\nAbout the first week of February I displayed my practice data using the hardways set,
\n\tand now here are the practice data using the all-sevens set.
\n\tAgain your various valued comments are solicited and will be appreciated.<\/p>\n
\tFirstly, as before, some parameters and clarifications:
\n\t(a) The all-sevens set is used, with
\n\t5 on top and 4 facing, the left die,
\n\t2 on top and 3 facing, the right die,
\n\twith 6’s to the left facing the dealer and 1’s to the right facing the stick.
\n\tNo warm-up before throwing and data recording.<\/p>\n
\t(b) Each number represents the count of throws in a hand.
\n\tA " hand" is defined as the throwing and counting of the throws
\n\tending when a "7" is thrown, with that "7" thrown included in the count.
\n\tIf a "7" is thrown at the start of a hand, the count would be one for a hand.<\/p>\n
\t(c) Each practice session consists of ten hands,
\n\tand the total throws for the ten hands for that session is calculated,
\n\tthe ten hands total conveniently indicating the SRR for the session.<\/p>\n
\t(d) After ten sessions the total throws of all ten sessions is summed up.
\n\tSo we get ten sessions of ten hands each for a total of 100 hands.
\n\tSo a total of 870 would equate to an 8.7 SRR, for easy calculation.<\/p>\n
\tNow the data:
\n\t(A) First batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
\n\t 7,16, 2, 5, 5, 4, 2,17, 2, 4 = 64
\n\t14, 1, 5, 5, 4, 3,11, 6, 1, 4 = 54
\n\t12, 9, 4, 1, 9, 3, 1, 1,17, 9 = 64
\n\t 5, 9, 1, 2, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2 = 34
\n\t 1, 3, 6, 5,11, 3, 1, 8, 3, 1 = 42
\n\t 6, 8, 4, 6, 1, 2,11, 1, 7, 3 = 49
\n\t 7, 4,12, 1, 4, 8, 4,16,2, 4 = 62
\n\t 1, 8, 8, 2, 7,30, 3,11,3,10 = 83
\n\t 1,14,3, 23, 4,16, 1, 8,6, 1 = 77
\n\t13,1,22,17, 8, 2, 9 ,3,8, 1 = 84
\n\t…………………… Total = 613
\n\t SRR = 6.1
\n\t(B) Second batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
\n\t 2, 7, 5, 2, 6,29,17, 8, 4, 6 = 86
\n\t 5, 2,11, 1, 2, 4,12, 3, 4, 6 = 50
\n\t 1, 2, 3, 1, 5,33, 1, 6, 3, 4 = 59
\n\t21, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 8, 2, 3,16 = 65
\n\t12, 9, 1, 4, 4, 8, 2, 5,18,12 = 75
\n\t 5, 1, 5,20, 1,10, 5, 4, 5, 5 = 61
\n\t15 ,2, 3, 2,12, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2 = 44
\n\t26, 8, 2,24, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 2 = 85
\n\t12,12, 7, 3, 4, 6, 2,11, 6, 1 = 64
\n\t 2, 6, 4, 9, 7, 1, 1, 5, 9,12 = 56
\n\t…………………… Total = 645
\n\t SRR = 6.4<\/p>\n
\t(C) Third batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
\n\t 2, 1, 8, 3,10, 1, 7, 4, 4, 7 = 47
\n\t 8, 1,12,19, 4, 3, 2, 2, 8,39 = 93
\n\t19, 7, 3, 4,11, 3,16, 2, 1, 3 = 69
\n\t12, 3, 5, 5, 8,15, 7, 10, 7,10 = 82
\n\t 3,13, 8,15, 2, 2, 2, 2, 7, 4 = 58
\n\t 8,18, 2,14,12, 3, 1, 8, 1,13 = 80
\n\t 5, 1, 2, 7, 4, 3, 1, 7, 3, 8 = 41
\n\t 3, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 10,10, 3 = 39
\n\t 4,10, 2, 2, 4, 1, 7, 3, 4, 2 = 39
\n\t 6, 2, 9, 1, 5, 7, 9, 18, 5,13 = 75
\n\t…………………… Total = 623
\n\t SRR = 6.2<\/p>\n
\t(D) Fourth batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
\n\t 4,11, 4,11, 6, 4,8, 7,8, 1 = 64
\n\t 8,20, 6, 8, 9, 6,2, 1,4, 1 = 65
\n\t11,13, 9, 8, 3,14,1, 2,4, 6 = 71
\n\t 4,20, 8, 2,18, 6,2, 3,3, 6 = 72
\n\t 3, 6, 7, 2, 1, 9,1,11,1, 2 = 43
\n\t 1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 4,6, 3,6, 6 = 35
\n\t 5, 5, 6, 3, 4, 3,1, 4,9, 4 = 44
\n\t 6, 8,15, 4, 1, 6,1, 5,1, 4 = 51
\n\t 2, 2, 2, 5, 9, 1,1,10,5, 2 = 39
\n\t 3, 6, 3, 2, 3, 2,1, 1,1,11 = 33
\n\t…………………… Total = 517
\n\t SRR = 5.1<\/p>\n
\t(E) Fifth batch of ten sessions of ten hands each, detailed:
\n\t10, 7, 5,18, 5, 8,14, 7, 13, 2 = 89
\n\t 5, 1, 8, 2, 6, 8,22, 1, 2, 8 = 63
\n\t 6, 4, 2, 2, 8, 5,27,16, 3, 2 = 75
\n\t 9, 3, 4, 7, 3, 2,12, 8, 1, 6 = 55
\n\t 1, 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, 8, 5, 1,35 = 70
\n\t 6, 7, 5, 5, 1, 1, 8, 3, 1, 7 = 44
\n\t 8,12, 3, 8, 5, 5,10,10, 2,10 = 73
\n\t 4, 2, 4, 7,20,11,12, 2, 1,10 = 73
\n\t 4, 5,14,11, 2, 5,10, 7, 4,18 = 80
\n\t 2, 1, 2, 5, 3, 2, 8, 1, 1, 2 = 27
\n\t…………………… Total = 649
\n\t SRR = 6.5
\n\tGrand Total = 3047 throws
\n\t for an SRR = 6.1<\/p>\n
\t=======================================<\/p>\n
\tSo can we make some extrapolations and projections and maybe offer some conclusions
\n\tfor discussion?
\n\tFor example,<\/p>\n
\t(1) The five batches of data for throws using the HARDWAYS set seemed enough with their overall
\n\ttotal of about 3000 throws to conclude with some certainty that the SRR was 6.0 +\/- 10%
