Real Pros II

[zengrifter]

It's possible in theory and in a vaccum. I believe that whatever advantage is gained by keeping dice on the prescribed axis is cancelled out by an equal disadvantage obtained when the dice end up on an axis with a higher proportion of sevens. It randomizes itself.

I have it on good information from Wong, Scobolete, and Tamburin that it works! Buy the books, you need the books! And QFIT is developing dice-control simware! Tell 'em I sent you!. zg

 

[ChefJJ]

I have it on good information from Wong, Scobolete, and Tamburin that it works! Buy the books, you need the books! And QFIT is developing dice-control simware! Tell 'em I sent you!. zg

What's funny is that I could write a book on the topic and make it sound feasible...why haven't I yet?!?

Seriously, about 6 years ago there was a strong group of people who really got in depth on the subject...math, phsyics, practice routines & equipment--and it was all pro bono, on several sites like this, in online documents, etc. I studied it on my own for several years with this research and my own pursuits.

Now, you can't even find a site, message board, or piece of literature that doesn't cost money to provide any information. Hell, seminars are the real money maker these days. It's a great concept in that there is a X% chance of keeping dice on the axis you chose, but nobody ever talks about percentages of negative results that increase the 7 potential...it's a wash. But definitely a cash cow for the "experts"!

That's my rant! :whip:

 

[zengrifter]

Hell, seminars are the real money maker these days. It's a great concept in that there is a X% chance of keeping dice on the axis you chose, but nobody ever talks about percentages of negative results that increase the 7 potential...it's a wash. But definitely a cash cow for the "experts"!

I have heard on the grapevine that Stalker is selling out - he's signed with Guthy Renker to teach holecarding seminars and workshops, an infomercial with Robin Leach, and guest appearances. Hell, Hef invited him up to the Mansion to teach the girls! zg

 

[ChefJJ]

I have heard on the grapevine that Stalker is selling out - he's signed with Guthy Renker to teach holecarding seminars and workshops, an infomercial with Robin Leach, and guest appearances. Hell, Hef invited him up to the Mansion to teach the girls! zg

That's gotta be great for bizness! Think if you could get Billy Mays as your frontman!

 

[Sonny]

What is stacker, again?

It’s where you “stack” the deck by putting the cards in high/low order when you return them to the dealer. The theory is that the high/low order causes the dealer to bust more often and it allows the player to predict the cards to some degree. May also assumes that a high/high and low/low order favors the player. The problem is that a) that assumption is not correct and b) it is not possible to “stack” enough cards to make the strategy successful using his technique. Here’s an old response I made to John (aka sys381) on his website:

--- sys381 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> We know that:
> 1) Cards that are arranged in hi-lo order hurt the player.

Yes.

> 2) Cards that are arranged in hi-hi/lo-lo order help the player.

Well....maybe not. Although the logic makes sense I have not heard any evidence that high-high or low-low sequences are beneficial to the player, so I set out to investigate it for myself. After a quick run through the simulator, I'm afraid that I cannot offer any good words for the "high-high/low-low" clumping theory.

I started with a standard simulation of one basic strategy player at a 6-deck game (H17 DA2 DAS NS RS3 75%). At the end of each shoe I recorded the number of units won/lost and the amount of clumping in the pre-dealt shoe. It would seem that shoes with greater high-high/low-low clumping should produce higher win rates. Unfortunately, this was not the case. There seemed to be no relationship of higher win rates to higher degrees of clumping at all. A scatter diagram confirmed the random distributions.

I compared the results using the computational formula for the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. I chose to use the Pearson r test simply because the results were not curvilinear in nature and it was familiar enough to me that I felt comfortable using it. The test actually showed a very weak (-0.056) inverse relationship between the two elements. I believe this is due to the house edge, which cannot be overcome by a basic strategy player. However, this relationship was so weak that, looking at the coefficient of determination, we are only able to predict about 0.31% of the variance due to the clumping.

I ran the same shoes (identical compositions) through the simulator again with 2 players at the table and the results were the similar. I also noticed that the magnitude of clumping would only range from around 42% to 62% of the shoe. This means that large degrees of clumping will not occur naturally in a shoe, they would have to be created somehow by the player(s) and dealer. After analyzing the effects of player stacking in pitch games (the "Stacker Play") I am convinced that crucial amounts of clumping cannot be produced by the play of the cards alone.

In short, any evidence of high-high/low-low clumping in a shoe cannot give us any reliable or valuable indication of an advantage or disadvantage. However, I would be very interested to hear other methods of analyzing this situation. I imagine that there may be specific situations where this information may be valuable.

-Sonny-

 

[Sonny]

...he's signed with Guthy Renker to teach holecarding seminars and workshops, an infomercial with Robin Leach, and guest appearances.

Guthy Renker? The exercise video people?! I wouldn’t put too much faith in that rumor. I’m familiar with that company and this does not fit their marketing campaign at all. They’re actually very picky about the items in their catalog.

