[Terry]

Stanford Wong is very knowledgeable about many aspects of gambling, no doubt about that. His books have taught me how to make a lot of money over the years.

He does sometimes make mistakes, though. Some of those mistakes are based on his incorrect assumptions about what goes on inside the pit. To protect his reputation as a legitimate provider of information to be used against the casinos, he has chosen to avoid contact with casino employees and managers, so as to avoid any perception of conflict of interest.

I respect his decision and his integrity, but add the caveat that a significant part of the information he provides about the inner workings of casinos is incorrect, due directly to the fact that he has little actual inside knowledge.

My opinion is that he is simply mistaken about the viability of dice control. In the Bellagio experiment a couple years ago, his own employees, one of whom sometimes posts here, were betting against him. Even though Wong won the bet, he himself states that a trial of 500 rolls is in no way proof that it works.

Enough on Wong -- I don't want to go off on another long-winded rant.

Note that last night's post addressed only one point; the idea that a control shot will "look like a normal throw." I didn't touch on things like the different characteristics of different brands of dice, the effects of wear on the corners and edges of the dice, the differences in grabbiness and slipperiness between new and old felt on the tables, the softness or hardness of the rubber backing and whether or not the rubber was flush to the table surface or had a gap ... I could go on for a very long time, but I won't. I'm afraid I took the bait on the use of the word "ignorance" and ran with it.