'Dice Control' Denounced
- Thread starter zengrifter
- Start date
You might be referring to Frank Scoblete's method that uses the 5-Count. I don't really have an opinion on the specific strategy, to be honest.
I do, however, have an opinion on Scoblete in general: he has built quite the multimedia gambling information operation. Whether you agree with his material or not, it's hard to line up others that are in his ballpark with regard to the business he does.
good luck
I do, however, have an opinion on Scoblete in general: he has built quite the multimedia gambling information operation. Whether you agree with his material or not, it's hard to line up others that are in his ballpark with regard to the business he does.
good luck
Scoblete Scam
Scoblete is a sensationalist writer.
In regards to his books on dice.
In his first book he talks about the five count. This is after he has seen some "rhythmic rollers" who he plays up like cowboy gangsters from an Eastwood movie. The Arm, The Captain, Stickman etc.
The Five Count is a doey don'ty system that is supposed to find these "rhythmic rollers" So generally after five rolls you take odds. There are some execptions. If someone makes this many rolls they are obvioulsy not a rhythmic roller. I don't know if I have ever seen anyone who is a dice controller but have seen many people the Captains FIve Count would have been betting free odds on. When bet on a non-controlled roller you are increasing your variance exponentially through the Five Count.
In Scoblete's next book "Dice Control Revolution". He takes another character "Dominator" and teaches people in textbook terms how to control dice and bet on them. This is specific to Dominator and not all "dice controllers". For example what if you can roll a seven 2:6 times, the betting sceme in Scoblete's book is a disaster to a dark side controller. It also takes into question certain high percentage bets they don't make and why they are not making them if they have such an influence on the dice. I have written Scoblete individually and the Golden Touch people asking them these questions and they say pay the tuition for their course and you will find out. I haven't taken the course but beware of the holes in Scoblete's written material.
Scoblete is a sensationalist writer.
In regards to his books on dice.
In his first book he talks about the five count. This is after he has seen some "rhythmic rollers" who he plays up like cowboy gangsters from an Eastwood movie. The Arm, The Captain, Stickman etc.
The Five Count is a doey don'ty system that is supposed to find these "rhythmic rollers" So generally after five rolls you take odds. There are some execptions. If someone makes this many rolls they are obvioulsy not a rhythmic roller. I don't know if I have ever seen anyone who is a dice controller but have seen many people the Captains FIve Count would have been betting free odds on. When bet on a non-controlled roller you are increasing your variance exponentially through the Five Count.
In Scoblete's next book "Dice Control Revolution". He takes another character "Dominator" and teaches people in textbook terms how to control dice and bet on them. This is specific to Dominator and not all "dice controllers". For example what if you can roll a seven 2:6 times, the betting sceme in Scoblete's book is a disaster to a dark side controller. It also takes into question certain high percentage bets they don't make and why they are not making them if they have such an influence on the dice. I have written Scoblete individually and the Golden Touch people asking them these questions and they say pay the tuition for their course and you will find out. I haven't taken the course but beware of the holes in Scoblete's written material.
More of Frankie
In Craps the 5-Count is 100 Proof! By Frank Scoblete
"In the 1980s, when the Captain first explained his 5-Count method for selecting shooters to bet on at craps, he stated that the 5-Count would do three things that could help turn a negative-expectation game into a positive expectation game:
It would eliminate around 50 percent of the shooters, those who – in the aggregate – would lose you money.
It would position you to be in the game when the other 50 percent of the shooters rolled, among whom would be four types of shooters:
shooters who would break your heart by sevening out shortly after you put your money at risk (these formed the majority of post 5-Count shooters)
the shooters who through sheer luck were having good rolls
shooters who had developed a "rhythmic roll" that was an unconscious controlled dice shot; this through trial and error in the casinos
shooters who were conscious rhythmic rollers or, as we now call them, dice controllers who had purposely learned how to flip the game into the positive zone when they rolled the dice.
