence isn't all that great or trustworthy. Last year I played a good amount of blackjack (card counting) and I felt like I was off my game because I was just losing and losing and losing. I didn't know how much I was down in BJ for the current year, but I knew it had to be a lot. I estimated in my head 15-20k loss for the first few months. I opened up my spreadsheet with all my gambling entries (VP, slots, promos, BJ, expenses, etc.) and added up only the BJ sessions....and I was up something like 10-15k (I don't remember off the top of my head, but was in that range). I was astonished. I re-verified all my entries, made sure I wasn't adding extra 0's and all that stuff, and sure enough, even though it felt like all I was doing was losing, I was actually up.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
If your results were so astounding such that simple empirical data showed you rolled more 8s/10s and fewer 7s, you would have had a super massive edge and have absolutely incredible influence on the dice. It's been my understanding that dice-influencers can only alter the probabilities by a few percent and not some huge amount which would be required for your empirical data claim to be of significance.
It'd be like flipping a coin then coming to the conclusion using empirical data (and not tracking it) that the coin is biased. For this to happen, you're not going to be able to notice if it's 51/49 in favor of heads or even 55/45 or 60/40. There would need to be a significant difference between the probabilities, more like 75/25.
It just astonishes me that someone would not keep track of their rolls.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVCraps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Oh, I thought we were talking about crops.
This is the Modern Farmer site, isn't it?
There's no fear of that because total dipshits are like shit on your shoe, and everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
But, there is always something to learn from every one, especially the dumbest.
P.S. Alan, why don't you just fuck off? You're a mommy's boy with his pants pulled down.
The rolls that count are those done in the casino. The results of those rolls were duly recorded each and every time. The specifics within those rolls--not a chance. Why would you record each roll and lose your rhythm? Just makes no sense. But each and every "roll"--meaning from getting the dice until 7ing- out was duly recorded. That is done for and required by our friends at the IRS.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__I've come to learn over time that empirical evidence isn't all that great or trustworthy. Last year I played a good amount of blackjack (card counting) and I felt like I was off my game because I was just losing and losing and losing. I didn't know how much I was down in BJ for the current year, but I knew it had to be a lot. I estimated in my head 15-20k loss for the first few months. I opened up my spreadsheet with all my gambling entries (VP, slots, promos, BJ, expenses, etc.) and added up only the BJ sessions....and I was up something like 10-15k (I don't remember off the top of my head, but was in that range). I was astonished. I re-verified all my entries, made sure I wasn't adding extra 0's and all that stuff, and sure enough, even though it felt like all I was doing was losing, I was actually up.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
If your results were so astounding such that simple empirical data showed you rolled more 8s/10s and fewer 7s, you would have had a super massive edge and have absolutely incredible influence on the dice. It's been my understanding that dice-influencers can only alter the probabilities by a few percent and not some huge amount which would be required for your empirical data claim to be of significance.
It'd be like flipping a coin then coming to the conclusion using empirical data (and not tracking it) that the coin is biased. For this to happen, you're not going to be able to notice if it's 51/49 in favor of heads or even 55/45 or 60/40. There would need to be a significant difference between the probabilities, more like 75/25.
It just astonishes me that someone would not keep track of their rolls.
What astonishes me is that so-called professional poker players such as Dandruff can't fathom the simplest forms of probabilities. What is the chance of 18 straight yo's, Dan? Better check your figures. Beyond this, (internet) cowards and (weird claims without proof) blowhards like regnis (singer) and Mendelson are easy to figure. Easy as 3-2-1.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
P.S. Looks like we lost all of those invisible members that sit and sit here. Dinner time, I suppose. Turkey, that is. (Dinnertime, for V.)
Anybody here making any money, tonight? While the others of us rest and enjoy the holiday? "Whisper words of wisdom, let it be."
P.S. Well, it beats talking about what actually happened seven or twenty years ago in some dumb casino.
P.P.S. Perhaps, everyone is at the Wizard's. But, how long does anyone here think that would have lasted were people allowed to post freely? I give it "two seconds". As Twain wrote, loosely, "It's not what we don't know that gets us into trouble, but what we think we know that just ain't so."
