We all respect Stanford Wong for his knowledge and practical application of blackjack theory. He also is a proponent of dice control. How does this affect your opinion of the work he has done on BJ and do you subscribe to the hypothesis that craps can be beaten with physical skill?
All bleeding stops eventually.
Ya know, I listened to his interview on GWAE. I started out a skeptic, but ended up less so. I thought Wong approached the subject in a practical way. He admitted that the technique was difficult, required a lot of practice, depended on playing conditions, and was aided by athletic ability (which I took to mean dexterity). He also admitted that he no longer had the ability since he no longer put in the requisite practice.
Last edited by victorino; 12-27-2011 at 08:03 AM. Reason: clarification
Here is Bryce Carlson's take. (Author of Blackjack For Blood) I think his argument is persuasive.
http://www.richardmunchkin.com/2011/...ntrol-not.html
As far as I'm concerned, the two bodies of work are completely separate. Wong himself had doubts as to dice control, and he never collected enough data on himself to be proof of the ability. I have two takes on Dice control. One, if you got good enough to do it (assuming it's even possible) in the manner described in Wong's book, you would look so good as you lofted the dice in a flat projectory, rotating them on a single axis in unison, and hitting the crease between the pyramids and the table floor in every case, with just enough backspin to prevent the dice from tumbling too much, that a streak of wins would probably get you backed off is short order. To do it as he described would just look too good, too convincing, along with actual success.Originally Posted by FlightMedicNoMore
The second thing, I believe that in days past it was quite possible to exercise dice control, but those were the days when casinos were not all that upset with the dice sliding across the table felt. When Archie Karas had his fabulous "Run" of millions of dollars at Binion's, it is thought that he employed such a technique. One night, as the story goes, Binion had an extremely bouncy material placed under the felt to make it more difficult to slide the dice. Some say that is how Binion finally got his money back. Myth or fact, I don't know. But nowadays, they don't let the dice slide all that much. If you start winning doing so, you can be sure they will call, "No dice! You must hit the backstop in the air, sir!"
Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 - 8/23/10... “Life’s most urgent question is: what are you doing for others?” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
When you throw dice, they have a nice spin that keeps them on track.
When you are gliding down the highway at 60 on a motorcycle, you have two large gyroscopes that keep you upright. Take your hands off the handlebars, and hit one of them with the palm of your hand. The front wheel will turn a bit, the bike lean in the other direction, then it will snap back upright – back on course. The inertia is too great to upset the bike’s course. Lock the rear wheel, and you’ll drop and slide. But, hit a big rock with the front wheel and it’s another story. One of the gyroscopes is yanked hard. Now you have forces pushing the bike in random directions. You will be tumbling and/or sliding before you know what happened; and pieces of the bike will fly in different directions as it flops uncontrollably.
This is how I picture dice hitting the back wall. I don’t like betting on the ending position of either when the energy has dissipated.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
The die fly through the air spinning together, bounce one time on the layout, touching the back
wall and falling down to a quick stop. Legal as mother's milk. Can one gain 'some' control this
way? Does a mule have long ears? I think so. The question for me is, can it be consistent
enough to gain a continued edge? the answer is NO. Heck NO! So don't worry about it, it is just a myth.
The key point about controlling the die is can they be controlled enough to keep away from rolling 7 more than a random roll? If this can be accomplished, it just has to be enough to give you an edge, not forever eliminating a 7 roll. Play would have to be long hours to give rewards, let alone the practice. That might be why there are said to be very few who can perform this skill and want to. If they had a 1% advantage, it would take much longer than an AP playing BJ to win the same. The few talented guys would easily be marked.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks