So before we even begin I know that Steve Forte mentions that it is impossible for someone to control the roll of a pair of dice while at a casino craps game. However, this site claims that controlled shots are possible at the casino table. I will post a link at the bottom. I was able to acquire a copy of their "Training" dvd and they are very serious their technique. So my question is, does anyone have any comments on the legitimacy of this product. They claim a controlled dice shooter see's improvements in about 3-6 months.

http://www.goldentouchcraps.com/GTCDVD.shtml

That guy Frank is an awesome story teller...

It's a bunch of bull****, and you should demand a refund for your time and money. You should know better.

Dice setters!

Weird, I just deleted the video files off my computer not 30 minutes ago.

I was also curious about the tape, as Frank told me that there many slow motion shots in the video from multiple angles.

Their theory is that when simultaneously 'back spinning' both dice on a pre-set axis, the better chance those dice will stay on axis after they hit the layout and kiss the back wall. Frank Scoblete argued with me that Steve's test was not a true test because the dice were just 'dropped'.

After watching the tape, the conclusion I quickly made (along with countless others) was that it's all a clever mix of psuedo-physics and self deception (not to mention clever marketing). In other words...

Complete baloney.

All the facts of 'golden touch' dice control can be considered TRUE up until the moment they hit the layout. After that... game over. But what about after they hit the layout? What keeps them on axis? The video has a lot of great explanations such as...

"...the dice should land soft."
"...minimal bounce."
"...brush the back wall and die."

Like many scientific theories it all looks and sounds good. When examined closely, though, there really is no science to it.

The slow motion shots were ridiculous. Many were from far away, the close-up ones were blurry, and they used the same shots over and over; the ones that 'looked good'. That's how they seem to judge if it held up... if it looked pretty.

Out of curiosity, I filmed some throws with a high speed (slow motion) camera. They were true, non blurry, super slow motion shots of the dice back spinning; hitting the layout PERFECTLY; then flailing about wildly on all different axis'... no control.

Don't ask me why I did this. I knew it was baloney from the start... I just wanted to have a 1 up on the people who just spit out what other people tell them.

But at they end of the day, they don't care. They smile and say "The more people that don't believe the better for us..."

Suck down that delicious Kool Aid. I won't stop you. As for certain other forms of dice control though...

I don't think it needs to be said whether or not I purchased the tape.

Trust me, I didn't purchase these items.

It's fairly easy to determine if you're exerting any real control over the dice. Set and throw them 1,000 times and see if you can get the results to fall outside 3 standard deviations.

If you're within 3 standard deviations, then your outcome is almost certainly the result of pure chance. If you do manage to get results that fall outside of 3 standard deviations, then I'm interested.

Jason

I don’t know as I don'y play the game but I think Backgammon is a more interesting proposition for, not this, but for this kind of thing and I don‘t find it altogether uninteresting.

Where did he ever say that?

On the contrary, on pg. 274 of Casino Game Protection he says "Yes, it is, unquestionably, possible to control the dice on a regulation casino crap table."

You are misquoting him and his commentary on the subject of dice setting.

Didn't Steve set-up a test where he dropped dice from the same height repeatedly, recorded the results (something like 5, 6 thousand times), and found that they didn't fall outside the expected results, IE, that of random numbers? I thought from this he concluded that there wasn't much value in the "dice setting" method. Other methods of controlling the dice, sure, but not dice setting.

I also wondered where SF said that.. And I do believe he made a several thousand drop test and concluded that setting did nothing.

If I'm not correct, many of the casinos don't care if you set the dice at all.

Z is simply saying that Blackeagle misquoted SF on the subject of dice control in the casino in a couple of ways. Dice control should not be confused with dice setting.

-SF mentions a controlled throw is possible a casino craps table (not dice setting).
-SF doesn't say dice control (dice setting) is "impossible", but from his tests no evidence warrants further research on his part. He is yet to be a believer.

No big deal. Just needed to be cleared up.

As Z pointed out, blackeagle, you are confusing Steve Forte's views on dice setting (on pages 294 - 297 of CGP) with controlled dice shots, which are two completely different animals.

Dice, as anyone who has seen Steve (as well as Z and a few other members) throw the dice will attest to, can be controlled by a talented and well-practiced scooter or spinner.

Dice Setting systems start with the premise that “setting” the dice and holding them so that the spots are aligned in a specific pattern as they are released will favor desired numbers. One preferred alignment is the Three Vee, wherein the threes are positioned on top of the dice forming a Vee shaped Hard Six; a six on the front comprised of the 5 and 1; an eight on the back comprised of a 2 and 6; an eight on the inside comprised of a 6 and 2; a six on the outside walls comprised of the 1 and 5; and a Hard Eight (two fours) on the bottom. A seven allegedly cannot be rolled with this set-up when the dice are expertly tossed.

A few of the system-sellers tout the power of the human mind in controlling dice, while others focus on the muscle memory developed through the consistent “setting” and tossing of the dice resulting in the development of a skill akin to throwing darts at the competitive level. With a degree in physical education and as a former Division I college baseball pitcher I certainly appreciate the role that mental concentration plays in the development and execution of human motor skills. Nevertheless, no one will ever convince me that the power of suggestion or “mind-control” will affect the roll of the dice once they leave the shooter’s hand, as alleged by several dice control hucksters plying their wares to the gullible on the Internet. Therefore, I’ll limit my comments herein to those touting legitimate elements of skill in setting and rolling the dice, where the object is to gain an advantage over the house by rolling more sevens and elevens than probability dictates on the come-out roll, and fewer sevens than should be expected after a point has been established.