P.P.P.S. Someone pass me another popsicle. This is fun. "Goin' through the jazz, man, in my mind." Now I know how Mickey feels. "The community reels when one man feels."
P.P.P.P.S. Perhaps there is a God, after all? Such idiocy, surely, can't exist on its own. And 6*6*6 + 6(6+6+6) = 324.
And then, there was one. Come on guys, tell me how smart you are.
IRS doesn't require a "play by play", only a win/loss amount for a gaming day.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I don't care about nor am asking about the money won or lost on a given roll (get dice -> 7 out), but the frequency or probability of hitting each number per individual toss of the dice.
I don't know about you, but if I were into DI, I would have a practice partner who would help during the practice, like move the dice, record rolls, etc.
"The rolls that count are those done in the casino." LOL, I can't even take you seriously anymore.
Years ago, there was a so-called doctor who signed up for course after course about baccarat. Another "serious" guy just couldn't get it out of his head. The BacDoctor, lol. Just couldn't get it out of his head. I knew that singer regnis was a goner when he wrote that he believes Singer believes. That should be the first question in any psychological evaluation. Forget the stereotypical fancy pictures of ink blotches.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneHitWonder
I'm not sure how smart I am, but my girlfriend just went on a 20-4 game, 75-9 unit run in the Linemasters Contest to take over first place with a 49-23 ATS record. Next week is the last, and she has a shot to win the overall and to win the "final five week" portion of the contest, also. It has been an impressive thing to watch, as contestants are forced to take and rank six games each week so it has "forced choice" elements to it.
One of the best seasons I've seen from anyone ever, going back 40 years.
Great job --congrats to her. And I'm not even going to ask what her edge is.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by OneHitWonder
I'm not sure how smart I am, but my girlfriend just went on a 20-4 game, 75-9 unit run in the Linemasters Contest to take over first place with a 49-23 ATS record. Next week is the last, and she has a shot to win the overall and to win the "final five week" portion of the contest, also. It has been an impressive thing to watch, as contestants are forced to take and rank six games each week so it has "forced choice" elements to it.
One of the best seasons I've seen from anyone ever, going back 40 years.
LOL -- her edge is that she knows what she's doing. My "edge" is a 30-year-old machete I keep in the trunk of my car for people who ask what my edge is.
Smile!!
Sorry to say, this site was alot better and more interesting with Singer and Blacksoul here....didn`t particularly care for either of them, but they were both far more interesting than these 2 asswads above^^^^^^^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by OneHitWonderThe word 'your' is the correct word in that spot. Please include a link when posting such trivia, or, at least, don't garble stuff of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
"As far as I understand your apparently unique position: there is one die to show a two, either one; hence the other one will show a 2 one-sixth of the time. If you follow my earlier argument - about there being no question or matter of any chance of both dies showing a 2 when the initially read-looked at die does not show a 2, ..."
P.S. I do recall having made a few typos from time to time. I misspelled voyeur, a while back, too, which, ironically, is sort of what you seem to be about. It was an obvious typo, so I left it. Not to mention that you have made a few spelling errors of your own. Like millennium, which has two n's. But I saw no reason to point it out. You are no Dan Quayle, haha. Just a "neighbor boy" across the gambling forums.
P.P.S. Some book says not to add a slap when berating others. Now, I see the reason.
Hehehe, I'm all out of something to say. But, they say that hate is the first step to a lasting love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biloxi BillSorry to say, this site was alot better and more interesting with Singer and Blacksoul here....didn`t particularly care for either of them, but they were both far more interesting than these 2 asswads above^^^^^^^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by OneHitWonderThe word 'your' is the correct word in that spot. Please include a link when posting such trivia, or, at least, don't garble stuff of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
"As far as I understand your apparently unique position: there is one die to show a two, either one; hence the other one will show a 2 one-sixth of the time. If you follow my earlier argument - about there being no question or matter of any chance of both dies showing a 2 when the initially read-looked at die does not show a 2, ..."
