You've made more than 30 million bets, and yet the house edge hasn't killed you. Since I don't believe that there can be a way of strategically beating luck in purely luck based games, such as dice(isn't it obvious? apparently it's not
), your stats prove that 30 million bets isn't enough for the house edge to prevail over possible luck
I wonder whether you intentionally or accidentally now come to discard your own premises. But let me help you refresh your memory and quote your earlier post:
Then how would you explain that some people are in overall profit after making millions of bets on dice sites? Do you think all of them are using some kind of sophisticated betting strategy, something like that "Martingale-DOGE" one of yours?
Wait, there's probably a misunderstanding here. The post you quoted was a reply to this post of yours:
~ I actually show real-life stats proving that after 100k bets luck, as the only force opposing the house edge, becomes utterly irrelevant and inconsequential. Simply put, 1 billion bets, whether made by a single player or by a crowd of countless players, is a massive overkill in this regard
And I thought you meant that no amount of luck could help you to beat the house edge after 100k bets(I still think you meant exactly that)
If there's a misunderstanding, it looks like it is on your account
But I can tell you exactly where its source lies or where it comes from. First off, let me say that I indeed mean just that, i.e. no amount of luck is going to help you beat the house (over millions of rolls). That's basically the key point of this entire thread. However, when you are using some strategy (irrespective of whether it is working or not), you are
supposedly no longer relying on luck, per definition. Naturally, the vast majority of such strategies are no more than a variety of the infamous Gambler's Fallacy. If you are using such a strategy, your success continues to depend on luck, so all said and done in the first posts of this topic still fully applies to your gambling journey (read, you are set to lose eventually)
Then, if you are using a strategy which is not relying on luck, you can no longer say that luck determines the fate of your balance as it gets eliminated from the equation. This logic cannot be challenged. So the whole question under these assumptions comes down to whether such a strategy exists for real. And as my experience proves, moreover, even as your experience seems to prove, there is such a strategy, the one you dubbed Martingale-DOGE. As you can see, there is no contradiction in my words and line of reasoning. If we are talking about a working strategy that is actually able to overcome or work around the house edge, luck or its absence is no longer a factor (which you seem to understand intuitively)