I saw a provably fair “dice role” lose 61 times in a row. The bet was high vs. low (>50.5,<49.5, “house edge” being 49.5-50.5).
The gambler had been using the Martingale “strategy” (double the bet on loss) before the first ~10 losses, then reset to the smallest bet accepted (crazily at the time they were allowing 0.00000001 per bet, of a digital token worth 1200$ at the time). I just remember if they’d somehow been able to continue the Martingale thing, the final roll alone would’ve had a higher bet than the entire US national debt at the time.
I remember trying the martingale thing at a casino and it turns out there’s an upper limit on bets at the place we were at. I lost my $5 that I committed to this experiment though
I saw a provably fair “dice role” lose 61 times in a row. The bet was high vs. low (>50.5,<49.5, “house edge” being 49.5-50.5).
The gambler had been using the Martingale “strategy” (double the bet on loss) before the first ~10 losses, then reset to the smallest bet accepted (crazily at the time they were allowing 0.00000001 per bet, of a digital token worth 1200$ at the time). I just remember if they’d somehow been able to continue the Martingale thing, the final roll alone would’ve had a higher bet than the entire US national debt at the time.
I see you played computer version of Blood Bowl too.
3 dice with a reroll, no way they could all be Attacker Down!
💀💀💀 💀💀💀
I remember trying the martingale thing at a casino and it turns out there’s an upper limit on bets at the place we were at. I lost my $5 that I committed to this experiment though