P.S. I do recall having made a few typos from time to time. I misspelled voyeur, a while back, too, which, ironically, is sort of what you seem to be about. It was an obvious typo, so I left it. Not to mention that you have made a few spelling errors of your own. Like millennium, which has two n's. But I saw no reason to point it out. You are no Dan Quayle, haha. Just a "neighbor boy" across the gambling forums.
P.P.S. Some book says not to add a slap when berating others. Now, I see the reason.
P.S. The interesting thing about V's spelling of millennium is that he did it at least twice, so no typo. Years ago, I had hired a lawyer, and had to correct his spelling. Lol. (He was an American lawyer who came to work in Windsor, Canada.)
Well, it looks like we lost voyeur V, with the self deletion of his last heavy handed post here. Some persons just slink away into the gloomy sunset of atheism at The Penalty Box, and the parent site the Wizard's? Gee, Bill is rid of at least one of us.
This is a completely incorrect premise according to Koganinja's Evolution Throw. On page 11 of his Evolution Throw manual, he discusses with dice how "Rotation Cancels Gravity Theory" and references his 1st video (EVOLUTION Throw Part 1 The Theory) at minute marker 01:13:51 where he describes the key to a true influenced dice throw is more rotation. Reference Link Evolution ThrowQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I am no DI fan, but conceptually isn't the aim to keep them on axis as opposed to minimizing rotation?
Mr. V-I tried to minimize rotation most of the time with the hope that that would keep them on axis. However, if trying for certain numbers(not really recommended), the height and number of rotations were changed.
Ihave read the first few pages so maybe my comment is a duplicate. I think the real proof that DI does not work is that the casinos allow it. A very very small percentage of BJ players are card counters and a small percentage of them are successful card counters....yet the casinos privately outlaw it. So even if a very small percentage of craps players were successful at DI...they would easily outlaw it.
Its not rocket science. Just tell people to put the dice in a cupped hand and toss them. That would save them money over the years.
But yet they dont. They have the dollars to research it.
you think these multibillion dollar casinos havent looked at DI inside out. Every angle of it. Every nuance. Data they collect at tables. They hire experts, they share info among other multibillion dollar casinos.....and they come to the conclusion that a dice setter can have a good day at the tables, just like a random dice thrower does without setting.
If casinos thought they were losing an extra penny from DI...they would easily eliminate setting dice as an option at the tables.
I hear about people who buy craps tables and practice in their basement....but then what....they go to casinos where there are factors that cause a minute change in the throe, in the keeping dice on axis,.....height if the table, thickness f the carpet your stand on, spring of the felt, configuration of the back wall, length of the table, distraction of people around you, a stick man that wont move out of the way causing a slight change in arc,....all alot different than the well controlled environment of your basement..not to mention slight difference in the weight of dice or size....enough to just make a micrometer difference in your expected action of the dice....and causing a difference in resuts of thelanding.
I wouldnt be surprised if these multibillion dollar casinos enlisted physics experts to break down the probabilities of control of the dice occuring,
I never under estimate the casinos as being sooo soooo stupid that they cant see DI really works. They hire smart people, and share info amiongst each other at conventions and seminars......and are quite up to snuff on the things going on in their establishments.
The casinos do recognize one possible craps AP: the dead cat bounce.
They want the dice to hit the rubber on the wall past the landing spot in order to prevent it.
Some crapsters say they were barred from shooting if, after receiving such an admonishment, the dice did not hit the wall.
It seems to make sense: I can conceptualize how the dead cat bounce, properly mastered / executed, could provide an advantage.
Like card counting it is not cheating, just privately prohibited by the casinos to ensure the integrity of the game.
that has little to do with DI as we talk about it today, with dice being "on axis" and such. they just want a fair random roll fpr them and the players. That rule was around before all the "axis' CRAP AND THE 1000 dollar seminars.And it prevents intentional and unintentional rolls of 2 feet down the table, where whatever the result, patrons will complain based on what side of the dice they bet on. Its for a fair game, and if it hits the back wall consistently everyone at the table accepts the result.
its a rule thats unevenly enforced though
I have never seen a die not reach a back wall, while rolling a 7-out.....and have someone question that the roll was invalid.If that happened I wonder what the staff would say.
yes that rule you mention prevented dice infuencing by sliding and such. But the industry today revolving around Di is different. Its seminars that collect alot of money from people to teach them how to get an advantage by throwing the dice legally. And it remains a legal throw.....because obviously the casinos see no advantage to the player. No advantage at all....not because of their stupidity or blindness....but out of research and reality.
