Can Setting for the Seven Create a Non-Seven Shooter?

I've been getting a lot of mail lately asking me two questions: The first, whether controlled shooters, knowing they can't be 100 percent perfect in their throws, should set for a 7 and expect that their imperfect throws will result in a non-seven. The second question: Can a controlled shooter deliberately create a shot that is "off" by enough that with a sevens-set it will result in a non-seven.

These are, to be sure, theoretical questions that are not definitively answerable using any kind of valid research since someone can say that he has done thousands of shots of this sort and "it works." And this someone might not be lying; he just might be using his results and his particular throw as a standard upon which to judge others' potential results. (He could also be deluded.) Much like a pitcher in baseball who throws a split-fingered fastball might have certain results with hand placement, a controlled shooter (assuming an extraordinary degree of control) might be able to be so good that he can make the dice react improperly enough to result in a non-seven when he sets for the seven.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

To do a variation of something you have to be good at that particular something. In this case, if you were good at controlled shooting, why would you monkey around with your throw? You're making money on it. For example, if you set the Hardway set (which is the seven-avoidance set) and you have demonstrably shown that you can avoid the 7 using that set, why in heaven's name would you change? You are already avoiding the 7! But if you can't avoid the 7 with the Hardway set, you don't have any (or enough) control to be predictable when you set the sevens set. In short, if you aren't good at controlled shooting, you aren't going to be "off" consistently and predictably enough to make any money. You'll be just another random roller who sets the dice and has conned himself into thinking he's an advantage player. Unfortunately, I have seen plenty of these shooters; too many.

The other trouble with the first proposition is the fact that you have to be "off" a predictable number of dice faces to attempt to capitalize on the seven-set coming up on a non-seven. If the idea is to deliberately throw the dice at an angle so it hits the back wall skewed, you've only succeeded in creating a random game. You can't control skewed angles on a craps table.

Here's the problem as I see it with the second proposition. Keeping the dice on axis when you throw is difficult enough, but trying to deliberately be "off" just enough to consign the seven to oblivion would take such extraordinary control that it would be better and far more profitable for that same extraordinary shooter to just use his control to hit particular numbers, such as the 4 and 10, which are usually the most difficult to hit but return the most (I exclude the crazy crapper bets from this discussion as overcoming house edges in the near-double and double digits requires a degree of skill not found in most controlled shooters).

So can setting for a 7 create the conditions for a non-seven? I don't think so. The concept is superficially logical but upon examination it is fraught with danger as are many seemingly logical betting systems that fail miserably in the long run. Setting for the 7 and then attempting to be "off" or at an angle can, however, create the conditions for randomness and that's exactly what the casinos would want. Thankfully, no reputable dice control teachers are pushing such an idea. It's merely in the area of speculation where it should remain.