zengrifter
Banned
He WAS bared from craps at Golden Nugget. zgshadroch said:As Sanford Wong is becoming quite well known for his dice control,I'm curious why he hasn't been banned from shooting.
He WAS bared from craps at Golden Nugget. zgshadroch said:As Sanford Wong is becoming quite well known for his dice control,I'm curious why he hasn't been banned from shooting.
I've seen it done - very impressive - easier than crap table. zgmoo321 said:Which brings us to another question: how to makes controlled throws from a cup.
I still think that getting banned for dice control is better EV than dice control itself. Because then you can sell advice on how to be so good you'll get banned. =)zengrifter said:He WAS bared from craps at Golden Nugget. zg
Thousands of dollars to make for a weekend session is a nice chunk of cash if you ask me. Less stress than trying to "earn" it in the casino!!!halcyon1234 said:I still think that getting banned for dice control is better EV than dice control itself. Because then you can sell advice on how to be so good you'll get banned. =)
"your bringing up old threads, stop it" *sarcasm*Sonny said:We had a fun discussion about this several months ago:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4863
-Sonny-
Interesting perspective...it is definitely a mental skill (BJ card counting) vs. physical skill (DC) thing.SilentBob420BMFJ said:"your bringing up old threads, stop it" *sarcasm*
the problem with this topic (and finding bias wheels in roulette) is that there is no way it will ever be answered for one simple reason.. how can you make a sim for this to run billions of throws? how do u know that the ppl who are good at this arent just getting lucky? if you think you can do it, how do you know? with this topic comes the topics of selective memory and "the long run".. i do think its possible, absolutely, but you will never know if its skill or luck that is making you win, but im pretty sure that it would be hard as hell to overcome the over 1% house edge with dice control.. as with blackjack, video poker, and other such games, you can use math and sims to prove if things work or not..
:laugh:SilentBob420BMFJ said:"your bringing up old threads, stop it" *sarcasm*
Good point. It is a physical skill that cannot easily be simulated by a computer. Just like a roulette wheel, the only way to be confident is to record many thousands of attempts by hand. But then the problem becomes a subtle change in abilities that could skew the results. A roulette wheel may slowly lose its bias for a particular number, or a dice thrower’s technique may change over such a large sample. He won’t be throwing the dice quite the same way as he was 5,000 throws ago. Also, both techniques rely on certain conditions. We might get very different results if we do the same tests under different circumstances.SilentBob420BMFJ said:the problem with this topic (and finding bias wheels in roulette) is that there is no way it will ever be answered for one simple reason.. how can you make a sim for this to run billions of throws?
Sounds like you're dead on there Sonny. Some numbers I've been able to come up with basically show that a DC needs to be able to possess a skill in which they can maintain the dice on axis at least every 1 in 3 rolls to gain an excellent advantage...1 in 5 for some bets, but 1 in 3 is the benchmark for a true DC. But that's the math, and the physical skill is where the difficulty is. Imagine having to keep the dice on axis (and not randomly on axis) every 1 in 3 rolls in the casino. SRR is not a good measure of DC, it is frequency of keeping the dice on axis.Sonny said:We might be able to get statistically valid proof that these techniques work, but to get a specific win rate for any given session would be almost impossible.
-Sonny-
Not sure where there would be any data as far as actual tracking of stats at the casino where it would get into actual results depending on the set a player is using.rdorange said:If anyone knows where I can find more data on the percentage of numbers thrown in the game compared to my numbers let me know. I would love to make some comparisons using random numbers and my personal control numbers.
First, NEVER pull down a Don't Pass bet that has gotten a number, I always try to buy these bets off of players. Even on the 6or8 you are a 6:5 favourite to win the bet. If you really think the guy will make the point place the number, you'll make $2 if he hits it and only lose $1 if he sevens out.rdorange said:If the random shooter establishes a point of 6 or 8, I will drag my bet off the don‘t pass and place it on the pass line and take single odds. I will sometimes place the opposite number (6 or 8).
I agree with the first point whole-heartedly. Making the place bet on the appropriate number is a proper hedge...but with a Don't bet that has traveled, you now have the most powerful number in the game WORKING FOR YOU--the 7.Brock Windsor said:First, NEVER pull down a Don't Pass bet that has gotten a number, I always try to buy these bets off of players. Even on the 6or8 you are a 6:5 favourite to win the bet. If you really think the guy will make the point place the number, you'll make $2 if he hits it and only lose $1 if he sevens out.
Also I find it would be more accurate to track how your dice behave rather than just the number total produced by each set.
