I have two distinct lives. One in the trenches of low-budget film and television, the other in professional gambling. Because of the feast-or-famine nature of show business I need a reliable income... gambling. So here you will read about both worlds. Enjoy!

Monday, December 12, 2011

Dice Control - Not

A few weeks ago we had Stanford Wong on the show talking about his book Wong on Dice.  The thesis of this book is that players can control the dice when they throw them and have 7 show up less than 1 in 6 times.  If a player could do this it would be worth a fortune.  Wong mentioned a player that had won $1.5 million using what he thought was dice control, and then lost all the money back.  That player is a man named KC, and he will be our guest this week.

When I read Wong's book he had some quotes from Bryce Carlson that lead me to believe that Bryce was a believer in dice control.  Bryce is the author of Blackjack For Blood, and very well respected in the advantage play community.  Since that time I have had an email exchange with Bryce, and found that Bryce is firmly on the other side.  In fact, he sent me the following essay on dice control, and gave me permission to post it here.

Why Casino Craps Can’t Be Beaten

If only Isaac Newton had been right, if only he'd been right, then maybe, just maybe, there might really be such a thing as AP casino craps. But he wasn't, and there isn't. And therein lies a fascinating tale that is worth a little trip down history lane.

You see, at its core, the potential to beat craps comes down to the nature of kinetic energy. But Newton didn't believe in energy, kinetic or otherwise. For him there was no such thing! For Newton, there was mass and there was motion. And that was it. Newton knew that unless acted upon by an outside force bodies in motion stayed in motion, and bodies at rest stayed at rest. So, Newton reasoned that when an outside force acted on a body at rest to create motion it had to
impart an "impetus" to the body which overcame the body's inherent inertia. This force imparted an impetus, P, sufficient to move a mass, m, to a velocity, v. Hence, the impetus (now called "momentum") must be equal to the product of the mass times the velocity, or P = mv. And that was all there was to it. But Newton, perhaps the greatest genius of all time, had a bitter rival of almost equal genius. His name was Gottfried Leibniz. And Leibniz had a different idea. He thought there was more to motion than momentum. He said there was also a "vis viva" or "life force," proportional to the square of the velocity, that a mass acquires when it's accelerated to a given velocity with respect to another inertial frame. Newton countered by mocking the whole idea of a putative so-called "life force" as superstitious nonsense, and sarcastically asked Leibniz if perhaps the laying on of hands were necessary to impart this special force to masses, and, if so, did it come by the power of God or perhaps Beelzebub. Leibniz replied that,
like everything else, it came by the power of God, and if Newton doubted that perhaps he should take it up with the Pope, or maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury. Oops. Touché Leibniz. And so back and forth it went, year after year, such that during their lifetimes this bitter little tête-à-tête remained unabated, undecided and unresolved -- just one more schlong slam in a long list of schlong slams by two of the greatest minds and brittlest egos in the entire history of great minds and brittle egos.

And then, in 1738, several years after both Newton and Leibniz had died, along came a rather comely young minx by the name of Mme Gabrielle Émilie du Châtelet. Now, Mme Châtelet, who happened to be the wife of the Marquis du Châtelet, was not only a libertine deluxe of impressive imagination, but she was also the mistress of Voltaire, several of his friends, and a gifted young woman who somehow amid all the frolicking found time to be an accomplished natural philosopher, as well. This was definitely not your everyday wench, royalty or not. Now, Mme du Châtelet was a keen student of both Leibniz and Newton (in fact her French translation of Newton's Principia is still the standard), and she marveled that this dispute regarding the
fundamental nature of masses in motion had gone on for decades without a resolution. So, she decided to set up an experiment to settle the matter once and for all. She reasoned that in an inelastic collision of a rigid undeformable mass with a non-rigid deformable one all of
Newton's momentum or Leibniz's vis viva would be absorbed by the deformable mass, and the degree of deformation would determine who was right. So she set up a simple but elegant experiment in which a small steel cannonball was dropped from a height of several feet into a bucket of potter’s clay and the depth of the depression left by the ball was measured. Then, using Newton's gravity equations, she dropped the ball from a greater height, such that the velocity at impact was calculated to be exactly twice the velocity of the first drop, and, again, measured the depth of the depression left by the ball. She then reasoned that since Newton's "impetus" was linear (mv) and Leibniz's "vis viva" was exponential (mv^2), if the second depression were twice as deep as the first one, then Newton was right. But, if the second
depression were four times as deep as the first one, then Leibniz would be right. So, she performed the experiment and measured the results: And, voilà, the second depression was, indeed, four times as deep as the first one. Leibniz had been right all along. Poor Leibniz,
he had waited a lifetime to beat Newton at something important, and when he finally did he wasn't alive to enjoy it. Sometimes, the Gods really do have a twisted sense of humor. Anyway, today we call Leibniz’s vis viva "kinetic energy," and we describe it by the equation E = (1/2)mv^2. Leibniz would be proud.

