his bed is pretty easy
but unfortunately casinos don't use mattresses as craps tables
but unfortunately casinos don't use mattresses as craps tables
What proportion of craps tables are "easy" enough for you to beat?
I have an edge on about a third of crap tables. I can break even on another third. My dice bounce too much on the final third. There are people who can beat the tables that are too tough for me.
Stanford Wong
dicesetter.com
the decent piano player who has practiced only an hour per day for six months (or probably I don't want to hear). I'd also like to see the juggler of five balls who has put in only an hour of practice a day for six months. Development of those types of motor skills takes considerably more time and practice. Learning a new language is not a motor skill and I'm puzzled as to why it was included. A highly proficient 3 ball juggler would have a hard time moving up to five balls in just six months with an hour per day practice. I think any who have attained a reasonable level of skill put in a great deal more time and practice than this.
which refers to biblical story of Herod killing all the children when he heard that a king was born (presumably Jesus). In Spanish, innocent is also a synomyn for naive, and the day has become a sort of April Fools Day.
I currently can juggle three balls quite proficiently (and have taught others to do the same) and can do four balls or three clubs tolerably well. I've been told by several people who can do five that five takes about 6 months of effort.
I can't disprove the claim that if I worked on it steadily for 6 months I'd be able to do five, because I haven't yet spent that long a continuous effort on the task. The only way to disprove the claim that 6 months is all it takes would be to work on it for 6 months straight and fail. Since I haven't done that, the claim stands. And, in fact, I believe it to be true. (Based on the amount of improvement I've made in the small amount of time I have spent working on five)
You see the relevance? If anybody buys Wong's book and can't get an edge using his techniques, the claim "you just need to work on your throws some more; you'll get it in time" is unfalsifiable. That bothers me.
I'd be the perfect person to work on this. I have significant skills at juggling (for throwing), sleight of hand (for setting the dice), and playing guitar (for holding the hand in peculiar fixed positions). And yet, and yet...
I guess I'll wait for the book, and for the inevitable stories of people being "barred" for playing craps too well.
I play/teach the piano/organ for a living, and it's more like an hour a day for 6 years. That can get you to minimal competence, IF you have some talent, and IF you start when you're young. People who want to learn the piano and haven't played a note before they're (say) 12, really need to find another goal.
However, I think craps shooting, or even juggling, is on a much different level. Now, I'd weally, weally like to see a craps shooter who started when he was 3 -- or a blackjack player, for that matter. I imagine there are a few.
ETF
That's easy. You are either the shooter or you're not in action.
Or you can make a minimum (nominal) bet while the others are (usually) sevening out or you can find an empty or nearly empty table.
Or you can play the don't pass for minimal amounts.
I> Will casinos be able to notice you are using this technique?
One of the things that distinguishes Wong on Dice from other material written about beating craps is the emphasis on getting away with it in a casino. It�s not enough to be able to generate nonrandom dice results; you have to be able to apply that skill in a casino, and for more than just minimal bets. Wong on Dice explains how.
Stanford Wong
I don't think he meant it as an example of similar motor skill. It sounds more like just a list of things one could accomplish in the same amount of time.
and eliminate about 60 percent of the shooters. Bet really low on the ones you do bet on. That should be the way to go if you feel you must play with random shooters at the tables.
With all due respect, I am not sure if one can yet conclude if your experience proves that dice can be controlled. Still, the results of the challenge are encouraging, and warrent futher testing it seems. (sorry for the grad school like cop out folks!)
Other readers familar with statistics, probabilities, binomial distribution, and Excel--please read the below and comment.
I used the binomial distribution function in Excel to get some insight on the results of your challenge. I got .144115 as an answer when I put in the parameters of your test into the function, namely:
- 74 successful trials (aka rolls)
- 500 trials
- 1/6 as the probability of a success per single trial (assume no skill, thus a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 7)
- & true (to ask for cummulative probability--that is chance of
74 or fewer successes in the 500 trials)
Thus, as I interpret this, in a room with 1000 chimps rolling dice 500 times, 144 of them will roll a 7 either 74 or fewer times.
.144 is a little more than one standard deviation from the medium. The medium is 83.3 as you note (500 * 1/6), and I believe the lower limit for one standard deviation would be around .167 cummulative, or a little less than 75 rolls.
