Wong on Dice

[KellyRae]

Has Stanford Wong lost his mind. What's up with a book about dice setting?

[playersare]

not like this was not expected, he has had numerous discussions about this on his own bj21.com message board for the past year or so.

what made you stumble out of the Politics forum all of a sudden?

[npc]

[ QUOTE ]
Has Stanford Wong lost his mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I can't say for certain, but my guess would be that he hasn't.

[ QUOTE ]
What's up with a book about dice setting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, he thinks it works. Frankly, Wong has so earned my respect that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

If he says he can make it work, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to believe him.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, Wong has so earned my respect that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

If he says he can make it work, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to believe him.

[/ QUOTE ]


unquestionably.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Has Stanford Wong lost his mind. What's up with a book about dice setting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a guy who practice dice setting religiously and he swears by it. The fact that Wong says it has merit just makes the case that much stronger.

[mattw]

i too am a big fan of Wong but think about what he and others are saying. throwing two die the lenght of a crap table with numerous variable bounces and expecting +EV is contrary to common sense.

[MicroBob]

Not really. Especially if Wong says it can be +EV.


Seriously, anyone who is doubting this doesn't know how sharp Wong is.


I think it depends on the type of loft you use as well.


I don't know diddly-dickeroo about Craps...but....
Lets say Wong set the dice in his hand the same way each time and throws the dice the same way each time.
Now lets say that the odds of a 7 coming up are 20% (I have no idea what the real percentage is) but when Wong throws it he is able to throw a seven 28% of the time or something (or maybe 15% of the time if he has already established a point and is trying to AVOID throwing another 7).

If he is able to consistently prove that he can increase the chances of whatever number he wants to throw (or avoid throwing) and can do this over enough trials to PROVE that he is indeed affecting the outcome then I think it's kind of hard to argue that it's all baloney.


Sounds similar to trying to exploit a bad roulette-wheel's bias when one can find one.
The ball bounces around all over the place obviously and still APPEARS to be pretty random....but if a bias is discovered on an unbalanced wheel it can be VERY profitable in the long-run even if the chances of it landing in the more favored spot is only slightly increased.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. Especially if Wong says it can be +EV.


Seriously, anyone who is doubting this doesn't know how sharp Wong is.


I think it depends on the type of loft you use as well.


I don't know diddly-dickeroo about Craps...but....
Lets say Wong set the dice in his hand the same way each time and throws the dice the same way each time.
Now lets say that the odds of a 7 coming up are 20% (I have no idea what the real percentage is) but when Wong throws it he is able to throw a seven 28% of the time or something (or maybe 15% of the time if he has already established a point and is trying to AVOID throwing another 7).

If he is able to consistently prove that he can increase the chances of whatever number he wants to throw (or avoid throwing) and can do this over enough trials to PROVE that he is indeed affecting the outcome then I think it's kind of hard to argue that it's all baloney.


Sounds similar to trying to exploit a bad roulette-wheel's bias when one can find one.
The ball bounces around all over the place obviously and still APPEARS to be pretty random....but if a bias is discovered on an unbalanced wheel it can be VERY profitable in the long-run even if the chances of it landing in the more favored spot is only slightly increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

The chance of rolling a 7 is 16.67%. If you could influense the dice enough so that a 7 only comes up 15% of the time, this would be a pretty large edge. Actually being able to do it however? Well, I'm sure in theory it can be, and Wong's hat being in the ring DEFINITELY adds validity, but there are just too many variables IMHO. But if you like playing craps anyways, I can assure you it will not be further -EV than you already experience, as I am sure SW advocates only the small edge bets.

[MicroBob]

There's a guy out here named Frank Scoblete who i believe also subscribes to this 'advantage craps' theory of dice manipulation.
It looks kind of interesting to me and he gives occasional classes on this.
I'm not sure if he still does the classes but I do know that he writes gambling articles in the local gambling rag.


The classes though were being given at the Gold Strike in Tunica I believe.
I doubt that a casino would allow a blackjack card-counting class to take place on their site.
So the fact that they would allow the dice-shooting class there possibly indicates how NOT worried the casinos themselves are about this 'dice-handling manipulation' stuff.


Still, I agree that 1.7% change of the odds of rolling a 7 should be a HUGE difference.
If I remember correctly...some of the bets in craps are just 0.4% advantage for the house...so to change the chances of rolling a 7 by over 1% should be enough to swing the advantage to the player in a way similar to blackjack card-counting if my impression of how this whole advantage craps thing works is even close to correct.

Of course, now that I think about it....YOU aren't going to be the one who always gets to do the shooting. So you probably need to change the odds by more than just 1% to make it worthwhile.

unless you are doing the Craps version of Wonging-in and Wonging-out like he does with BJ....meaning you don't even play when you're not shooting....or you just play the minimum until you get to shoot and then you bet bigger when you are getting to manipulate the dice I guess.

but I digress.


Anyway, in BJ card-counting you are roughly just swinging the advantage from 1 to 1.5% for the house to a 1% advantage or so for the player....we're talking HIGH variance here obviously.


I don't blackjack card-count anymore.
I tried to a few weeks ago just for old-times sake after a nice score playing B&M poker....and I got clobbered when every high-count meant the DEALER got the BJ against MY 20 (BJ bad-beat stories are about as exciting as poker bad-beat stories so I'll skip the details...but I got CRUSHED).


Usually if I'll play BJ now I'll just keep a general count and maybe vary my bet from 1:2 (or maybe 1:3) or so which isn't MUCH at all in a shoe-game (or even a DD or SD game for that matter)....but it IS generally enough to get to play a break-even game which I'm okay with since I'm drinking for free. (I have read on BJ21.com that a 1:3 spread on a shoe-game is roughly good enough for break-even. Usually a 1:10 or higher spread is recommended to actually profit on the game).


I would actually be willing to learn how to play craps if I knew I could be playing at least a break-even game and thus there was some actual SKILL involved.
The fact that it's PHYSICAL skill revolving around one's ability to shoot the dice 'less' randomly makes it even more interesting to me.

It's something I could see myself researching a bit more in the future but for now all I know about it are the same kind of generalities that most of us are semi-familiar with.

As it stands now, Craps is just some silly game that I don't understand hardly at all and have played with friends maybe twice (having no idea what I was doing and just following the advice of those who believe, "Woo-hoo!! Don't change those dice! They're running hot!!")

[The WET BEAVER]

I heard that Ed Miller used to be on the MIT craps team.