>Use Scald 4 times >Doesn't burn the opponent despite

>math, how does it work?

>>24606152
>120% chance

are you retarded?

>>24606152
OP you only have a third of a chance of getting a burn each time its your turn.

Scald? Teach that nigga Waterfall

>>24606152
Get ready to be fucked up by some nerds, OP

81% chance is the correct answer.
There is a 19% chance of failing, and you did it.
Technically, you were the lucky one.

File: e3a.jpg (30KB, 633x335px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 633x335px

>fucking numbers, how do they work?

>>24606188
The word you're looking for is "unlucky," idiot.

>>24606223
No, no. Philosophy aside, if you land an outcome that had a <50% chance of occurring, you are on the lucky side.

>>24606229
So, if a thunder hit my head, I'm lucky?

>>24606252
Of course.
How else are you going to reach that navajo-tier enlightment?

>>24606252
On the grand scale of things, yes.
Perceived negativity is something humans do, so you call it unlucky.

>>24606229
You're making the assumption here that "lucky" mean's least probable or improbable outcome.

All definitions of luck are about being fortunate and having good things happen.

This is bait, but I don't have anything better to do.

.7*.7 = .49
.49 * .7 = .343
.343 * .7 = .2401
There was a 24% chance of not burning with all four Scalds.

I once went 12 tries without a burn. It got to the point where I wanted to see how long Scald could hit without burning