Okay, so why is it so important that Newton was wrong and Leibniz was right? It's important because it says that a small change in velocity results in a large change in kinetic energy, which means that when, say, two dice are thrown simultaneously with only a small difference
in initial velocity, the differences in their behavior at impact will be large. Very large. Processes in nature tend to either damp or amp as they propagate through space and time. In those that damp, small differences in initial conditions become even smaller over time. But
in those that amp, small differences in initial conditions grow large over time. And because kinetic energy is an exponential function of the square of velocity, tossing dice at craps is an amping process, whereby small differences in initial conditions result in large differences in the final results.

Now, over the last five years a number of serious, legitimate researchers, including Stanford Wong, myself and others, have sought to determine the truth about so-called AP craps. Some of these researchers have hoped to show that craps could be beaten, and some have just been intellectually curious. But, regardless of motive, all of them have diligently searched for the truth. Now, because simulations of precision shooting at casino craps are not feasible, these researchers have generally utilized carefully monitored casino sessions of statistically significant duration with recognized "professional" p-shooters, as well as slow-motion videos of such experts throwing the dice on regulation craps tables, to obtain valid useful data. The results of such studies have been telling. Virtually without exception, with the monitored "professional" p-shooters the larger the number of trials the more random the results appear (with each die face converging on a random frequency of 1 in 6). And with the slow-motion videos, it is obvious to everyone viewing them that, no matter how good the throw might look at normal speed, in slow motion it is apparent that a huge amount of uncontrollable randomizing
occurs. In fact, in February, 2009, Wong stated in a post on the craps page, in referring to the results of slow-motion video studies of skillful throws, "The truth is, there is much bouncing around, even in dice tosses that look great at real-time speed. Watching slo-mo video of dice tosses can be discouraging, and can be harmful to sales of dice books and to sales of dice-tossing instruction." No one viewing such videos would ever disagree with that. So, while it is true that no one study is ever completely conclusive, over a five-year period the evidence has piled up as study after study by capable researchers has consistently pointed to only one conclusion: Real-world casino craps cannot be legitimately beaten -- by anyone, anywhere, at any time. And the exponential, amping nature of kinetic energy is the fundamental reason why.

To see this more clearly consider this analogy: Suppose a world-class MLB pitcher were told to throw curve balls one after another such that each successive pair of curve balls must be thrown at the same speed to within a small fraction of a mile per hour, and have the same curving trajectory within a small fraction of an inch. No pitcher could ever do this, or would ever even want to, for that matter. It's not humanly possible. But that is exactly the kind of control a
p-shooter would have to have to have any chance of influencing the dice at all. And even if it were possible, which it isn't, it STILL wouldn't be enough! Why? Consider this: The theory of so-called AP craps is built on two plausible-sounding conjectures. The first one, promoted by Frank Scoblete and Golden Touch Craps, says that if the dice are set properly, thrown on axis with synchronicity, and don't hit the pyramid-studded back wall (or at most just "kiss" it lightly with a dead-cat bounce), it is possible to exert a sufficient degree of control of the dice to achieve a positive ev. We'll call this the GTC conjecture. The second one, promoted by Wong, says that if the dice are set properly, and initially thrown on axis with synchronicity, even if they do hit the pyramid-studded back wall hard, a degree of "correlation" between the two dice can survive that is sufficient to achieve a positive ev. We'll call this the Wong

