Victor Francis: Wong & Craps

[Victor Francis]

I just read on bj21.com that Wong has announced he is writing a dice setting book. He also claims it works.

What gives?

[Don Schlesinger]

> I just read on bj21.com that Wong has
> announced he is writing a dice setting book.
> He also claims it works.

No sense asking us. Go over and ask him. He is already being raked over the coals for his announcement. I made a post on DD with my thoughts.

Don

[Parker]

> I just read on bj21.com that Wong has
> announced he is writing a dice setting book.
> He also claims it works.

> What gives?

Wong has been researching craps and dice control for about a year. Of course he claims it works -- not many people would buy the book if he claimed it didn't work. :-)

Many people (myself included) are skeptical.

[college kid]

The big proponents of dice control claim to have detailed records of their throws so you can see the outcome distribution, and they have kind of given the hint that they are fed up with all the grief they get and will publish the records sometime here. A few noted skeptics, Stanford Wong included, have at the very least seen some compelling evidence to make them not as skeptical, and in the cas of Wong, completely turned around. I won't name names or anything (because my post won't get up if I do!), but I do want to say that I think there is something to it. Why is it so extremely difficult for you all to believe that it is possible--you only need a small amount of influence and place low edge bets. Just over a year ago I had a post up about visual roulette prediction that got hounded and it wasn't even posted the first few times I tried to put it up, but RGE obviously saw Larry Scott in action and realized that physical games can also be beaten. I swear, card counters and poker players think they are the masters of the universe and that there is just no other way to do anything other than their way! I respect you all greatly of course, but I have yet to see any of you without a closed mind to even the remote possibility that anything but cards can be beaten, for the most part. Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe every darned thing I hear, but I don't shut out everything I hear either, especially if the logic behind something seems reasonable enough.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I think you are being a bit harsh here. To be completely closed-minded is bad. To be completely open-minded is also bad. Otherwise you might step off a balcony thinking gravity doesn't work that day. Fact is many of us have looked at the posts on the Craps page and looked at past enterprises and looked at some of the people involved and it doesn't look good. And every progression book has some record of past plays 'justifying' a system. $199 for a book based on such unconvincing stats is worthy of skepticism. And that's all Parker said.

> The big proponents of dice control claim to
> have detailed records of their throws so you
> can see the outcome distribution, and they
> have kind of given the hint that they are
> fed up with all the grief they get and will
> publish the records sometime here. A few
> noted skeptics, Stanford Wong included, have
> at the very least seen some compelling
> evidence to make them not as skeptical, and
> in the cas of Wong, completely turned
> around. I won't name names or anything
> (because my post won't get up if I do!), but
> I do want to say that I think there is
> something to it. Why is it so extremely
> difficult for you all to believe that it is
> possible--you only need a small amount of
> influence and place low edge bets. Just over
> a year ago I had a post up about visual
> roulette prediction that got hounded and it
> wasn't even posted the first few times I
> tried to put it up, but RGE obviously saw
> Larry Scott in action and realized that
> physical games can also be beaten. I swear,
> card counters and poker players think they
> are the masters of the universe and that
> there is just no other way to do anything
> other than their way! I respect you all
> greatly of course, but I have yet to see any
> of you without a closed mind to even the
> remote possibility that anything but cards
> can be beaten, for the most part. Now don't
> get me wrong, I don't believe every darned
> thing I hear, but I don't shut out
> everything I hear either, especially if the
> logic behind something seems reasonable
> enough.

[Parker]

I never said that it wasn't possible -- I said I was skeptical. I do, in fact, happen to believe that it may be possible for someone with exceptional fine motor skills, after many hours of practice, to influence the house advantage at craps by controlling the dice throw.

I have the utmost respect for Stanford Wong. If he says he can do this, I have no doubt that he sincerely believes that he can. However, the hard statistical evidence that he has presented thus far, as discussed on this page and elsewhere, has been, to put it mildly, less than compelling.

Wong may indeed be one of the aforementioned individuals with exceptional fine motor skills. I know him well enough to know that putting in many hours of practice would not be a problem. This does not necessarily mean that this ability, if it exists, can be mastered by the average individual after reading a book or attending a seminar.

Many other highly respected members of the AP community are even more skeptical than myself.

[MGP]

I know my post will be busted over on bj21 so I've copied it here since the subject was brought up. People like this make me sick because people work hard for their money and scammers like this have no morals. I know my opinion doesn't count for much compared to the others who post here - but here it is:

"How can you charge $200 for a 14% probability?"

"Knowing that this post will likely be busted - I cannot refrain from responding to this nonsense.

Just check out the Wizard's analysis:
http://www.wizardofodds.com/games/craps/crapsapx3.html

I'm sorry Mr. Wong but frankly if the only reasons I can see someone trying to scam people out of $200 for 28 pages of unproven material are:

1) They are a thief and have no morals
2) They have lost all of their money and are desperate
3) They are pathologically greedy

In most professions, nothing with p>0.05 is considered statistically significant and that is with 2-sided tests - i.e. in this case you should shoot for p<0.025 (pun intended). Unless one of the 3 categories above applies to you - you should really refrain from trying to take people's hard earned money until you have more significant data.

Sincerely,
MGP"

[college kid]

and I apologize for it! I completely agree that Wong's book is a bad idea and also I know little statistical evidence has gotten out yet, but the idea is fairly new. I also agree that being completely closed or open minded cannot lead to clear judgement and did not mean to say I was open all sorts of crazy junk, merely that I think the idea has merrit. Anyway, sorry about sounding so mean, it was not my intent!

[Saboteur]

The idea is about one hour older than those rubber doodads on the wall of a craps table.