Dice Physics

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by raydpratt, Oct 8, 2009.

  1. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    In the casino game of craps, the rules for handling the dice are fairly simple: You must pick them up and throw them with one hand only; the dice must fly through the air as opposed to being only rolled across the felt; and both dice must hit the back wall. (All but the one-hand rule were discussed in a Nevada Supreme Court case involving a dice cheat).

    Within those limits, informal restrictions and leeways can vary from casino to casino. For example, dice that only hit the bottom flat-faced edge of the back wall and stop dead (a "dead-cat bounce") are universally considered legal, but a particular table crew may request that you throw the dice harder, or not so high, or not to the left or right sides of the inside of the table.

    Of importance, here, however, is whether the casino allows the dice to be set into a desired configuration before being picked up as such and thrown. Some casinos have signs posted saying "No Dice Setting Allowed," and some crews simply enforce the prohibition verbally: :"Just pick'em up and throw'em, sir!"

    The official line for why dice setting is prohibited is that it slows up the game. It is not officially considered cheating since it can be performed within the required rules. Indeed, in one smooth motion a practiced dice settor can pick up one die and bring it to the other while simultaneously rotating the first die so that it is brought into a desired configuration with the other before both dice are picked up and thrown, and yet there is no physical difference in how the dice might have been randomly brought together and picked up by another player (at least not for 'point sets,' discussed later).

    On the first roll, a craps player wants to roll a 7 or 11 for an instant win as a pass-line bettor, and he or she wants to avoid rolling a 2, 3, or 12 which are instant losers ("craps"). So, a dice setter will set the dice like wheels with 7's on all four rolling faces (5+2, 4+3, 2+5, & 3+4) and with the numbers 6 & 1 as axle numbers on both dice. IF both dice roll like wheels, no craps numbers are possible since all craps numbers require a 1 or a 6. IF the dice roll in perfect unison, a 7 will be rolled.

    Obviously, only a very talented dice settor will keep the dice rolling like wheels sufficiently often enough to gain an advantage, and only an utterly amazing dice settor will roll the dice in perfect unison sufficiently often enough to raise eyebrows.

    But, even the best of the best will sometimes win with a slop 11 or lose by rolling craps. Most often, a dice settor hopes to at least roll a point number like 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, or 10. Having done so, he or she can only win by rolling the point number again before rolling a 7.

    To roll a point of 6 or 8, a dice settor chooses 5,3 and 6,1 axles on each die with totals of 6 and 8 on the rolling faces.

    To roll a point of 4 or 10, a dice settor chooses 3,4 and 6,1 axles on each die with totals of 4 and 10 on the rolling faces.

    To roll a 5 or 9, no configuration gives a better than average frequency of 5 or 9 totals while simultaneously separating the possible 7's combinations 180 degrees apart on each die (as with the other point sets), so some dice settors make place bets on 6 and 8 and roll for such while hoping to slop into the point of 5 or 9.

    The 800 pound gorilla in the room are the natural forces of randomization when the dice bounce on the table, hit the back wall, bounce back onto the table again, and roll or tumble to a stop.

    You have to have an overriding and directed force to overcome the potential forces of randomization from the other forces imparted from hits and rolls on the craps table (somewhat like a spinning top that arights itself after being pushed out of place); and, with dice, you have to smoothly deplete that overriding force so that the dice come to a controlled, unified stop.

    My working theory is that the best throw achieves both an overriding and depleting force by passing through the staightline distance of its arc before each hit:

    .............................*Arc Heigth
    ..........*....................................*
    ..*....................................................*
    *********************************Straight Line Distance of Arc
    .................................................................*
    .....................................................................*Each Hit

    The composite vectors of the arc at each hit will then have an overriding direction of force rather than having nearly equal and potentially randomizing composite forces as occurs at the straight-line distance point of the arc, and the dice will have nontheless lost energy before each hit. The dice, in effect, do a controlled and directed skip off of each surface and lose energy in a controlled fashion until the dice come to a controlled rest.