As an aside, if a casino will allow you to throw dice without quite making it to the end wall it has been my experience that it will eliminate more of the randomness. I try to make each throw come as close to the end wall as possible without touching it.
BW
For practice and tracking, shouldn't a thrower be able to set the dice with the one on top as you said, the six is opposite on the bottom, the two and five on opposites, etc. for both dice and just throw this set to track the ending and landing results. Then adjust the starting dice set to get the proper end results. It makes sense, but sure would be difficult to track and formulate, not to mention the enormous amount of time. I don't know if I'll live that long, or have that much in the way of patience! My grand kids said they wouldn't help.:laugh: But seriously, I may look into this, and if it shows or reveals a pattern pretty quick, I may pursue it.Brock Windsor said:The top of the dice being a 1, bottom 6, the face closest to me a 2, side facing downtable a 5, 3 on the right, 4 on the left. If I am throwing a hardway set and the two top numbers (55) land up, this is logged as 1,1. If the top number left die lands up and the bottom number right die lands up this is considered 1,6. (A seven out for most combinations). This way you are tracking the individual actions of each dice in comparison to the mechanics of your roll (which ideally is as close to a constant as humanly possible). You can always alter your set to suit the mechanics of your grip and throw. Your results are indicating your "2V set" to be effective while your "3V" set hits too many sevens. If (BIG IF) there is 100% consistency in the physics of your throw, grip, point of impact, etc., simply reversing your 3V set (Making it a 3^ set) will give you the exact same sevens to roll ratio of your 2V set. I was able to alter my all 7's set in this way to hit more 11's and fewer craps on my off axis come out rolls. It also made me more likely to have a six or 8 as my come out point as opposed to a 5 or 9.
Keep in mind my sample size is not yet large enough to say with 99% confidence (3 Std. Deviations) that my dice control is greater than random so I am far from qualified to be giving coaching advice. However if DC is possible it will be through you making your throw the constant in the equation so try to approach it as scientifically as possible. As an aside, if a casino will allow you to throw dice without quite making it to the end wall it has been my experience that it will eliminate more of the randomness. I try to make each throw come as close to the end wall as possible without touching it.
BW
I agree with your practice tracking thoughts. There's not much of an advantage to practicing sets, when it is keeping the dice on axis that is the point. Applying the set to your throw is like playing BS as a card counter, it should be second nature and memorized.rdorange said:For practice and tracking, shouldn't a thrower be able to set the dice with the one on top as you said, the six is opposite on the bottom, the two and five on opposites, etc. for both dice and just throw this set to track the ending and landing results. Then adjust the starting dice set to get the proper end results.
Re the throw... I practice throwing about 8" from the back wall at home. The dice normally bounce once and will tap the base of the wall and stop, or die before they get there. Most of the time within an inch or so. While on my recent trip, it took two or three tosses on each table to determine how much roll I had after the landing. I almost always was at stick left one (first).Most of the time I used the circled 12 on the Field at the other end of the table as my landing spot. Most landings stopped at the wall, a few touched the base and even fewer bounced up and touched the pyramid back wall. On this trip, I never once was told to hit the back wall. My landings were close enough.
I used my All 7's, 2-V and Hardways sets and had unbelievable results.
My 3-V was fair, but not as successful.
Is the table vig charge rounded down at your casino? If so you can increase your edge by laying the 4/10 in increments of $78, so long as your bankroll RoR can handle the extra action in negative flux. This would give you a 1.09% edge on this bet instead of your existing 0.86%. My numbers of course assume you can maintain your percentages and that your casino only charges commission on wins.rdorange said:I'm still recording and tracking my results. They are not changing too much. I am adding a new bet to my strategy based on the percentages of numbers I throw with different sets. I only lay these bets during my own rolls.
The overall pecentage of the 7 showing on all my rolls and sets combined is 15.89%.
The percentage of 7 showing on the all 7 set is 18.75%.
The percentage of 4 showing on the all 7 set is 7.96%.
The percentage of 10 showing on the all 7 set is 8.13%.
Therefore, during the come out roll (using the all 7 set) I bet the pass line and I lay the no 4 and no 10 (for $40 each). I have three ways of winning, and can only lose one of the two lay bets at a time. After the point is established, I pull both lay bets down.
Does this make sense? I have been testing it while I practice, and it appears to work real well. I do occasionally roll 4 or 10 on the come out, and lose one of the bets.
Anything I have overlooked that may cause this not float?
That's a good sign that a number pair (4 & 10) are in the same ballpark as far as frequency of throwing them.rdorange said:The percentage of 4 showing on the all 7 set is 7.96%.
The percentage of 10 showing on the all 7 set is 8.13%.