Craps

[stigmata]

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...

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

[Double Down]

"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.

[stigmata]

I have run the simulations on card counting myself.

[Double Down]

"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.

[Jimbo]

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

[Double Down]

"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.

[stigmata]

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

[34TheTruth34]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[Homer]

[ 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.