Talk:Dice control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dice control is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
edit

For another perspective, see http://jrandomhacker.info/Praying_to_the_dice%2C_and_the_worship_of_luck -- Sy / ^(talk)

Contents 1 Proponents 2 The back wall 3 Claims of Consensus 4 Wall Surface

[edit] Proponents

Someone has placed Jerry Patterson's name on several gambling related WP pages. He has had a very bad reputation in the advantage play community for decades. I know of no experts that give any credence to his work since TARGET came out in 1983. Although come to think of it - if he belongs on any page it's probably a Craps system page:-) Objective3000 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If his name was placed somewhere inappropriately, then remove it. If you have reliable sources you can cite about his bad reputation in the advantage play community, then add that information to his article along with the appropriate citations.Rray 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's inapproriate anywhere:-) It's hard to come up with sources to cite since no one in the AP community has talked about him in decades. http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/T.htm#TARGET and http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/card_clumping.html are the only web mentions other than an occasional forum posted question about JP and an immediate response to avoid. What it comes down to is that there exist thousands of junk systems. He's just one of innumerable purveyors. Objective3000 18:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then just fix it. Rray 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When I make changes they are often removed. Getting a bit tiresome. That's why I Talk first. Objective3000 21:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a lot of changes without edit notes. Edit notes aren't a requirement, but they are a courtesy. And if your goal is to keep your edits from being reverted, then having clear, well-reasoned edit notes helps. I've also seen some of your edits get reverted because you were inserting something from an article that wasn't from a neutral point of view and/or didn't include an appropriate citation. Those are other things that would keep your edits reverted. No one owns the articles here, so if you're not willing to see your work edited or reverted, then this is the wrong place to be. But if you're tired of seeing your edits reverted, that advice should help you prevent some of that. Rray 21:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem starts with the fact that there is a lot of simple nonsense on the gambling related pages and terrible sources. When I remove a piece of obviously incorrect information; it is reverted with a simple statement that I have no reference. But, there was no reference for the completely incorrect statements in the first place. And I see examples of other people having the same problem. In one case I was told that research was done for the article by a certain person. But, I know that person personally and know that he is an extremely weak source. (And in fact sells a scam system.) The fact is that the moderators are not real APs and apear to trust some populist authors known by the AP community to be weak. When someone comes in here with 30 years experience and contradicts statements that now exist that have no references or with known scammers as references; they are rejected out of hand. You have a problem. There is a tendency to accept statements that exist in WP over new statements even if neither has references. And there is a tendency to accept ridiculous references just because they are on the web or in populist books. The overall result is a set of very weak pages. Now whether something is done about this or not is up to you folk. Much of the real AP community doesn't care that much as they have no real desire for the spread of information. As for me - my id was flagged as a possible sock-puppet simply because I partially agreed with a change and I have been repeatedly accused of 'ulterior motives' without any explanation of what they could possibly be. All I did was volunteer my time and I was met with hostility. Do you folk care about accuracy or not? Objective3000 01:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion would probably make more sense on the gambling wikiproject discussion page. But you should understand what the Wikipedia is and what it is not. The project is collaborative, and just because other editors disagree with you doesn't mean they don't care about accuracy. By being combative rather than collaborative, you're not moving your goals of improving the articles. Rray 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have strong opinions and a lot of experience, but Wikipedia articles aren't there to reflect your opinions or the opinions of the "advantage player" community. It's here to reflect what other reliable sources have said about a subject. With the knowledge that you profess, it should be easier for you to make changes and accurately reference them. Rray 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But they are NOT reliable sources. The sources used have been considered jokes in the AP community for decades. Apparently the moderators of these pages have been fooled by the advertising hype of popular, discredited authors. The casinos will continue to make billions off of people that are fooled by fallacious nonsense. That will happen no matter what. But now WP contributes by lending its imprimatur and legitimizing scam artists. Which will both harm ploppies and the reputation of WP itself. It certainly has in my case. The fact is that people with little knowledge of the field make decisions over what references are reliable. Simplistic statements like 'single deck is better than shoes' made by one of your moderators to me show the complete lack of understanding that drives their decisions. That is the same nonsense that has allowed Harrah's to push the 6:5 BJ scam. Harrah's knew the average ploppy believed this and they could be fooled. But even the WP moderators believe this.