The 5-Count can give you far more in comps than your risk warrants and even if you don’t run into "rhythmic rollers" or controlled shooters you might be able to get the monetary edge over the casino by taking comps into consideration.
The Captain’s philosophy, as he articulated it in my books Beat the Craps Out of the Casinos: How to Play Craps and Win!, The Captain’s Craps Revolution and Forever Craps: The Five-Step Advantage Play Method! was that craps could be changed by someone physically altering the probabilities through rhythmic rolling and he discussed why he thought the 5-Count was the best way to locate such shooters.
In my 14 years of playing craps the Captain’s way, I became a true believer in the power of the 5-Count and I have preached the Captain’s philosophy to any craps player who would listen. Despite the fact that my craps books have been the best-selling craps books in the world for the past dozen years, few players have embraced the 5-Count, although among intelligent craps aficionados his concept of controlled shooting has gained many adherents, including those whose exploits in the casinos (such as Sharpshooter, Dominator and other members of the Golden Touch™ Craps crew) have become the stuff of legends. Indeed, Sharpshooter’s book Get the Edge at Craps: How to Control the Dice! is the definitive theoretical and practical explanation of why controlled shooting works and Sharpshooter is quick to recognize the role of the Captain in bringing the concept of controlled shooting to his attention.
Still, even many experienced controlled shooters eschew the 5-Count in favor of other types of "shooter qualification" concepts, thinking perhaps that any "shooter qualification" method is as good as any other "shooter qualification" method.
There have been two types of criticisms of the 5-Count over the years, one short-sighted and frivolous, the other valid and serious. Criticism #1 concerns the amount of discipline necessary to employ the 5-Count, the fact that the 5-Count can be boring to play as it keeps you out of the action for prolonged periods of time when shooters are going down in flames one after the other, and that it is disheartening when you finally get money up on a shooter only to have him seven out just after the 5-Count. Players who point to criticism #1 as the reason for why they stopped using the 5-Count, or why they never attempted it in the first place, tend to see gambling as a form of entertainment and they crave the action. It’s hard for them to stay out of the action for any period of time without getting antsy to bet their money. So they look for other shooter qualification criteria that get them in the action sooner.
Criticism #2 is far more serious as it simply puts the 5-Count in the spotlight with a single question: "Where’s the proof?" Those who adhere to this criticism of the 5-Count send out the challenge that if it does what the Captain says it does; prove it. Where’s the math? Where are the computer simulations? What makes the Captain’s 5-Count method any better than any other method for selecting shooters to bet on, like waiting for them to make a point before betting or hitting a couple of this or that number? All these shooter qualification methods are all just a matter of opinion, period – unless you have the proof to the contrary.
Over the years I’ve used logic and the experiences of players who have used the 5-Count successfully in relatively long-run play (10 years to 25 years) to counter the claims of those who adhere to criticism #2. My personal experience shows the 5-Count to work just as the Captain says it works. There are probably a hundred other people I can point to who will verify that it does work as intended: It selects the best possible shooters to bet on and, if there’s a controlled shooter in their midst, you’ll be on them and in the positive monetary zone.
Still, how much proof is that in the scheme of things? For critics, not much. In blackjack, for example, computer simulations of 200 million hands are de riguer for determining the efficacy of this or that move with a given hand vs. this or that dealer’s upcard.
But now, I can safely say that the proof of the Captain’s 5-Count’s efficacy is in and it is incontrovertible. Recent research and computer simulations done by Dr. Don Catlin, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Massachusetts, has shown that the 5-Count does everything the Captain said it would, perhaps even more!..." (more)
PROOF INDEED THAT FRANK IS A VERY GOOD SALESMAN...:cat:
In Craps the 5-Count is 100 Proof! By Frank Scoblete
"In the 1980s, when the Captain first explained his 5-Count method for selecting shooters to bet on at craps, he stated that the 5-Count would do three things that could help turn a negative-expectation game into a positive expectation game:
It would eliminate around 50 percent of the shooters, those who – in the aggregate – would lose you money.
