Table Games Best Craps on the Strip?

If you think every throw is random you don't understand physics. (The applied physicist.)
If you understand physics you know every throw is random. (The theoretical physicist.)

Come to a table sometime with either rhythm throwers or real setters and you'll see the difference.
You may not see hour rolls every time, but you'll see rolls that are a lot longer then 7.

 

I don't believe it.
If this were true, it would be easy enough to document the SPRR (sevens per roll ratio) and show a significant difference that is better than 1 out of 6 rolls.
More importantly, one would be rich since it would turn craps into a positive expectation game.

 

Very easy to document. We've documented it for years. Just count the rolls at the table.

Even so, can you become rich if it the 7's go down to 14%? How about 12%?

Why the casinos aren't worried is because its VERY difficult to do. If you have *maybe* 1 out of 5000 people that can do it and 1 out of 500 that think they can, but really can't, you aren't going to be too worried as a casino. I've seen more people that think they can, but really aren't influencing the dice. Those people tend to give the casinos more $ than the few that can influence could ever take.

Even if you get your protest numbers down to .2 or .3 it's going to be hard to get rich doing it. And it's not dice control it's dice influence. Even the best I know can't get 7s below 10% or protest numbers below point one.

Someone that is an expert can usually get the 7 percentage down to 12-13%. You can make money, but it's hard to get rich that way!

 

If you can convince the Wizard of Odds with your data, then I will believe it.
Craps is a streaky game, and any small sample size can show large variances, but I need to be convinced with hard data that someone can consistently change the SPRR.

 

^This^

But just like card counting, even if you're very proficient at it..without the occasional (and often) hot streak

in the long run for most, card counting is a $10/hr job, the difference is with Rythmic rollers/ and Setters as long as you're in practice
there isn't a shuffle to worry about adding more randomness
and just like with counting after the casinos realized that most "counters" couldn't count?
They relaxed their rules that they imposed after Thorp's book came out
because people who "think" the can count or dice set will risk more money and that's good for the casino

 

How much does the casino make off the guys who think that they are one of the lucky few who TRULY can influence the dice to reduce sevens rather than the schmucks who just THINK they can influence the dice, when in reality they're all in the latter?

I'd give more credibility to dice setters if they're goal was to roll either higher numbers or lower numbers rather than a 7 on one of the die. You only need to get one die to land on 5 or 6 (or 1 or 2) to eliminate the possibility of a 4, 5, and maybe six from hitting. Then you could simply place the higher numbers. Basically dice sliding without actually sliding the dice. You aren't going to convince me that you can control two dice that are hitting the back wall, to the point that you could reduce the number of 7s though.

 

Original Post by SteveAC01
"The shooters are more skilled."
"You have a better chance of catching a long hand, and it's so much more an enjoyable experience - win or lose."
Then NokTang asks:
Please advise why this improves the chance of a long hand(roll) and exactly what skill beyond knowing how to bet you refer, if any? Thanks and regards.

My reply:
I have more than 20 years and 4000 to 5000 hours at the craps tables.
I firmly believe that some people (maybe one percent or less) can regularly exert some useful influence over the results of their throws.
This is a combination of SET, GRIP, ENERGY, BACKSPIN, RELEASE, HEIGHT, ANGLE OF TRAVEL, LANDING ZONE, CONSISTENCY.
They can't do it every time, or on demand. But they are far enough off of random distribution to turn their overall results positive.

I don't have massive documented evidence, so the skeptics will never be satisfied.
For years I was a skeptic too.
But when you watch the same four or five people across years of visits to the same casino pit,
and they consistently throw 10 to 20 roll hands, you start to get it.
Regards,
SteveAC01

 

What you are describing sounds like observer bias. If a player puts in the hundreds of hours, he/she will have his/her share of long rolls, which are memorable.
What you don't remember are all the point seven outs they make, which also happen but you don't remember them.

 

Yeah, I don't buy it.

First, I think if the difference is enough to be noticeably and measurably consistent, there would be an advantage way to bet it. And if you look at the hoops advantage BJ teams have gone through (and backing money they can get), you'd have professionals getting this done, and not for $10/hour.

Second, I think there are too many variables to control. Differences in positioning, differences in dice. Differences in the felt would be a huge hidden impact. A billiards player can tell you how differently felt surfaces can react. And they can easily measure and adjust. If a dice setter is only dropping their 7 likelihood down a few %, how could they ever adjust?

Not to mention, catching this would be way tougher than catching a card counting, because it is controlling not observing, and the roller doesn't have to be the one making the bet. In fact the person making the big bet needs almost no skill and could constantly be switched out.

That's a loaded question. The measure is not "becoming rich". You can be a great blackjack card counter. not get caught, and have a hard time "becoming rich". But pair that card counter with a backer with deep pockets, and they can take a lot off the casinos.

7s happen 16.67% of the time. If you take that down to 14 (which is nearly the normal odds of 6 and 8), all the odds bets suddenly become advantages. Or, if for example you have made other numbers like 8 less likely, some other number got WAY more likely, and the potential advantage is even bigger.