\n\trelegating this shooter to the trash heap of the Randy Gang, not controlled shooters,
\n\tand we don’t need any more than about 3000 throws of data collection?
\n\t(You may refer to the spreadsheet in my post "Is my SRR better than a Randy’s 6.0?")
\n\t(2) This also goes for the 3000 throws for the ALL-SEVENS set, not curiously, for a 6.0 SRR.
\n\tSo can we say this Randy could have used any set, or for that matter, he could have used NO SET
\n\tat all but merely threw the dice as a chicken feeder and he would have gotten the same 6.0 SRR?
\n\t(3) Another thing I wondered about.
\n\tIf you have some control in your throws and they are on axis most times but you suffer from
\n\tsingle and double pitches during those throws, wouldn’t the use of the all-sevens set be better
\n\tat avoiding the "good seven" than the use of the hardway set for those throws?<\/p>\n
Posted by:<\/strong> Chuckman on March 14, 2015, 8:54 pm<\/p>\n "SevenTimesSeven" wrote:<\/strong> \n\tIf you have good axis control but experience excessive pitching you would be better off with a 2V or 3V set.<\/p>\n \tLet us first look at a standard hardways set. There are 16 combination: \tNow with a 2V set we get: \tFewer sevens, better results.<\/p>\n \tAlthough 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.)<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> Finisher on March 15, 2015, 6:15 am<\/p>\n Posted by:<\/strong> NofieldFive on March 15, 2015, 12:55 pm<\/p>\n So can we make some extrapolations and projections and maybe offer some conclusions \n\tWithout seeing the individual die results for each toss, it is impossible to make any extrapolations or conclusions.<\/p>\n \tNFF<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> SevenTimesSeven on March 15, 2015, 2:50 pm<\/p>\n "Finisher" wrote:<\/strong> …. \tFinisher, Posted by:<\/strong> SevenTimesSeven on March 15, 2015, 3:01 pm<\/p>\n "NofieldFive" wrote:<\/strong> \tNFF, \t7×7<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> NofieldFive on March 15, 2015, 8:39 pm<\/p>\n \tThe 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.<\/p>\n \tTake a look at your video and see if any of the old habits have crept back into your shot.<\/p>\n \tNFF<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> the gman on March 16, 2015, 2:38 pm<\/p>\n \n\tis this strive to stay on axis or have the dice come to rest with an on axis finish????<\/p>\n \n\tgman<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> SevenTimesSeven on March 16, 2015, 4:21 pm<\/p>\n "Finisher" wrote:<\/strong> When I first read this I thought that I was going to see a lower SRR . <\/p><\/blockquote>\n \tFinisher, Posted by:<\/strong> getagrip on March 16, 2015, 6:04 pm<\/p>\n \n\t7X7,<\/p>\n \tWould you please explain further? Thanks!<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> Stephen C on March 16, 2015, 10:48 pm<\/p>\n Posted by:<\/strong> ACPA on March 16, 2015, 11:10 pm<\/p>\n \tedited by me<\/p>\n \tReading 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.<\/p>\n \tNoah<\/p>\n \tEdited by me again<\/p>\n \tSkinny was posting his reply while I was making my first edit.<\/p>\n \tNoah<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> Skinny on March 16, 2015, 11:12 pm<\/p>\n \tSRR 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.<\/p>\n \tThe 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.<\/p>\n \tThe 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.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> OneMoonCircles on March 17, 2015, 5:34 am<\/p>\n \tOMC<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> Finisher on March 17, 2015, 9:23 am<\/p>\n Posted by:<\/strong> brothelman on March 18, 2015, 4:39 am<\/p>\n Posted by:<\/strong> Dominator on March 18, 2015, 6:00 pm<\/p>\n \tWith that being said …..<\/p>\n \tthis Randy would need 5000 rolls to get any real statistical data to determine SRR<\/p>\n \twith 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 <\/p>\n \tDominator<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> SevenTimesSeven on March 19, 2015, 1:26 pm<\/p>\n "Dominator" wrote:<\/strong> ….. \tSo, Dom, Posted by:<\/strong> NofieldFive on March 19, 2015, 1:47 pm<\/p>\n \tI 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.