The WoV Thread

[tableplay]

I note that the dice throwing study did not result in any probability info which might be of use.

By that I mean we can only guess as to the "edge," expressed as a percent, that the result will be the top die.

Less than one-hundredth of one percent perhaps?

Hopefully when the LID gets done with his stint in the Ukraine he will provide some details to Barney who has an account here at VCT.

[jbjb]

I'm not buying the "99% of gamblers are ahead" bullshit either.

Let me clarify. I'm not calling you a liar Alan, I'm calling bullshit on the 99% nonsense. Sorry for any confusion.

[Alan Mendelson]

Statistics vary with every study you find. I know that. I did studies back in the 1970s and 80s that forced the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change how the Unemployment report and how the Consumer Price Index were tallied. I was responsible. My studies weren't exact but they were good enough for an economist from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University.

I had more hours in economics than TV and Radio which was my degree.

[Alan Mendelson]

I note that the dice throwing study did not result in any probability info which might be of use.

By that I mean we can only guess as to the "edge," expressed as a percent, that the result will be the top die.

Less than one-hundredth of one percent deviation from expected value perhaps?

This came up on the WOV forum.

Even though the authors of the original study did not give any measurements or statistics, would you agree that they said dice throwing is not random?

Having the tiniest of influence appears to me like being a little bit pregnant.

Either you're pregnant or not. Either the dice throw is random or it isn't.

Your thoughts?

[The Boz]

Just saying…

Sorry about the situation with the ex wife and glad you came back to let everyone know.

But….

You bitched about this place and asked that no one even brings your name up here. And you clearly know how things are here and complained about it many times.

So if (when) you get into arguments here that get personal and bring up the past, who is to blame?

Nothing personal Alan, but you know what you are getting into by coming back. I don’t see the benefit for you, but that’s certainly not my decision to make.

Just saying.

[smurgerburger]

If your goal is dice control you need not only non-random distributions but the ability to predict in which way these distributions are skewed for a given set+throw in a given environment.

The author in the link says that's not practically possible. For all you know you're setting your dice in a way that will skew the distribution of outcomes away from whatever you're hoping for.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't recall any proponent of DI claiming to be able to throw numbers on demand. I always was led to believe that the goal of DI was either to increase the appearance of the 7 or decrease the appearance of the 7.

Only critics of DI have mentioned rolling numbers on demand.

I'd be very happy just avoiding 7s.

The article is pretty clear: if I want a hard six I should set my dice with a hard six on top.

[tableplay]

The big problem with this is that the influence is so slight that it could take billions of throws for the advantage to show up if the article is true - that is the reason it is not practical according to the article (as Smurgerburger already pointed out). So if you are using the article as proof then you have none. Now, if the article is wrong and there are tables (for example the short mini craps tables) and dice settings that give a statistically significant advantage (i.e. over thousands of throws rather than billions) then that is another matter. So basically to make an argument for +EV DI you would have to believe the article is wrong - the article actually proves the opposite of what you hope for and/or believe.

[Alan Mendelson]

Tableplay, the key question is what "numbers" did the researchers find? I don't know.

Certainly it makes a practical difference if the player's edge is changed by 1% or one-thousandth of one percent.

But I think any indication that a dice throw can be influenced is significant. As I said before it's like being a little bit pregnant -- you're still pregnant.

[kewlJ]

Certainly it makes a practical difference if the player's edge is changed by 1% or one-thousandth of one percent.

I was going to comment on this the other day, but didn't want to hijack the discussion, but it is very much related.

Few blackjack players, even serious players know that the players odds are slighly better after a round that the dealer has won. There is math behind this, but I don't even know what it is. But that slightest difference is like 1 or 2, 100th of a percent. Not enough to make any difference at all. Certainly no where near enough to base any kind of "system" on.

I think that is exactly the kind of think you are talking about with this crap's study. No where near enough of a difference to matter.

[MisterV]

Mildly interesting, so far as they went, but much more work is needed before it can be useful for a craps player.

Also, wasn't there evidence that the bottom, not the top, face showed up more frequently than expected?

The key: what is the amount of difference?

Alan says that one-thousandth of one percent matters, but I scoff at that...in the real world.

