Statistics/logic Question

[seph ir oth]

Hey guys,

So I was discussing with a friend over who has the statistical advantage over the other in this dice game we saw going on at a boardgame/card shop. The host of it was rolling a 100-sided die, and they were essentially playing blackjack; a single better was trying to get as close to 100 as he could without going over. If he goes over, he instantly loses. Then, if the better stays, the host would have to try and beat his amount. If they tie, they re-roll.

So, I see the statistical advantage of the host, where he doesn't have to risk anything at all half the time because of the better going over, but on the flipside of things if the better stays with anything over 50 the host then has the odds against him; he has to go against the odds of the roll if he initially rolls lower than the held amount, hugely increasing his chance to go over.

SO the question is: who has the true advantage? Let's assume the better always stays with any amount above 50.

 

[Accname]

Since the better has to roll first he is at a disadvantage. Other then that, it seems to be rather fair since they both roll the same dice.
The host does not have to make any decisions, but the better has. The host only waits to see if the better loses or not, if he doesnt go over 100 the host has to roll until he is either higher then the better, or over 100.

 

[seph ir oth]

I figured the host has the better odds based on that, yeah.

Just thought it was interesting. People were lining up for their turns at it. I bet the dude made a killing with those $5 bets.

 

[Accname]

Nah, he does not have a huge advantage. But over a long period of time he might make some profits.