STX Shooter -- the New Lying Troll
SteveF
and now I feel so foolish for being taken in by the latest troll from
Heavy's "DI" goon squad: STX-shooter.
How do we know she is a troll? She exhibits almost all of the classic
qualities. First, she appears out of nowhere, with absolutely no posting
record on the internet or usenet. Second, she hides under an alias.
Third, she has a specific agenda -- to promote Heavy's brand of DI, which
is documented in the FAQ as the BSDD type of dice control. Third, she is
argumentative and unresponsive when asked specific questions. Fourth,
she starts lying by accusing me and Mr. V of name calling and unwilling
to discuss the topics as our minds are made up. The only thing left is
for her to descend into the ravings such as the likes of ACDOC, Redleathers,
or Dennis100.
Here's a sample of what she says:
>
>I have been doing a little reading (actually you can skip over Mr. V
>he never says anything new). SteveF must be the one to come up with
>BSDD and SSDD as he continues to force it (whatever they are)
>into almost every thread possible.
>
Usually, a new poster announces her presence and reads the FAQ (it's
assumed she understands the usenet posting guidelines and netiquette.)
This troll has no intentions of being a newsgroup contributor.
At first I hoped this new poster was a real person who wanted to see
what the real-life of dice derandomizing is all about, instead of the
pabulum of bullshit that Heavy and his ilk ply upon the ignorant masses.
Instead, I think STXshooter is really Heavy's wife doing his bidding.
Now that I am wiser, I can disregard anything she has to say further.
-- Steve F.
ACDOC
Can it Steve.
AxisPowerHeavy
> I feel so foolish for being taken in by the latest troll from
> Heavy's "DI" goon squad: STX-shooter.
Oh, don't feel foolish, Steve. STX is a real person. He is one of the
top dice influencers in the country, and he did indeed get his start in
the Dice Den here at my place. He and I tossed back-to-back hour-long
hands at Main Street Station last year, with about a dozen of my "goon
squad" members along for the ride. He could also provide you with . . .
oh, I don't know . . . records of probably a hundred thousand or so of his
own rolls that validate his edge. He's good enough that guys like
Stanford Wong want to know when he's coming to Vegas so they can hook up
and bet on his hands. And there's no lie to it.
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Mr. V
Heavy about dice setting success stories.
Tap my red slippers together three times and repeat: "There's no place
like home..."
Ah, life in the wonderful world of Oz!
roll dem bones
STXShooter
STXShooter
Here’s another thread that has absolutely nothing to do with craps.
And more name calling:
“””Name-calling is a form of ad hominem attack that draws a vague
equivalence between a concept and a person, group or idea. By linking
the person or idea being attacked to a negative symbol, the
propagandist hopes that the audience will reject the person or the
idea on the basis of the symbol, instead of looking at the available
evidence.”””
I am known by MANY craps players. Anyone in the South Texas area that
wants to stop by and practice a bit, on my table, is welcome. I don’t
have any alcohol, but the water is bottled and the sodas are cold.
My travel plans to casinos is petty much out in the open, as to when
and where I will be. I shoot with any and everyone. I don’t hide
behind anything. Even Mr. V knows who I am (or at least he should),
and with a little research…it’s all out there.
I have many articles posted in the “open” – I just don’t post too much
about influencing the dice in the “open” or at least I try to be
careful.
I have not read SteveF’s FAQ – I do not have any question for him
about his thoughts on what ever he is attempting to do with dice. If
I understand him, he bets the “Hardways” along with Place Betting. I
am a Place bettor myself – I don’t bet the HW’s, with the house edge
being what they are it isn’t worth it to me (11.11% on the 4 and 10
and 9.09% on the 6 and 8 - HardWay). I could be wrong about his
betting – it really doesn’t interest me. I wish him well at the
tables.
ACDOC - there is a thread about the Chi-test on H’s board that you
might be interested in (you are a still a member).
Again, this is another thread that has nothing to do with craps.
I’ll just wait and see what SteveF’s next rant will be – doesn’t
anyone think it will be about craps?
Mr. V – on the morning Heavy was talking about – I was late in joining
the group that morning, an interesting side note – a dealer from one
of the casinos – when her shifted ended, joined our group – I will
admit that was the first and only time I have ever seen or heard of
that happening. I don’t know how she found us, as we don’t stay very
long at any one casino. I know you want believe it – but I don’t care.
