About the first week of February I displayed my practice data using the hardways set,
and now here are the practice data using the all-sevens set.
Again your various valued comments are solicited and will be appreciated.
Firstly, as before, some parameters and clarifications:
(a) The all-sevens set is used, with
5 on top and 4 facing, the left die,
2 on top and 3 facing, the right die,
with 6’s to the left facing the dealer and 1’s to the right facing the stick.
No warm-up before throwing and data recording.
(b) Each number represents the count of throws in a hand.
A " hand" is defined as the throwing and counting of the throws
ending when a "7" is thrown, with that "7" thrown included in the count.
If a "7" is thrown at the start of a hand, the count would be one for a hand.
(c) Each practice session consists of ten hands,
and the total throws for the ten hands for that session is calculated,
the ten hands total conveniently indicating the SRR for the session.
(d) After ten sessions the total throws of all ten sessions is summed up.
So we get ten sessions of ten hands each for a total of 100 hands.
So a total of 870 would equate to an 8.7 SRR, for easy calculation.
Now the data:
(A) First batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
7,16, 2, 5, 5, 4, 2,17, 2, 4 = 64
14, 1, 5, 5, 4, 3,11, 6, 1, 4 = 54
12, 9, 4, 1, 9, 3, 1, 1,17, 9 = 64
5, 9, 1, 2, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2 = 34
1, 3, 6, 5,11, 3, 1, 8, 3, 1 = 42
6, 8, 4, 6, 1, 2,11, 1, 7, 3 = 49
7, 4,12, 1, 4, 8, 4,16,2, 4 = 62
1, 8, 8, 2, 7,30, 3,11,3,10 = 83
1,14,3, 23, 4,16, 1, 8,6, 1 = 77
13,1,22,17, 8, 2, 9 ,3,8, 1 = 84
…………………… Total = 613
SRR = 6.1
(B) Second batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
2, 7, 5, 2, 6,29,17, 8, 4, 6 = 86
5, 2,11, 1, 2, 4,12, 3, 4, 6 = 50
1, 2, 3, 1, 5,33, 1, 6, 3, 4 = 59
21, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 8, 2, 3,16 = 65
12, 9, 1, 4, 4, 8, 2, 5,18,12 = 75
5, 1, 5,20, 1,10, 5, 4, 5, 5 = 61
15 ,2, 3, 2,12, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2 = 44
26, 8, 2,24, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 2 = 85
12,12, 7, 3, 4, 6, 2,11, 6, 1 = 64
2, 6, 4, 9, 7, 1, 1, 5, 9,12 = 56
…………………… Total = 645
SRR = 6.4
(C) Third batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
2, 1, 8, 3,10, 1, 7, 4, 4, 7 = 47
8, 1,12,19, 4, 3, 2, 2, 8,39 = 93
19, 7, 3, 4,11, 3,16, 2, 1, 3 = 69
12, 3, 5, 5, 8,15, 7, 10, 7,10 = 82
3,13, 8,15, 2, 2, 2, 2, 7, 4 = 58
8,18, 2,14,12, 3, 1, 8, 1,13 = 80
5, 1, 2, 7, 4, 3, 1, 7, 3, 8 = 41
3, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 10,10, 3 = 39
4,10, 2, 2, 4, 1, 7, 3, 4, 2 = 39
6, 2, 9, 1, 5, 7, 9, 18, 5,13 = 75
…………………… Total = 623
SRR = 6.2
(D) Fourth batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
4,11, 4,11, 6, 4,8, 7,8, 1 = 64
8,20, 6, 8, 9, 6,2, 1,4, 1 = 65
11,13, 9, 8, 3,14,1, 2,4, 6 = 71
4,20, 8, 2,18, 6,2, 3,3, 6 = 72
3, 6, 7, 2, 1, 9,1,11,1, 2 = 43
1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 4,6, 3,6, 6 = 35
5, 5, 6, 3, 4, 3,1, 4,9, 4 = 44
6, 8,15, 4, 1, 6,1, 5,1, 4 = 51
2, 2, 2, 5, 9, 1,1,10,5, 2 = 39
3, 6, 3, 2, 3, 2,1, 1,1,11 = 33
…………………… Total = 517
SRR = 5.1
(E) Fifth batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
10, 7, 5,18, 5, 8,14, 7, 13, 2 = 89
5, 1, 8, 2, 6, 8,22, 1, 2, 8 = 63
6, 4, 2, 2, 8, 5,27,16, 3, 2 = 75
9, 3, 4, 7, 3, 2,12, 8, 1, 6 = 55
1, 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, 8, 5, 1,35 = 70
6, 7, 5, 5, 1, 1, 8, 3, 1, 7 = 44
8,12, 3, 8, 5, 5,10,10, 2,10 = 73
4, 2, 4, 7,20,11,12, 2, 1,10 = 73
4, 5,14,11, 2, 5,10, 7, 4,18 = 80
2, 1, 2, 5, 3, 2, 8, 1, 1, 2 = 27
…………………… Total = 649
SRR = 6.5
Grand Total = 3047 throws
for an SRR = 6.1
=======================================
So can we make some extrapolations and projections and maybe offer some conclusions
for discussion?