Anyhow this has become a bore. I wish you folk luck. If you wish to contact me in future,I'm at nw @ qfit.com. Please remove the address after reading it. Objective3000 (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The back wall

I want to add something about the difference between throws that don't hit the back wall, like the old "army blanket roll", and statistically significant dice control where the dice do hit the back wall. I think most people agree that you could get an edge by throwing or rolling in certain ways without hitting the wall, but the controversy comes when people claim that they can still have an edge after hitting the wall. Any thoughts?GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine as long as it's not original research. Adding a citation goes a long way toward demonstrating that something is not original research. Rray (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Throws that don't hit the back wall are very easy to influence. I cited a source explaining the "army blanket roll". If you think the AP "community" doesn't all agree, then please cite something. But it's very easy to influence the dice if you can just roll them gently down the table on an axis; I've seen several players that can do it, and it was very common in games in the '40s and '50s. The fact that shooters were able to influence throws is the reason casinos added the rule about hitting a wall. Therefore, stating that most people agree that it's possible is correct. GusChiggins21 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make an assertion that a community agrees on something, then it's your responsibility to include a citation. Anything that someone might challenge requires a citation. Reviewing When to cite sources might be helpful. Also, truth isn't the criterion for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Verifiability is. So stating that something is "correct" in support of your edit isn't helpful. Rray (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of anyone adding a statement to be able to back it up with at least one (and normally several) reliable sources (and "reliable" matters, not just what somebody selling something asserts). The default action is anything unsourced that is challenged should be removed if it isn't or can't be sourced. 2005 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is cited, and furthermore I don't think a citation isn't even necessary. The fact that casinos require you to hit the back wall is evidence enough. But here you go: http://www.dicesetter.com/pb/p1skeptic.htm. Read the last paragraph; the dispute is over dice control coming off the back wall, not throws that don't hit the back wall. Here's another one: http://brokopp.casinocitytimes.com/articles/502.html. It's very easy to control the dice if you don't have to bounce them off of anything. Scoblete's book "The Craps Underground" claims there's a guy who can actually throw a 12 on command; he just can't do it off of the back wall. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Obviously a citation is needed because the statement was challenged. Period. That's the end of it. If something is so generally known, then there will be dozens if not thousands of possible references so it is just silly to not add one when challenged. You added sources now, though they don't seem to say all of what you want them to say. 2005 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have 4 citations, you have none. One of them is from a skeptic of dice control, who says that he disagrees with dice control because the dice have to hit the back wall. It's well established that you can affect the dice by rolling short, I don't know of anyone who disagrees with it, there have been countermeasures in place for decades because of it, and you're demanding without basis that we not list it as an agreed upon fact. Go take a dealer's course on craps anywhere and they'll tell you that players are gonna come in and try throwing short, and it's cheating. If you guys are gonna ignore common sense, well established casino procedures, and multiple citations including hostile sources, then you're just being ridiculous, and I'm not arguing with you anymore. It's clearly a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You continue to not talk about the point. You can't add an assertion and a citation that doesn't say anything about the assertion! If someone says it might be possible to influence the dice if it rolls short, that is not the same as saying it is commonly accepted that rolling short turns craps mathematically profitable. You continue to argue these assertions without really addressing the issues. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog to assert what you sonsider common knowledge. You should start by reading WP:V, and then follow the policy. 2005 (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that you're stating that something is an agreed upon fact in a specific community, but the citations you provided don't say that. You're drawing a conclusion from other sources and your own experience and presenting that here. Drawing conclusions and synthesizing data is original research, and this isn't the place for that. No one's arguing that hitting the back wall is a common casino procedure, but if someone challenged that fact, then a citation would be called for and would easily be provided.