STXShooter
ausound
ac7287...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> an interesting side note - a dealer from one
> of the casinos - when her shifted ended, joined our group - I will
> admit that was the first and only time I have ever seen or heard of
> that happening. I don't know how she found us,
one afternoon
at the Fremont downtown after coloring up
a box man at a now empty table I had been shooting at
saw me coming and took the dice
and began shooting the most perfect, straight out
back-spinning dice shot I've ever seen
He gave me no grief while I was shooting
because
obviously he knew what I was doing
and obviously was a derandomizer hisownbadself
STXShooter
> STXShooter <stxshoo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:28239470-3d5e-4a34-8071-
> ac7287974...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > an interesting side note - a dealer from one
> > of the casinos - when her shifted ended, joined our group - I will
> > admit that was the first and only time I have ever seen or heard of
> > that happening. I don't know how she found us,
>
> one afternoon
> at the Fremont downtown after coloring up
> a box man at a now empty table I had been shooting at
> saw me coming and took the dice
> and began shooting the most perfect, straight out
> back-spinning dice shot I've ever seen
>
> He gave me no grief while I was shooting
> because
> obviously he knew what I was doing
> and obviously was a derandomizer hisownbadself
At Binions I did the old Dead Cat Bounce and the boxman says, "bet you
can't do that again" I wasn't about to try the next toss was off the
back wall on the fly (bets were off).
AxisPowerHeavy
> At Binions I did the old Dead Cat Bounce and the boxman says, "bet you
> can't do that again" I wasn't about to try the next toss was off the
> back wall on the fly (bets were off).
I had a completely different experience down at the Vegas Club once. The
dice hit the layout and just stuck there - classic dead cat with NO bounce
- and I immediately reacted with "Somebody want to check and see if there
was a drink spill down there? Never seen the dice do that." To which the
table games manager, who happened to be in the pit, replied "You know
EXACTLY what happened there and we don't allow that here." At that point
all you can do is say "Yes sir. My mistake," and get back to tossing a
hand.
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Doc Dice
IMHO........no one....no one is a dice influencer until I have seen
them shoot.
I don't believe anything I read and about 75% of what I see.
We can all set here and listen to all of the Ribald tales for days
gone by, however, I want to see it. I have seen to many people
claiming to be something other than what they are.
No offense
DD
SteveF
>
> one afternoon
> at the Fremont downtown after coloring up
> a box man at a now empty table I had been shooting at
> saw me coming and took the dice
> and began shooting the most perfect, straight out
> back-spinning dice shot I've ever seen
>
Was he using SSDD? You mention back spin (that's how I shoot),
but how much spin? With SSDD you want a lot of spin.
Or was he using BSDD? Most BSDD shooters don't care about the
primary set, just the four main sets with no pith control, and
this pitch may be the back spin you saw.
Last time you marveled at a "controlled" shooter, I asked you
for specifics. You were not forthcoming. I assume it is
because you simply were not observant enough and you cannot now
recall what happened.
>
> He gave me no grief while I was shooting
> because
> obviously he knew what I was doing
> and obviously was a derandomizer hisownbadself
>
There are five basic components of Dice Derandomizing that must
be observed. Next time you see someone you think has an advantage
using DD, please comment on ALL of these aspects of the art:
1) The Bet. What bets were the shooter making?
2) The Set. What was he setting the dice to?
3) The Grip. How did his shooting hand grip the dice?
4) The Delivery. How did the dice act as they traveled to the back wall?
5) The Landing. How did the dice act after the back wall?
Most important is (2) -- the set. Is he an SSDD shooter? If so then he
will set the sides of each die, without regard to pitch orientation.
If he is a BSDD shooter then it is the four pitch faces that matter, and
the pitch orientation of the two dice is critically important.
Now (1), the bet, depends on (2). If betting the pass line then the
BSDD shooter should set for all-sevens on the comeout, then use the
Hardway set after that. If a BSDD shooter really had the skill, then
he should be setting the Hardway and betting the hardways; however since
they really don't have the skill they make excuses like, "the vig is too
high on those bets." If an SSDD shooter really had the skill, then he
should probably set 25#25 (that means both dice have sides 2 and 5 on the
spin axis) and bet the Hard 6 or 8. However, if he is only somewhat
skilled and still wants an advantage he may bet the pass line and use the
superpass SSDD dice sets as documented in the web page:
Set 16#16 on the come out roll; after that, for a point of 4 or 10
set 16#34, and for all other point numbers set 16#25.
The grip, (3), is usually the same for both BSDD and SSDD. Both dice
should be together, square to the table and back wall. The fingers
grip the front and back edges to deliver the dice. The SSDD shooter
may use the two middle fingers to spin the dice, with the first and
last fingers touching the spin-axis faces of the two dice.
The delivery, (4), for BSDD should be gentle, with minimal energy and
minimal spin, with both dice remaining together with the faces
maintaining orientation. For SSDD, the trajectory should likewise be
gentle, but the dice should be spinning, the faster the spin the better;
the dice do not have to remain together, but the spin axis must be
maintained.
Hardest to observe, but most important for determining efficacy, is the
landing, (5). Here is where a high-speed camera is almost a necessity.
For the BSDD shooter, the dice should rebound with little energy and die
on the table while maintaining the original dice set. Assuming no pitch
control, there are only four possible outcomes for a successful BSDD
throw (usually one of the four hardway outcomes in the Hardway set.)
For the SSDD shooter, the dice should rebound and roll along the table
top while maintaining the spin axis as the rolling axis. There are
sixteen possible outcomes for a successful SSDD throw -- if any of two
spin-axis sides show up the throw is a failure.
