Craps is beatable

"Hey, what say we go upstairs and practice shooting craps?"

Greetings C,

Happy New Year.

Your new line ("Hey, what say we go upstairs and practice shooting craps?" ) comes in handy for Darryl Purpose. He should have use your line to get the girl upstair to "practice" dices in bed. Here's an excerpt from his Aruba story:

...The next day at lunch I filled him [Nick Alexander] in on the girl I had met. I explained that we had really hit it off. She was bright and witty. He asked me what happened. I said, �Nothing happened. It got close to one o�clock, so I went to the casino and lost $12,000.� He looked quite angry, �Damn it. We have rules on this team. If you have a choice between playing blackjack and getting laid, forget about the casino.� Now he tells me...

Best regards
Samoht

of "Wong on Dice" which would sell for less and without Nevada State sales tax? Or do necessary illustrations/photos preclude this possibility?

How could it be a review if I hadn't read the book?

I think "I have not read the Wong book." would have made that clear.

The title of the post, "That's it, he's lost it.", is facetious. I regret that this was not clear to you.

The enormous expectations from predetermining one cube are stunning. Accomplishing this is the issue. The arithmetic is straight forward

I'm sorry if you you felt offended. My purpose was precisely the opposite, a response to the ignorant criticisms. A little close-mindedness can go a long way. And it's so much easier.

Good luck with this.

it involves sliding one die (preferably keeping it as a 6) giving a giant player edge to field bets, Yo bets, and boxcars.

For many reasons including, NRS 465.070, which says that it is illegal to have information not availble to all players. Not to mention you are controlling the outcome of a game and taking away the randomness of the dice.

Phone Card

Dice setting and throwing within the rules of craps is perfectly legal. I can only think of 1 casino that has prohibited dice setting itself. The casino is the ultimate power with regards to what rolls are by the rules and can dis-allow rolls that do not, hit the back wall, for example.

Scooting the dice is against the rules and casinos have taken countermeasures (speed bumps). Dice scooting players have been arrested in the past.

Finally, it has yet to be proven by anyone that Dice Setting (Dice Setters?) have any advantage provided that their rolls meet all the other criteria for legal rolls (hitting the back wall). Since the only advantage proven for dice setters is the one in their minds (or the one they get by selling books for $199 or seminars for $1000+) the entire issue remains moot.

A new rule, recognizing the potential of players' affecting the odds (or out of standard casino paranoia), and defining much more precisely how the dice are picked and thrown, would be a different matter -- but such rule does not exist yet. Shooters have been "setting" the dice for ages without violating any rule extant in the books. The reason for such absence is the recognition by casinos of the fact that the dice cannot be truly "set" and the practice is as harmless and as customer-friendly as alloing note taking in Roulette.

Let's suppose, I discover a system and my note taking in Roulette helps me get an advantage in the game. I would not be violating the rules of the game any more than a note-taking tourist.

While the Nevada statutes (not incidentally the ones you are alluding to, do prohibit dice control, they are quite unenforceable as a practical matter. Legislation which requires guesswork about the thought process of the defendant wouldn't get to trial.
The legal gurus can give you a more thorough explanation of why dice control is effectively legal, suffice to say we've had this conversation several times before.

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.

In my heart of hearts, I'm not convinced that it is cheating. It feels more like the exercise of an acquired skill, like throwing sliders. [The pitcher is cheating!!] But then I don't run a dice game.

...a giant player edge to field bets, Yo bets, and boxcars.

That's the whole point.

I can see where Wong gets a liitle peevish. Is it my personal insecurity that prompted me to write this? It was against my better judgement that I posted in the first place. I should have gone with my gut, then I wouldn't feel compelled to defend myself.

But, just how is throwing the cubes such that the subjective probability of the total of seven is other than 1/6 defineable as other than cheating, where strongly determining the outcome of a single die can only be cheating? (FWIW, sliding, which is foiled by a string stretched across the layout, may not be an absolute requirement for an compulsively obsessed master. But it is typical.)

This is NOT a personal challenge to your integrity, knowledge or intellect. I do not dislike you. I'm not trying to (but probably will) start trouble. I am just parroting information from people who had reaped profits from the propositions in this manner, did extensive travel and lived with fear of arrest for, yes, cheating. And I have no current information on this kind on angle shooting.

I am interested in reading Wong's book. For decades I've watched shooters arrange their dice with some desired total upward (seven, their point, whatever) in some whimsical appeal to fate, then pick them up with thumb and opposing digit and lobe them in parabolic arc. What the hell does Wong suggest that alters the expected distribution of outcomes? I have a suspicion that I would like to test, if I had table and time to record a large number of "rolls" (actually tosses), like 6,000.

Any guidance here? I have given you enough credit to have read your post carefully. Feel free to use my e-mail.

Does that not violate the "device" provisions?