I could go add a sentence to an article about elections in the USA saying that most Americans don't vote. And if I didn't provide a citation for that, then someone would be justified in deleting it or asking for a citation, even though common sense tells me that most Americans don't vote. Rray (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the point you made by adding multiple citations, and you still insist on some sort of ridiculous documentation that does not, and cannot exist. Are you going to keep reverting my edits until I come up with a scientific poll of 1000 professional gamblers on whether they believe short throws can offer a mathematical advantage at craps? If every statement on wikipedia was held to the standard you're both proposing, wikipedia wouldn't exist. There are probably 25 different statements in this article which are not properly cited, according to the standard you're both holding. So, how about if I just go through and delete them? And we'll have an article that's 3 sentences long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding multiple citations which don't support what you added to the article does *not* address the point I made. Of course the results of a poll would be an appropriate citation. "We're" not proposing a standard; the Wikipedia has policies about what to include and what not to include. I linked to those policies earlier in this conversation. Rray (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So, now my citations don't support what I said? How about the director of casino operations for the Hammond Horseshoe, that's quoted in one of the articles I cited?: "Dealers are trained to make certain that the dice are shot properly. If a shooter throws them short, or attempts to bank the dice off the corner, it is the responsibility of the dealer to say 'Sir, you have to try to hit the back wall'. I know that's the way I was trained. I am aware of instances where craps players have been barred from throwing the dice because they repeatedly did not heed the warning. If the dice are not thrown properly, then, yes, to a certain extent it is possible to control the dice. For example, there's a term known as 'slider' for a dice shooter who attempts to control one or both of the dice by scooting them across the felt to prevent them from tumbling. Such a player, for example, may want to keep a six on one of the dice. If he plays the field, he'll lose only if an ace or a deuce shows up on the other die" http://brokopp.casinocitytimes.com/articles/502.html

That's the guy IN CHARGE OF GAMING PROTECTION AT A MAJOR CASINO: 1. He was trained to not allow short throws, 2. They consider short shooters a threat (because they bar them), 3. Short throws can influence the dice, 4. He gives a specific example.

That in and of itself is complete verification of what I said. But, let's go back to article, where the writer says what the point of controversy is: "It is my contention that if the dice are thrown properly (straight down the middle of the table to the back wall) it is impossible to control them" So the controversy is when the dice are thrown off of the back wall, eh?

And I'll continue with the other citation, keep in mind that this article is by an author who is HOSTILE to dice control: "As long as the dice must make contact with the walls of the craps table, I will remain skeptical about dice control." http://www.dicesetter.com/pb/p1skeptic.htm More proof that the controversy is on throws off the back wall. Which is exactly what I wrote in the original edit, isn't it? GusChiggins21 (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. Typing in all caps is considered the Internet equivalent of shouting.

The statement that was changed said something about the majority of advantage gamblers believing something. The quotes you're providing have nothing to do with the advantage gambling community's beliefs. So no, the citations don't support what you wrote. That's been the issue since the beginning of the discussion. Rray (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop going on like this. You JUST QUOTED the passages involved. They do not say what you wrote. They DO NOT say Craps becomes mathematical beatable if the dice don't hit the back wall. Put another way, perhaps sliding would lead to a player losting $20 instead of $100 in a session, or $23 or $25. Whatever. it doesn't matter. It matters what the citation SAYS. If you want to say sliding would very likely IMPROVE a player's ability to set the dice in a beneficial way, then say that. Don't make assertions that are not supported by ciation, and certainly do not cite articles that do not say what you want them to say. 2005 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote: "It is generally agreed within the advantage gambling community that statistically significant dice control can be accomplished by throws that do not hit any of the walls at the craps table... The controversy enters with the idea of affecting the odds of the dice even after they bounce off of a wall." What my source said: "As long as the dice must make contact with the walls of the craps table, I will remain skeptical about dice control" What are you possibly arguing with here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The generally agreed comment is obviously ridiculous. For about the fifth time, the cite doesn't say that, and even if it did it is quoting a single person which also obviously is not "generally agreed". Once again, use the content that is there, not your own extraoplation or conclusions from it. 2005 (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it obviously ridiculous? My citations clearly show that casinos consider it a threat, enough that dealer school has protections in place for it. So it's obviously true. And I gave 3 citations of gamblers who believe that short throws can influence the dice. So its true, and it's supported by at least 3 different authors. Would you revert a statement that the advantage gambling community believes card-counting works, or that full pay Deuces Wild can be beaten with a strategy card? What if the only citations were simply opinions from authors that they agree that those games can be beaten? They're obviously true, and you could find authors who agree, but it would be difficult to find a citation that explicitly says "the advantage gambling community believes this is true".