    My home practice record stands at +$3,030 as a $5-minimum table bettor who slowly came from -$600 behind, and I do not consider my skills to be of professional quality. Nonetheless, my skill is real.

    I lack one area of understanding: First, I need to know if it is possible to control the rate of backspin as the dice leave my hand, and if so, the best way to do so without creating different spin rates or forces in each die. Second, I need to know how different spin rates would affect the mechanics of how the dice behave at various or all hits on the table.

    I have found that trying to flip the edges of each die or to flip them less tends to create imbalanced forces in each die. And, although I imagine that backspin would create a breaking effect, I do not completely understand how the dice might bounce and roll with different backspin rates on various varieties of craps tables: smooth and hard, or soft and bouncy, etc.

    If anyone wants to take a stab at all the physics and risk some hypotheses, please do.

    Very Respectfully,
    Ray Donald Pratt
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Are you sure that the effects of your skill are real?
    Forgive my scepticism, but I think that your home practice average (together with how you calculated it and how strict is your methodology) is more important than your record. What is your average? How did you calculate it? How strict is your methodology? Have you recorded all your attempts?

    What's your estimate of your percentage of successfully rolling sevens on a good day? On a bad day? Overall?

    Perhaps you could try this experiment to check your estimate:
    On a few separate occasions (maybe ten altogether), grab some new dice and throw them maybe 50 times (trying for sevens), recording the results of each throw. Count up the sevens, and let us know how you go.

    Methodology notes:
    It is important to be very strict with the rules for this experiment.
    For example, you can do warmup throws first, but you must be strict about deciding when warm-up is finished and when the test starts. You can't include any throws made before you decided that you are warmed-up and you must include all throws made before you decide that you are finished.
    Make sure that bad tests (even very bad days) are recorded just as rigorously as good tests.
    You can choose to not proceed with a test if the warmup goes badly..
    The real deciding factor is that it whether or not any throw is recorded part of the trial is decided before the throw is made (unless the throw violates the rules of a valid craps throw).
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    Ray, of course Pete is correct that a 'skill' like this is very ripe for self-delusion. I know a guy that claimed he "figured out the pattern" of a particular slot machine which is extraordinarily unlikely. That being said, can the dice be pinched together between two fingers as they are thrown? I only ask because I was curious as to whether, say, moisture from a sweaty palm sandwiched between the dice might encourage them to remain in contact until they hit the back wall. This effect may negate the need to worry about optimal backspin

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Pete & RJBeery,

    I respect your skepticism. I assure you that there were frequent and long stretches of frustration where I doubted my own skill but nonetheless recorded my losses. My warm-ups consisted of stretching, some Tai Chi for bodily awareness, and simply throwing the dice to a flat ceiling to check for throw control. Once I decided to play the game, I recorded the losses and wins, fair or foul. There is definately a performance curve where I lose skill if I keep doing it too long (about a half hour at the max).

    My bet would start with $5 on the pass line.

    If I rolled a point of 6 or 8, I would add the $5 single-odds bet behind the pass-line bet, and I would make a place bet of $12 on the sister number so that the dice set would catch either or both numbers.

    If I rolled a point of 4 or 10, I would add the $5 single-odds bet behind the pass-line bet, and I would make a place bet of $10 on the sister number, etc.

    If I rolled a point of 5 or 9, I would add the $6 single-odds bet behind the pass-line bet (most single-odds casinos allow the extra $1), and I would make place bets on the 6 and 8 for $12 each and set to roll 6's and 8's.

    Very rarely would I increase these amounts as a part of progressive wins, and I would only do so conservatively so as to not put the bulk of any winnings at risk.

    The point is not the bets that I made, but rather the relatively small amounts of money.

    I am $3,030 ahead after coming from about $600 behind. If my bets had been large, the gain would be meaningless, but because my bets were relatively small, it is inconceivable that the final total was just luck.