I hope people can read the above short tutorial on how to observe the
art of Dice Derandomizing, as it seems to be too much trouble to read
the FAQ.
-- Steve F.
ausound
@newsfe12.iad:
>
> Last time you marveled at a "controlled" shooter, I asked you
> for specifics. You were not forthcoming.
perhaps I'm just not that into you
> Next time you see someone you think has an advantage
> using DD, please comment on ALL of these aspects of the art:
-----------YES SIR !!--------
>
> Hardest to observe, but most important for determining efficacy, is the
> landing, (5).
all things being equal
axials, sets, yadda yaddda
The landing is really all you need to observe
I don't care if the shooter is shooting the dice out of a cannon
if the dice consistantly exibit a minimum of secondary movement from the
rebound you need to pay attention. It's kinda like pronography....
you'll know it if you see it.
again I will commend you for an easily accessable tutorial for newbies
your strident athoritarian tone is off putting
STXShooter
A quick question for Steve F. I would be interested in what you think
the Pincer or Under Hand tosses? Have you tried either? In what I
have read (and I will plead guilty of being really busy the last week
or so - I could have missed something).
SteveF
>
>all things being equal
>axials, sets, yadda yaddda
>The landing is really all you need to observe
>
Well, I disagree, as pointed out in the previous post. An advantage
with Dice Derandomizing requires observation of all 5 aspects.
>
>if the dice consistantly exibit a minimum of secondary movement from the
>rebound you need to pay attention.
>
For BSDD, that is true; but that is only one small aspect of the art.
As they land with that minimum of movement, were the two dice acting
together as a Stable Body? Did they maintain the original set?
>
>It's kinda like pronography....you'll know it if you see it.
>
Again, I have to disagree in both aspects. Some people regard women
in bikinis as pornography, while others think bestiality (I hope I
don't have to explain this to the readers) is not pornography.
Some people look at the Craps shooter's style -- how he plays with
the dice to "set" them, the flair with witch he throws them -- and
think they have seen a true "dice controller", without looking to see
if the dice are doing what they are supposed to be controlled into doing.
Some people look to a MECHANISM behind the art, others are satisfied
with a SUPERSTITION. That's why we have this newsgroup, to search out
the truth. Is it really pornography? Is it really Advantage Craps?
>
>your strident athoritarian tone is off putting
>
So since you don't like the messenger, you disregard the message.
That's quite intelligent. I'm here to find the truth and expose
the lies. I guess you would rather believe a really nice guy who
tells you lies than an asshole who tells you the truth.
Ed, I'm sorry you don't like my style, but I sincerely believe that no
matter how nicely I appeared to you, no matter how sweetly I implored
you for the details about the grip, the sets, the observations, the
reasoning behind your belief that SSDD can't work because spin energy
is bad; even then you still would not explain your assertions such
as, "obviously he was a derandomizer hisownbadself."
As much as my "tone" is "off putting" to you, and I'm sure you are not
alone, consider this concept -- your flippant lack of response, lack of
discussion, lack of punctuation, lack of spelling, and inability to form
complete sentences is even more so off-putting to me.
And I'm sure I'm not alone either.
-- Steve F.
The Midnight Skulker
> together as a Stable Body? Did they maintain the original set?
I suggest you are placing too great a restriction on what you call
BSDD, Steve. IMHO it is not necessary for the dice to maintain their
original set, or even rotate in concert, to gain an advantage. What -
>is<- necessary is that the dice maintain an axis of rotation such
that the faces that were set on the sides (i.e. the faces that are not
supposed to show) stay on the sides both before and after contact with
the Green Rubber Thing.
I don't think it is possible for a human to impart enough spin to keep
the dice on axis even if they hit the actual pyramids. Hence,
observing where the dice land and how they behave afterwards would
seem sufficient to identify a potential precision shooter.
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 aka Van Lewis
aka cvle...@gmail.com
6
zox625
In my opinion it seems that both approaches (BSDD and SSDD as Steve calls
them) are doomed to failure. If you throw them with little or no spin
along the horizontal axis, they will tend to 'knuckleball' and when they
do land, will land off angle in some way or another and careen and lose
that horizontal axis. If you put tons of spin on them, then when they
first hit the table, dissapating all that energy will again cause them to
lose that axis, and any tiny variation from perfectly horizontal will
translate to the dice flying off in almost any direction and losing any
axial control.
--
Gregg C.
I just don't think this kind of control is possible with sharp-edged dice
on a felt surface.
_____________________________________________________________________
ausound
@recgroups.com:
> I just don't think this kind of control is possible with sharp-edged dice
> on a felt surface.
That's how I reasoned a no-spin toss would give me the additional control
to land the dice essentially flat but slightly "nose-up".
In the complex geometric equation that is the dice throw, it is the
recognition and removal of variables that derandomizes the outcome.