Let's consider the GTC conjecture first. On the face of it, it sounds reasonable. It's definitely a plausible-sounding conjecture. If the dice are set properly, and stay on axis with synchronicity right to the end, there is no question that sufficient control to achieve a
positive ev would result. That's why it's so seductive. It sounds doable, if difficult. It sounds like all it takes is practice. But, as it turns out, it takes a hell of a lot more than that. Slow-motion studies of expert throws have repeatedly shown that even if the dice apparently remain on axis with synchronicity right down to the landing (something extraordinarily difficult to do), if the dice differ by even 0.25" in their rotational synchronicity at landing then, because of the exponential amping nature of kinetic energy, the combination of elastic (rebounding) and inelastic (skidding) collisions with the table will impart a huge amount of different rotations across the x, y, and z axes (pitch, roll, and yaw) between the two dice. Such tosses look great at normal speed, but in slow motion their true random nature can be seen and measured. As with a pitcher trying to throw successive pairs of identical curve balls, the precision necessary to do it with dice is beyond human capability. Period. And that's not even counting the pyramid-studded back wall! When you factor in the
pyramids, the whole concept becomes laughable.

Now, let's take a look at the last best hope for AP casino craps, namely, the Wong conjecture. Wong is a bright fellow, and he recognized from his early dice studies that maintaining on-axis
synchronicity was a pipe dream. So, still hopeful that craps could be beaten, he developed a more sophisticated theory that posits that, although the dice do not remain on axis with synchronicity after contact with the table and back-wall pyramids, there is a surviving
correlation between the two dice's rotations that can potentially reduce double-pitch 7s resulting in a positive ev for the player. Specifically, Wong asserted that although the pyramids scramble pitch, roll and yaw such that the axis that each die finally assumes will be
effectively randomized, a surviving correlation between the two dice may still remain because, (1) due to the law of conservation of energy, (2) the assertion that both dice start off with the same initial kinetic energy, and (3) the assertion that translational kinetic energy is not preferentially converted into rotational kinetic energy, the number of rotations that the two dice undergo across their x, y, z axes will remain closely correlated. In Wong’s own words:
“Ideally, the dice are still on axis and have equal speed and equal rotation when they hit the pyramids. The pyramids then randomize the axis of rotation of each die, and reduce the energy of each die approximately equally. As they leave the wall the dice have random and independent axes of rotation, but will rotate approximately the same number of times before coming to rest. Being approximately identical in position and motion when they hit the pyramids, and then rotating
approximately the same number of times after hitting the pyramids, (the end result should be) a scarcity of double pitches.”

Unfortunately, however, there are two fatal flaws to this conjecture. The first one is the fallacy that both dice start off with the same initial kinetic energy. They don't. Numerous empirical studies have shown that there is always a slight difference in the initial velocities and axial alignments of the two dice and, as previously discussed, because of the exponential amping nature of kinetic energy, these small differences result in big differences in the final
results. And, secondly, and just as important, the assertion that a rotational correlation between to two dice is maintained during the toss because translational kinetic energy is either not converted into rotational kinetic energy, or, if it is, it is converted to the same degree in both dice, is manifestly false. This is easily verified when slow-motion videos of expert tosses on regulation craps tables are examined and analyzed. For example, one die, say, bounces up from the table and squarely hits the base of one of the pyramids and rebounds back with little to no conversion of translational kinetic energy into rotational kinetic energy; the other die, however, bounces up and hits another pyramid, say, a little off center or a little higher up from its base and a significant amount of translational kinetic energy gets converted into (primarily roll and yaw) rotational kinetic energy. Anyone watching slow-motion videos of expert throws knows that this kind of scenario occurs on virtually every toss, and when it does any surviving rotational correlation is lost to randomness because one die ends up with significantly less translational kinetic energy than the other die, which results in less rotation than the other die when it lands and rolls to a final result.

So, with pitch, roll, yaw and rotation randomized by the table and the pyramids, the assumptions underpinning Wong's correlation conjecture, just as with the GTC on-axis conjecture, do not stand up to either theoretical analysis or the empirical evidence, and, consequently, no surviving correlation between the two dice can be assumed to survive a legal toss in real-world casino craps. And, again, extensive empirical studies over a five-year period back this conclusion up.