You didn't write that the casinos consider it a threat, you wrote that the advantage gambling community agrees about a certain point of view. I would revert a statement that the advantage gambling community believes card counting works if it weren't supported by a citation, sure. *Especially* if someone challenged the assertion. See When to cite sources.

Please read this next sentence, because it's important, and you didn't seem to get it when I pointed it out to you earlier in this conversation: Truth is not the criterion for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Verifiability is. In other words, bringing up whether or not it's "true" is irrelevant. Rray 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing the point. You keep bringing up verifiability, and I know about that. I cited several sources from gambling authors, and even showed you how what they wrote exactly supports what I wrote. How does multiple citations by people within the advantage gambling community supporting an idea not amount to verifiability that the idea is generally accepted? What possible citation are you expecting to get on this subject?

You need to cite a reliable source that supports your statement. Three gambling authors agreeing on something does not imply that most of the advantage gambling community agrees. You're not supposed to draw conclusions from your citations. That's original research. Rray 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes after them. The tilde is this symbol: ~. Rray 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been explained to you a dozen times now. Please read the above comments. Statements have to be verifiable. Adding a source that says nothing about a statement is not a way to get around it. 2005 02:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read my citations? Or when I quoted them in the talk page? It was crystal clear that they supported exactly what I was saying. You need to re-read the citations I gave, and come back when you understand them, because you are wrong. GusChiggins21 06:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you persist in this nonsense? The citation is right there. Where, PRECISELY, does it say "It is generally agreed within the advantage gambling community"? Nowhere. No more of this foolishness please. 2005 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of Consensus

We're getting nowhere. I think we've stumbled across a very important point that needs to be debated specifically: what exactly constitutes verifiability of a claim of consensus? I posted it on the "reliable sources" talk page.

The whole argument seems to be boiling down to this, because we have different views of what constitutes verification of consensus: I think that a couple of authors and a casino boss saying dice control is possible with short throws is plenty of evidence, so anyone within the advantage gambling community would believe it, just like anyone in the advantage gambling community would believe in card-counting. But you guys want a specific citation that states exactly that the opinion of the gambling community is a certain way. So which is it?