SteveF
>
> I suggest you are placing too great a restriction on what you call
> BSDD, Steve. IMHO it is not necessary for the dice to maintain their
> original set, or even rotate in concert, to gain an advantage. What -
> >is<- necessary is that the dice maintain an axis of rotation such
> that the faces that were set on the sides (i.e. the faces that are not
> supposed to show) stay on the sides both before and after contact with
> the Green Rubber Thing.
>
You are confusing BSDD (no spin, stable body) with SSDD (spin stabilized).
I've tried to explain the distinction for quite some time with my
postings and in the FAQ, but I guess the concept of a MECHANISM behind
Dice Derandomizing is quite elusive.
I've created the four-letter-acronyms as a label to distinguish between
the radically different mechanisms used by dice shooters to supposedly
gain an advantage. I don't care what you call it, but one mechanism
relies on body stability and no spin, while the other relies on spin
stability, also called angular momentum. If we are going to talk about
Dice Derandomizing (and I realize some people have blinders on to the
whole subject because it just seems so ridiculous they don't even want
to discuss it) we must identify which TYPE of advantage play is under
examination.
>
> I don't think it is possible for a human to impart enough spin to keep
> the dice on axis even if they hit the actual pyramids. Hence,
> observing where the dice land and how they behave afterwards would
> seem sufficient to identify a potential precision shooter.
>
I completely agree with the above, as it relates to SSDD. Although I
don't think it is possible, as a scientist I am open to evidence to the
contrary. That's why I seek confirming evidence from those who post
here claiming to have the skill (except every single "DI" poster is of
the BSDD type.) Now I go further than you in that I believe it IS
possible for a machine, properly constructed, to demonstrate an advantage
using the SSDD mechanism.
Like you imply in your opening sentence, the restriction to maintain the
original set (where only four results are a success) with BSDD is too
great to overcome. I agree with that, even a machine could not maintain
the stable body once it hits the table, much less hits the back wall.
However, SSDD only maintains each die in an axial set, so there are
16 possible results that are a success instead of only four.
-- Steve F.
SteveF
>
>In my opinion it seems that both approaches (BSDD and SSDD as Steve calls
>them) are doomed to failure. If you throw them with little or no spin
>along the horizontal axis, they will tend to 'knuckleball' and when they
>do land, will land off angle in some way or another and careen and lose
>that horizontal axis.
>
I completely agree, that BSDD is doomed to failure for the above
'knuckleball' explanation.
>
>If you put tons of spin on them, then when they first hit the table,
>dissapating all that energy will again cause them to lose that axis,
>and any tiny variation from perfectly horizontal will translate to the
>dice flying off in almost any direction and losing any axial control.
>
Why do you think the reflection from the table will cause the gyroscope
to lose its spin axis? As long as the spin axis is horizontal (as you
say) the spin axis is maintained. The spin velocity will change for sure,
but in a somewhat random manner as the die undergoes elastic reflection.
>
>I just don't think this kind of control is possible with sharp-edged
>dice on a felt surface.
>
I also think that no human can maintain the horizontal axis, mainly
because any off-axis angle of even a tenth of a degree will cause the
sharp corners of one side of the die to dig in to the felt more than the
other side. The resulting torque would begin a precession of the
gyroscope that would quickly become random at the next few reflections.
But maybe a machine could perform the feat?
-- Steve F.
ACDOC
So basically, you don't believe that a person can produce an
derandomized dice toss.
Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
AxisPowerHeavy
> IMHO........no one....no one is a dice influencer until I have seen
> them shoot.
That's a very wise decision on your part. I feel exactly the same way.
Surprise.
> I don't believe anything I read and about 75% of what I see.
I think that is particularly true if you read the exploits of a couple of
chaps who claim to be the best in the world every time they can convince
someone to point a camera at them. Yeah, you know who I'm talking about.
>I have seen to many people claiming to be something other than what they are.
Yeah, rec.gambling.craps is loaded with so-called craps experts who don't
have a clue.
> No offense
None taken, DD.
_______________________________________________________________________
AxisPowerHeavy
> So basically, you don't believe that a person can produce an
> derandomized dice toss.
>
> Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
Because Steve is nothing more than a troll and flamer who inflates his ego
by knocking others and pontificating about things he has no grasp of.
______________________________________________________________________
AxisPowerHeavy
> I also think that no human can maintain the horizontal axis, mainly
> because any off-axis angle of even a tenth of a degree will cause the
> sharp corners of one side of the die to dig in to the felt more than the
> other side. The resulting torque would begin a precession of the
> gyroscope that would quickly become random at the next few reflections.
>
> But maybe a machine could perform the feat?
Ah, the machine thing again. It's been done. We've tested with
mechanical devices and computer generated models. Our side won - your side
lost. It is what it is.
_______________________________________________________________________
The Midnight Skulker
> > call BSDD, Steve. IMHO it is not necessary for the dice to
> > maintain their original set, or even rotate in concert, to gain
> > an advantage. What ->is<- necessary is that the dice maintain
> > an axis of rotation such that the faces that were set on the
> > sides (i.e. the faces that are not supposed to show) stay on
> > the sides both before and after contact with the Green Rubber
> > Thing.