-Sonny-

 

[ChefJJ]

I've heard that Ron Popeil is looking for a new angle on products to pitch. Food dehydrators just aren't cutting it these days.

 

[zengrifter]

Guthy Renker? The exercise video people?!

Tony Robbins' producer! g

 

[Craps Master]

how about a specific example from his book that is wrong and will cost us money.

I already gave you one. Please see my previous discussion on his laughable cut card trick for precision cutting and bottom steering.

All good ideas. There's one more, and I hate to say something like this, but the majority of the hole card exposers I've seen have been senior citizens, being that loss of hand dexterity is almost inevitable with age. So their tables might be the best place to start looking.

LOL. It sounds like you have a statistically insignificant sample. Cruising around the casinos looking for old dealers is not the way to find flashers. Declining dexterity really has nothing to do with it.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

It’s where you “stack” the deck by putting the cards in high/low order when you return them to the dealer. The theory is that the high/low order causes the dealer to bust more often and it allows the player to predict the cards to some degree. May also assumes that a high/high and low/low order favors the player. The problem is that a) that assumption is not correct and b) it is not possible to “stack” enough cards to make the strategy successful using his technique. Here’s an old response I made to John (aka sys381) on his website:

--- sys381 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> We know that:
> 1) Cards that are arranged in hi-lo order hurt the player.

Yes.

> 2) Cards that are arranged in hi-hi/lo-lo order help the player.

Well....maybe not. Although the logic makes sense I have not heard any evidence that high-high or low-low sequences are beneficial to the player, so I set out to investigate it for myself. After a quick run through the simulator, I'm afraid that I cannot offer any good words for the "high-high/low-low" clumping theory.

I started with a standard simulation of one basic strategy player at a 6-deck game (H17 DA2 DAS NS RS3 75%). At the end of each shoe I recorded the number of units won/lost and the amount of clumping in the pre-dealt shoe. It would seem that shoes with greater high-high/low-low clumping should produce higher win rates. Unfortunately, this was not the case. There seemed to be no relationship of higher win rates to higher degrees of clumping at all. A scatter diagram confirmed the random distributions.

I compared the results using the computational formula for the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. I chose to use the Pearson r test simply because the results were not curvilinear in nature and it was familiar enough to me that I felt comfortable using it. The test actually showed a very weak (-0.056) inverse relationship between the two elements. I believe this is due to the house edge, which cannot be overcome by a basic strategy player. However, this relationship was so weak that, looking at the coefficient of determination, we are only able to predict about 0.31% of the variance due to the clumping.

I ran the same shoes (identical compositions) through the simulator again with 2 players at the table and the results were the similar. I also noticed that the magnitude of clumping would only range from around 42% to 62% of the shoe. This means that large degrees of clumping will not occur naturally in a shoe, they would have to be created somehow by the player(s) and dealer. After analyzing the effects of player stacking in pitch games (the "Stacker Play") I am convinced that crucial amounts of clumping cannot be produced by the play of the cards alone.

In short, any evidence of high-high/low-low clumping in a shoe cannot give us any reliable or valuable indication of an advantage or disadvantage. However, I would be very interested to hear other methods of analyzing this situation. I imagine that there may be specific situations where this information may be valuable.

-Sonny-

Great stuff! It's true that a player playing alone in a pitch game can not generate enough card-order dynamic to significantly affect his advantage after the next shuffle. However there are some shoe shuffles that are weak enough where card order can be observed (as opposed to altered) to predict an added advantage (or disadvantage) for the next shoe. I've run sims using the RealShuffle simulator in CVData that prove beyond a doubt that "splitting 10's hurts the table", but only in one particular casino in Atlantic City.

This effect doesn't yield a huge change in advantage for blackjack, but it sure as hell can give you an advantage on certain sidebets. You can surely guess which ones.

 

[eps6724]

The only way to make money at craps is by playing tournaments, dice control is bullshit and don't work.

School for Scandal. Group of pro magicians who have dedicated themselves to the grifter work of the past. It IS possible, and these guys (there are about 4) are having a great time in the magic scene giving demonstrations. Could have made a living scamming people like their predecessors, as well as making a living in the gambling scene. Probably has something to do with the psychology of showmanship. (Believe it or not, there are people who get a much bigger kick out of the 'hey, see what I can do' than they do about 'hey, see how much money I can make'). I know, that's probably sacrelige to post on this site (Oh, no way! People who want to do more than just make a gazillion dollars? Yes, Virginia, they do exist outside of the twilight zone!) As to dice control, however, there is a reason there are only about 4! (And no, I'm not one of them.)
EPS

 

[sagefr0g]

I can twirl a Bic lighter 360 degrees on my index finger, forward and backward. It might be like that. zg

very good. yea it's amazing the things that can be done when practice is applied to a skill.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=39466&postcount=1