Still not quite sure what you're getting at... Please elaborate.

Is it that you can't talk about controlled shots unless you've done it yourself?

Not that you can't talk about it, the point is that it really is tough to talk about how to distract boxmen and dealers, if you havnt either distracted them or been them.Seems clear to me.

Sure, but you can relate the actual experiences through others that have done so.

Typically a late prop bet is thrown into the stick during the moment of the toss. This is just one of many examples. There are numerous ways that the craps crew can be turned, and much of that is left to the imagination and discretion of the particular cheat team.

To give you an example of how easily dealers/bosses can be turned, back at our little Indian casino in upstate NY whenever a particularly hot girl would walk through the pit a dealer would announce "cheques play" (meaning $100 cheques were in action). This was an inside joke to alert the other dealers that a hottie was in the area. I was there the one night when a real knockout of a babe was walking through the pit, and it was a riot to see every table down the line announcing "cheques play."

You can try a similar experiment yourself. If you ever visit Vegas head to the Flamingo during grave shift and say in a loud voice "crap game!" as you pass the dice pit, and watch the reactions of the dealers.

Yikes! Didn't mean to start a heated debate here!

Look I am NOT in any way doubting that dealers can be distracted. Heck it is why they are only on for 20 minutes in a row GENERALLY.

But I am saynig telling others how to apply that information is a little bit IFFY at best if you have never experienced it.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this.

ACTUALLY, dealers are usually ON for 40-60 minutes, followed by a 20 minute break.

I get the sense that you KNOW what you're typing isn't correct, but your use of DISCLAIMERS is to be commended, along with the caps...

Danny,

At what point was I "telling others how to apply" information to distract the table personnel? I was merely outlining in broad terms how it might be done in some circumstances. It wasn't meant to be the final word on the subject. I was simply sketching a scenario that's been used before to get the dealers, stick and boxmen to fade a roll where one die comes up a bit short of the backwall.

The only reason I did that is because you insisted that every roll had to hit the backwall or risk being disqualified. I was just showing how a roll that didn't hit the backwall could get past the table crew under the proper circumstances. It wasn't meant to be a lesson in how to do it.

You mislead others on this board by using terms like "not possible" and "never." I don't for a second think you intended to mislead people, but you spoke in absolutes when absolutes weren't called for. I corrected you, and provided the components of a controlled dice shot (high degree of lateral spin and try not to hit the backwall).

You balked, and said that wouldn't work since the roll would be disqualified. I then stepped in and described how it was (and still could be) done in the real world. The table crew is turned. I gave a few examples (straight out of Steve's book) on how this might be accomplished.

To top it off, I mentioned that another expert (SF) whose opinion and experience I trust explicitly states he's personally witnessed controlled shots that held up even after hitting the backwall.

For some reason you kept firing back saying that these things were impossible. That's simply not the case. Now you've come around to the stance of "they're possible but very difficult and few people do them." Well that's all I've been saying all along! At no point did I say these shots were easy (to the contrary, I pointed out that they are very difficult).

So you tried a "semantics" tack. Semantics has nothing to do with it. If a word can be interpreted in multiple ways, then you may have a semantics issue. "Never" and "impossible" have real meanings. They're absolutes, and can be misleading when used inappropriately. I guess by "never" you really meant "sometimes," and by "not possible" you really meant "unlikely."

Then you brought experience into the mix. You make a valid point that experience in a given endeavor is important. But I'm not trying to give lessons in controlled dice shots. To do that without experience with them would be questionable at best. I was just attempting to establish that they're possible, something you've been reluctant to admit until these last few posts.

My lack of experience at controlled shots means I can't tell you what it feels like to throw one. I can't tell you exactly how to hold your hand, and I can't tell you how much your heart is going to want to jump out of your chest as you attempt one. But I can rely on the experience of other experts to conclude that the shots exist.

Instead of the cop ****ogy, take the ****ogy of the 4 minute mile. I've never run one. You've never run one. Chances are no one you know has ever run one, unless you have friends in elite track circles. In fact, I bet it's safe to say that 99.9999 of the people in the world have never run one. But can you imagine the flak one would receive if they posted on a track and field message board saying that a sub 4-minute mile was impossible? It's established that it's possible even if less than 1 in 100,000 can accomplish it. And you and I, totally lacking in experience at running a sub-4 minute mile, would be perfectly within our rights to correct anyone that said otherwise. They'd be the fools, not us, even though they might be runners and we aren't. Experience is nice, but not always necessary to establish something as possible.