>
> You are confusing BSDD (no spin, stable body) with SSDD (spin
> stabilized).
Perhaps. I have interpreted SSDD to mean the dice spin fast enough
to produce a gyroscopic effect, and BSDD to mean the dice do not
spin at all.
> I've tried to explain the distinction for quite some time with my
> postings and in the FAQ, but I guess the concept of a MECHANISM
> behind Dice Derandomizing is quite elusive.
The techniques I have seen and read about are in a third category,
which I will label BADD for"Barrier-Assisted Dice Derandomization".
The dice may or may not spin. If they do spin they do not spin
fast enough to produce any stabilizing effect, and they need not
spin in concert. The only requirement is that the faces that were
set on the sides remain on the sides throughout the toss so that
they do not show. Consequently a completely successful BAAD throw,
like an SSDD throw, reduces the number of possible results from 36
to 16, but like BSDD does not rely on a gyroscopic effect to keep
the "forbidden faces" from showing.
> [snip]
>
> > I don't think it is possible for a human to impart enough spin
> > to keep the dice on axis even if they hit the actual pyramids.
> > Hence, observing where the dice land and how they behave
> > afterwards would seem sufficient to identify a potential
> > precision shooter.
>
> I completely agree with the above, as it relates to SSDD.
> Although I don't think it is possible, as a scientist I am open
> to evidence to the contrary.
As am I. However, were you not going to investigate how fast the
dice would have to spin to create the necessary gyroscopic effect?
> That's why I seek confirming evidence from those who post here
> claiming to have the skill (except every single "DI" poster is of
> the BSDD type.)
I think a significant number, if not a majority, of them are of the
BADD type.
> Now I go further than you in that I believe it IS possible for a
> machine, properly constructed, to demonstrate an advantage using
> the SSDD mechanism.
I suppose construction of such a machine would be of academic
interest. I have to wonder, though, if the table portion of the
apparatus would have to be made of armor plating several meters
thick to keep the dice from penetrating the walls.
> Like you imply in your opening sentence, the restriction to
> maintain the original set (where only four results are a success)
> with BSDD is too great to overcome. I agree with that, even a
> machine could not maintain the stable body once it hits the table,
> much less hits the back wall.
What if the dice make first contact with the wall at its base,
->under<- the first row of pyramids? That is what a BADD throw
attempts to do: use the junction of the layout and the pyramids to
"sandwich" the dice and stop them, or at least maintain their
preset axis of rotation. Being as the wall is somewhat elastic I
think the hope is that it will absorb some of the energy and dampen
any departure the axis of rotation has from the ideal of parallel
to the table and perpendicular to the "forbidden faces". (I guess
that makes the wall an absorbing barrier, but not the same kind as
espoused by a mutual acquaintance of our's.)
ACDOC
> 6
I like your BADD model. I think I've used that toss before.
I would like to ask you to come up with an acronym that combines BADD
with a low and fast toss that uses a little back spin to slow the dice
down on contact with the table surface, but that forward momentum and
table contact also gives them some forward rotation before they get to
the barrier.
ausound
4546-9d9a-e...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> The techniques I have seen and read about are in a third category,
> which I will label BADD for"Barrier-Assisted Dice Derandomization".
> The dice may or may not spin. If they do spin they do not spin
> fast enough to produce any stabilizing effect, and they need not
> spin in concert. The only requirement is that the faces that were
> set on the sides remain on the sides throughout the toss so that
> they do not show. Consequently a completely successful BAAD throw,
> like an SSDD throw, reduces the number of possible results from 36
> to 16, but like BSDD does not rely on a gyroscopic effect to keep
> the "forbidden faces" from showing.
I believe my shot would be the BADDASS shot
for Barrier Assisted Dice Derandomization And something - something
haven't come up with 2 more bitchen words
alls I know is I want my shot to be
-----B.A.D.A.S.S.-----
or badd2thebone
gotta come up with the "S" words first
ausound
314a9d...@e3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
that of course would be the BADDABING toss
"Barrier-Assisted Dice Derandomization Brisk Inversive 'Ntropic
Gravitation"
zox625
This is what I meant to say in my original post. You can't maintain the
horizontal axis accurately enough to prevent any small variation from
horizontal to radically skewing the dice with all that spin energy in play.
> But maybe a machine could perform the feat?
>
Irrelevant and not important :)
_____________________________________________________________________
SteveF
>
>>> I suggest you are placing too great a restriction on what you
>>> call BSDD, Steve. IMHO it is not necessary for the dice to
>>> maintain their original set, or even rotate in concert, to gain
>>> an advantage. What ->is<- necessary is that the dice maintain
>>> an axis of rotation such that the faces that were set on the
>>> sides (i.e. the faces that are not supposed to show) stay on
>>> the sides both before and after contact with the Green Rubber
>>> Thing.
>>
>> You are confusing BSDD (no spin, stable body) with SSDD (spin
>> stabilized).