And finally, in April 2011, in a tacit admission that he had been wrong in believing casino craps could be legitimately beaten, Wong removed craps from the list of “Beatable Casino Games” on his popular website, and also removed the “Craps” discussion page from his site, as well. In addition, a few months later, in October 2011, in an interview on Bob Dancer’s popular KLAV radio program, “Gambling With an Edge,” Wong admitted that for players “who want to get serious about making money in casinos, craps is not the game to play.” That pretty much says it all.

So, blame it on Leibniz, blame it on God, or blame it on the exponential amping nature of kinetic energy, but real-world casino craps cannot be beaten. Period. But, hey, cheer up, maybe in another universe, far, far away Newton was actually right ;-).

Now, compare this modern casino game to the primitive WWII-era "blanket-roll" game, where the consensus is that a highly-skilled virtuoso p-shooter could, indeed, potentially gain a winning edge. What is apparent in such a comparison is that the two things that prevent beating the modern casino game -- namely, the exponential amping nature of kinetic energy, and the randomizing power of the back-wall pyramids -- were absent or neutralized in the blanket-roll
game. In the blanket-roll game there were no back-wall pyramids, and the soft, relatively high-friction army-style blanket was perfect for burning off kinetic energy very rapidly, thus effectively neutralizing kinetic energy’s amping nature. This makes for two very different
games, one potentially beatable, and the other not. They say casinos are born at night, but clearly not last night, as they have very effectively eliminated the exploitable weaknesses in the primitive blanket-roll game.

Now, even though all this means that so-called AP casino craps is left without any credible operational theory or supporting evidence, whatsoever, justifying a belief in its validity, I know none of it is going to have the slightest effect on the so-called AP craps gurus.
They'll just keep on beatin' the drums, pounding out that voodoo vibe for their faithful fans who are all too happy for a rationalization, any rationalization, to justify their inveterate gambling habits. And does any of it prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that casino craps
can't be beaten? No, it doesn't. We'll probably never have that kind of proof. But it does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that casino craps is unbeatable, and in an existential world that is enough for reasonable men. Are you reasonable? Well, are you?


ZenMaster_Flash said...

An extraordinarily well-crafted disquisition by the redoubtable author of Backgammon for Blood and Blackjack for Blood.

The airtight logic is proffered in a fashion that leaves no room for rational debate. We can leave that wrangling to the dusty annals of history thanks to Mssrs. Newton and Leibnitz.

Blackriverw said...

This only ambiguously disproves some irrelevant hypothesis.

Some places allow for 100x odds true to be laid behind $5 bets in which the house has a 1.41% edge.

$5 * .0141 ~ 7 cents

So you can bet $505 at 7 cents per bet

If I make 7214 of these bets it'll cost me $0.07*7214 = $505 of expected value

Each bet takes an average of 8.5 rolls to resolve

But some of them will be come out rolls, lets conservatively say there are an average of 6 rolls during the "point cycle" where youre trying to avoid 7

It would take 43,285 point cycle rolls for the house to get $505 worth of ev with this type of betting. If you manage to influence a single roll that would've been a 7 you are playing a break even game. I think I can keep the dice on axis one time in 40000! They'll even let you short throw more often than that which even the staunchest critics would say is probably possible to influence.

!!_NICK_!! said...

I whole heartedly agree with Blackriverw. views...

For my two cents I'd like to add that every throw we take affects the outcome of the dice, good or bad. This is clearly true after we have thrown the dice..."If only I had throw it just a bit softer that seven would not have come up..." And there is nothing wrong with that statement. There are physical laws in whihc the dice abide by the dice dont change properties int he air on every throw. 1 real influence in a session is all you need. Sure you won't be a millionaire because that isn't the point. In blackjack craps poker there is still a gamble... Sure you can win in poker when you play inexperienced players but when you come across someone with a higher skill set than you... We'll the house edge isn't in your favor anymore....

Indie Film Guy said...

Setting the dice and tossing them on-axis does de-randomize the dice to a degree that when combined with the right betting method does give an slight advantage to the player.

The ability to toss the dice on-axis is not consistent and factors such as the playing conditions, the dice weight and size, the table surface all have its effect on the dice and how much energy will be absorbed or transfer back in to the dice when they hit the table to the back wall. All of this the shooter needs to account for when tossing the dice for effect. Lots of practice and practical experience at the tables can teach a Dice Influence shooter how to adjust for just about any sort of conditions.
No mechanical device can simulate the actual dice toss of a skilled shooter. This would be to say that a baseball pitching machine could replace a legionary pitcher, and that is simply not so.