Steve Forte recorded the results of twelve thousand outcomes during tests wherein two dice were held in an identical manner (the alignment of the six facing upwards and the five facing him, and the gripping of the fingers were precisely matched to ensure consistancy) and were dropped straight down onto a felt covered table from an identical height of ten inches. During his experiment Mr. Forte reasonably expected that, if the dice-control proponents were correct and certain numbers on each die can be rolled by holding and throwing the dice the same way and ensuring that they landed similarly, the outcomes obtained in his test where the dice were dropped straight down, flat against the table would reveal biases defying “the laws of probability” more definitively than would the throwing of two dice across the length of a regulation craps table.

Mr. Forte’s dice-dropping method also eliminated the requirement that the dice hit the angled rubber padding at the bottom of the craps table’s diamond-shaped side walls designed to thwart controlled dice shots. (As the Dice Setting system sellers all admit, once a die hits the sidewall’s rubber diamonds, what was intended to be a controlled dice shot will result in a random outcome, meaning that, even if the shooter’s desired number is rolled after hitting the diamonds, the outcome was the result of chance, and not the skill of the shooter.) To control the dice, one must hit the angled padding just below the diamonds, or not hit the sidewall at all, a roll that will likely draw heat when it's painfully obvious what the shooter is attempting.

Mr. Forte’s tests indicate that setting the dice and dropping them onto a felt-covered tabletop did not reveal any statistical anomalies supporting the position that certain numbers will roll more frequently than probability suggests. Based upon the results of his experiment, Mr. Forte maintains, until empirical evidence proves otherwise, that dice control remains one of casino folklore’s unproven myths.

Interestingly, gaming guru Stanford Wong entered the dice setting ring and, surprisingly in my view, touted the possibility of such control, although the number of test rolls was unconvincing. According to Mike Shackleford on his Wizard of Odds website, blackjack guru Stanford Wong (John Ferguson) became interested in “dice setting” after attending a four day conference in 2004 and, after rethinking his earlier conviction that dice control was impossible, bet a non-believing professional gambler that he and a dice-setting partner identified only as “Little Joe” could roll fewer than 79.5 sevens in five hundred rolls of the dice. Here’s Mr. Shackleford’s account of the action:




Whether or not dice can be influenced to tilt the odds in the shooter’s favor sufficiently to gain an edge will likely remain the subject of many debates as long as people keep the sellers in business. Like Steve Forte and The Wiz, though, I question the validity of an experiment comprised of only five hundred rolls; certainly the five thousand rolls The Wiz recommends, or the twelve thousand rolls in Steve Forte’s test would yield more accurate data.

Very cool info Bret, thanks for posting it!

MMc

I guess you do not know the difference between quoting and paraphrasing. Before saying I "misquoted" (and yes this would be a prime example of quoting) him, you must understand that I never used quotation marks thus making quoting impossible.

Read up on some English techniques.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/563/01/

Now that the English 101 lesson is finished, we can continue with the topic. From my understanding, Steve Forste mentioned that it was nearly impossible to control dice via dice setting. That's what I was told at least.

If Mr.Z has any questions he needs to ask Mr.Forte, he just needs to look over his mug of beer and ask him.

Further, I too read your post as if you were attempting to quote Mr.Forte......regardless of how you want to paint it now, that's what you were obviously doing.

(If you want to teach me some lessons now.....I'm ready).

That's a dick move, blackeagle. What you're saying now is not what you said originally. Not to mention that paraphrasing means restating something in your own words. You should read that again: RESTATING, not REINTERPRETING.



Read that again, and a second and third time too. Where in that paraphrase do you even mention dice setting? You say right out "it is impossible for someone to CONTROL THE ROLL OF A PAIR OF DICE WHILE AT A CASINO CRAPS TABLE." That's not what Steve says at all, so you're not paraphrasing, you're reinterpreting.

Stupid little grandstanding aside, the simple fact that you're speaking to Mr. Z that way is sure to make you absolutely no friends here. Have some respect, and grow enough of a pair that you can accept it when you make a simple, stupid mistake.

So now it goes from "Steve Forte mentions that it is impossible for someone to control the roll of a pair of dice while at a casino craps game" to him mentioning, as someone you know told you, that it is NEARLY impossible to control dice with SETTING?


And purdue sucks.

You didn't paraphrase. You paraphrased a quote out of a book incorrectly so it can be interpreted another way... misquoting. Journalists write public apologies all the time for 'misquoting' someones views when no quotations are involved. The term misparaphrasing isn't a word.

Who cares?

I was simply trying to clear things up. What you said could have been interpreted a couple of different way's. Because you haven't been fortunate enough to read the book... I was just trying to help.

I'm sure Mr. "Forste" would agree you should probably read up on some English lessons before any of us.

Back in 82, I could throw a pair of cubes over a quarter mile and have two 6's hold up.