>
>Perhaps. I have interpreted SSDD to mean the dice spin fast enough
>to produce a gyroscopic effect, and BSDD to mean the dice do not
>spin at all.
>
That is correct, so I don't understand your statement that I'm putting
too great a restriction on BSDD. The "DI" proponents (of the
mechanism I call BSDD) want the dice to remain in the original set
WITH respect to one another and without any or much spin. The SSDD
mechanism has the dice spinning, and WITHOUT respect to one another.
>
>The techniques I have seen and read about are in a third category,
>which I will label BADD for"Barrier-Assisted Dice Derandomization".
>
I am unfamiliar with any works describing this third category.
Perhaps you could name some authors or web sites so I can try to
figure out the mechanism they claim will gain an advantage.
For the SSDD mechanism, as far as I know, there is only the author
Yuri Kononenko and his "Dice Control for Casino Craps". Then there
is the Craps FAQ and the web site mentioned there.
For the BSDD mechanism, there are the web sites as advertised by
the "DI" hucksters who haunt this newsgroup, then there is the
website www.dicecoach.com that is mentioned a lot. As for BSDD
authors, here is a partial list:
* Sharpshooter (Chris Pawlicki): "Get the EDGE at CRAPS"
* Frank Scoblete and Dominator: "Golden Touch Dice Control Revolution"
* Stanford Wong (John Ferguson): "Wong on Dice"
* Jerry Patterson: "PARR Zone in Dice Control"
* Zeke Feinberg: "Pre-Setting Dice -- I Beat the Bastards, So Can You"
>
>The dice may or may not spin. If they do spin they do not spin
>fast enough to produce any stabilizing effect, and they need not
>spin in concert. The only requirement is that the faces that were
>set on the sides remain on the sides throughout the toss so that
>they do not show.
>
So the dice do not spin, and are not stable. So what, pray tell,
is the mechanism that will keep the two "axis" sides from showing?
Without spin, there is no "axis", so no reason to favor those two
sides from not showing as opposed to any other two sides.
>
>>
>> I completely agree with the above, as it relates to SSDD.
>> Although I don't think it is possible, as a scientist I am open
>> to evidence to the contrary.
>
>As am I. However, were you not going to investigate how fast the
>dice would have to spin to create the necessary gyroscopic effect?
>
I was? I once mentioned that one could write a computer simulation
program that could verify this, but it would require several man-years
of effort. With a team of 50, I could do it in a month; if it's just
me we'll have to wait until I retire to see how much time I have.
>
>I think a significant number, if not a majority, of them are of the
>BADD type.
>
I disagree. When I pressed ACDICK for an explanation of his "DI"
mechanism he pointed me to Scoblete's and Sharpshooter's books,
which describe the BSDD mechanism. Looking at Heavy's web site,
it also shows that the BSDD mechanism is employed (soft gentle toss,
dice reacting together.)
>
>I suppose construction of such a machine would be of academic
>interest. I have to wonder, though, if the table portion of the
>apparatus would have to be made of armor plating several meters
>thick to keep the dice from penetrating the walls.
>
I don't understand that remark. Why do you think the machine could
not impart the soft gentle toss required?
>
>What if the dice make first contact with the wall at its base,
>->under<- the first row of pyramids? That is what a BADD throw
>attempts to do: use the junction of the layout and the pyramids to
>"sandwich" the dice and stop them, or at least maintain their
>preset axis of rotation.
>
OK, I have heard this theory by some poster in the past. That is
not part of the BSDD mechanism as described in the references above.
Have you ever actually looked at that region below the bottom pyramid?
Do you think it is easy for a shooter to hit that region? Does it look
like the dice can be "sandwiched" there? Have you EVER seen this happen?
Have you ever tried to hit this region?
Like any of the mechanisms, your BADD could certainly be proved or
disproved by simply observing the dice as they travel through the air
and rebound off the wall to come to a stop.
Let the BADD throwers in the newsgroup speak up for their mechanism.
-- Steve F.
ausound
@newsfe16.iad:
>
> Have you ever actually looked at that region below the bottom pyramid?
many times
have over a hundred dollars of the authentic green stuff on the back wall
of my shooting table.
> Do you think it is easy for a shooter to hit that region?
if it was easy everyone could do it... and if they COULD do it... they
WOULD do it
> Does it look
> like the dice can be "sandwiched" there?
oh yes, you should put a set of casino dice there next to YOUR authentic
casino rubber pyramid material and look at it closely
> Have you EVER seen this happen?
many many times
> Have you ever tried to hit this region?
tried and succeeded many many times
>
> Like any of the mechanisms, your BADD could certainly be proved or
> disproved by simply observing the dice as they travel through the air
> and rebound off the wall to come to a stop.
not only is that area below the first row of pyramids a marvellous
landing spot, it also is a sort of "self correcting" mechanism for dice
slightly out of "squared up" alignment.
