« DI and the Small Market Part 1 | Main | Developing an Equal-Distance/Equal-Rotation Rollback »

“Hit the Backwall…HARDER”


Every time this one particular Northern Circuit (MI, NY, NJ, CT, WI, IL, IN, plus ON and PQ) dice-influencing pro buddy of mine hears those words from a cantankerous boxman, he always replies with something like…


“Yeah, that’s what your girlfriend always asks me to do when she comes over to my place…but she does it with more of a rapturous pleading cry in her voice when she says it.”


His reply is always met by a second or two of silence, followed by muffled laughter from the crew and howls of frat-boy approval from fellow players.


I mention all of this because a couple of years ago, Stanford Wong and I had an animated discussion regarding backwall rebounding, pit-heat/attention, and the fact that a couple of Las Vegas casinos were demanding a higher amount of backwall “action” (where they want the dice to bounce-back by a given distance or at least to some arbitrary point that would indicate the backwall was doing its de-randomizing job). If I recall correctly; Golden Gate, The Frontier, Four Queens, and one particular grouchy-box shift at the VegasClub (nee LVClub) were the stores we were discussing at the time.


Wong was quite emphatic in always referring back to the fact that the best way to avoid any hit-the-backwall heat in the first place was to simply throw the dice a little harder and create more of a rollback, but to do so in a way that the dice would still be facially correlated if not always predominantly on-axis.


I will readily admit that I was a bit skeptical that my game could suffer through a decrease in on-axis performance, without my edge over the house suffering too.


Expressed a different way; I didn’t think that my advantage over the house would hold up very well if my on-axis performance went down.


Stanford indicated that it probably would, and the reason for that was because my roll-stats had indicated a pretty strong element of toss-signature correlation.


As he mentioned in Part 15 of my Shooting Bible series; “correlation” is a mathematical way of describing any difference from independence for two separate dice.


If for example when you are validating whether or not you are able to exert a degree of influence over the dice, you need to know how often you are able to do that.


~To test for correlation, we first determine how often two dice will randomly or unintentionally correlate as independent objects (such as how often a random-roller is expected to randomly, unintentionally, or accidentally produce a Hard-6 {3/3} outcome).


~When you apply this test against the 'starting-faces' of the dice (the way you first set them before throwing them) and compare those to the 'final-outcome' faces (the way they turn up at the other end of the table); you can determine whether there is any facial-correlation in your ability to influence two independent objects at the same time; and if so, what degree of influence you have.


Facial-correlation takes how we view our on-axis dice-influencing intentions to a whole new level.


~The degree of difference from random tells us the amount of influence and the amount of correlation (whether significantly more or significantly less) that you are able to exert over the dice.


~When measured over a reasonable number of trials, we can determine the frequency of that correlation, which we call our Foundation Frequencies (primary-hits, single-pitches, double-pitches, one dice off-axis, and both dice off-axis).


~Foundation Frequencies help us determine not only how frequently we should expect certain outcomes with the dice-set we are using right now; but also how various bets would fare if we used a different dice-set with our current skills.


Out of an abundance of respect for the profitable advantage-play ideas Stanford had come up with over the years, I paid particular attention to anything he had to say even if my skepticism about his higher-rebound-with-nonetheless-correlated-outcomes proposal was, to my mind at the time, somewhat doubtful.


To Wong's credit, he did point out that I had been saying pretty much the same things about correlation (but with different words) for years and years with the Off-Axis Dominance portion of my Signature-Number theory.


Experimenting with Stanford’s higher-rebound = no-heat, but with still-advantaged outcomes idea was simple enough in that it entailed a toss that was strong enough to satisfy even the crankiest box-person in terms of backwall roll-back while still satisfying our need for a nevertheless-still-correlated-and-axially-influenced throw.


That led me to do some higher-energy throwing experiments to satisfy not only my curiosity about Wong’s theory (and to further validate the Off-Axis Dominant portion my own Signature-Number concept); but to also compare how those lengthier-rebound rollouts compared to my normal high-correlation, high on-axis, minimal-rebound Low, Slow & Easy results.

Experiment Methodology:


~For each throw, I used my standard Low, Slow & Easy toss-motion.


~All of these throws were done using a palm-down (overhand) grip and release.


~I threw from SR-1.5 on a 12-foot regulation PaulSon table.


~I drew a light chalk line at 4", 6", 8" and 10" from, and parallel to the backwall.


~Both dice had to hit the back wall to be called a fair roll. From that point, I determined whether it qualified as a "significant" backwall rebound on the following basis:


~The rule that I imposed on myself was that for a roll to "qualify" or count, both dice had to rebound an average of 6" from the backwall.


~If one dice rebounded at least 8" and the other rebounded at least 4" from the backwall; then it qualified to be counted in the sampling.


