MollysPoker.com

[deepnet]

Thank you Heavy for the kind words (on the shareware release).

I value and respect the programs you've noted above, and encourage
people to use them, but I don't see any edge calculators and dice set
optimizers in them. This is a unique feature in Smart Craps, and
fundamentally depends on the "first principles" statistical analysis
underpinning Pro Test (in Smart Craps).

To the best of my knowledge, and this has been confirmed by other
experts in the field, the edge calculator and dice set optimizer in
Smart Craps are very new, powerful, and unique tools (to date).

Dan Pronovost

www.smartcraps.com

[Mason]

[ACDOC]

"Mason:

I really do not mean any disrepect, but your conjecture above is not
scientifc, and not based on any fact."

Deepnet:

It is perfectly acceptable to be disrespectful to a kook-troll like Mason.
He demands "scientific" evidence, but wouldn't recognize it if his own STD
test came back positive for genital herpes of the mouth.

It is one of the major problems of this site, there are too many anti DI
trolls who hang out here.

By the way, I doubt if Mason has played any serious Craps in his life.

Although I understand the value of your software, I prefer to determine my
advantage the old fashioned way, $s Won/ $s Bet.

Besides, if Sharpshooter is right, it could take thousands upon thousands
of rolls to determine one's advantage with any accuracy. I don't mind
practicing, but I don't care to over do it while being saddled with the
distraction of data entry.

[deepnet]

Hello ACDOC:

Sharpshooter is correct that 5,000 to 20,00 rolls are required to
provide statistical evidence of dice control, *** using the SRR***. The
SRR is a very poor statistical metric, as it does not measure axial or
pitch control directly. Scoblete (and others) talk about this as the
'good' and 'bad' sevens on a hard way set, for example.

The Pro Test can show strong statistical evidence in as few as 100
rolls (yes, I've seen it done). This is very rare, and even then I
recommend more roll tests. 300-500 is more common. Pro Test can do this
because the test is based on the first principles of dice control:
axial and pitch control, not dice sums.

BTW... the Pro Test measure of 'passing' is if the outcome has less
than 1% chance of replication by a random shooter, per each of the Pro
Tests. This is subjective... people need to pick the % of evidence they
are comfortable with. But, by adding more rolls, the Pro Test 'score'
above goes down further and further, when a person is in fact
influencing the dice.

[deepnet]

Hmmm.... so much for a respectful exchange Mason! Well, I tried.

First, I'm not claiming dice control works, or not. That's not to say
that I HAVE NOT seen
acceptable evidence... that's a different discussion for me. My main
point is that Smart Craps and Pro Test are
the best tools to analyze this statistically with the greatest
accuracy. On this point, you are flatly
incorrect and show a terrible bias and scientific snobbery that is an
ebarrassment to all
those who stand behind scientific inquiry. These are NOT the standards
of the Skeptics Society.

First, anyone who doubts the claim that Smarts Craps and Pro Test do
indeed represent the
best statistical test for dice control should start by reading the
PUBLIC, OPEN, treatise
and math paper on it:

www.smartcraps.com/SmartCraps_­theory.pdf

To criticize 'something' whtout reading the 'something', is not
scientific.

On your other points... I've never seen more blatant use of circular
arguments! A Pro Test is
a quantified test, empirical, with mathematically sound hypotheses and
conclusions. If it
says you passed, it means that there is less than 1% chance a random
roller could replicate
the result. Want more evidence... roll another roll set... the score
above should go down farther
over time, if indeed you are exercising control.

Whether dice control works or not, as I said, is a different
discussion. My saying 'ya, I've sen
limited people pass, some in flying colors' is not scientific evidence.
And frankly, publishing
such evidence is not in the best interest of dice controllers doing so
for profit. Smart Craps
is a tool for any dice controller to prove, mainly to themselves,
whether they can indeed profit
from biased dice rolls. So far, very few have passed that I have been
involved with... it is a VERY
hard skill to master. My discussions to date, on actual recorded data,
have been limited to
those who stand to benefit from it. That may change down the road, but
until then, use the software
to test your skill if you want to know all that practice (and courses)
has paid off!

Dan Pronovost

www.smartcraps.com

[Bob R]

"Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:

[Mr. V]

So far, very few have passed that I have been
involved with... it is a VERY
hard skill to master.

Who has "passed?"

Or, if you won't name names in the interest of anonymity, perhaps you
could state which Dice Setting dojo they are affilitated with?

Who is the Best of the Best?