It would position you to be in the game when the other 50 percent of the shooters rolled, among whom would be four types of shooters:
shooters who would break your heart by sevening out shortly after you put your money at risk (these formed the majority of post 5-Count shooters)
the shooters who through sheer luck were having good rolls
shooters who had developed a "rhythmic roll" that was an unconscious controlled dice shot; this through trial and error in the casinos
shooters who were conscious rhythmic rollers or, as we now call them, dice controllers who had purposely learned how to flip the game into the positive zone when they rolled the dice.
The 5-Count can give you far more in comps than your risk warrants and even if you don’t run into "rhythmic rollers" or controlled shooters you might be able to get the monetary edge over the casino by taking comps into consideration.
The Captain’s philosophy, as he articulated it in my books Beat the Craps Out of the Casinos: How to Play Craps and Win!, The Captain’s Craps Revolution and Forever Craps: The Five-Step Advantage Play Method! was that craps could be changed by someone physically altering the probabilities through rhythmic rolling and he discussed why he thought the 5-Count was the best way to locate such shooters.
In my 14 years of playing craps the Captain’s way, I became a true believer in the power of the 5-Count and I have preached the Captain’s philosophy to any craps player who would listen. Despite the fact that my craps books have been the best-selling craps books in the world for the past dozen years, few players have embraced the 5-Count, although among intelligent craps aficionados his concept of controlled shooting has gained many adherents, including those whose exploits in the casinos (such as Sharpshooter, Dominator and other members of the Golden Touch™ Craps crew) have become the stuff of legends. Indeed, Sharpshooter’s book Get the Edge at Craps: How to Control the Dice! is the definitive theoretical and practical explanation of why controlled shooting works and Sharpshooter is quick to recognize the role of the Captain in bringing the concept of controlled shooting to his attention.
Still, even many experienced controlled shooters eschew the 5-Count in favor of other types of "shooter qualification" concepts, thinking perhaps that any "shooter qualification" method is as good as any other "shooter qualification" method.
There have been two types of criticisms of the 5-Count over the years, one short-sighted and frivolous, the other valid and serious. Criticism #1 concerns the amount of discipline necessary to employ the 5-Count, the fact that the 5-Count can be boring to play as it keeps you out of the action for prolonged periods of time when shooters are going down in flames one after the other, and that it is disheartening when you finally get money up on a shooter only to have him seven out just after the 5-Count. Players who point to criticism #1 as the reason for why they stopped using the 5-Count, or why they never attempted it in the first place, tend to see gambling as a form of entertainment and they crave the action. It’s hard for them to stay out of the action for any period of time without getting antsy to bet their money. So they look for other shooter qualification criteria that get them in the action sooner.
Criticism #2 is far more serious as it simply puts the 5-Count in the spotlight with a single question: "Where’s the proof?" Those who adhere to this criticism of the 5-Count send out the challenge that if it does what the Captain says it does; prove it. Where’s the math? Where are the computer simulations? What makes the Captain’s 5-Count method any better than any other method for selecting shooters to bet on, like waiting for them to make a point before betting or hitting a couple of this or that number? All these shooter qualification methods are all just a matter of opinion, period – unless you have the proof to the contrary.
Over the years I’ve used logic and the experiences of players who have used the 5-Count successfully in relatively long-run play (10 years to 25 years) to counter the claims of those who adhere to criticism #2. My personal experience shows the 5-Count to work just as the Captain says it works. There are probably a hundred other people I can point to who will verify that it does work as intended: It selects the best possible shooters to bet on and, if there’s a controlled shooter in their midst, you’ll be on them and in the positive monetary zone.
Still, how much proof is that in the scheme of things? For critics, not much. In blackjack, for example, computer simulations of 200 million hands are de riguer for determining the efficacy of this or that move with a given hand vs. this or that dealer’s upcard.
