Welcome to CrapsForum.com! Craps Forum is the premier online community for Craps Players to interact and learn from other like minded people. Sign up today and you will gain access to advanced gambling strategies, gambling tips, online casino reviews, bonus codes, and everything else you may need to become a more successful gambler. As a member you will enjoy access to more features and see fewer ads. Best of all, it is FREE so Click Here to Sign Up Now!
For me, I would need slow motion video of what are supposedly controlled throws that show that at least one die is rotating in a consistent manner from throw to throw… from the point where the dice make initial contact with the table to the point where they are at rest. I would assume that it would be easier for a machine to make a precise dice throw, as opposed to humans. If a human were unable or unwilling to accomplish this feat, I would accept that it’s at least possible if a machine could do it.
I have to agree. A dice throwing machine that could throw precisely and consistently should provide the evidence needed to prove dice control/influencing is possible. If such a machine could throw a certain number with a certain dice set, then we have the proof.
If the machine bellied up to the table and threw down 10 bennies, would they let him play ?
777
I guess if it was old enough.
Seriously though… where are all the scientist and the engineers in this bunch? We’ve got the math geeks with their super computers crunching number on their simulations testing all kinds of betting systems. So why can’t someone build a dice throwing machine and bench test it on a real table?
Maybe someone could pitch this idea to Scoblete, Dicecoach or to some other guru that has the necessary resources.
If the machine bellied up to the table and threw down 10 bennies, would they let him play ?
777
I guess if it was old enough.
Seriously though… where are all the scientist and the engineers in this bunch? We’ve got the math geeks with their super computers crunching number on their simulations testing all kinds of betting systems. So why can’t someone build a dice throwing machine and bench test it on a real table?
Maybe someone could pitch this idea to Scoblete, Dicecoach or to some other guru that has the necessary resources.
The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists i.e. I can influence the dice.
“In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data.) and I’ll add, dice influencing.
The concept of a “burden of proof” is important in debates — whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to “prove” their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn’t have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported. “
Who has the burden of proof ? When people are unable to reach some sort of agreement on that issue, it can be very difficult for the rest of the debate to accomplish much. Therefore, it is often a good idea to try to define in advance who has the burden of proof.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.
Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.
An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it
The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true — indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong.
If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position of disbelief is justified. We can see this principle expressed in the United States justice system where accused criminals are innocent until proven guilty (innocence is the default position) and the prosecutor has the burden of proving the criminal claims.
Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn’t have to do anything — and occasionally, when the prosecution does an especially bad job, you will find defense lawyers who rest their case without calling any witnesses because they find it unnecessary. Support for the prosecution claims here is so obviously weak that a counter-argument simply isn’t deemed important.
In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those required to support their claims do offer something — and then what? At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said (something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and actual case).
Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is important to remember here is that some response is expected. The “burden of proof” is not something static which one party must always carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as true, but if you insist that a claim isn’t reasonable or credible, you should be willing to explain how and why. “
The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists i.e. I can influence the dice.
“In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data.) and I’ll add, dice influencing.
The concept of a “burden of proof” is important in debates — whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to “prove” their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn’t have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported. “
Who has the burden of proof ? When people are unable to reach some sort of agreement on that issue, it can be very difficult for the rest of the debate to accomplish much. Therefore, it is often a good idea to try to define in advance who has the burden of proof.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.
Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.
An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it
The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true — indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong.
If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position of disbelief is justified. We can see this principle expressed in the United States justice system where accused criminals are innocent until proven guilty (innocence is the default position) and the prosecutor has the burden of proving the criminal claims.
Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn’t have to do anything — and occasionally, when the prosecution does an especially bad job, you will find defense lawyers who rest their case without calling any witnesses because they find it unnecessary. Support for the prosecution claims here is so obviously weak that a counter-argument simply isn’t deemed important.
In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those required to support their claims do offer something — and then what? At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said (something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and actual case).
Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is important to remember here is that some response is expected. The “burden of proof” is not something static which one party must always carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as true, but if you insist that a claim isn’t reasonable or credible, you should be willing to explain how and why. “
777
The way I see it, I say that I can inflence the outcome of a roll of the dice on a casino standard table, to a degree. I have made a statement. If someone wants to call me on it, I figure its up to them to bring proof that *I* can’t. If they want me to prove it I tend to just say, ok then I can’t. Its far more important to me for the world to believe I can’t, than for it to believe I can. Doesn’t matter who has the “burden” of proof.. if they want proof its up to them.
The way I see it, I say that I can inflence the outcome of a roll of the dice on a casino standard table, to a degree. I have made a statement. If someone wants to call me on it, I figure its up to them to bring proof that *I* can’t. If they want me to prove it I tend to just say, ok then I can’t. Its far more important to me for the world to believe I can’t, than for it to believe I can. Doesn’t matter who has the “burden” of proof.. if they want proof its up to them.
Let us use two examples for a moment, perhaps this will make burden of proof a bit more clear…...
Example 1:
Sam: “Hi Larry! Guess what, I’ve been practicing a few hours a day, and if I concentrate really hard, close my eyes and focus….I can make my dog bark three times in a row with my mind!”
Larry: “Sam, that’s ridiculous. There’s no way you can control your dog’s barking with your mind, the two actions are entirely unrelated, and any correlation between the two is merely a convenient coincidence.”
Sam: “I can too! Allow me to demonstrate…” (Sam assumes the burden of proof correctly in this example. He’s making the claim of being able to accomplish a specific feat or possess a certain skill.)
Example 2:
Sam: “Hi Larry! Guess what, I’ve been practicing a few hours a day, and if I concentrate really hard, close my eyes and focus….I can make my dog bark three times in a row with my mind!”