    Still, I know that I am not ready for prime time because there are still gaps in my understanding which would prevent me from understanding exactly how to attack any and every craps table.

    Every craps table is custom made for the casino, so it may be a little bouncier, a little shorter, a little fuzzier --whatever -- than the next craps table. So, the dice and the tables themselves are your only instruments for figuring out the mechanics of any particular table.

    It would obviously help to have a clear understanding of all the physics so that you will know exactly how to adjust your technique and why.

    My bugaboo is the physics of backspin. I am not entirely sure how it affects the composite forces, vertical and forward. I'm not sure how I would determine if I need to change my table position as opposed to merely changing the angle and landing zone of my throw. And given the delicacy of the skill, I could not even be sure that my effort was fundamentally wrong as opposed to being poorly executed. I have a paradigm that makes sense as it stands, but I want to master this art.

    Any ideas about backspin?

    Very Respectfully,
    Ray Donald Pratt
     
  8. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    Ray: my only thought on backspin is that, because the dice are hitting the back wall in a downward motion, more backspin would only serve to speed up their descent and increase their impact on the felt (which I suppose is bad). Did you read my question about pinching the dice together in my last post? Is this allowed?
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Hi Ray,
    I don't understand the scenario enough to comment reliably on the physics, sorry.
    And I don't know the probability of such a success record from just luck. Do you?

    What I do know, and what I am interested in, is the probability of rolling numbers on a die by luck, and how to test whether someone can do it through skill.

    I really would like to know what you estimate your percentage of successfully rolling sevens is on a good days, bad days, and overall?
     
  10. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    So, $600 is the furthest you've been behind, after starting from scratch, right?
    About how many games would have been played so far?
    I'm trying to figure ways of calculating the significance of these results, ie whether it really is inconceivable that they could happen by luck. I think I'd need to ignore the side bets, and focus only on the initial $5 pass line bet to make it doable.
     
  11. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Ray,
    Try a control experiment (Obvious don't do this in a Casino). Instead of setting numbers to win, set the numbers to "craps out". Find out if you have the same ratio of losing rolls as you would have to winning rolls, if the ratio is the same then you can talk about that being a tested method (at least by your anecdotal evidence), if the Ratio is different or you find you pull the same number of wins, then it will undermine the evidence of setting the dice beforehand.
     
  12. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Friends, I had a lengthy reply crafted and mistakenly tried to post it before copying and saving it, and I lost it all because my log-in had gotten timed out. It's a quirk of this board that sometimes occurs, and sometimes doesn't. I have to get to sleep to work tonight, but I will respond to all, soon.
     
  13. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    According to the literature, the normal probabilities of the various possible results in the game versus the payouts of the game are straight forward and amount to about a 1% average in favor of the casino for the kinds of bets that I make (come-out bets, point odds-bets, and place-bets), but I lack the statistics training to be able to say how far from standard deviation my current win record is and whether it is a statistically significant departure from the normal range.

    Nonetheless, we can figure out the normal expected frequencies of the wins and losses and payouts for the bets that I make. Ultimately, we can then recap all the expected wins and losses and come to some final average numbers.

    $5 come-out rolls win 8/36 of the time with a 7 or 11 (the pay-off for come-out wins is 1 to 1); and lose 4/36 of the time with craps of 2, 3, or 12; and come-out rolls result in initial point numbers the remaining 24/36 of the time. If you have rolled a point number, you may put another $5 odds-bet behind your intial $5 come-out bet for points of 4, 6, 8, or 10, and you may put up a $6 odds-bet for points of 5 or 9.

    Thus, for immediate come-out wins (7 or 11) and losses (any craps), 12/36 of the time, I should win 8 x $5 = $40 and lose 4 x $5 = $20 for a net gain of $20, on average.