~If both rebounded back to or across the 6" line; then it qualified to be counted in the sampling.


~If neither dice rebounded at least 6" from the backwall, then it was not counted.


~The idea was to have the dice first touch down about 3” to 8” away from the backwall, and then have them bounce into the backwall at a height of anywhere from 2” to 12” from the table-top.


~I threw 50 tosses of each of four different grip-types (200 tosses each day) for 10 days in a row.


~Each day, I would start with a different grip than I did the day before, thereby giving each grip equal time in the grip/throw rotation.


~I threw each grip-type for a total of 500 "qualifying" throws, and a grand total of 2000 high-rebound outcomes.

In summary I can say that the results did not advance my ego-size as much as it advanced my knowledge of the effect of what a higher-energy, higher backwall rebound toss would ultimately have on my advantage over the house.


Here’s why:


~I found that I got a huge increase in 2-off (Both Dice Off-Axis) results if my toss-alignment, wrist alignment and release-point follow-thru was not perfect.


~Not unexpectedly, the higher energy served to magnify any toss defects, but it also rewarded closer-to-optimum throws by delivering a surprisingly strong on-axis performance with high-correlation on-axis results (lots of primary-faces and single-pitches). More surprising though was the high-correlation of the faces that didn’t stay on axis.


~That is, even though my not-very-perfect single-die-off-axis throws resulted in a higher number of truly ugly 7-Out results; the not-so-bad both-dice-off-axis tosses gave decent enough non-7-Out outcomes, so my SRR-rate did not drop as badly as I anticipated it would.


~Admittedly, though the 30% drop in my SRR was sizeable, the upshot was that the huge (+270%) increase in my percentage of Both Dice Off-Axis outcomes acted to increase my advantage on the wagers that I’d normally bet on based on my ON-axis intentions.


~For example, while using the V-3 dice-set as I normally do, my ‘wagering-package’ would always include Place-bets on the 6 and 8.


~The V-3 has three on-axis combinations of each (3/3, 2/4, 1/5 for the Six, and 4/4, 2/6, and 3/5 for the Eight).


~When both dice go off-axis with the V-3 set, you add one more positive outcome for each into the mix (5/1 for the Six, and 6/2 for the Eight).


~In this case, the higher incidence of Both Dice Off-Axis served to strengthen my already fairly decent on-axis results.


Again, as dice-influencers, we’ve known about that BDOA 7-avoidance-set “phenomenon” for years now, but when it occurs by happenchance on a newly consistent basis during an experiment that was focused on something completely different; it drives home once again just how ‘correlated influence’ can manifest itself in unexpected ways.


Now some people might choose to call those BDOA results "random luck"; but as we have learned in dice-influencing; if you can do something consistently enough with the dice; it is NOT random...it IS influence…and therefore you can make a ton of money off your ability to influence the dice no matter if it's done strictly through on-axis results...or facially-correlated pitch-controlled results...or hopefully, from both.


Now before anyone pops a vein, I AM NOT advocating trying to intentionally throw both dice off-axis.


Instead I am merely pointing out that the higher-energy throw that I was using to validate SW’s high-rebound = no-heat theory, had the side-benefit of producing not only strong on-axis results when the dice were thrown quite well, and that they were also producing highly correlated facial-relationships when one-die went off-axis; but that they were also, as an unintended consequence of my high-rebound toss, producing a high-incidence of BDOA results which didn’t hurt my D-I cause one bit.


In this case, even though my Both-Dice-Off-Axis percentage climbed to embarrassing never-before-experienced levels; they did so in a fairly coordinated manner. While using the V-3 set, I was getting additional outcomes of 2/6 and 1/5 combinations which helped my Place-bet 6 and 8 results, as well as producing a fair share of 1/2 and 5/6 non roll-ending outcomes too.


In other words, all of my BDOA outcomes contributed to my point-cycle duration and none of the both-dice-off-axis results added any 7’s into the mix.


The end result of Wong's experiment was that from that point forward, I didn't drive myself quite as crazy in my relentless pursuit of on-axis results; and instead sought better ways to increase the pitch-control of the on-axis results I was already producing...along with looking for ways to more fully exploit my facially-correlated single-off and both off-axis outcomes as well.


Tomorrow I’m going to tell you why I dusted off this experiment and how I put those high-rebound lessons to effective use in a casino that rigorously enforces the “Hit the Backwall…HARDER” policy in a whole new way.


Good Luck and Good Skill at the Tables…and in Life.


The Mad Professor

Copyright © 2007

Do you have questions or comments about the articles and subjects discussed here at the Dice Institute? Sign up for our member's forum and share them with us!

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 10, 2007 6:29 AM.

The previous post in this blog was DI and the Small Market Part 1.

The next post in this blog is Developing an Equal-Distance/Equal-Rotation Rollback.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.34