Re: Craps
 

Can someone answer this question with a concise reply.


If dice setting is complete [censored], then why does Stanford Wong think it's possible?

Re: Craps
 

Controlled throwing is absloutely possible and theoretically it's trivial to prove that you can gain an edge if you decrease the frequency of occurance of the number seven. These internet geeks with their fingers twisted around their mice could never do it, but a normal person with good hand eye coordination can do it. If you never saw someone throw a curveball, you wouldn't believe it is possible would you?

Re: Craps
 

[ QUOTE ]
Controlled throwing is absloutely possible and theoretically it's trivial to prove that you can gain an edge if you decrease the frequency of occurance of the number seven. These internet geeks with their fingers twisted around their mice could never do it, but a normal person with good hand eye coordination can do it. If you never saw someone throw a curveball, you wouldn't believe it is possible would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me, Controlled throwing is absloutely impossible, until someone can build a machine that can accomplish this (and they haven't) why would you believe a human can do it?

All people who belive it can be done fall into one of two groups.

1) They want you to pay them to teach you how.
2) Some guy got on a 20 minute lucky roll and told someones brothers friends secretary he uses controlled throwing and this group of people believe the story.

Group two has no grasp of statistics and also believe they have been anally probed by aliens.

Jimbo

Re: Craps
 

"Allow me, Controlled throwing is absloutely impossible, until someone can build a machine that can accomplish this (and they haven't) why would you believe a human can do it?

All people who belive it can be done fall into one of two groups.

1) They want you to pay them to teach you how.
2) Some guy got on a 20 minute lucky roll and told someones brothers friends secretary he uses controlled throwing and this group of people believe the story.

Group two has no grasp of statistics and also believe they have been anally probed by aliens.

Jimbo "




I belong to neither group but am a firm believer in precision shooting. You have absolutely nothing to back up your opinion other than that precision shooting to you doesn't seem like it should be possible. Well, it is.
Do some research on it.
Please do not post an opinion unless it is based on something. Anything.

Re: Craps
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do some research on it.
Please do not post an opinion unless it is based on something. Anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you dense or just recently had an anal probe? I did base my statements on facts.

Fact 1) No machine as I described above has been built (dispute that)

Fact 2) Any type of research (as you call it) will be unable to be replicated.

Fact 3) It is up to those who say it is being done prove to something can be done not for me or others to prove a negative or disprove your hypothesis.

If an experiment cannot be duplicated or verified by unbiased observers (over a long enough number of trials to be statistically significant) in a casino (the only place where it really matters) it is obviously not possible. Also if a machine which could conceivably throw perfectly cannot successfully control a dice throw using casino rules why do you think a human could do so? Any results indicating that controlled shooting is possible can be simply explained by using the rule of large numbers. Read it, study it, embrace it as your mantra.

Jimbo

Re: Craps
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fact 1) No machine as I described above has been built (dispute that)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this proves. I don't know of any machine that turns hotdogs into poo poo but my two-year-old son does it all the time.

Re: Craps
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact 1) No machine as I described above has been built (dispute that)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this proves. I don't know of any machine that turns hotdogs into poo poo but my two-year-old son does it all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arkansas huh? I understand....

Re: Craps
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact 1) No machine as I described above has been built (dispute that)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this proves. I don't know of any machine that turns hotdogs into poo poo but my two-year-old son does it all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arkansas huh? I understand....

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand what?

The fact that a machine that does task XYZ does not exist does not prove that XYZ is impossible, and doesn't even prove that such a machine could not be built at some point in the future.

Until recently, there was no machine that could beat Gary Kasparov at chess. Was that task impossible? Now that a machine has done it, has it suddenly become possible?

When Michaelangelo carved David, there was no machine that could accomplish such a feat. Can we then assume that carving the David was an impossible task, in spite of the existence of it? How then did it come about?

So again, I ask you, what does the fact that no dice setting machine exists actually prove, other than nobody has yet built one?

Re: Does it require faith?
 

"Given that setting dice (as advertised) is such a highly personalized skill, I'm not sure that simply recording sessions would resolve anything. If the shooter can't do it today -- it's possible that he could yesterday. If the shooter can't do it ever -- that doesn't mean someone else can't. What I would like to see is slow-motion video of the dice behaving as predicted, and compare it to video of random throws. If there was a significant correllation between the prediction and the recorded behavior of the dice, and the recorded patterns (bounce, spin, etc.) deviated from the random patterns -- I'd be a believer. "



See, now THIS I respect. That is a fair thing to want to see. I do not have the videos, but apparently Sharpshooter, who wrote Get the Edge at Craps, does have lots of footage of his precision shooting. Of course, he could be lying, but he does claim this. Not sure if someone could get footage of it, probably not. He also claims to have recorded thousands and thousands of rolls, and goes on to say that his results fall to the right of 3 standard deviations. Again, he could be lying, but if not, then evidence does exist.