But now, I can safely say that the proof of the Captain’s 5-Count’s efficacy is in and it is incontrovertible. Recent research and computer simulations done by Dr. Don Catlin, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Massachusetts, has shown that the 5-Count does everything the Captain said it would, perhaps even more!..." (more)
PROOF INDEED THAT FRANK IS A VERY GOOD SALESMAN...:cat:
so ive been practicing for about 5 days about 2hrs a day , recorded everything .
ive read the 3 scoblet books how far from the wall are you suppose to throw the dice? also wouldn't it be better to throw it further away from the back wall so when it does hit it will hit softer?
edit: thinking about it , i shouldnt record yet. need to throw in a consistent basis first then worry about record keeping
ive read the 3 scoblet books how far from the wall are you suppose to throw the dice? also wouldn't it be better to throw it further away from the back wall so when it does hit it will hit softer?
edit: thinking about it , i shouldnt record yet. need to throw in a consistent basis first then worry about record keeping
This thread is pretty funny. All this talk, but where are the results? Where are the tests? GentleManSteve insists it's all good but wouldn't record 1000 throws, disappeared into the ether. All he could ever say was he "mostly" hit his numbers, he could "pretty much" hit his numbers, etc, etc... All gambler's fallacies.
Steve Forte is the real deal. He spent hundreds, thousands of hours practicing dice moves. He can throw dice off 3 banks (no diamonds) and control them for any number called. He's tested "Dice Influence" thoroughly and concluded that it's bunk. He's not done what others are doing, meaning just throwing the dice and feeling that he's "mostly" ahead and "usually" makes his numbers. He recorded every drop, 6000 of them, from the same height. If you can't get consistency with so little influence, what do you expect to happen when throwing the dice any distance, with any added influence due to bouncing off a wall? Steve's tests are more than enough for me, and if you know the man, that should be enough for you too. He is more than an authority, he knows more than just the theory, he has put in blood sweat and tears into the practice of hundreds of moves, dice and others. Pretty much anything you read about in AP he knows and likely can use, even from the darker side.
27 throws without a 7 will happen more than 7 times in a thousand. It's not so unlikely, especially if you play around with dice a lot. And then, when you start assigning your bad rolls to being in a bad mood or not doing it right... You're just kidding yourself.
Results. Not feelings, theories, logic, whatever. Results. Throw the dice on a regulation table a couple of thousand of times and record all of them.
There are people who are totally convinced that they can see the future. That doesn't mean they're right. The strength of your convictions do not affect whether something is true or not. Do the tests and show your work, then maybe more people will take this seriously.
Steve Forte is the real deal. He spent hundreds, thousands of hours practicing dice moves. He can throw dice off 3 banks (no diamonds) and control them for any number called. He's tested "Dice Influence" thoroughly and concluded that it's bunk. He's not done what others are doing, meaning just throwing the dice and feeling that he's "mostly" ahead and "usually" makes his numbers. He recorded every drop, 6000 of them, from the same height. If you can't get consistency with so little influence, what do you expect to happen when throwing the dice any distance, with any added influence due to bouncing off a wall? Steve's tests are more than enough for me, and if you know the man, that should be enough for you too. He is more than an authority, he knows more than just the theory, he has put in blood sweat and tears into the practice of hundreds of moves, dice and others. Pretty much anything you read about in AP he knows and likely can use, even from the darker side.
27 throws without a 7 will happen more than 7 times in a thousand. It's not so unlikely, especially if you play around with dice a lot. And then, when you start assigning your bad rolls to being in a bad mood or not doing it right... You're just kidding yourself.
Results. Not feelings, theories, logic, whatever. Results. Throw the dice on a regulation table a couple of thousand of times and record all of them.
There are people who are totally convinced that they can see the future. That doesn't mean they're right. The strength of your convictions do not affect whether something is true or not. Do the tests and show your work, then maybe more people will take this seriously.
So what do you with the throws that "don't hit where you want"? Ignore them?
Is it possible to always, 100%, throw where you want? If it looks like they get to where you want them but you turn out to be off-axis do you consider that your mistake or a valid result from a known-good throw?
If you can't throw 100% of the time where you want and you record these results along with the rest, do you have an edge?
