Wong dice control

There are jurisdictions that are taking a new approach on dice sliders that I think may make Wongs approach to dice control a bad move.

Some casinos are using reqular people on the game as the victims in dice slide cases. The reason being that for a multi million dollar casino to take someone to court for a slide isn't a very dramatic case. However if you put the average Joe as the victim it becomes more dramatic.

If a cheat is holding one of the dice on four with a slide and betting The hard eight. Here you have a reqular guy on the same game betting the hard ten he cannot win his bet do to the actions of the cheater.

With Wongs system wouldn't that fall into the same category? If the roll of the dice is controlled and not random would that not affect the odds of other players on the game?

SW says his method beats the craps game by reducing the chances of rolling a seven by a practiced physical ability. Craps relies on random distributions of possible outcomes, as does blackjack. We just take advantage of the distributions during specific situations, 21 players DO NOT attempt to physically alter them or interfere with the randomness of the game. When the dealer has to draw to a 16 and we are sitting on a 20 we do not physically reduce the number of fives he can receive. That would amount to interefering with the randomness of the game (illegal). If we did we would be arrested. A cheating case may eventually come of this.

If a crapshooter is tossing fewer sevens than random, all �right� bettors at the table benefit, and the �average Joes� at a crap game are predominantly �right� bettors. It strains the imagination to think of an �average Joe� dice customer as being a victim of someone who tosses dice the way I do.

The opposite can be a problem. When there are skillful shooters at the table, the �average Joes� at the table have the expectation of winning, or of losing less than they would otherwise lose. If those �average Joes� are winning big, casino personnel might get upset at a good performance from a skillful shooter, even if that shooter is betting small.. A skillful shooter who senses that casino personnel are becoming nervous about the large bets and winnings of the �average Joes� at the table might enhance longevity by reducing bets and start tossing the dice randomly. I should write that up for inclusion in Wong on Dice.

Stanford Wong

There are jurisdictions that are taking a new approach on dice sliders that I think may make Wongs approach to dice control a bad move.
Some casinos are using reqular people on the game as the victims in dice slide cases. The reason being that for a multi million dollar casino to take someone to court for a slide isn�t a very dramatic case. However if you put the average Joe as the victim it becomes more dramatic.
If a cheat is holding one of the dice on four with a slide and betting The hard eight. Here you have a reqular guy on the same game betting the hard ten he cannot win his bet do to the actions of the cheater.
With Wongs system wouldn�t that fall into the same category? If the roll of the dice is controlled and not random would that not affect the odds of other players on the game?

If I was going to influence dice rolls (assuming it's even possible), I believe the easier and ultimately more profitable way to do it is to bet the DON'T side, and look to try to eliminate the 7 on the COME-OUT roll. Then once you have established the point you can choose to influence the remaining rolls BUT if even if these rolls were perfectly random you then have a huge advantage as you will be getting even money on an event that has a much better than a 50-50 chance of occuring, depending on what point you are trying to roll a 7 against. The problem is that everyone in the gambling world is greedy for the big score rather than grinding out an easier (but un-sexy) profit. Didn't any of these dice setting gurus ever consider that it would be much easier to influence ONE roll (the come out) rather than to try to influence EVERY roll? I doubt it.

You use the All-Sevens set which has sevens all around the dice. The Golden Touch group will use that set on Come-Out rolls.

your strategy is among those suggested in Sharpshooter's book, Getting the Edge in Craps.

If the roll of the dice is controlled and not random would that not affect the odds of other players on the game?

A person that wongs in at positive counts reduces the other players' expected value by reducing the number of advantageous rounds. Likewise, when a player wongs out, the other players suffer with an increased number of disadventageous rounds.

Rick I have to disagree, when a AP Wongs in and out on a game they are not altering the odds of the game but taking advantage of the fluctuations of the game. I see your point about if I jump in I am taking away some of the positive hands of the other customers at the game but feel thats a stretch. Also the Wonger has not done anything to physically alter the odds of the game he is just playing what is offered by the casino. If Wongs material is correct and trust me his reputation alone has me very interested, the odds are being altered by a physical act.
If I am a don't player and someone at the table has the physical ability to reduce the number of sevens rolled does this physical act not alter my odds? The court case I am refering to there was a dice slide team on a table they would slide a four on one die and roll the other while betting the hard 8. You can see what a nice little advantage that would be to the hard 8 player and major disadvantage to the guy on the hard 10.

Because dice control is not illegal.

Gaming regulators in Nevada, New Jersey and Washington would totally disagree. I am not familiar with other jurisdictions but in these jurisdiction a physical act to alter the odds of the game is cheating. Isn't the ultimate dice control called dice sliding? It just like playing hole card if the casino is giving it away by employing a weak dealer not against the law if I do something physical like using a shiner I go to jail.

They have already said it isn't cheating. Why be thick about this?

I can imagine the same group of �regular people� betting ona football game. Then they claim to have been cheated because the football players of the opposite team, because they were actually trying to win the game. And thereby altering the odds of the game.

Craps shooting is the same. When you see a shooter bet on making a point, it is clear that he/she is actually trying to make a point. This should be obvious to everyone.

Craps is not a random game; it is a game of skill. We don�t use a RNG to produce the results, we have a person deliberately trying to roll certain results.

The casinos have defined it this way. It is to THEIR INTEREST to define it that way. They generate a great deal of revenue by offering this game of skill.

Which addresses another point: The casino industry has no interest in making dice control illegal. They will make a lot more money by keeping it legal. Even if Dice Control is theoretical possible, for every one person who can successfully do it there will be 10 players who try it and fail, and lose a bundle in the process.

Of course. Dice controllers do not "alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria" because the method of selection has been set by the casino, and the thrower is supposed to "try for his point." It's always been that way, and if they changed that, nobody would play. You'd have a slot game.

The casino industry has no interest in making dice control illegal.

Agree 1000% percent.

ETF

Sorry just stating a point of state gaming regulations something I am familiar with. You have your own point of view and I do respect that just do yourself two favors 1)Keep Chappy's 800-Bail-Me-Out # handy
2) Invest in some soap on a rope.