 

Cosmo, Bellagio, Cromwell, PH

 

Billiards is a great analogy
Worn felt ( and more importantly flat crushed padding under) is desirable v. fresh and kids bouncy house springy
and who's to say there aren't craps teams doing exactly what you say? but either keep their mouths shut or nobody believes it?

face it, dice influence is a lot harder than just counting and even billards, but not impossible
having said that more than one person here who advocates DI, has said it's a 1:XX00 skill set and most people don't have the time/patience/ commitment
to do it

and from the casino perspective that plus the occasional floor person backing a player off because JDLR?
yeah that's enough to keep it from really affecting the house's bottom line

 

Wear on a craps table would never be uniform. Every surface would have a different impact on your odds.


I'll add that BO's notion of affecting your odds of 7 seem to be by far the toughest thing you could try to do because it requires influence on the RELATIONSHIP between the two dice. Changing the odds one 1 die will never affect the overall odds, because whatever number you "influence it" to has a 16.67% chance of combining with a random die to make a 7.

Thus you can affect the odds of ANY OTHER outcome by influencing one die, but for 7 you need two in concert

PS> thanks for the distraction, I have been having fun with a spreadsheet looking at just how unfeasible controlling a 7 would be.

For example, lets say you are an out and out wizard at this, and whatever orientation you set a die to, you can make one number or two of its four neighbours far more likely, and that you can do that with both die. For example, 1, 2 and 3 all neighbour each other. Lets say you can get it to 25% on rolling any of those 3, and 8.33% for each of the other 3. And you can do it for both die.

Thats still a 12.5% chance of a 7. Same impact on a 7 if you bias it on odds vs evens. Makes the "best" someone knows off flirting with 10% seem pretty unlikely, no?

Lets say instead you influence 1 number on both die instead. As in you can make any 1 number more likely for each die. That means there is exactly 1 number you made less likely for each die (the opposite). So you would want to influence the same number for both die to avoid 7.
For example, lets say I have loaded dice. They come up 1 19 times out of 60, 6 1 time out of 60, and every other outcome normally. That's still over 12% odds of a 7.

Now, that is just going off of Bo333's assertions above. A website i found with a quick google suggests you can advantage play if you can get 7 down below 15.38%. That is way easier, but still means influence on both die in concert. If you are controlling 1 number you still need to up it to around a quarter of the time on both die. If 3 numbers are made more likely on both die, they need to be up to 21.5% each.

The only other approach would be to claim you can make any outcome for 1 die or the other more likely, but make each of the combined outcomes unlikely. As in I can't make this die a 6 whenever I want, but I can make the other one less likely to be 1 if this does end up a 6. Which is implying that the dice are essentially bouncing in unison.

 

You could never change just one die, unless you were sliding the one, which is illegal and could result in arrest. As long as you are "throwing" both dice, both have to be influenced. I don't even fathom a method of throwing both which could result in only "influencing" one of the two die. Those who slide, at least the most recent public disclosure at the Wynn, were sliding one die on the six and betting huge money on the high numbers including of course eleven and twelve. I don't recall whether they were hop bets on the other numbers or not and/or included the seven(six and one). They were of course hop bets on eleven and twelve.

 

First, I am one of the ones arguing you can't do it. And as I explained if you could do one die it wouldn't get you control of the number of sevens, so I'm not sure why you are debating.

But if one if going to posit (as these people do) that you can do a legal throw and with setting and control influence the odds of the outcome, it would be easier to get one of the two die to a precise spot on a precise trajectory than two of them.

Pretend you have two golf balls in your right hand and there are two holes ten feet away from you. You need to throw them in the same motion. Would it be easier to aim one at one hole and not worry where the other goes as long its not the way, or try to hole both?

 

Didn't mean to "debate" you. I just don't agree that one die could be controlled, and like you I guess, don't believe either can be. I'm not sure about your golf ball analogy because you still have to have enough force/power on the second ball so it reaches the "back wall" etc.. I don't think you can just drop it and focus on the second ball(die). However, no point in a long discussion. Let them go on believing they can influence. I like confidence and if nothing else, they are confident they can. It doesn't harm me/you when they try at our table. I've gotten to the point in life I prefer single zero roulette for some reason but still love a good craps game. Problem with craps remains betting on the pass with odds and a few numbers has cost me money of the decades. I have much better luck and win much more often on the don't pass with single odds laid. However, it's not much fun unless of course you win quickly and leave the table for the day, focusing on food and good wine at that point.

 

How do the dice influencers, after practicing long hours getting the trajectory of both dice down pat, plus the axis roll of both dice while in flight, then working on getting both dice to land a certain way down pat, figure for the hundreds of pyramid shaped diamonds that line the back wall?

 

Oh that's easy. They know exactly where it will hit the pyramid, at what angle and speed and even know how each of the felt will bounce.

 

Out of the countless shooters that crossed my path I have seen maybe two who possess the ability to consistently throw the dice in a seemingly robotic way, always landing exactly in the same spot all the time.

At times they shot great, most times not so great, and many times simply PSO'd. Yet their throws never deviated, they were seemingly exact replicas of the former.

I have no doubt these shooters would be awesome if it weren't for the requirement to hit the back wall and the existence of those troublesome and irritating diamond pyramids!

 

the important part about controlled shooting is to throw soft and with backspin so as to dissipate almost all of the energy before it hits the wall

I'd also like to point out that while we're discussing all these variables that supposedly make it impossible to influence the outcome?

bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly either, yet they do

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM-G0bkl8MQ