It's hard for me to clarify this with words, but if you put YOUR
authentic casino dice next to YOUR authentic green pyramid material it
will become redily apparent
>
> Let the BADD throwers in the newsgroup speak up for their mechanism.
>
hope this helps
ACDOC
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve:
First off, You're the dick here, not me.
Second, you haven't demonstrated anything as of yet for BVD, or
whatever.
I like BADD as a mechanism. It's got a nice ring to it.
I like BADDABING even better.
Is BADDABOOM far behind?
The fact is, ausound might just have something with BADD.
It rings true.
SSDD and BSDD? You made that up! No DI uses the terminology.
It might as well be STD and BVD.
ausound
442534...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
> I like BADD as a mechanism. It's got a nice ring to it.
>
> I like BADDABING even better.
>
> Is BADDABOOM far behind?
>
> The fact is, ausound might just have something with BADD.
technical correction: Van skulker came up with BADD
I worked with a thesaurus for an hour
to come up with BADDABING
I need a life
but I CAN throw the dice in an artful manner
so that it's almost like picking 'em up and setting 'em down on the other
side of the table.
TeddysDad
land', at the junction of the table surface and the back wall, would "kill"
the dice, and let them simply roll backwards, leaving the proper axis/axel
alone, eliminating the side numbers. Quinalt Beach Resort, Ocean Shores
WA, early in the day, I got the dice. Set with the 6/1, 6/1 on the
axis/axel, aimed, and tossed. They hit the exact spot between the surface
and the back wall, and STUCK, like they were glued there. Smiles were all
around the crew, and the three of us playing (it set a point of, I beleve,
9). Dice came back, same set, same toss, same result. STUCK LIKE THEY
WERE PLACED THERE (unknown number, no nine, I remember that). No more
smiles from the crew. Two 'new' suits showed up out of no where. I was
being 'looked at'. I smiled, said "Wanna see it again?". No answer. I
tried my very best to do it again. No Fluffing Way, they hit, rolled,
can't remember the outcome of the hand. But those two tosses were
semi-highlights of my craps shooting.....
ausound
news:qOWdnVZcQeBj1w_U...@harbornet.com:
and there you have it
UNREFUTABLE PROOF
I know I'm satisfied
the BADDABING dice throw
The Midnight Skulker
> > > > you call BSDD, Steve. IMHO it is not necessary for the
> > > > dice to maintain their original set, or even rotate in
> > > > concert, to gain an advantage. What ->is<- necessary is
> > > > that the dice maintain an axis of rotation such that the
> > > > faces that were set on the sides (i.e. the faces that are
> > > > not supposed to show) stay on the sides both before and
> > > > after contact with the Green Rubber Thing.
> > >
> > > You are confusing BSDD (no spin, stable body) with SSDD (spin
> > > stabilized).
> >
> > Perhaps. I have interpreted SSDD to mean the dice spin fast
> > enough to produce a gyroscopic effect, and BSDD to mean the
> > dice do not spin at all.
>
> That is correct, so I don't understand your statement that I'm
> putting too great a restriction on BSDD. The "DI" proponents
> (of the mechanism I call BSDD) want the dice to remain in the
> original set WITH respect to one another and without any or much
> spin. The SSDD mechanism has the dice spinning, and WITHOUT
> respect to one another.
The point I was trying to make is that SSDD and BSDD are not the
only mechanisms possible. In fact, I do not think either of them
are attainable by humans. I may well be confusing "technique" with
"mechanism", however. What expertise I have, and I do not claim a
great amount, is with the goal of the former rather than the
physics of the latter.
> > The techniques I have seen and read about are in a third
> > category, which I will label BADD for"Barrier-Assisted Dice
> > Derandomization".
>
> I am unfamiliar with any works describing this third category.
> Perhaps you could name some authors or web sites so I can try to
> figure out the mechanism they claim will gain an advantage.
Since you are putting the books by Sharpshooter and Scoblete into
the BSDD category I can think of no BADD works, but again I am
probably looking more at technique than mechanism. The goal of
BADD is to keep two opposing faces of each die from showing --
period. This is accomplished by throwing the dice in a way that
is comfortable to the shooter such that any rotation -- IMHO a
better term than spin -- is about an axis parallel to the table
and perpendicular to the two "forbidden faces".
> [snip]
>
> So the dice do not spin, and are not stable. So what, pray
> tell, is the mechanism that will keep the two "axis" sides from
> showing? Without spin, there is no "axis", so no reason to
> favor those two sides from not showing as opposed to any other
> two sides.
Is it your contention, then, that if the table top were covered
with a thick layer of sand or some gelatinous substance so that
the dice stopped dead when they landed there would still be no way
to favor two specified opposing faces from showing other than with
SSDD or BSDD? If so then I must totally disagree. Making the dice
behave in a controlled manner while in the air is not the major
problem; rather it is maintining that control after the dice make
contact with the table top and the wall. BADD uses the energy-
absorbing properties of the wall to reduce the bounce so that the
dice can hit somewhat off center and still keep the "forbidden
faces" from showing.
