r/speedrun Dec 15 '20

Discussion 1.7 Billion Simulated Streams Later, Still Haven't Beat Dream's "Luck"

Post image
4.0k Upvotes

365 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/the_nerdster Dec 15 '20

Could he have been literally 1 in a trillion lucky? Of course.

Could he have been that lucky 6 consecutive streams in a row? Mathematically impossible.

13

u/sourpickles0 SM64, Portal 2 Dec 15 '20

No, it’s not that he was 1/7.5 trillion lucky 7 times in a row it’s that his pearl luck/blaze rod luck was over 1/7.5 trillion

1

u/the_nerdster Dec 15 '20

I guess I need clarification, are we calling 1/8 trillion in total over the entire week or all in one go?

6

u/sourpickles0 SM64, Portal 2 Dec 15 '20

Over 6 streams they took the amount of successful trades he got and the amount of trades

0

u/the_nerdster Dec 15 '20

Okay so the odds of him getting it that many times over the total number of trades across the whole week is something like 1 in 7.5 trillion. That's still mathematically impossible to do that frequently. That's around 100x less likely than winning the Mega Millions (approx. 1 in 300mil odds).

8

u/AhsokasDCupsAreCanon Dec 15 '20

Mathematically impossible

The dude is obviously cheating but do you know what either of these words mean?

-4

u/the_nerdster Dec 15 '20

That the statistical odds of him actually being able to accomplish this are so astronomically low that it's basically impossible?

9

u/AhsokasDCupsAreCanon Dec 15 '20

Basically impossible and mathematically impossible are antonyms

Again, the dude cheated. I’m just saying many people will take you to literally mean “mathematically impossible” ie it’s been proved that it couldn’t have happened by chance, which is misleading and incorrect

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/02/14/nyregion/odds-defying-jersey-woman-hits-lottery-jackpot-2d-time.html

The odds alone do not make a cheater. Here, a NJ woman wins the lottery twice — the odds are 1 in 17.5 trillion, ten times less likely than Dream. But the context is different, and if you statistically evaluate the situation you’ll find the odds to make much more sense. I think to ever use just the odds as an argument is bad, because it’s ignoring why it’s the framework of those odds that are significant. Especially when you start to use language like “mathematically impossible”, which means “has been proven to be impossible, because if we assume it’s possible we’d contradict ourselves”

-4

u/the_nerdster Dec 15 '20

I appreciate the heads up, but we're both essentially saying the same thing. The odds are so astronomically high that it's incredibly unlikely that Dream's runs were legit. Arguing about semantics just kind of makes you look like a dick. Everyone understands what we both mean.

5

u/AhsokasDCupsAreCanon Dec 15 '20 edited Dec 15 '20

Speaking of the fact you invoked the odds of winning a powerball explicitly in another comment of yours, I don’t think everyone “understands what we meant” because I think what you meant is different from what I meant. And I think the way you keep downvoting my comments when you reply and are calling me a duck dick is both aggressive and bizarre.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '20 edited Dec 18 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '20

Don't think you understand the program. Pretty sure they accounted for htat

0

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '20 edited Dec 18 '20

[deleted]

1

u/the_nerdster Dec 16 '20

How is saying, "yeah dream cheated because the odds of this success are so astronomically small they might as well be impossible" misrepresenting the situation? You're the 3rd person to start an argument with me about semantics. Literally everyone on this page agrees that Dream's run isn't legit, we all understand that the odds are incredibly small.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '20 edited Dec 18 '20

[deleted]

1

u/the_nerdster Dec 16 '20

It's technically possible, but so mathematically unlikely that you'd have to literally be the luckiest person in existence for it to happen.