For example,
(1) The five batches of data for throws using the HARDWAYS set seemed enough with their overall
total of about 3000 throws to conclude with some certainty that the SRR was 6.0 +/- 10%
relegating this shooter to the trash heap of the Randy Gang, not controlled shooters,
and we don’t need any more than about 3000 throws of data collection?
(You may refer to the spreadsheet in my post "Is my SRR better than a Randy’s 6.0?")
(2) This also goes for the 3000 throws for the ALL-SEVENS set, not curiously, for a 6.0 SRR.
So can we say this Randy could have used any set, or for that matter, he could have used NO SET
at all but merely threw the dice as a chicken feeder and he would have gotten the same 6.0 SRR?
(3) Another thing I wondered about.
If you have some control in your throws and they are on axis most times but you suffer from
single and double pitches during those throws, wouldn’t the use of the all-sevens set be better
at avoiding the "good seven" than the use of the hardway set for those throws?
Replies:
Posted by: Chuckman on March 14, 2015, 8:54 pm
"SevenTimesSeven" wrote:
(3) Another thing I wondered about.
If you have some control in your throws and they are on axis most times but you suffer from
single and double pitches during those throws, wouldn’t the use of the all-sevens set be better
at avoiding the "good seven" than the use of the hardway set for those throws?
If you have good axis control but experience excessive pitching you would be better off with a 2V or 3V set.
Let us first look at a standard hardways set. There are 16 combination:
22,23,24,25
32,33,34,35
42,43,44,45
52,53,54,55
From this we see a seven comes up 4 times. If you create an all-sevens set you get the same distribution
Now with a 2V set we get:
22,23,25,24
63,65,64,62
55,54,52,53
14,12,13,15
This only produces 2 7s.
Fewer sevens, better results.
Although the ultimate answer would be to work on the throw and eliminate the excessive pitching. (Which I personally hear in my head in the voice of Mr Finesse.)
Posted by: Finisher on March 15, 2015, 6:15 am
It is like when I tried the all 7s set I did not get the 7s so now I don’t try it on come out rolls . I have seen some players use it all the time and have long rolls with it .
I think that you gave a lot of data but no one can say much because they don’t know what numbers were thrown .With out seeing the throw it is hard to say much .
Some times with a low SRR YOU CAN STILL BE A WINNER .
I would not worry about it . I just hope you see your throw get better .
This is a JOURNEY .
Posted by: NofieldFive on March 15, 2015, 12:55 pm
So can we make some extrapolations and projections and maybe offer some conclusions
for discussion?
Without seeing the individual die results for each toss, it is impossible to make any extrapolations or conclusions.
NFF
Posted by: SevenTimesSeven on March 15, 2015, 2:50 pm
"Finisher" wrote: ….
Some times with a low SRR YOU CAN STILL BE A WINNER .
I would not worry about it . ….
Finisher,
Yes, and I’ve seen Randies have ever so looonngg rolls.
They have a low 6.0 SRR, I must think.
7×7
Posted by: SevenTimesSeven on March 15, 2015, 3:01 pm
"NofieldFive" wrote:
Without seeing the individual die results for each toss, it is impossible to make any extrapolations or conclusions.
NFF
NFF,
Each toss, especially by a Randy, has so much variance stemming from inconsistences
and table factors that, I figure, a rough indication of control indicated by the SRR
over so many tosses should be enough to evaluate the dice thrower as a DC or Randy.
7×7
Posted by: NofieldFive on March 15, 2015, 8:39 pm
The results of the toss by each die is the ultimate consideration. You have to see how many tosses have 6 and 1 to begin to determine the amount of influence that is exerted. Remember, you strive to stay on axis. Without knowing how many tosses are on axis, it is impossible to begin to extrapolate any conclusions.
Take a look at your video and see if any of the old habits have crept back into your shot.
NFF
Posted by: the gman on March 16, 2015, 2:38 pm
is this strive to stay on axis or have the dice come to rest with an on axis finish????
gman
Posted by: SevenTimesSeven on March 16, 2015, 4:21 pm
"Finisher" wrote: When I first read this I thought that I was going to see a lower SRR .
