Is there a way to prove that "dice control" is possible?

[Alan Mendelson]

Whenever there is a discussion about dice control, there are certain casino craps players who say with certainty that dice control is not possible, while others will claim that it is possible with practice, skill, and "muscle memory" so the shooter can deliver two dice to the same spot on the table with the same angle, pressure, speed, spin, rotation, axis, etc., etc., etc.

Well, while I think it is possible to influence the dice -- but not control the dice -- I think it is possible to demonstrate the possibility of dice control with a robot.

A robotic arm can control the dice. A robotic arm can deliver two dice to the same point on the table with the same speed, angle, etc that the DI (dice influencing) crowd hopes to duplicate. The robotic arm could softly deliver the two dice using a set (positioning of the faces of the dice) to the same point on the back wall so the dice would bounce back the same way time after time (without obstructions such as chips, 10 mph gusts of wind, stickman's stick getting in the way, etc.)

I would bet on the robotic arm repeating the same number a hundred times in a row. After all they can land robots on Mars, so why is it not possible to build a robot that can deliver two dice the same way toss after toss?

However, having a robot that can do this will prove nothing about humans in a casino.

The question is if any human can duplicate what a robot can do? The DI crowd preaches muscle memory. Read Sharpshooter's book on the subject of dice control. He has a big section on the need to practice to create muscle memory so that a shooter can deliver the dice the same way time after time.

The physics of the game make dice control completely logical: for every action there is a reaction. Toss the dice the same way to the same spot and each time the dice will react the same. The weak link is the belief that a human has the skill with two tiny dice to deliver the dice to the same spot with the same angle, pressure, spin, speed, axis, etc., etc., etc.

Even an NFL quarterback, MLB pitcher, PGA pro has a margin of error in their games which can still make them "great" even when they miss by a slight amount. In craps the margin of error is very small. And while a robot can overcome that margin... I think very few humans can.

Is there someone who can? Well, I will agree that there are some craps player who do have a certain skill within a certain parameter that will make it appear that they can significantly influence the dice. But I am sure that under close examination of their throws and the movement of the dice, those dice throws are not exact duplicates. The human could not do what a robot could do.

[Rob.Singer]

Any reasonable and sane person will agree that no human can control dice within the required specs of a Nevada craps table. A computer programmed robot may have a chance, but even that would be very difficult.

The only reason this subject was created was so failed gambler Stanford Wong could make money and a living somehow, in addition to all the other gaming-related business he is involved in. Like Anthony Curtis, they both claim to be banned from playing BJ anywhere in LV, but an investigative article I did for Gaming Today exposed that as a business-building myth. It is all nonsense.

[arcimede$]

If you wanted to test whether you can control the dice then test yourself. It doesn't even matter if someone else (or a robot) could do it or not. The question is whether you can do it.

So, set up a test environment and try 1000 tosses. Record what happens. While the results may not come up completely random the odds are very low that the non-randomness would favor the results you were trying to achieve.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you wanted to test whether you can control the dice then test yourself. It doesn't even matter if someone else (or a robot) could do it or not. The question is whether you can do it.

So, set up a test environment and try 1000 tosses. Record what happens. While the results may not come up completely random the odds are very low that the non-randomness would favor the results you were trying to achieve.

Arc, unfortunately for "the gullible" the purveyors of "dice control courses" have produced reams of reports on their own expert throws which they claim proves their ability to have an edge over the casino at craps. They claim that altering the appearance of a "7" as little as once in some 36 rolls gives them a tremendous edge. Yet, without knowing in what betting sequence that happened and with what dollar amount bet, critics will say the results are meaningless.

This is why the critics are trying to find some independent way to prove or disprove the basics of the dice control theory.

Besides, Arc, having your own log of your own dice throws is similar to having a log of your own video poker machine... isn't it?

[arcimede$]

Arc, unfortunately for "the gullible" the purveyors of "dice control courses" have produced reams of reports on their own expert throws which they claim proves their ability to have an edge over the casino at craps. They claim that altering the appearance of a "7" as little as once in some 36 rolls gives them a tremendous edge. Yet, without knowing in what betting sequence that happened and with what dollar amount bet, critics will say the results are meaningless.

This is why the critics are trying to find some independent way to prove or disprove the basics of the dice control theory.

Besides, Arc, having your own log of your own dice throws is similar to having a log of your own video poker machine... isn't it?

No, you are trying to determine if YOU can influence the dice. You are not trying to win or lose money. If you find out you have no influence over the dice then you don't need to concern yourself with it.

[Rob.Singer]

Wong created this myth and wrote that stupid book in an attempt to make ALL interested players believe they too could influence dice at a particular time at a casino craps table. Whether you think you've accomplished it in 1000 throws at home or not is irrelevant. That is the most unscientific thing I've ever read.

[arcimede$]

Wong created this myth and wrote that stupid book in an attempt to make ALL interested players believe they too could influence dice at a particular time at a casino craps table. Whether you think you've accomplished it in 1000 throws at home or not is irrelevant. That is the most unscientific thing I've ever read.