<\/p>\n \tNFF<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> brothelman on March 19, 2015, 4:36 pm<\/p>\n Posted by:<\/strong> SevenTimesSeven on March 19, 2015, 7:37 pm<\/p>\n "brothelman" wrote:<\/strong> Just 835 sevens and his srr would go below 6.0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \tBM, \t7×7<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Posted by:<\/strong> Finisher on March 22, 2015, 5:25 am<\/p>\n 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,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":63,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8750","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-craps"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8750","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/63"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8750"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8750\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8750"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8750"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8750"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\t(3) Another thing I wondered about.
\n\tIf you have some control in your throws and they are on axis most times but you suffer from
\n\tsingle and double pitches during those throws, wouldn’t the use of the all-sevens set be better
\n\tat avoiding the "good seven" than the use of the hardway set for those throws?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\t22,23,24,25
\n\t32,33,34,35
\n\t42,43,44,45
\n\t52,53,54,55
\n\tFrom this we see a seven comes up 4 times. If you create an all-sevens set you get the same distribution<\/p>\n
\n\t22,23,25,24
\n\t63,65,64,62
\n\t55,54,52,53
\n\t14,12,13,15
\n\tThis only produces 2 7s.<\/p>\n
\n\tIt 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 .
\n\tI 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 .
\n\tSome times with a low SRR YOU CAN STILL BE A WINNER .
\n\tI would not worry about it . I just hope you see your throw get better .
\n\tThis is a JOURNEY .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\tfor discussion?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\tSome times with a low SRR YOU CAN STILL BE A WINNER .
\n\tI would not worry about it . …. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\tYes, and I’ve seen Randies have ever so looonngg rolls.
\n\tThey have a low 6.0 SRR, I must think.
\n\t7×7<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\tWithout seeing the individual die results for each toss, it is impossible to make any extrapolations or conclusions.
\n\tNFF<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\tEach toss, especially by a Randy, has so much variance stemming from inconsistences
\n\tand table factors that, I figure, a rough indication of control indicated by the SRR
\n\tover so many tosses should be enough to evaluate the dice thrower as a DC or Randy.<\/p>\n
\n\tNo one can go below 6.0 for his\/her SRR.
\n\tYou are to look at the average over the reasonable number of tosses.
\n\tNote in the data that in any one session the indicated SRR can go very lo or very hi,
\n\tso much for variance in a small, insufficient number of tosses.
\n\t7×7<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\tThis is a JOURNEY .
\n\tGood Rolling. \ud83d\ude42 \ud83d\ude42<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\tthis Randy would need 5000 rolls to get any real statistical data to determine SRR
\n\twith 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
\n\tDominator<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\tIf this righ-handed Randy should fling the dice with his left hand while using the "all-sevens" set,
\n\tor for that matter, using no set at all but just grabbing the dice as they come, after 5,000 tosses
\n\tcould his SRR sink below 6.0? … towards an SRR of 1.0?
\n\t7×7<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\tIn 5000 rolls a Randy would be in the ballpark of 6.0.<\/p>\n
\n\tIf this right-handed Randy is flinging the dice with his left hand,
\n\thow much more random can his tosses be?
\n\tAnd 5,000 random tosses will definitely show an average ratio of 6 sevens in 36 tosses.
\n\tDid I hear 6.0 for his SRR?
\n\tIsn’t this the very deinition of a random throw?
\n\tIsn’t this what we compare a controlled throw against,
\n\thow much above 6.0, the more the better?<\/p>\n
\n\tSome times it seems that the harder I try for a perfect throw I get more 2\/5 and 3\/4 s .
\n\tI 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 .
\n\tI throw a lot of numbers but not repeaters .I am hoping that will change .
\n\tHave you tried the glue diced for the wobble . Seeing is believing .
\n\tGood Rolling. \ud83d\ude42 \ud83d\ude42<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"