Finisher,
No one can go below 6.0 for his/her SRR.
You are to look at the average over the reasonable number of tosses.
Note in the data that in any one session the indicated SRR can go very lo or very hi,
so much for variance in a small, insufficient number of tosses.
7×7
Posted by: getagrip on March 16, 2015, 6:04 pm
7X7,
Would you please explain further? Thanks!
Posted by: Stephen C on March 16, 2015, 10:48 pm
Posted by: ACPA on March 16, 2015, 11:10 pm
edited by me
Reading the original again, by definition a random thrower might be on the very high number of sevens in the expected bell curve and that thrower would have the lower SRR associated with the extra 7s.
Noah
Edited by me again
Skinny was posting his reply while I was making my first edit.
Noah
Posted by: Skinny on March 16, 2015, 11:12 pm
SRR stands for sevens to rolls ratio. It is calculated by dividing the number of sevens one throws into the number of rolls in which those sevens occurred. For example, in a random situation there are 36 possible combinations of results with two die being thrown randomly. Of those 36 combinations there are 6 possible seven combinations. Hence we can expect a random roller to throw 6 sevens every 36 rolls on average. To calculate the SRR one divides the number of rolls (36) by the number of sevens (6) with the result being 6.0 as the typical SRR we can expect for a random roller.
The way one can arrive at the lowest possible SRR of 1.0 is by throwing a seven on every roll in the sample. For example if one were to roll 36 sevens in a row, that would result in an SRR of 1.0. Number of rolls (36) divided by the number of sevens (36) equals 1.0. Hence the lowest SRR possible is 1.0. You can not throw more sevens than the number of rolls you make so the ratio of sevens to rolls can not go below 1.0.
The largest SRR possible is infinity. If one were to roll no sevens what so ever in 36 rolls that would result in an SRR of infinity. That is because the number of rolls (36) divided by the number of sevens (0) equals "undefined" or "infinity". Hence the largest SRR possible is infinity.
Posted by: OneMoonCircles on March 17, 2015, 5:34 am
OMC
Posted by: Finisher on March 17, 2015, 9:23 am
This is a JOURNEY .
Good Rolling. 🙂 🙂
Posted by: brothelman on March 18, 2015, 4:39 am
Posted by: Dominator on March 18, 2015, 6:00 pm
With that being said …..
this Randy would need 5000 rolls to get any real statistical data to determine SRR
with 3000 rolls and an overall SRR of 6.1 he is not very far off from showing control. An SRR of 6.23 is needed to have an edge
Dominator
Posted by: SevenTimesSeven on March 19, 2015, 1:26 pm
"Dominator" wrote: …..
this Randy would need 5000 rolls to get any real statistical data to determine SRR
with 3000 rolls and an overall SRR of 6.1 he is not very far off from showing control. An SRR of 6.23 is needed to have an edge
Dominator
So, Dom,
If this righ-handed Randy should fling the dice with his left hand while using the "all-sevens" set,
or for that matter, using no set at all but just grabbing the dice as they come, after 5,000 tosses
could his SRR sink below 6.0? … towards an SRR of 1.0?
7×7
Posted by: NofieldFive on March 19, 2015, 1:47 pm
In 5000 rolls a Randy would be in the ballpark of 6.0.
I agree with Brothelman. We can influence the dice in a negative way and have an SRR that is quite a bit below 6.0 if there is something going on in our toss.
NFF
Posted by: brothelman on March 19, 2015, 4:36 pm
Posted by: SevenTimesSeven on March 19, 2015, 7:37 pm
"brothelman" wrote: Just 835 sevens and his srr would go below 6.0
BM,
If this right-handed Randy is flinging the dice with his left hand,
how much more random can his tosses be?
And 5,000 random tosses will definitely show an average ratio of 6 sevens in 36 tosses.
Did I hear 6.0 for his SRR?
Isn’t this the very deinition of a random throw?
Isn’t this what we compare a controlled throw against,
how much above 6.0, the more the better?
7×7
Posted by: Finisher on March 22, 2015, 5:25 am
Some times it seems that the harder I try for a perfect throw I get more 2/5 and 3/4 s .
I for one think that looking at how your dice are in the air is worth more then knowing your SRR . I FOR ONE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH CONTROL TO USE THE all 7s SET ON COME OUTS .
I throw a lot of numbers but not repeaters .I am hoping that will change .
Have you tried the glue diced for the wobble . Seeing is believing .
Good Rolling. 🙂 🙂