Dice Influence alone is not enough to beat Craps.

Most craps players simply lose due to poor betting and play methods. Structured play and using regressions is the only means for professional craps players means to beat the game. If you want to play like this, then say goodbye to the hardways, the horns and the hop bets, those are just for the amateurs to get addicted to, think of it like the casino selling you crack - it looks sexy when you win the first time, but in the long run you lose badly.

All of the Dice Clubs that teach Dice Influence are careful to set expectations and tell those who attend that it takes years of practical play and experience to really get anywhere with the skill. We are talking about daily play either live at the casinos or at home on a casino grade table to develop the DI skills.

The cries of voodoo out there about Dice Influence tends to come from those who don't have the patience or the time put in to this skill and exhibit buyers remorse about what they may have spent to learn the skill. Its just like learning a golf swing, you pay for it but if you don't actually put the time and effort in it - it then just won't get you where you want to go.

Anonymous said...

By all means, please continue to argue against the feasibility of influencing the dice, even occasionally (which is all it takes to gain an advantage). The more players (and hopefully casino personnel) that you can convince that dice influencing (DI) is a myth, the better for those advantage players who are employing it successfully. The good news is that fact and truth does not require someone to believe in it for it to be true. It is either true, or it isn't, in and of itself. The proof can only be truly measured by the results, and no serious player is going to get on here and brag about his or her success with DI. Neither esoteric arguments about Newtonian Physics, nor limited "tests" of 500 rolls, will replace results (money in the rack). Don't "believe in" DI? Fine. Keep rattling and shaking 'em and slinging them down the table. Believe in DI? Set the dice and toss them. If the naysayers are right, and DI is not possible, then you still have a "random" game, so you've lost nothing by attempting DI. If you are right, and your results show it, let those who doubt DI enjoy their attempts at explaining it away. Everyone ends up happy. :)

Anonymous said...

I aim for the margin at the bottom of the back wall, so that it follows the letter of the rule without actually hitting the pyramids.

Unknown said...

The requirement that "dice control" implies fewer 7s than random for advantage play is fundamentally false. This can be clearly seen when looking at the myriad of bets available on a craps table. Does the Field bet require fewer 7s than random? Does Aces require fewer 7s than random? The answer is no.

I believe it is practically impossible to reduce the frequency of 7s below random. The corollary should also hold true, i.e. it is also impossible to increase the frequency of 7s above random. Why do I believe this? Because to change the frequency of 7s requires the control of both dice, not simply one. The roll of 7 in Craps is unique because, regardless of the outcome of the first die, the outcome of the second die can always result in a roll of 7. To see how this differs with a roll of 6, let's assume that the outcome of the first die is 6. It can be seen that there is no possible outcome of the second die which results in a roll of 6. Only rolls of 7-12 are possible.

So, an advantage player who could increase the frequency of one die so that its outcome of 6 exceeds random may exhibit a form of dice control that could be exploited for financial gain. In this case that would be laying against 6. Of course the house edge would need to be defeated, and the AP may not possess sufficient skills to increase frequency of a 6 die such that laying against 6 shows a profit. The central point here is that controlling both dice to throw fewer (or more frequent) 7s is not necessary to gain positive expectation.

Craps bets that are easiest to exploit with single die control have the following in common:
(a) influencing a single outcome of a die has a direct positive effect on expected value (EV);
(b) increasing frequency of a die's outcome increases EV at a greater rate than reducing frequency of a die's outcome; and
(c) these bets have the lowest house edge (zero edge for odds bets).

Assuming 10x odds and uniform distribution of the non-influenced outcomes, the AP would need to influence a single die to show "1" (or "6") as desired with a frequency about 102% of random to at least break even and recover the 1.4% house edge present with Don't Pass.

It may be that influencing a single die may also influence the other die in non-random, undesirable ways. The objective of the AP would be to minimize this effect.
With all this being true, the advantage player will almost certainly find that influencing a single die will prove quite difficult, and for many physically impossible.