I personally only have my experience to go by. I took a weekend seminar and watched players and myself drastically improve our results. Not just one of us, but all of us. Now, if it is purely randomness, then it would be an incredible coincidence that ALL of our results were drastically improving as we practiced this technique more and more.

As far as the whole machine thing, I'm not sure what this is in reference to. Are there people trying to build a machine that precision shoots dice? If so, I haven't heard about this. It doesn't even make sense. Why would someone build a machine? They wouldn't be able to bring it into a casino. Someone fill me in.

Frankly, I'm done with this topic. I will end it the same way I ended it a month ago before this moron (not you, Sheetwise) started it up again. If you would like more info, then PM me.
Peace out

Re: Does it require faith?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would someone build a machine? They wouldn't be able to bring it into a casino. Someone fill me in.

[/ QUOTE ]

An excellent point. Just to clarify, I don't really have an opinion either way on whether anyone can actually control the dice like this, I just don't see any relevance in the fact that nobody has bothered to build the DiceBot3000.

Re: Does it require faith?
 

Is it possible that during the weekend course, thing were fixed up in some ways, so that you could see improvement at their practise table?

You gotta understand why people are skeptical...

Re: Does it require faith?
 

Double Down, you are a dice degenerate...lol

Re: Does it require faith?
 

"Is it possible that during the weekend course, thing were fixed up in some ways, so that you could see improvement at their practise table?

You gotta understand why people are skeptical..."


No, it's not possible. And for 2 reasons. First of all, we used the same table. It's not like they secretly switched out tables and Day1 was the "bad" day and day 2 was the "improved" day. We used the same table the whole time and we saw improvement already on day 1.

Second, and the better point, is that we were only at their table half the time. The other half of the time we were precision shooting in the casinos, where we could see for ourselves just how powerful it was.

And yes, I understand why people are skeptical. Completely.
But you know, it's funny how most people who count cards never actually ran simulations on their own computer. Rather, they read a book or two on counting and assume that the simulations that the author conducted are accurate, and therefore believe that counting cards works. Where's the skepticism? Maybe card counting is BS. Someone should look into this.

Re: Does it require faith?
 

I have run the simulations on card counting myself.

Re: Does it require faith?
 

"I have run the simulations on card counting myself."

Cool. But how do we know YOU'RE telling the truth?!?

Of course, I believe you and am only making a point that it seems like there is a huge amount of cynicism towards precision shooting, especially compared to how we take other people's results about card counting on faith. (Most of us, not you. you say you have done the simulations yourself.)
But what mainly bugs me is that the reason for this cynicism isn't because people are asking, "Where is the evidence?" and are receiving nothing in return, but rather, people are dismissing it without even asking to see evidence.

It would be nonsensical to dismiss counting cards without reading a book or two, and precision shooting is no different. Do a little research and then make up your mind.

Re: Does it require faith?
 

I'll address several of the previous postes' points here. First the machine, it would be for a control test to prove that the dice could be thrown in the exact same manner every single time without the introduction of human error, not used to haul into a casino in an attempt to cheat. Yes men have built this simple device and no it cannot controll the dice any better than a random expectation would predict. It is a simple matter to construct this device, no more complex than the golf ball testing machine used by the PGA used to test golf ball distance.

Next dice shooters will have a selective memory just like poor poker players. They will recall the times they tried to roll a ten and were successful and forget the times they sevened out. Just like a poker player who only remembers when his aces got cracked not the 80% of the time they won heads up.

To continue, physics as determined by our universe added to the capacity of a human to throw a perfectly repetitive set of dice which will encounter random angles, obstructions and air flow simply prove that controlled dice throwing is a scam and not possible.

Finally to the poster that thinks it is remarkable how a session form day one to day two to day three can show improvement. This only proves that you do not understand how random throwing dice can be. If you throw the dice one million times using proper casino rules, by both dice hitting the back wall, in a typical casino environment your results will certainly be within two standard deviations of what statisitics would predict your results to be. This would be a statistically insignificant difference proving that no matter how hard you might either try or want to believe you might as well be flipping coins and paying the house a 1% vig for the pleasure.