Hopefully scientists who understand dice setting and who want to go down this rabbit hole correctly will follow up, otherwise "Nothing to see here."

[kewlJ]

Since this is the WoV thread, I will discuss something I can't at WoV because I am restricted from certain discussions (the only member ever restricted from certain threads and discussions).

In the great adventure thread, Alan and a few others have been talking about the "quitting while ahead" strategy. The other name for that is stop limits. Stop limits change nothing, absolutely NOTHING regarding advantage, unless a player wins and is stopping play forever.

Also that statement that 99% of players are ahead at some point in their session is total voodoo nonsense. I don't mean to pick on you Alan, because there are many players like you, but you are a long-time player. You have to know from your own experience that these voodoo concepts are not true don't you?

And if you a long-time gambler still believe these voodoo gambling myths, can I ask you, how much are you ahead lifetime using them?

[smurgerburger]

Tableplay, the key question is what "numbers" did the researchers find? I don't know.

Certainly it makes a practical difference if the player's edge is changed by 1% or one-thousandth of one percent.

But I think any indication that a dice throw can be influenced is significant. As I said before it's like being a little bit pregnant -- you're still pregnant.

If you think it's anywhere near 1% you're dreaming. That would be easily documented by anyone patient enough to record thousands of rolls.

Also I no longer have the article up but I'm not sure the source meant that the dice are skewed toward returning the top total. I thought he said something like the top face was the best predictor, but not how it correlates with outcomes.

[MisterV]

Alan,I enjoyed watching your interview.

Royer came across very well.

Welcome back to the board, if you plan to stay: as a pre-pubescent Judy Garland once declaimed: "There's no place like home."

[Alan Mendelson]

I've always enjoyed civil, interesting discussions, MrV. And I do have a lot of time to read forums while staying with Janet. She's being released from the hospital today but we'll remain close by for her daily outpatient treatments.

[MaxPen]

Since this is the WoV thread, I will discuss something I can't at WoV because I am restricted from certain discussions (the only member ever restricted from certain threads and discussions).

In the great adventure thread, Alan and a few others have been talking about the "quitting while ahead" strategy. The other name for that is stop limits. Stop limits change nothing, absolutely NOTHING regarding advantage, unless a player wins and is stopping play forever.

Also that statement that 99% of players are ahead at some point in their session is total voodoo nonsense. I don't mean to pick on you Alan, because there are many players like you, but you are a long-time player. You have to know from your own experience that these voodoo concepts are not true don't you?

And if you a long-time gambler still believe these voodoo gambling myths, can I ask you, how much are you ahead lifetime using them?

If he knew, do you really think he'd still be riding the rail at Red Rock every opportunity he gets?

[Alan Mendelson]

In the great adventure thread, Alan and a few others have been talking about the "quitting while ahead" strategy. The other name for that is stop limits. Stop limits change nothing, absolutely NOTHING regarding advantage, unless a player wins and is stopping play forever.

I never said quitting when ahead or stop limits or stop losses change anything including the house edge or any advantage.

Quitting when ahead allows you to register a profit, whether it's for the hour, the day, the month, or whatever.

Is there anything wrong with saying "I made a profit today"?

Also that statement that 99% of players are ahead at some point in their session is total voodoo nonsense. I don't mean to pick on you Alan, because there are many players like you, but you are a long-time player. You have to know from your own experience that these voodoo concepts are not true don't you?

And if you a long-time gambler still believe these voodoo gambling myths, can I ask you, how much are you ahead lifetime using them?

The statistics aren't mine. I didn't do the surveys. What are your surveys about the percentages of winners, losers and how often people are ahead?

You ask if I am ahead using "voodoo gambling myths." Here's my answer:

Unfortunately too many times I didnt quit when I was ahead.

[jbjb]

Funny how these "quit while ahead" advocates are habitual losing gamblers.

[MisterV]

Funny how these "quit while ahead" advocates are habitual losing gamblers.

Ah, but John Patrick is a believer in stop limits.

He says: “70% of people at the casino will make money and get ahead. 90% of those 70% will stay too long and lose it all back”.

[jdaewoo]

This guy pretends that he saw 18 yos in a row and can't wrap his brain around the concept that some people exploit mail profitably. Why wouldn't be believe he'd be up lifetime if he "just knew when to stop".