    For point numbers of 6 or 8, the same winning point number will be rolled again 5/36 of the time, but a losing 7 will be rolled 6/36 of the time. The payout on the initial $5 bet stays at 1 to 1, but the payout on the additional $5 odds-bet pays true odds of 6 to 5 ($6 win to the $5 odds-bet). I also add a $12 place-bet on the sister number, but the payout is 7 to 6 ($14 win to the $12 bet), not true odds. (The attraction of a place-bet is that you do not have to roll the number twice to win, you simply have to roll it once before rolling a 7.)

    Thus, for the wins and losses on point numbers of 6 or 8, 11/36 of the time, I should win 5 x $11 = $55 and lose 6 x $10 = $60 for a net loss of $5. And, for the wins and losses on the 6 or 8 place-bet of $12, 11/36 of the time, I should win 5 x $14 = $70 and lose 6 x $12 = $72 for a net loss of $2. Thus, my average total loss, 11/36 of the time, should be $7.

    For point numbers of 5 or 9, the same winning point number will be rolled again 4/36 of the time, but a losing 7 will be rolled 6/36 of the time. The payout on the initial $5 bet stays at 1 to 1, but the payout on the additional $6 odds-bet pays true odds of 3 to 2 ($9 win to the $6 odds-bet). I also add $12 place-bets on both the 6 and the 8, but the payout for each is 7 to 6 ($14 win to each $12 place-bet), not true odds.

    Thus, for the wins and losses on point numbers of 5 or 9, 10/36 of the time, I should win 4 x $14 = $56 and lose 6 x $11 = $66 for a net loss of $10. And, for the wins and losses on the 6 or 8 place-bets of $12 each, 11/36 of the time, I should win 5 x $14 = $70 and lose 6 x $12 = $72 for a net loss of $2 for each bet alone, but $4 for both bets at once. Thus, my average total loss, 10/36 of the time, should be $14.

    [Note that the 6 & 8 place bets have a larger frequency space than the 5 or 9 point number, but I assume the average loss within the 5 or 9 frequency space because I only make the 6 and 8 place bets when the point is 5 or 9. If someone wants to reevaluate that assumption and the net average loss, God bless you -- I am not a mathematician.]

    For point numbers of 4 or 10, the same winning point number will be rolled again 3/36 of the time, but a losing 7 will be rolled 6/36 of the time. The payout on the initial $5 bet stays at 1 to 1, but the payout on the additional $5 odds-bet pays true odds of 2 to 1. I also add a $10 place-bet on the sister number, but the payout is 9 to 5 ($18 win to the $10 bet), not true odds. (You can pay an extra 5%, or $1 per $20, to get a true odds payoff of 2 to 1 on your place-bets on 4 or 10, but the net result is obviously not true odds, but merely better odds; however, most $5 minimum-table casinos won't do it for a $10 bet (50 cents).)

    Thus, for the wins and losses on point numbers of 4 or 10, 9/36 of the time, I should win 3 x $15 = $45 and lose 6 x $10 = $60 for a net loss of $15. And, for the wins and losses on the 4 or 10 place-bet of $10, 9/36 of the time, I should win 3 x $18 = $54 and lose 6 x $10 = $60 for a net loss of $6. Thus, my average total loss, 9/36 of the time, should be $21.

    Now, let's add up the total amounts of money, "the action," among all the wins and losses, and then let's add up all the expected net amount of wins or losses, and then let's see what the percentage of the loss is to the total action.

    Immediate come-out wins and losses:................... 12 x $5 = $60..........Net: +$20
    Point 6 or 8 with odds-bet & sister place-bet......11 x $22 = $242..........Net: --$7
    Point 5 or 9 with odds-bet & 6 & 8 place-bets...10 x $35 = $350..........Net: -$14
    Point 4 or 10 with odds-bet & sister place-bet.....9 x $20 = $180...........Net: -$21
    _________________________________________________________________
    Subtotals................................................Total Action: $832 Net Loss: $22

    Loss/Action Ratio: $22 / $832 = appx. 2.6% (Ouch! That's news to me.)

    Average Bet Ratio: $832 / 32 = $26

    Disclaimer: The individual frequencies of my various bet categories should have added to 36, for they cover all 36 possible combinations of the dice, but they instead add to 32, so something is wrong with my logic.

