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