There Can Be Only One...

roll dem bones

[deepnet]

Smart Craps was only released a couple months ago, but was in Beta test
for over 4 months. So, there have been a few people who taken the test,
but a wide introduction is only beginning now.

Having said this, the main Beta testers and early participants were a
number of dice controllers from the "Golden Touch Craps" group
(www.GoldenTouchCraps.com). I have received roll set data from a
handful of instructors and some students. The software is being sold
not only by my own company, but through a few sites/courses/venues
(including GTC). See an upcoming article in Casino Player (next month,
I believe).

Ok... I still haven't answered your question! Some more ramblings
before I do...

Most participants asked to be anonmous. Also, I have not personally
recorded a formal "Big Experiment" (yet) that would be a test that
could pass scientific scrutiny (meaning, filmed, properly recorded,
null-hypothesis controls [i.e. a random shooter in the mix], controlled
environment, etc.). What I do have is a lot of data sets sent to me,
and some very small sets I have recorded personally. The "Big
Experiment" is a challenging question... on one hand, it would be good
to have the "proof" unquestionable, but then right now casinos just
don't believe this is 'real', so why get their attention (especially
given that skilled shooting is very obvious, unfortunately, due to the
physics required for precise throws)? A classic debate in dice control
camps, ragng as I write...

One person that has allowed me to discuss his results is Frank
Scoblete. He was the first person to take a Pro Test, back when I first
did the math over a year ago. After doing the math, I wanted
confirmation that the test could indeed be passed, before embarking on
the time consuming course of developing the software!

Frank passed Pro Test with an AMAZING score in 109 rolls (his first
roll set). He later did more formal rolls sets (412 in total). His Pro
1 Test score, for example, in 100 rolls was less than 0.0001% (84 in
109). Further roll sets were about the same, bu the aggregate nature of
statistics (and Pro Test) meant his results were amazing. I like to
muse that there is a greater chance of him being hit by lightning
(while golfing) than NOT being a skilled shooter.

Now, I WILL REPEAT: I'm not advocating that dice control does, or does
not, work by providing the above data! It doesn't qualify under the
terms of a 'Big Experiment", and if I were skeptical, I would (rightly)
not accept third-hand data sets as proof. I am simply the author of the
first tool that can be used to provide the most accurate measure of
this skill. Smart Craps is a tool, not proof.

I'll try and head off another question in advance... what do I believe
personally? It works, I've seen enough Pro Test data, both live and
indirect, from shooters I trust in controlled conditions, to know that
there are individuals that can (at times) influence the dice outcomes
on a casino craps table. I also believe it is EXCEEDINGLY RARE, and
that the vast majority (maybe 95%) of shooters who claim this skill
cannot pass a Pro Test, or otherwise prove that their ability is real,
via a valid statistical test. I always knew it would be hard, but I am
surprised to find out how hard. I've seen many shooters deliver the
dice with excellent 'quality', yet stil generate no influence. Also,
dice control is subjective skill, unlike card counting in blackjack:
there are good days, and bad (usually more bad than good). I have taken
a dice control course myself, and do practice regularly now for a few
months. My Pro Test data is promising, but not yet conclusive (i.e. 1%
statistical margin rate).

Dan Pronovost

www.smartcraps.com

[Mr. V]

Thanks for the response.

Scoblete, eh?

Assuming more individuals participate in your testing, and that the
results are posted on message boards or websites, it will be
interesting to see whether Casino Staff get nervous and bar them as
possible Advantage Players.

Thus far, the dealers and suits at the sites I lurk at are not
convinced that Dice Setting works...nor am I.

How else will this thing morph?

I can envision a Travel Channel TV show analogous to the WSP poker
tourneys, wherein Scoblete, Yuri and other wannabes compete head to
head to be crowned King of the Setters.

Have it tracked by many cameras, zooming on the grip, throw, movement
through the air in slo-mo, the landing, checking for on-axis behavior
all the while.

Perhaps the Captain will come out of anonymity to do the play by play
color commentary, ala Van Patten.

Ma and Pa kettle can critique the performance of their idols while
debating the esoteric fine points of the precision shooters art all the
while.

College boys will eschew Hold en, and instead will spend hours
practicing dice setting, preparing for a drunken weekend of fraternity
craps shoots.

I have seen the future...

roll dem bones

[deepnet]

Yes, this is a concern in the field right now, and hotly discussed
(even in this forum, I see).