    However, if we assume that I'm in the ballpark, then my $3, 030 practice win from minus $600 represents a gain of $3,630 from bets averaging $26 per trial, which is a bet less than 1% of the total (0.007). If we look at it another way, you would have to win approximately 139 more bets than you lose, which is perhaps not so significant. I do not know.

    Very Respectfully,
    Ray Donald Pratt
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2009
  14. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    The question has two answers: The sevens to rolls ratio on come-out rolls (when you want sevens), and the sevens to rolls ratio during point cycles (when you do not want sevens). The two ratios are physically different.

    The sevens set for come-out rolls requires that either the dice stay in perfect unison to result in sevens, or stay on axis like wheels but realign into final sevens, or randomly combine into sevens like regular dice. For random regular dice the odds of rolling a seven are 6/36. For sevens-set dice that stay on axis like wheels but realign rather than roll in unison, the odds of rolling a seven are 4/16 (skill complicates this number because a good dice settor may avoid the full range of equal probabilities). For sevens-set dice that stay in perfect unison, the odds of rolling a seven are 1/1. It is very difficult to roll perfect-unison dice a large percentage of the time, and it can be difficult to separate a perfect-unison roll from an on-axis roll or from a pure random roll.

    Most dice settors practice at home with two different colors of dice so as to separate the possibilities more easily, but not surely. If the left to right position of the dice are correct from the starting positions, if the dice are still on axis like wheels per each color, and if both dice are the same distance from the back wall at the same angle --- there is a high probablity that it was a perfect-unison roll, but the other possibilities are still there. Sometimes the throw is so controlled and perfect and smooth that it is visibly perfect from start to finish, even at speed, but usually there are some fast actions that defy clarity.

    As a guess, my percentage of perfect-unison come-out sevens runs about 1 in 10 (or less) on average, but the number jumps up to as many as three or more in a row as the dice action becomes visibly regular, even and controlled. The sweet spot of a throw is hard to find and maintain even when you know it’s there and how to effect it.

    On the other hand, avoiding sevens during the point cycles is somewhat easier. Any pair of dice with different axle numbers will have only two sevens out of the sixteen possible combinations on the rolling faces, which is 1/8 instead of the random 1/6; and, any such “low-sevens set” should be arranged so that the numbers that make up the possible sevens are 180 degrees apart, thus requiring the dice to be off by half a roll to combine into sevens. (I’m not claiming that it is easy to avoid half a roll of difference.) A problem exists in trying to separate perfect-unison, on-axis, or random rolls, but at least you always know your exact percentage of wrong throws – any seven.

    On a good day, my sevens avoidance ratio runs about 1/14 (or better).

    Now for the bad days:

    There is a place of half skill that hurts dice settors, and that is where the same left or right die consistently goes off axis. The sevens to rolls ratio becomes worse than the random 1/6. The reason is that 1/2 of the time the same offending die will randomly go into another low-sevens set with a 1/8 sevens ratio (the only other low-sevens set available if the other die consistently stays on axis), but the offending die will otherwise go into a high-sevens set with a ¼ sevens ratio. The math becomes (1/2 x 1/8) + (1/2 x ¼) = 1/16 + 1/8 = 3/16, which is 1 & 7/8 sevens per 6 rolls instead of the random 1 in 6.

    The half-skill point will have several physical reasons for existing. Natural irregularities in our hands tend to shift one die more than another in any or all of the three dimensions, and when both dice hit the table very close together, only one can stay on the desired path if the irregularities are too great. On a bouncy table, for example, one die arriving sooner can create a wave for the next die that knocks it off the same path. My first year of practice began on a thin-felt, hard table, and thus I did not understand what was happening on the more numerous, bouncy casino tables despite my throws being good enough for a hard table.