You are correct that determining you could control the dice at home does not automatically translate into a casino. However, if you can't control them at home then it's pretty clear you wouldn't be able to do it in a casino.

So, the experiment has value. Now, if you find you can control them at home, then you can move forward to the next step.

What is that step? Well, several options are available. You could try and complicate the home experiment. You could try it at casinos for with low bets and track your results. This is not rocket science.

The only "unscientific" approach would be to dismiss something out of hand. That's something only a dufus would do.

[redietz]

Rob, I'd love to read that article regarding "Anthony Curtis" and "Stanford Wong." This probably deserves its own thread (or book), but these two, under their real names of course, allegedly testified for a casino against an Atlantic City card counter, for which they were paid. If true, that put them in the position of selling card counting books and techniques on one hand, and on the other hand getting paid to testify so as to ban the folks buying their stuff. That puts them squarely in and maybe beyond the Dancing Man in terms of playing both sides of the table.

Very tricky stuff, if true.

If you have that article floating around, or if it's available in archives, let me know.

[Rob.Singer]

None of that surprises me. Failed gamblers--especially those who tout themselves as AP's--will and need to do anything to generate an income. I'll look for the article and ask my former site administrator also. I just tried to find it on the Gaming Today site but it is too old for their archives.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, you are trying to determine if YOU can influence the dice. You are not trying to win or lose money. If you find out you have no influence over the dice then you don't need to concern yourself with it.

Arc, Im afraid you missed the point, OR I did not correctly write what this is all about. There is a raging debate among craps players about the entire theory of dice control. The "dice community" is looking for an independent, third party, method (so to speak) to test if the theory could work.

Individual results would not matter because the dice community is filled with individual results on both sides of the issue. What the "community" is looking to determine is a way to say either "yes, it's possible" or "no, it's not possible" without having to validate any individual's claims.

[Alan Mendelson]

Wong created this myth and wrote that stupid book in an attempt to make ALL interested players believe they too could influence dice at a particular time at a casino craps table. Whether you think you've accomplished it in 1000 throws at home or not is irrelevant. That is the most unscientific thing I've ever read.

Actually, Wong was a "late comer" to the dice control party. It started years earlier and Wong joined the party only to report about two years later that dice control really didn't work as the advocates claimed it would. The original purveyors of dice control are still "in business."

[Alan Mendelson]

As everyone knows who has tried dice control, every table is different. Every table is unique with its own bounce. This is one of the things Wong came to realize about two years AFTER he embraced dice control. What he said two years later was this: you can control the dice until they hit the table. And this is true. You can control your throw-- but you lose all control once the dice hit the table.

Because each and every table surface is unique the question becomes -- can you throw the dice in such a way that you hope to INFLUENCE how they will continue to roll once they are on the table?

When Wong realized that dice control really wouldn't work he said you could just as easily practice throwing your dice on your bed at home. And this is also true. If the only control you can have is in the grip and toss, then practicing on your bed at home is as worthwhile as buying a practice rig or using a home table.

So getting back to the original question is there a way to even demonstrate that the "basic theory" of dice influencing is valid? Some will argue that because all tables are unique that the theory is useless. Others will argue that no table is a fixed environment and from throw to throw the conditions (the felt, the bounce, the air currents) on every table are unique -- so no practice can duplicate results. Remember, the main theory about dice influencing/control is that you can duplicate results.

[redietz]

What I'd like to know is if there are rules or regs regarding felt thickness and composition. Or can you plop pretty much any table with felt down and call it a craps table?

Wouldn't the manufacturers be the most in-the-know regarding whether dice control has any merit? It seems likely they've hired their own golden arms to throw and throw and throw to test the idea, and if necessary, tweak the surface to circumvent it.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't know of any regulations regarding craps tables, and the composition of craps tables not only varies from casino to casino, but also within casinos.

Some of the variables: size, thickness of felt and padding, whether or not there is a "bar" midway under the felt to prevent "sliding," the composition of the alligator bumps, placement of mirrors, depth of the side walls.

I don't think the manufacturers would care: it's not their obligation. But some casinos do care -- while others do not because they believe "dice influencing" doesn't work.

[Rob.Singer]

I stopped listening to Wong after I read his book touting dice control. Could be he lost his butt trying it, or lost personal bets also. At least he came to his senses.

[Count Room]

http://www.lvrj.com/business/couple-...130900938.html

Are you familiar with this story, Alan?

Happened about 6-7 months ago and the lady on that team has had some minor notoriety in the pro poker tournament circles.

[Alan Mendelson]

http://www.lvrj.com/business/couple-...130900938.html

Are you familiar with this story, Alan?

Happened about 6-7 months ago and the lady on that team has had some minor notoriety in the pro poker tournament circles.

Not only am I familiar with the story, but I'm the Alan Mendelson who was quoted in the story!

[Count Room]

Aye, aye! I'm afraid I only had a passing interest in the subject and only skimmed over the article briefly. Thanks for pointing that out, though, haha!