I think it's important to point out that the need for reliable sources is only a guideline, not policy. Therefore, we may need to look at how to apply it to this situation, as gambling subjects are often to find reliable sources for.GusChiggins21 10:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Locked database ate my post, so I ahve to type again.... WP:V is policy, not a guideline. WP:RS merely elaborates on it, and there is a proposal (that a majority seems to be behind) to get rid of RS altoghther and merge a few things into V. verifiable, reliable sourcing is one of the pillars of the Wikipedia, along with WP:OR, no original research. You have a problem with both of these, but whether they are a good idea or not, they are the policy law of the land around here. Your article contributions would improve if you read and followed those policies. 2005 10:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with verifiability or reliable sources. I just disagree with your interpretation of them. GusChiggins21 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In my view you should avoid both "some" and "generally". Instead simply attribute those views to specific persons. For example, "According to John Brokopp..." -- Vision Thing -- 14:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable solution. Would make for a better article too. Rray 16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My intent was actually to write something less strong than simply "dice control on short throws works", and instead say that it was generally agreed, but leave room for the possibility that some may believe that it doesn't work. Should I just open the paragraph with "Dice control on rolls that don't hit the back wall works, but may not work if the dice bounce off the wall"? That's actually completely supported by the interview with the casino manager. GusChiggins21 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No what is supported is "Mr. Casino Manager says...." What he says is his opinion. It may be an educated one. It may even be true. But it is not a verifiable fact. Stop resisting writing what the sources say and who says it. You keep drawing conclusions. You have to stop that. Just add the guys name to the sentence you have here, changing "works" to 'can work". Obviously someone trying to practice dice control can suck at it even if he doesn't hit the back wall. 2005 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If a casino manager says you can control the dice with short throws, that's verifiability, and it's a reliable source. He's an expert on the subject. In fact, I'm going to put it in the article. I'm only saying it's possible for a skilled shooter to influence the dice, because that precludes people who suck.GusChiggins21 06:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That again is ridiculous. You really need to read WP:V. Saying it "is" possible if they don't hit walls is false on its face. Suppose you have to roll it thirty feet. Why do you keep insisting on this silly conclusion making? This is long past tedious. Please start writing like an encyclopedia, not a politician. "Some experts believe... For example, Mr. Casino Manager states..." The person does not control the laws of physics. he can only speak to his authoritative opinion, expertise and opinion. Please stop drawing your own conclusions. Please add sensibly constructed sentences that are supported by scientific data, or expert opinion that is labeled as such. 2005 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting edits based on your narrow reading of what constitutes verifiability. According to your standard, any fact that requires documentation should be stated in the article as an opinion. "If the dice are not thrown properly, then, yes, to a certain extent it is possible to control the dice" It is a fact that dice control on short throws is possible, it is supported by an expert on the subject, it is supported by the presence of casino procedures to prevent it, and there is no one who disagrees with it. That constitutes verifiability, and I'm reverting the edit until you come up with any evidence that anyone disputes the possibility. It's no different than stating that card counting can beat casinos. GusChiggins21 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The claims you're adding to the article are not supported by the citations you're providing, so they can, should, and will be reverted. Your comments here demonstrate a lack of understanding of the difference betwen fact and opinion, but Wikipedia isn't your personal soapbox. You don't own any of the articles here, and you should also review that on every single page you edit the language at the bottom reads: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." So stop being offended because your edits have been changed, and start trying to collaborate with the other Wikipedians here.

I'm trying to assume good faith, but at this point it seems like you're trolling or just trying to disrupt the Wikipedia to make a point. Please show some courtesy to the other editors here and stop being disruptive. Rray 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You should review this section of the "Don't disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point" article in particular: Refusal to get the point. Rray 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a statement that was supported, verbatim by an expert source and by a hostile source. Your interpretation of the rules is wrong, I do not agree with you that my statements lack verifiability, and you're doing this article a disservice by implying that dice control is not verifiably possible on short throws. It's an established fact, it has been established for 50 years, totally accepted by both the advantage gambling community and casino game protection sources, it was properly cited, and you need to accept that. I'm reverting the edit, until anyone finds any reason that this statement should be considered in dispute. GusChiggins21 05:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in edit warring. I'm going to ask for opinions from some other editors though. Rray 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