> > ... were you not going to investigate how fast the dice would
> > have to spin to create the necessary gyroscopic effect?
>
> I was? I once mentioned that one could write a computer
> simulation program that could verify this, but it would require
> several man-years of effort. ...
My mistake. I thought there were formulae that could be used to
make this determination from the mass, dimensions, and other known
parameters of the dice.
> > I think a significant number, if not a majority, of them are of
> > the BADD type.
>
> I disagree. When I pressed ACDICK for an explanation of his "DI"
> mechanism he pointed me to Scoblete's and Sharpshooter's books,
> which describe the BSDD mechanism. Looking at Heavy's web site,
> it also shows that the BSDD mechanism is employed (soft gentle
> toss, dice reacting together.)
I go back to the opening remark of my first post to this thread:
"I suggest you are placing too great a restriction on what you call
BSDD, Steve." I am familiar only with Sharpshooter's book, but
IIRC he did allow the dice to rotate independently, and his
calculated advantages assumed 16 possible outcomes, not 4.
> > I suppose construction of such a machine [to demonstrate SSDD]
> > would be of academic interest. I have to wonder, though, if
> > the table portion of the apparatus would have to be made of
> > armor plating several meters thick to keep the dice from
> > penetrating the walls.
>
> I don't understand that remark. Why do you think the machine
> could not impart the soft gentle toss required?
1) I was trying to be funny. Obviously, I picked the wrong
material for the wrong audience.
2) Not being a mechanical engineer I could not think of a way to
construct a machine that could toss the dice gently ->and<- impart
enough spin to create a gyroscopic effect. After giving the matter
additional thought, however, I now think it is possible, even easy,
to do so, though I don't think ordinary felt would survive very
many trials.
> > What if the dice make first contact with the wall at its base,
> > ->under<- the first row of pyramids? That is what a BADD throw
> > attempts to do: use the junction of the layout and the pyramids
> > to "sandwich" the dice and stop them, or at least maintain
> > their preset axis of rotation.
>
> OK, I have heard this theory by some poster in the past. That is
> not part of the BSDD mechanism as described in the references
> above.
Exactly my point! It is another mechanism for derandomizing the
dice.
> Have you ever actually looked at that region below the bottom
> pyramid? Do you think it is easy for a shooter to hit that
> region? Does it look like the dice can be "sandwiched" there?
> Have you EVER seen this happen? Have you ever tried to hit this
> region?
Save your sarcasm for those with less then 40 years of experience
playing the game and less than 13 years of posting history to this
forum, IOW those who might be intimidated by it, for I most
certainly am not. I grant that "sandwiched" was a poor choice of
terms for the dice do not get wedged between two surfaces and
stopped cold. Rather the dice bounce off one surface (the table
top) onto the other surface (the bottom of the bottom row of
pyramids) and reflect back onto the first surface because both
surfaces are flat. The second surface, being somewhat soft,
absorbs some of the kinetic energy of the dice thereby reducing how
far the dice travel after contact with it. I could not and still
cannot think of a word to describe this phenomenon. As for your
questions they do not warrant answers.
> Like any of the mechanisms, your BADD could certainly be proved
> or disproved by simply observing the dice as they travel through
> the air and rebound off the wall to come to a stop.
Well, mere observation would certainly indicate whether or not a
shooter ->appeared<- to be influencing the dice in that manner.
Proof/disproof would require more rigorous methods, of course.
> Let the BADD throwers in the newsgroup speak up for their
> mechanism.
I just did, but unlike those who stand to profit from teaching
others a skill that is self-eliminating if it even exists at all,
I will not defend it to the death. And in closing I will note that
BADD is similar, if not identical, to your BSDD, but without the
requirement that the dice rotate in concert.
SteveF
> and there you have it
> UNREFUTABLE PROOF
> I know I'm satisfied
>
> the BADDABING dice throw
Pheromones !
(in memory of Mason, may he rest in peace)
Steen
> (in memory of Mason, may he rest in peace)
When did this happen? I was unaware Mason had passed. I'm very sorry
to hear it. Last I heard he had taken a teaching job that was
consuming all his time which was why he was no longer posting. I very
much enjoyed his contributions. He had a keen intellect and sharp
wit.
Steen
ausound
@newsfe19.iad:
> (in memory of Mason, may he rest in peace)
so did we get confirmmation of Mason's passing?
ausound
8867-f7c...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com:
> Last I heard he had taken a teaching job that was
> consuming all his time which was why he was no longer posting.
I'd rather hear that than he bought the farm
SteveF
"Steen" <winc...@cloudcitysoftware.com> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
>> (in memory of Mason, may he rest in peace)
>
> When did this happen? I was unaware Mason had passed. I'm very sorry
> to hear it.
>
Well, . . . the longest he has ever gone without posting was 3 months.
And it's been a year and a half with no posts on usenet anywhere.
Whether he's alive or not, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure he
will never post here again.
I will miss his wit.
-- Steve F.
Mr. V
I admired that trait.
roll dem bones