Welcome to the world of controlled dice shots on a casino craps table under "real world" conditions. Difficult to learn, difficult to execute, difficult to plan, difficult to make money with, and yet absolutely possible.

Jason


Posted: Jul 5, 2006 2:58am
-------------------------------------

Actually, I didn't get worked up at all! I was perfectly calm as I continuously provided the correct answer to Cardshark2004's question.


Because that wouldn't be nice. I tried to be civil, even if I did manage to get in a few barbs as you tried in vain to bolster your stance.


That's an semi-accurate statement. It's true you can't throw a controlled shot that looks exactly like a regular craps player's shot. (You can't come off the wall with wild abandon.) But the diamonds aren't stopping the really good crews...they know how to overcome that obstacle with turns and psychology.


I'm not sure what you're referring to here. What "second method" are you speaking of?

Jason

Is there any way a shooter, that hits the alligator with both dice, can throw a controlled shot? Are all these people writing books and conducting seminars just ripping people off?



“I don't believe it's possible to hit the back wall with both dice and control them to the extent of generating a winning edge. This a perfect example of an alleged skill, like many we often hear about, where it's easy to quickly voice an opinion for, or against, without qualification. But a scientific opinion requires much more. In the book I document a test consisting of 12,000 rolls. Actually, I dropped two dice from 10" above the table, same configuration, straight down, and with no obstacles. The results did not indicate a statistically significant presence of control. Even the slightest bounce appears to be an adequate randomizer.



An interesting development in this area is a new book by Stanford Wong, but since I haven't looked at the book yet, I don't know if his work looks at hitting the back wall with both dice' most dice setters are looking to throw the dice short of the back wall). Even with Stanford Wong stepping into the controversy, and considering his impeccable reputation and his remarkable body of work, I'm not ready to change my mind. I have trouble seeing past the results of my own test, which is why I state in my book "Until I see evidence to the contrary, I remain a non believer."

-Steve Forte-

^He's talking about the issue of "dice setting," tommy. Not controlled shots used to cheat.

Jason,

I like your 4 minute mile anaology.

All dicesetters can run a 3 minute mile.

Z look yea 20 minute breaks ever 40 sorry. MY BAD.

Jason you have indeed broken it into a semantic debate. You invent some silly conditioins in which it may work. Great.

Funny though I said "few bother to try it". NOT it wasn't possible. You then agree and disagree with this statement at various times.

I have not backed off from my position in the least. Lets agree on something so the heat is turned down. The diamonds at the end of the table are "intended to slow crews, and are intended to give a purley random shot when hit". can we agree here?

A dice shot is "intended to hit the back wall, or an attempt must be made to hit the wall so the dice may bounce in a random way each time". Can we agree here?

these "inovations and rules" are intended to make it tougher on craps players who want to do controled dice throws. Can we please agree?

When you break down my first posts, this was their intent. NOTHING more. I hope we can all agree as it seems pretty simple.

Are there ways arround it? ABSOLUTLY with no doubt most systems put in place can be circumvented by a talented, hard working, intelligent hustler. I think elements of all 3 are necessary along with the proper time, but I do believe it possible.

Have we reached a place where we all agree?

You're so right, I refuse to accept that the top homicide detectives are experts. If they haven't murdered a whole bunch of people than how can they possibly be experts on homicide? Buncha liars. Man those lying liars get me steamed up.

Z.
I don't know about dice as you know but the question put to Forte was:

"Is there any way a shooter, that hits the alligator with both dice, can throw a controlled shot? Are all these people writing books and conducting seminars just ripping people off?"

I interpret his answer as there is no way and yes they are ripping people off with these books and seminars. Are you saying that is a wrong interpretation of Fortes answer?

Tommy funny you should say that as I believe it goes to my original point and first post.

Nope not at all. I'm just saying, that stipulation doesn't mean that it's impossible to control the dice on a regulation craps table, as we have thus illustrated.

In the book SF mentions that a true "controlled dice shot" and "dice setting" aren't one and the same. A controlled shot as thrown by a dice hustler involves lateral control and a sliding motion that prevents the die from tumbling. Dice setters believe that if they set the dice on certain combinations and throw the dice a specific way they can prevent certain numbers from showing (it's more or less the classic pad roll done in the air). There is a huge difference.

Dan
Yes I know. I agree with you, and so does Forte it seems to me.