GusChiggins21 this has gone way too far. Stating one expert's opinion as fact is just stupid. James Carville is an expert on politics. he thinks Hillary will win. That doesn't make it a fact. We aren't going to keep discussing this foolisness. Just stop it please. 2005 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that it is merely an expert's opinion. It is a fact, and is well established as such, both by gamblers and casinos, so well established that almost every casino has the same procedures to protect against it. People made small fortunes off of the army blanket roll back in WWII, and I think Scarne talks about it extensively in some of his work. It is no different than saying that blackjack can be beaten by counting cards. That doesn't need to be stated as one person's opinion, because it's a fact. You provide any dissenting opinion, and I will let it stand as being "just one guy's opinion". I'm going to let your revert stand for a few days, just in the interest of not having a revert war. But if you can't find a dissenting opinion, I'm going to put it back up as being an undisputed fact. GusChiggins21 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite for hopefully a last time. Nobody cares what you think is fact. Get over it. As you've been told several times, "fact" is not Wikipedia policy. Verifiability is. It's policy. Accept it or please move on because your edits will almost always be reverted by editors who do follow policy. 2005 10:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've stated several times that I understand that fact isn't the standard, verifiability is. And I added multiple sources, and even re-phrased the statement. This is not an area of debate, at all, and you are acting like it is. Do you dispute that the source I cited is reliable, or that he is saying that dice control is possible on short throws? Do you believe that this person's opinion is at all controversial? GusChiggins21 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized we've got another claim of consensus, right in the opening paragraph, and by someone other than me! I'm changing this one, because there certainly isn't broad agreement either way on dice control. In fact, I think the community may slightly favor the possibility of dice control, although it's gonna be nearly impossible to figure out which side is in the majority. GusChiggins21 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Grief. Almost no one in the AP community believes in dice control. Fewer than 1%. An attempt was made by Wong to bring it back to life a couple years back. Even his buddies have backed off after bad results. Proponents are now back to a tiny group of discredited scam sellers. And the references on the subject are embarrassing. Objective3000 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was a little more accepted than that. Whatever the case, there seem to be enough "system sellers" that we can't say on the page that dice control is totally discredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When no one but system sellers and a few hangers-on believe in a gambling system that apparently defies physics - why would the subject be credited in an encyclopedia as possibly legitimate any more than voodoo? Without question various methods of advantage play exist. These areas are of interest in many disciplines and are oft discussed by mathematicians. No one can say with 100% confidence that dice control is physically impossible by any extant being. But, the references in this article claiming that it is not only possible but a viable method of profit are from people selling gambling systems and have never been verified even among AP players. And the references are simply awful. Again, Patterson has been considered a fraud for decades by everyone in the community. The only reason I can imagine that his name is all over the Internet is that he keeps adding it. And for some reason the people that manage these pages accept references to a known fraud. Do you disagree:) Objective3000 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Patterson is a clown. But I'm not ready to say Wong is discredited. What about this: http://wizardofodds.com/craps/crapsapx3.html? I'd need to see some more citation before I'd agree with something like "dice control isn't accepted by the gambling community". And what do you think of this business about throws not hitting the back wall?GusChiggins21 06:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Shack works for the casinos too.:) Although I don't believe he would intentionally shade anything. Bryce Carlson recently posted to Wong's dice forum tearing apart the concepts. D'Aquin, one of the top APs, tried to make a go of Wong's methods and after a year made a long post saying he was dropping the effort due to lack of success. But it's Wong's own words that are the most telling. The page you referred to was not the first test. Wong's first test showed success with a small number of events and failure with a larger number. His conclusion was that the system only worked in the short-term. This is the same idiocy that every progression player and voodoo system believer spouts and clearly is a direct contradiction of basic statistics. The best citation would be Wong's own Dice forum which contains a couple years of discussion starting with great hope and then slowing fading over time to the original old-time Craps scammers who also believe in trends and other gambling fallacies. However, this is a subscription only forum. As for throws that don't hit the back wall - of course this can give you an advantage. That's why there's a back wall.:) I think every casino knows this. Objective3000 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So, for the short throws, do you think the article should state that it is only one person's opinion that you can get an edge using them, or should it be stated as fact? 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs)

Kind of irrelevant since short throws are against the rules. Objective3000 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well...sometimes you can get away with it. Sort of like hole carding; not supposed to happen, but it does happen. GusChiggins21 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But HC is a sloppy dealer. The player breaks no rules. The problem with short throws is that the house could allow a short throw on a losing hand but call no roll on an apparent winner. Since the house can reject a short throw at its discretion, this would give the player an extremely negative EV. I suspect anyone attempting controlled short throws would also be obvious. Objective3000 (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Surface

The rubber pyramid surface matters, and should be included in the article, so I included it. Some people think you might be able to influence the dice off of a flat wall, but not a spiky rubber wall. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)