    So, on my bad days, they are usually very bad days – worse than random days. No exact number can capture the frustration of having visible regularity and skill in your throws and doing worse, much worse, than random. Rather than give a number, I’d rather use the more relevant, profane expletives that come to mind. Barring that, I can say that I can seven-out as many as 7 to 10 times in a row.
    Correcting from the half-skill point is always very subtle and can involve every aspect of the throw: the grip mechanics, release mechanics, angle of throw and landing zone, the angles of hit to the back wall and back down --- and, as yet imperfectly understood – the rate of backspin.

    Everything will change for changes in the table (bouncy versus hard, etc.) and the dice (smooth dice versus the rougher sand-finish dice; or, pitted and rough used dice versus the stickier brand-new dice, etc.)

    If I learn to better understand the effects of backspin, I’ll be done.

    Very Respectfully,
    Ray Donald Pratt
     
  15. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Stryder,

    Some dice setters do play "the dark side" to win by rolling craps and by failing to make their point numbers before rolling a 7.

    You can put your initial $5 bet on the "Don't Pass" line, and if you roll craps of 2 or 3, you win, but not if you roll a craps of 12 (that's one of the odds trade-offs). The dark-side player, of course, loses by rolling a come-out 7 or 11. If a point number is rolled, a dark-side bettor wins by rolling a 7 before rolling the point number.

    The true-odds bets that you can put behind your dark-side point-number bets are the turn-off because you have to put up more money to win less (on points of 6 & 8, $6 odds pays $5; on points of 5 & 9, $9 odds pays $6; and on points of 4 & 10, $10 odds pays $5). Although true odds favor neither the player nor the casino in the random long run, the increased risk to the player's limited bankroll can be significant.

    There's also a way to make dark-side bets on particular point numbers that win by rolling a 7 first, but I don't remember the details since I do not play the dark side, and one also has to put up more money to win less. (However, any seven rolled prior to the un-rolled numbers wins all the dark-side bets.)

    Dice settors who play the dark side usually play alone since the dice would otherwise pass to the next player every time the dice settor sevened-out (every seven-out moves the dice to the next shooter).

    There's not a lot of advantage in trying to roll craps on the come-out roll since there is no set that gives craps to a sufficient degree. One set, with 5,2 and 3,4 axles on each die, and with the two sixes combined together on one of the rolling faces (the set is called "The Crossed Sixes"), gives the 2 craps and 12 craps numbers among the four perfect-unison combinations, but only the 2 craps wins on the dark side. Also, for the eight combinations that are a quarter roll off from perfect unison, one set of four of the combinations has the 3 craps, but among the same four combinations is the 11. Finally, the set has two 7's, though the combinations are a half-roll apart.

    Technically, even if a dice settor had very high skill, he or she would not have a big edge in rolling a winning craps number of 2 or 3 over an 11 or 7. His or her high skill would pay on the perfect-unison roll 2's most frequently, but since the quarter-turn-difference rolls are essentially errors, he or she would be unlikely to roll more 3's than 11's (I qualify that to the extent that a dice settor's errors display sufficient regularity to allow changes in up faces to change final results -- and that does in fact occur and results in what are called a particular dice settor's "signature numbers" for a set).

    On balance, there are easier ways to make money on the dark side. Specifically, set for a point 4 or 10 (the hardest points to hit), and then set for 7's.

    I suppose that such a singular strategy would be a good test of skill.

    Very Respectfully,
    Ray Donald Pratt
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2009
  16. Uno Hoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    Way back once upon a time, back in de year number one, I condensed Thorpe et al Blackjack card counting strategy into a relatively simple one that even I could remember. Refined, of course, with a really cool bet management strategy.

    Played about 55,000 practice hands in the comfort of my palatial estate before venturing into the wondrous environs of Sin City. During the practice hands, I showed a profit out of the gate, lasting for about 10,000 hands. Then dipped below break even. Stayed below break even for about 12,000 hands. Then got nose above water and kept it there for remainder of 55,000. End result was spectacular profit of about 10% per hand on average, using a betting variation mild enough to be easily mistaken for untrained yokel bets.