A few hundred is a very small sample size and if you don't believe you have the technique down the results are probably not significant. Once you are satisfied with your skill you should probably start a new record and throw a few thousand to see.
It's tough work but then again if you don't do it with due diligence you can't really say much about the technique, IMO.
Is it possible to always, 100%, throw where you want? If it looks like they get to where you want them but you turn out to be off-axis do you consider that your mistake or a valid result from a known-good throw?
If you can't throw 100% of the time where you want and you record these results along with the rest, do you have an edge?
A few hundred is a very small sample size and if you don't believe you have the technique down the results are probably not significant. Once you are satisfied with your skill you should probably start a new record and throw a few thousand to see.
It's tough work but then again if you don't do it with due diligence you can't really say much about the technique, IMO.
i record every throw even if it doesnt land where i want or even the dice flying out of my hand completely wrong but i don't record the results if the dice does not hit the wall, the reason why is that its more realistic ( im not going to just start recording results when im good at throwing then ill have no idea if i have an advantage or not when i first started )
. Im new to it hopefully later on i can manage to both make the dice leave my hand as if they are stuck together and land where i want. it also gives me an opportunity to analyst the results and see if there is a difference.
.I know a few hundred isn't a lot i just started
Actually to be honest i can make the dice land where i want , but the current issue im having at the moment is making the dice leave the same way consistently.
Im going to give this 1 yr if i see no change in results then ill make my personal opinion
. Im new to it hopefully later on i can manage to both make the dice leave my hand as if they are stuck together and land where i want. it also gives me an opportunity to analyst the results and see if there is a difference.
.I know a few hundred isn't a lot i just started
Actually to be honest i can make the dice land where i want , but the current issue im having at the moment is making the dice leave the same way consistently.
Im going to give this 1 yr if i see no change in results then ill make my personal opinion
Wizard of Odds opinion of dice control:
"There are many believers that a skilled shooter can influence the dice enough to overcome the house edge. This is done with certain dice settings, and gently throwing them, in an effort to keep them on axis, and bounce as little as possible.
I still have yet to see evidence that anybody has had long-term success setting dice. However, many people I respect are believers, including my hero, Stanford Wong. I will reluctantly admit that maybe there are a handful of people who truly can influence the dice. However, for every one of them, I believe there are at least a hundred who think they can, but can’t. I see people at the Red Rock casino practicing dice control all the time, and I’m happy to bet against them. I strongly feel the casinos make more from self-perceived dice setters than they lose to them.
Let me say formally that I’m asking for evidence that anyone out there can influence the dice beyond a 99% confidence interval. If I’m convinced, I would be happy to plug that person’s book, web site, or lessons."
"There are many believers that a skilled shooter can influence the dice enough to overcome the house edge. This is done with certain dice settings, and gently throwing them, in an effort to keep them on axis, and bounce as little as possible.
I still have yet to see evidence that anybody has had long-term success setting dice. However, many people I respect are believers, including my hero, Stanford Wong. I will reluctantly admit that maybe there are a handful of people who truly can influence the dice. However, for every one of them, I believe there are at least a hundred who think they can, but can’t. I see people at the Red Rock casino practicing dice control all the time, and I’m happy to bet against them. I strongly feel the casinos make more from self-perceived dice setters than they lose to them.
Let me say formally that I’m asking for evidence that anyone out there can influence the dice beyond a 99% confidence interval. If I’m convinced, I would be happy to plug that person’s book, web site, or lessons."
Dice Controlling Machine
I am undecided on dice control. Card trials can be done through simulations but dice have to be done manually. Manual dexterity can be taxing and cannot give consistent results.
I do not have the know-how or enough interest to build such a machine but has anyone experimented with a mechanical device that will, with more accuracy give long-run results without depending on human dexterity.
If someone can build a device (I am thinking something along the lines of a mini-batting cage pitching machine) that will deliver the dice at a certain speed/arc and distance consistently over 20,000 rolls will give a clearer argument that dice control IS possible. If a machine is unable to prove a pattern I am sure very, very few people will continue to claim influence.
