Dice Coach & Instructors / Newsletter / Contact / Home

  

 

   
 

Dice Setter
Digest

   
 

Dice Setter

Newsletters

   
 

 Your Instructors

 

 

 

Events

 

 

 

Dice Setting

   
 

Basic Rules

   
 

Testimonials

   
 

Dice Setter  Archives

 

 

 

Mad Professor

Speaks

 

 

 

Playbooks

   
 

Craps Strategies

 

 

 

Featured Article

   
 

Craps Table Plans

   
 

Private Lessons

   
 

Casino Dice Survey

     
  Dice Discussions  
     
 

Craps Book

 
 

 

 

Best and Worst

 

 

 

Contributing Authors

   
 

Message Board

   
 

Links 

   
 

Subscribe

 

 

 

Legal

   

 

Just A Thought For You Naysayers...

used with permission

1.     Proponents of dice setting and controlled throwing have shown that if a shooter can obtain a desired result (an 8) 2.7% of the time (with the other results being totally random) then the player has an 8% advantage over the house.

2.     Opponents of these de-randomizing techniques note that the key word in 1 above is "if", for no evidence has been presented to support the assumption that they actually work in a casino environment.

3.     An experiment to determine whether de-randomization can be achieved is unlikely ever to be conducted, and if it were the results, if positive, are unlikely to be published for then the gaming industry could develop and implement countermeasures.

4.     I must therefore resort to logic. Dice setting and controlled throwing either work or don't work. If they work their positive effects can be calculated. If they do not work could there be negative effects? I should think not, for then we would have the logical absurdity that de-randomizing techniques work when it was assumed they did not and can therefore be modified (e.g. a different dice set) to produce positive results.

5.     The problem then reduces to one of significance. Just because a precision shooter cannot achieve a 100% or even a 2.7% success rate does not render all attempts at de-randomization invalid. What about .27%? ..027%? Of course at some point the effect becomes negligible and is nil if de-randomization's opponents are correct), but since the worst you can do is achieve the same result you would by doing nothing, where's the harm in trying?

6.     Another area of contention between the two sides of the issue is the definition of "success". At the table it is not necessary to achieve a particular result on any given roll, it is only necessary to avoid one.  I submit this latter condition is much easier to meet and is just as effective.

Back to Main Setting Page

 

 

Dice Coach & InstructorsNewsletter / Contact / Home

Copyright 2001 - 2017, All Rights Reserved, DiceSetters.com, No Reproduction Allowed Without Prior Written Approval.

Online Since February 2001

Designed by www.MrPositive.com