    Important point of this: I had a 10% overall profit margin. Yet, I suffered a 12,000 hand losing streak.

    When you evaluate any business plan, including a plan involving what could be thought of as "gambling activity", you must consider the import of streaks. And you must do enough (as in a damn lot of) practice coups to dampen out the effect of winning streaks and losing streaks when you rank your skill. Have you recorded 55,000 practice dice tosses to evaluate your skills? And do you have a bankroll to get you through a 12,000 toss losing streak in Sin City?

    After those youthful halcyon days, I have personally decided that intending to win at "gambling" is immoral and unethical. And, of course, intending to lose at "gambling" is ostensibly stupid and unprofitable. I heartily suggest that you sublimate your enjoyment of studying probability math and physics of tumbling bodies into a career in business management or mechanical engineering. When you are a good business manager or engineer, you win a good income but nobody loses.

    Re: your concern about backspin. Screw it. Throw a knuckleball.
     
  17. paulfr Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    227
    Thorpe and Wall St

    This is good advice.
    And it has a track record.
    Thorpe went on to Wall Street after his black jack days and founded a successful fund that returned a solid 15% per year that made him rich.
    You can do the same if you don't give up and bring your smarts to the real money table.

    A word to the wise ............
     
  18. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Fellow Christians:

    For the love of God, let's be moral and ethical. Is a soldier such? When the the soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do in respect to their profession and in repentance towards God (implied by the context of both the question and the answer), John the Baptist told them to be satisfied with their wages and to do violence to no man.

    Now, soldiers are paid to do violence to men, so did John the Baptist intend that the soldiers should defraud their employers by being satisfied with their wages until it was time to perform? I trow not.

    No, what John the Baptist intended was that the soldiers should not use their power to exact goods and services by un-ordered, unlawful force; and that they should not inflict extra-official, un-ordered violence on any man.

    Thus, John the Baptist implied that a job killing other human beings can be an honorable, Christian profession -- if performed with self-restraint and within lawful bounds. (Cf. the Bhagavad Gita.)

    Gentlemen, fellow Christians, I want to gamble for a living in lawful games in a lawful manner.

    May I morally and ethically do so in the sight of God?

    Love & Respect,
    Ray Donald Pratt
     
  19. Uno Hoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    In any casino on Earth, the casino is just a middle-man. A money changer. The same holds true for any other gambling, horse racing parimutuels, greyhound dog racing track, Las Vegas sports betting, et al.

    The casino takes in all the bettor money, holds it until the coup is accomplished, stashes its "rake" ( about 20% at a horse or dog track, about 1% to 5% in casino games), then distributes the remaining 80% or whatever to the lucky winners. All of the lucky winner's profit comes relatively straight from unlucky loser's losing bets.

    Repete: In gambling, a winner winning money is the direct result of poor losers losing money.

    So, in terms of morality and ethics, decide for yourself if you are being righteous if the way you earn your daily bread demands that other humans must lose their daily bread. Win-lose.

    A mechanical engineer gives a daily profit to his employers or clients in the form of worthwhile engineering information and gets a daily profit in the form of a comfortable salary. His clients get a daily profit in the form of good machinery design. Win-win.
     
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    :bravo:
    Well said, sir.
     
  21. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Uno Hoo:

    Let's take it further: society itself suffers greatly from the economic power and corruption and governmental oppression that comes from imperfect human beings weilding the political and economic power of obscene wealth from casino income.

    Nevada's state and federal courts are both filthy; they are rife with cronyism and long, well-known connections to organized crime. Every human being in the state of Nevada enjoys his or her civil rights as a matter of disinterested grace, not as a matter of right.

    Would you have it that no one intelligent enough to be a professional gambler would ever take away any of that money and its filthy power? Would you have it that a professional gambler instead become an engineer and never give a damn about the damnable filth appointed to high office by the power of casino monies?