Throw the dice in a casino one million times, record every roll, have three unbiased witnesses and get back to me with your results.

To summarize if you (or anyone) could effect the dice to any measurable manner your fat little ass would be out on the craps tables right now making a fortune not trying to prove it by use of persuasive techniques and cute little anecdotes on an online forum.

As I have said before people who believe in controlled dice throwing are either gullible noobs or trying to sell you their surefire get rich quick scheme. One group is pretty smart the other are pretty much fools.

Jimbo

Re: Does it require faith?
 

"Next dice shooters will have a selective memory just like poor poker players. They will recall the times they tried to roll a ten and were successful and forget the times they sevened out. Just like a poker player who only remembers when his aces got cracked not the 80% of the time they won heads up."

According to Sharpshooter, he has recorded tens of thousands of throws of the dice.


"To continue, physics as determined by our universe added to the capacity of a human to throw a perfectly repetitive set of dice which will encounter random angles, obstructions and air flow simply prove that controlled dice throwing is a scam and not possible."


Based on these criteria, you cannot say that it is "not possible." Not possible is an assumption. All of these things make it a difficult endeavor indeed but it is a leap in logic on your part to label it impossible.

"Throw the dice in a casino one million times, record every roll, have three unbiased witnesses and get back to me with your results."

Did you play one million hands of blackjack before you believed in card counting?

"To summarize if you (or anyone) could effect the dice to any measurable manner your fat little ass would be out on the craps tables right now making a fortune not trying to prove it by use of persuasive techniques and cute little anecdotes on an online forum."

I don't live in Las Vegas and I don't want to play craps for a living. This is ridiculous logic. That's like saying, "If card counting works then you would be in Vegas right now making a fortune."


I hope you realize that everything that you have said in your post is an assumption.

"It's probably selective memory."
"There are too many variables."
"You need to roll a million times first."
"If it worked, you'd be in Vegas right now."

None of these are concrete arguments.

Re: Does it require faith?
 

The comparison between card counting and dice setting is completely invalid, for such obvious reasons I can't even be bothered to start explaining.....

Re: Craps
 

[ QUOTE ]
If dice setting is complete [censored], then why does Stanford Wong think it's possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Craps
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If dice setting is complete [censored], then why does Stanford Wong think it's possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys should check out Green Chip at BJ21. He's been posting his results. I don't know how much data he has as I haven't been paying much attention to those threads.

Nice throw
 

[ QUOTE ]
Until recently, there was no machine that could beat Gary Kasparov at chess. Was that task impossible? Now that a machine has done it, has it suddenly become possible?
<font color="white"> . </font>
When Michaelangelo carved David, there was no machine that could accomplish such a feat. Can we then assume that carving the David was an impossible task, in spite of the existence of it? How then did it come about?
<font color="white"> . </font>
What does the fact that no dice setting machine exists actually prove, other than nobody has yet built one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said. Nothing to add really.

The Jimbo Address
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll address several of the previous postes' points here. First the machine, it would be for a control test to prove that the dice could be thrown in the exact same manner every single time without the introduction of human error.

[/ QUOTE ] You are cofused.

Humans can detect bias (i.e. alteration of randomness) with a nifty li'l thingy called Statistics. In other words, if a large enough number of trials is performed and the results are significant, then we can assume, within a certain margin of error, that bias exists, i.e. controlling the dice is possible. Or it isn't. With that particuls shooter (or set of shotters) at least.

Statistics. What a concept. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Dice shooters will have a selective memory just like poor poker players. They will recall the times they tried to roll a ten and were successful and forget the times they sevened out.

[/ QUOTE ] Correct -- but irrelevant. We are talking about Controlled Dice here (and the potential for it), rather than Gamblers' Fallacies. Your point is relevant only when the gambler who gets lucky starts boasting he can control the dice.


[ QUOTE ]
If you throw the dice one million times using proper casino rules, by both dice hitting the back wall, in a typical casino environment your results will certainly be within two standard deviations of what statisitics would predict your results to be.

[/ QUOTE ] The obstacle is not human capacity to throw in a controlled manner but, of course, The Wall. This is where the efforts of "dice controllers" are focusing on -- and this entails a little, let's say, deviation from house rules.

I do salute your suspicious mind. Controlled dice throwing has not been "proven" (although Stanford Wong conducted what amounts to be to a controlled experiment, a few months ago) but, nonetheless, the theoretical possibility exists. Therefore, expect more of this -- here and elsewhere -- for better or worse...