I am undecided on dice control. Card trials can be done through simulations but dice have to be done manually. Manual dexterity can be taxing and cannot give consistent results.
I do not have the know-how or enough interest to build such a machine but has anyone experimented with a mechanical device that will, with more accuracy give long-run results without depending on human dexterity.
If someone can build a device (I am thinking something along the lines of a mini-batting cage pitching machine) that will deliver the dice at a certain speed/arc and distance consistently over 20,000 rolls will give a clearer argument that dice control IS possible. If a machine is unable to prove a pattern I am sure very, very few people will continue to claim influence.
Now this is a very good post, of the handful of players that can have an influence on the dice there is 100 that can't that think they can.
Let me give you an example of my perception on dice control: 1st off I consider myself to be superior in the mechanics of setting and throwing the dice. Do I think I can roll a certain number whenever the heck I want? No way! But....I use a set that is not the hardways set ( use 3v alot) last trip to Vegas I decided to set the dice on the hardways on the comeout roll and hop all the hardways, I rolled 4 in a row, I never roll 4 in a row in my normal set. Do I believe I had an influence on the dice? Absolutely. I've never sat down and recorded my throws, I think it would be interesting to see out of 1,000 rolls how many times I could keep them on axis. There are quite a few sets on the dice that if you keep them on axis you can eliminate the chance of a 7 to 1 in 14, instead of the 1 in 6.
Let me give you an example of my perception on dice control: 1st off I consider myself to be superior in the mechanics of setting and throwing the dice. Do I think I can roll a certain number whenever the heck I want? No way! But....I use a set that is not the hardways set ( use 3v alot) last trip to Vegas I decided to set the dice on the hardways on the comeout roll and hop all the hardways, I rolled 4 in a row, I never roll 4 in a row in my normal set. Do I believe I had an influence on the dice? Absolutely. I've never sat down and recorded my throws, I think it would be interesting to see out of 1,000 rolls how many times I could keep them on axis. There are quite a few sets on the dice that if you keep them on axis you can eliminate the chance of a 7 to 1 in 14, instead of the 1 in 6.
Many (including myself) could easily build such a machine given time/$; it would even be easy to have it keep track of roll results automatically (via camera). But it's a lot of work to prove something of little value (that a machine could do it).
The real proof, of course, would be whether hand-throws can be consistent enough over thousands of throws to give a sufficient edge. I tend to believe it's possible, but I'm not sure how many can actually pull it off.
[If I were in college again a roll analyzer/dynamics simulator/trainer would be a fun project! Probably a cool senior project / Master's thesis in there somewhere for an aspiring mechanical engineer. ]
The real proof, of course, would be whether hand-throws can be consistent enough over thousands of throws to give a sufficient edge. I tend to believe it's possible, but I'm not sure how many can actually pull it off.
[If I were in college again a roll analyzer/dynamics simulator/trainer would be a fun project! Probably a cool senior project / Master's thesis in there somewhere for an aspiring mechanical engineer. ]
If you are having a really hard time determining whether the dice stayed on-axis from start to finish, chances are, they aren't.
If it's truly a matter of concentration, you could rely upon another method of measuring a potential skill by tracking results. I find this to be less reliable or accurate, but it is a viable alternative...as a matter of fact, most "gurus" recommend some version of this approach (e.g. SRR).
good luck
If it's truly a matter of concentration, you could rely upon another method of measuring a potential skill by tracking results. I find this to be less reliable or accurate, but it is a viable alternative...as a matter of fact, most "gurus" recommend some version of this approach (e.g. SRR).
good luck
lets say i drew a arrow facing north on the 6 ,4 ,1 and 3 , if i threw the dice and for it to be in the same axis when landing i need to see the arrows facing north on either the 6,4,1,3 is that correct?
if i see the arrow but its not facing north lets say east or west that means its not on the same axis?
if i see the arrow but its not facing north lets say east or west that means its not on the same axis?