Changing the parameters on the formula to assume you and your partner have skill to roll a 7 at a 1/6.5 ratio, I came up with .435478 probability that your results would have had 74 or fewer 7's over a trial of 500 rolls.
Thus, if indeed you and your partner have the skill claimed, your results on this trial were a little better than average (ave of 76.9 computed by 500 * 1 / 6.5).
Is there a mistake in my logic above? Did I misuse Excel?
More tests with similar results would be needed to gain more confidence in the claim that your skill is such that 1/6.5 your ratio of rolling a 7...the question would be--how many more rolls & tests? I have no real idea on that score.
Anyway, I am glad to know that you are still taking on new challeges in the gaming world.
"Crapping In" or "Crapping Out."
Knowing that this post will likely be busted - I cannot refrain from responding to this nonsense.
Just check out the Wizard's analysis:
http://www.wizardofodds.com/games/craps/crapsapx3.html
I'm sorry Mr. Wong but frankly if the only reasons I can see someone trying to scam people out of $200 for 28 pages of unproven material are:
1) They are a thief and have no morals
2) They have lost all of their money and are desperate
3) They are pathologically greedy
In most professions, nothing with p>0.05 is considered statistically significant and that is with 2-sided tests - i.e. in this case you should shoot for p<0.025 (pun intended). Unless one of the 3 categories above applies to you - you should really refrain from trying to take people's hard earned money until you have more significant data.
Sincerely,
MGP
This is a subject that I wish had not come up. I alluded to it a couple of years ago on the green pages. No one picked up on it and I dropped it.
I have not read the Wong book. But I have read several references to controlled throws on the internet in the last year. It was, and not very long ago, a clandestine activity involving a team. Only one player needed to be a skilled shooter, but several players were at the table to get the action in.
This is a form of advantage play that can take thousands from the casino in minutes. Do not imagine for a single second that the casino will consider this anything other than felony cheating. I am not convinced of the theoretical illegality, but the practical reality is that you cannot allow yourself to be identified as a practioneer and to be detained in flagrante delicto.
The team of which I am aware, consisted entirely of those fast on their feet. I�m not kidding. Literally, everyone wore running shoes. They never used valet parking. And exits were a big part of the planning.
Remember, I�ve done no research, haven�t read anyone�s output. This is just what I know and have divined myself.
First of all, it isn�t dice control; it is die control. The object is to pre-determine the face up side of one cube. If you could always be assured of one of the numbers face up, then there are NOT 11 possible outcomes in a pyramid distribution, there are only 6, all equiprobable.
And your money is made on the propositions.
The staple to controlled throw has been the Field bet. A 5,6,7 or 8 lose for you. All other numbers win for you. Randomly, that means twenty losing combinations versus sixteen winning ones. The casino eases the disadvantage by having the 2 and 12 pay double, and some layouts have the 12 paying triple. But make one die always a six and now there are only six outcomes, the 7 and 8 losing one unit each and the 9, 10, 11 and 12 winning 5 or 6 units making you a 50% (+3/6) or a 67% (+4/6) favorite.
Look at the payout on making Snake-eyes or Box-cars: 30:1. Randomly, the odds are 35:1 against. But control one die, and the odds are 5:1 against. Assuming perfect control of one die and this bet has gone from a 14% (-5/36) loser to a 417% (+150/36) winner. Betting the Yo, or going the other way with the 3-Craps, throws off 167%. This may dull your appetite for the more timid advantages.
Suppose you just don�t aspire to being a professional dice hustler. You don�t have a craps table in your basement and wouldn�t want to put in a thousand hours of practice over the next four months working on technique, what then? Well, at least you can be aware of the potential and stop worrying that our diminutive Chinese friend with the incomplete set of teeth and the hump on his left shoulder (Oh, you�ve never seen Mr. Wong?) hasn�t lost his marbles. And the next time you see a half dozen fit-looking dice players saunter up to the craps table at 3am, doing it quietly in their pricey Nikes so as not to rouse the snoozing box man, just go ahead and join them as they stack their black checks onto the one-roll propositions.
I don't feel comfortable making this post. And I'll check this post tomorrow and if any reader suggests it, I'll delete it.