    I don't play poker -- I don't want some poor sap's money. I want the casino's money, and I want it in negative-expectation games, and I want to teach others how to do the same after I have found, proven, and accomplished such success myself.

    I want to teach bums, addicts, ex-cons, and children how to gamble to win, both strategically and psychologically.

    At the end of it all, I want to see all the slot machines in Las Vegas filled with cement like old guns on display, and all the casinos turned into museums of a time when stochastic processes were poorly understood.

    You would rather that I make a widget?

    Very Respectfully,
    Ray Donald Pratt
     
  22. Uno Hoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    Ray: Sherlock Holmes, whilst tossing a few unopened incoming items of mail into his fireplace fire, once said to Doctor Watson; "This is a free country. Anyone is free to mail me a letter. In return, I am free to ignore it."

    You are free to ask me, or, tell me, anything you wish to. In return, I am free to ignore it. Please keep that in mind.

    I have patiently and clearly explained to you that any form of gambling has a very simple economy. I patiently repete. Losers lose their money. The casino keeps its rake out of the losers money. The remnant is awarded to the winner. The only money available to a lucky winner is a remnant of money lost by some poor loser. Casinos do not have a money well where money gurgles up out of a hole in the ground akin to the way that a white rabbit leaps out of a magician hat. A lucky winner in a casino is not getting the casino's money. The lucky winner is getting money left behind by some poor loser.

    In terms of immorality and unethical behavior, I believe that my own way is to give at least as much value to someone as the value that I take from them. I believe that if I were to try to seriously win at gambling, then I would be behaving in a seriously immoral and unethical way. You have your own free will and you are responsible for your own salvation. I am not responsible for your morality or immorality, nor your ethicality or unethicality.

    I am not personally concerned with whatever vendettas you personally wish to conduct against whatever governmental bodies that have aggravated you. Each one of us has some important job to do. I have figured out what my job is, in regard to life, the universe, and everything, and I am trying my inept best to do my own job. I hope and pray that God will help you to figure out your job and do it righteously.

    I have nothing more to say to you about either the math and physics of tumbling bodies and gambling, or, about your relationship to God and the righteousness (or lack thereof) of your actions or intended actions.

    Most Respectfully,

    UNO HOO
     
  23. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Uno Hoo --

    The stock market, your retirment investments, are also a zero sum game.

    When the stock market goes below someone's purchase price, he or she loses money and the previous person who sold at a higher price keeps the difference. When the stock market goes up, someone who sold at a lower price loses the difference between the old price and the higher price, and the subsequent person who bought at the low price can then sell at the higher price and keep the difference.

    Your morality about the stock market should be the same as in the casino. The standard argument about the morality of the stock market is that it provides funds for manufacturing and service companies to increase the wealth of the world -- and that's why grandma has to lose her retirement funds.

    The truth of it is that very few of the transactions in the stock market are about funding the named companies. The vast majority of the transactions are bets between third parties about price directions -- which includes bets against grandma's retirement funds.

    I want to bet against casinos because of what they do with their money, but stock market investors want to win money from anyone -- even senile, sweet old grandmas.

    Your morality, it seems, is bi-valued depending on your interests.

    Reply if you wish, don't if you don't. You had nothing to say about the effects of backspin on the composite forces of a pair of thrown dice. You didn't try.

    I don't fault you for that. I have had face-to-face conversations with everything from mechanical engineers to world-class physicists who could not tell me what I wanted to know. They all more or less answer that a clear understanding will require careful, educated thought and experience.

    I lack their education, and they lack my observation and experience. I'm at an impasse. I need to separate what I see the dice do on the table and all the respective causes, but I do not completely understand what a change in backspin rate does -- how backspin might affect the dice action at every step on the table.

    I came here looking for people with creative imaginations and greater educations, and I found them, but they lack my observations and experience, and so I began crafting posts to make the issues clearer.

    Your moralizations were off topic, but that's what you had to offer, and I respect your right to say what you will.

    Very Respectfully,
    Ray Donald Pratt
     

Share This Page