Larry: “Sam, that’s ridiculous. There’s no way you can control your dog’s barking with your mind, the two actions are entirely unrelated, and any correlation between the two is merely a convenient coincidence.”
Sam: “Oh yeah!? Prove I can’t do it then!!” (Burden of proof is on Larry, which is unrealistic. Sam is making the claim, and thus is subject to the burden of proof. Larry is skeptical, and carries no burden of proof.)
The way I see it, I say that I can inflence the outcome of a roll of the dice on a casino standard table, to a degree. I have made a statement. If someone wants to call me on it, I figure its up to them to bring proof that *I* can’t. If they want me to prove it I tend to just say, ok then I can’t. Its far more important to me for the world to believe I can’t, than for it to believe I can. Doesn’t matter who has the “burden” of proof.. if they want proof its up to them.
Let us use two examples for a moment, perhaps this will make burden of proof a bit more clear…...
Example 1:
Sam: “Hi Larry! Guess what, I’ve been practicing a few hours a day, and if I concentrate really hard, close my eyes and focus….I can make my dog bark three times in a row with my mind!”
Larry: “Sam, that’s ridiculous. There’s no way you can control your dog’s barking with your mind, the two actions are entirely unrelated, and any correlation between the two is merely a convenient coincidence.”
Sam: “I can too! Allow me to demonstrate…” (Sam assumes the burden of proof correctly in this example. He’s making the claim of being able to accomplish a specific feat or possess a certain skill.)
Example 2:
Sam: “Hi Larry! Guess what, I’ve been practicing a few hours a day, and if I concentrate really hard, close my eyes and focus….I can make my dog bark three times in a row with my mind!”
Larry: “Sam, that’s ridiculous. There’s no way you can control your dog’s barking with your mind, the two actions are entirely unrelated, and any correlation between the two is merely a convenient coincidence.”
Sam: “Oh yeah!? Prove I can’t do it then!!” (Burden of proof is on Larry, which is unrealistic. Sam is making the claim, and thus is subject to the burden of proof. Larry is skeptical, and carries no burden of proof.)
Let me make my statement clearer to you by quoting the last line from my post…
“Its far more important to me for the world to believe I can’t, than for it to believe I can. Doesn’t matter who has the “burden” of proof.. if they want proof its up to them”
I stated also, that if they felt to burden me with proof, none would be withcoming, for exactly the reason in my last line. Fine, I can’t… have a nice day.
It seem to me the reason to pursue this dark art is to win money at craps. It is not done to show off at party’s.
What good is it, if it can be done and you still lose money.
If it can be done, can it be done good enough to switch you from a loser to a winner. This would be the test, for me.
My strong belief is the people here that call themselves dice influencers still lose money at craps. Their skill is not strong enough.
Unfortunately, this subject brings out the passions in people and it spills out into the land of nasty comments. Hopefully,people can keep their verbal guns hostered, but history suggests otherwise.
I want everybody here to be a winner, regardless of their faith.
When the existence of dice control is discussed, it is often the DI believer that is asked to prove that it exists. The reason I chose “Burden of Proof” as the title for this thread is because if the burden of proof were to somehow be shared between both sides of the argument, I would want to know what would be enough to convince someone that their opinion about dice control was wrong. The question wasn’t aimed specifically at either the believers or non-believers. I was interested in both sides equally.
When it became clear to me that many people were unable to think of even the craziest situation in which their minds could be changed, I decided to create the other thread to find out how willing people are to change their beliefs about dice control. Again, I was interested in both sides equally.
This really doesn’t seem like it would be a difficult thing to test.
1) Find one or more self-professed “dice controller/influencer” who is willing to prove their “skill” to the world, the more the better!
2) Agree on some sort of target (i.e. - The shooter says they plan to throw as many 7s as possible….or as few 7s as possible…whatever). Also, agree upon how this is going to be achieved (i.e. - the intended behavior of the dice, the axes, etc…just to check if the intended behavior was being accomplished…does not qualify/disqualify a throw though), as well as strict rules (the dice must both hit the back wall for a throw to count).
3) Get a table and rig it with a slow motion phantom camera, or some other camera capable of recording at a level where the flight/behavior of the dice can be identified.
4) Have the shooter take part in multiple sessions (say, 5-10 sessions of 300 throws), spread out over multiple days (as to not run into issues of poor performance to due fatigue), or one after another (if the shooter feels he/she is “hot”...no need to make them stop) .
5) Compare the shooter’s results with the expected results.
This really doesn’t seem like it’s worth debating to me. It’s a very simple thing to test for, if people were willing to step up and do it.
IMHO a simple and effective alternative to recording throws with a high-speed camera would be to calculate the probability of getting an observed deviation from expectations by random chance. Of course the number of throws necessary to give an acceptable level of confidence would depend on the level of influence the shooter has: the more influence, the fewer the trials necessary to detect that influence. IIRC I once figured around 18,000 rolls (three weeks of 8-hour sessions each of 45 minutes tossing with 15 minute breaks in between) to show that an increase to 17% sevens (from 16.67%) was due to influence and not random chance. (Sorry, I forget what confidence level I was using.) The problem of course is getting anyone to partake in a controlled experiment and risk 1) convincing the casinos that dice influence is a reality, and 2) getting banned for being successful.
As for proving it cannot be done, I do not think that can be done. One cannot prove a negative, which I contend is why the burden of proof is always on those claiming something exists. Just because I cannot influence the dice does not mean nobody can.
Another thought on the subject. Building a machine that can produce non-random throws is known as “proof of concept”, but does not necessarily prove that it can be accomplished by humans. And as above, unfortunately, the failure of a machine to produce influence only proves that that machine using that technique cannot influence the dice.
Craps Forum