One thing I've learned is just how bloodly hard dice control is, and
even those that are good at it have stretches where they fail to
achieve the skill in practice. This is different from card counting in
blackjack, where all counters experience bad stretches of losses, to be
clear. A counter may well be excerising perfect counting, yet still
lose (due to the slim edge, and random luck factors). A dice controller
can experience the same problem, but has to deal with, in addition, the
fact they they simply may not be throwing all that well on some day,
and hence NOT have a positive edge on some occasion.

Even worse, I've studied enough data to see that there are times where
a skilled shooter can get "INVERSELY bad results", meaning
(statistically) significantly worse than average. This is not
surprising, on careful examination. A slight flaw in the throw can
result in *more* than average and consistent 'flops', meaning the
outside numbers appear more often than not. This is akin to a golfer
suddenly getting an annoying and persistent slice in their shot. I've
studied this phenomena more in some private craps forums, but won't
discuss it further in this non-private forum (too many casino eyeballs,
potentially).

So, the net is similar to blackjack in the 60s Thorpe era: dice control
is not going to tear down the casino's profits overnight, or at all.
It's FAR harder than card counting, by comparison. Like card counting,
a casino on the look out can spot the talent, and act on it. Will they?
Will the growing popularity and demystification of dice control add to
this changing wind?

I'm just a guy who writes interesting mathematical software. I'll leave
the ethics and history writing to others!

Dan Pronovost

www.smartcraps.com

[Mason]

This guy knows what "it" is. He can put a custom number to "it" (although he is
flexible on that point). He can quantify "it" and has tested "it" well enough
to know that "it" is very rare. He has developed software so that you, too, can
know that you have "it".

"And frankly, publishing such evidence is not in the best interest of dice
controllers doing so
for profit."

Of course. "It" is so powerful that we need to keep "it"s power a secret. So
much in the techniques in use in the Golden Touch marketing effort demonstrates
this concern for discretion.

Clearly, specifying how rare "it" is in your extensive testing experience is not
in your best interest or you would do it.

"My discussions to date, on actual recorded data, have been limited to those who
stand to benefit from it. "

NO! Shocking!

"So far, very few have passed that I have been involved with... it is a VERY
hard skill to master."

And how many is that ... 1 in 10,000 ... 1 in 1,000 ... 1 in 500 ... 1 in 200
.... 1 in 100 ... 1 in 50 ... 1 in 25 ... 1 in 10. You know "it" when you see
"it" and you have only tested those who say they have "it". How often have you
found "it" with your tool? Do you accept self-reporting from those who just
know they have "it" as the basis for your analysis of "it"?

According to you, "it" should occur randomly in about 1 out of 100 ... this is
people who don't think they have "it" but will show "it" in a way that is
quantitatively indistinguishable from the genuine "it"!

But you haven't tested (and don't intend to test) those who don't assert that
they have "it", so that this false positive test rate will remain your
subjective statistical estimate without any supporting evidence at all.

Everyone has a different definition of "it" because there is no replicable,
objective evidence on the subject. This will continue as long as the evidence
is lacking.

"My main point is that Smart Craps and Pro Test are the best tools to analyze
this statistically with the greatest accuracy."

This is EXACTLY what every vendor of astrology software says about their
products.

And yours has a built in feature so that the user can apply the absolute
requisite for you to sell these moonbeams ... a user defined definition of "it"!

"That may change down the road, but until then, use the software to test your
skill if you want to know all that practice (and courses) has paid off!"

Yes, it may very well get easier to do "it" "down the road" (!), but one can
know if one has "it" with this software because you will let the user define
what "it" is. How accommodating!

"Smart Craps is a tool for any dice controller to prove, mainly to themselves,
whether they can indeed profit from biased dice rolls."

Exactly. This is just an extension of the Golden Touch Craps marketing effort
to the true believers. Nothing could be clearer.

--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason

[Mason]

"Bob R" <[email protected]> wrote

[Mason]

[Mason]

"Even worse, I've studied enough data to see that there are times where
a skilled shooter can get "INVERSELY bad results", meaning
(statistically) significantly worse than average. This is not
surprising, on careful examination."

ROTFL. What is surprising is that you think this fluctuation about the
statistical mean requires your further explanation! So, skilled shooters are
VERY rare and even those very rare skilled shooters get "INVERSELY bad results"
.... which (if you didn't have completely unproven dice control theory as an
explanation close at hand) would look just like bad luck!

[Bob R]

"Mason" <[email protected]> wrote: