Why do people play dice with the 1.02x strategy?

[irawk0]

This HR clearly proves my point, it's literally never going to work. The chance of anyone winning 50x on 1.02x in a roll to basically 2x their bankroll is so slim it would be more feasible to martingale on 2x...

Lots of people linking their bets in chat also uses the same strategy, whether it's 1.1x, 1.5x, or something similar...

[David]

Seeing as house edge mathematically should be (wagered amount * 0.99), this just means you wager more and therefore (theoretically) lose more in the long run.

But I even use 1.1x or so sometimes, but not for long term strategy, just as it feels a little bit safer.

[jkd123]

Maybe they think it's safe strategy? Or their style is high base bet low risk and low profit

[irawk0]

Is it just me or does anyone feel like high payout low bets are actually more safe >.> For example, 20x payout, 5-10% increase on loss, maybe 100 sat base bet or lower. 

[ravenyvolle2]

If i will use this 1.02x strategy and thinking of making a huge bet or all in, i will make sure that i will preroll at least 1-2 reds before betting all..

 

[irawk0]

I've been trying to tell everyone to not do this, they still do and yet complain when they bust, it's like me pointing out a trap in front of their path, they walk and fall inside, then cry for help.

I'm like srsly? .-.

[xtinepink]

Most of the people who actually use this kind of strat or multiplier on dice makes huge bets or sometimes people who are doing some dice challenges. 

It’s a risky one if you bet all in and turned out bad. 

[williamshennie9]

That is how I bused once. On my very first roll on 1.02x, I lost around 0.05 BTC. And it was my very first roll... Never again! It is a recipe for disaster, as you've shown in that screenshot.

[ceastem]

1 hour ago, ravenyvolle2 said:

If i will use this 1.02x strategy and thinking of making a huge bet or all in, i will make sure that i will preroll at least 1-2 reds before betting all..

 

this is exactly what should be done. especially now, going all in even on a 1.1x will not assure you on every roll. i feel much safer in having prerolls first with lower amounts then possibly raking back my losses with a maximum of three times in a row loss (third loss going all in). for me it is "almost" impossible to lose 3 in a row at 1.1x multiplier even in dice.

so yeah you can try or you cannot. some people make profits in this kind of strategies and some people don't profit in low bets high multipliers. it is a matter of luck after all.

[Etude]

I believe its a trap to think that low payouts have almost a confirm chance of winning. That is certainly not true being the rolls are suppose to be random and any roll numbers can come at any time. 

[ravenyvolle2]

19 minutes ago, ceastem said:

this is exactly what should be done. especially now, going all in even on a 1.1x will not assure you on every roll. i feel much safer in having prerolls first with lower amounts then possibly raking back my losses with a maximum of three times in a row loss (third loss going all in). for me it is "almost" impossible to lose 3 in a row at 1.1x multiplier even in dice.

so yeah you can try or you cannot. some people make profits in this kind of strategies and some people don't profit in low bets high multipliers. it is a matter of luck after all.

Yes, prerolls save my ass everytime!:P its a safer strategy to do:) 

[Etude]

Just now, ravenyvolle2 said:

Yes, prerolls save my ass everytime!:P its a safer strategy to do:) 

Personally I really don't like the idea of pre-rolling as you have in the first place no idea what is the next roll anyways. As any number might come at any instances. That being said, I guess one should continue doing whatever method they still consistently find success in.

[Kate]

Because you will surely win like 1 dollar every single time !! 

[EddieFx]

Maybe they think it's a safe strategy? lol I know it's not but they might think so or maybe tey just like to play high base bet, low risk and low reward