Tommy,

Going back to my initial post, there are two meanings for “controlled dice shots.”

One of those meanings is the classic one, where hustlers use extreme spin to control a single die. The other die is virtually always thrown with more force and tumbles randomly. These types of shots absolutely exist and can be demonstrated. Using them in a casino is tough, but by no means impossible.

The other group of people that have sort of co-opted the term “controlled dice shots” are the dice setters. These people believe that they can throw both dice through the air, account for the mid-air rotation of the cubes, account for the impact of the felt, account for the impact of the pyramidal rubber backing of the wall, account for the tumble of the cubes, and still control the outcome. So far no one has produced any reliable evidence that demonstrates this is viable. They’ve only produced books and seminars explaining their techniques.

So, can both dice contact the backwall and still remain under control? Not the way the dice setters would have you believe. On this issue, Steve, Danny, you, me, and Mr. Z are all in total agreement.

But, as Steve pointed out in CGP, on occasion one of those hustlers will throw a “real” controlled shot where the die being controlled makes light, accidental contact with the backwall and still holds up. But keep in mind that this is not their intention, it just happens from time to time. The extreme spin allows the die to make incidental contact and not tumble off its spinning axis. So in these cases, then yes, both dice are contacting the backwall and a die (a single cube) is being controlled. (The other is not being controlled and contacts the backwall naturally and forcefully.)

So you see it isn’t a simple yes or no answer. It depends on the specific context in which you ask the question. Dice setters can’t do it because they’re trying to control way too many variables. Hustlers can do it on rare occasions when the single die they’re trying to control makes light contact with the backwall.

Jason


Posted: Jul 5, 2006 2:34pm
-------------------------------------


I'm sorry you don't understand the term "semantic." I "invented" no conditions. I simply reported them.


Actually, you said: "Since the diamonds on the end of the table, not possible in a casino, no matter how many sources or terms anyone gives you."

Your grammar errors aside, since I'm the only person in the thread that mentioned "terms" of any type, I took this as a direct rebuttal of what I'd just written a few posts above you. So I opened the floodgates on you, and whether you know it or not, you're drowning.


I agree that the dice setters can't do what they claim. But I don't agree that the backwall and pyramids stop everyone.


No, you're too obtuse for that.


I agree with all of this. These are all obstacles that hustlers and dice setters have to overcome. The hustlers have managed more or less to do this over the years. The dice setters haven't.


Perhaps that was your intent. But that isn't what you said. You wrote "not possible" and you've "never" seen it done. (The implication being that it couldn't be done by anyone.)


On this we do agree.

Jason

Dang...if I wanted to argue about gambling or cheats two of the five people I wouldn't argue with would be Jason England and Andrew Wimhurst. Hey! Let's get Malik in here and let folks argue with him too!
Steve V

Well funny how it is a semantic debate and when you break it down we agree.

Jason when I quoted myself I referred to the last post. Not the first post.
Few even try it. that was what was written to try to clear things up as you seem to remain mystified.

And what are you in real life a grammar teacher? Are we here to learn proper syntax and sentence structure? Well I have a lot of posts which could use your "expertise" if you don't mind.

If not the spirit of what was said is surprisingly close to what I actually said.

Danny :
Your position on the feasability of controlled Dice throws in a casino environment as originally stated has been repeatedly and clearly shown as innaccurate by the presentation of logical arguements complete with references to valid sources. You are Wrong and this clearly is beyond your character to accept. Rather, you have tried to "chuck the focus" by making the arguement about book learning vs. experience , homocide detectives and the 4 or 3 minute mile . Even while you plead for common ground ("can we please agree") you still take shots at Jason who, along with Mr. Z have provided the best and most accurate info in this thread. You say that Jason has invented "silly conditions" in which controlled shots might work in a casino environment while you also say that no one can say what conditions apply in a game unless they've done it themselves. You attack the legitimacy of anyones opinion who hasn't worked a game.What is your experience that allows you to claim the conditions described in Forte's book are silly? I've worked craps from every aspect and can tell you that the original question has already been answered complete with references as well as anyone could ask for by Jason and Mr.Z . But my or anyone elses experience isn't the real issue here is it ?
I've read other excellent posts by you and must say I'm suprised by your stubbornness to accept that you are wrong and your juvenile attempts to chuck the focus by berating Jason England. I'd like to say that this is out of character for you but I really don't have the personal EXPERIENCE to make that claim and can only go by what I've READ .
Dowser