And on any board i have read about DI, and had people complain that they took a seminar and cant duplicate the expected results.....they are told by other wise DIers..that they need to buy their own table and practice for hundreds or thousands of hours to perfect their throw and perfect the results. Of course this was never told to them as money was passing hands in paying for the seminar. That bit of info is not in the advertising flyers.
Craps is a simple game. The requirements for a valid role are also simple:
Dice must fly in the air.
Dice must hit the table surface at least once.
Dice must hit the back wall.
There is no rule against setting dice.
That's how the NGC views the game.
exactly.....the proof that DI doesnt work......or else there would be a rule against setting
As a matter of fact the NGC has no problem with dice setting or any kind of controlled throw AS LONG AS the three conditions are met. As I was told for a news story on KCAL the NGC says players are expected to try to win and the casino gives them the opportunity to try to win by giving the players the dice.
funny and naive
yes the altruistic casino that internally outlaw card counting because it can give the player an advantage, views DI as just a technique that a customer used to try to win more money. All the general public wants to do is win more money, so why should we the casino stand in their way.
why should we decrease the winning percentage on slots, why should we dissallow card counting, because after all the customers just want to win more money.
LarryS is here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ
Ah, but I believe you reported that some strip casinos view things a bit differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Didn't you recently say something to the effect that the dice were taken from you because you were setting the dice and winning?
Maybe I got the facts a bit confused, but I thought that was the jist of what you said.
i have seen the dice taken away because they were thrown too high,,,,was told they had to be eye level of the stick man......and yes the tosser was wnning......hitting the back wall...but still.. If it was all about giving the customer a fair chance to win.....the dice would not have been passed over.
the casino can call off any roll they want if the dice dont hit the back wall....and they can let it stand ...its all so very arbitrary.
And if DI was a proven fact...or even a believable occurrence it is easy to ban overnight. Yet most casinos silently say.. bring us your huddled masses of DIs....they are welcome here. Asking a winning DI player to stop setting the dice inferring that the setting was causing winning, is just as valid as asking a woman winning shooter to remove her vagina.
Women gamble with their vaginas all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryS
Some times it's in play, some times it's not.
Funny thing is, a lot of guys think they've "hit the jackpot" only to soon discover that they're the ones paying out for 18 years, not the casino.
Wicked world.
thats funny....and true
I don't know anything about Dice influencing. I have never played craps. Not a single roll or spin or whatever it's called. So I don't have an opinion on Dice influence. I don't have an opinion on anything in craps except if it is something that the math says is impossible....ummm....Alan.
But let's say, dice influencing is possible. I am assuming those good at it would be players that are expert in handling dice. OR maybe someone expert in handling testicles. Maybe a professional ball washer, like a male nurse might just have the skill needed. ;) Just thinking out loud here. :cool:
Ewwww, gross!Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Keep your homosexual fantasies to yourself, please.
You said it was "cool," then immediately deleted it.
TMI, for sure!
I agree...if he wants to insert himself into a conversation about DI while describing homosexual acts..it does seem out of place. Just because he likes to put you know what..you know where....doesnt mean he can stick it in our faces any chance he gets.
Nobody said anything about homosexual acts. That is you two thinking whatever you are thinking. I was referring to a medical professional who's regular duties require some dexterity of the hands and fingers. I am just wondering if that can be beneficially transferred to rolling the dice. :confused:
I never found playing with myself improved my dice control--and god knows I tried.
Ok then. There we have it. I was just "pondering" the possibility. Looking for an advantage. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Seriously. One strength was that my hand never shook no matter how deep the roll went and how much money was involved. A steady hand is an absolute requirement. You too often see people who's hands start to shake as the roll gets serious.
Maybe not, but did it help with your dick control?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Oh... and I'm gross? Hypocrite! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV