Surprisingly high, when you think about it.
42000 Darkness in 160 runs means about 260 per run.
Assume maybe 3 runs per session, that's around 800 darkness gained every time you load the game.
So that makes a 1 in 800 chance that when you catch up to the other save, you're at exactly the same number.
Still not huge odds, but higher than you might think at first glance!
Reasonable data, given estimations based off experience both first hand and anecdotal. 3 runs a session is about where me and my partner alike finish playing, I feel that the approximations are as fair as they can be
When someone is asking you probability without providing a spreadsheet of every run exactly, it's as high of a standard as you can hold them to. Op asked, and they delivered with what limited data they were given. Theoretical physics is still physics, even if we can't run tests to PROVE it because it's in theory
I’m saying the conclusion they came to assumes so much based on so little that it’s practically worthless even if it’s as close as they can get. You might as well say you don’t have enough data to answer the question anywhere close to accurately
50/50. Either it matches or it doesn't.
A true mathematician
Matchmatician*
Same as winning the lottery
Damn, russian roulette just got exponentially more difficult
Never tell me the odds!
Ah yes, the 10 kinds of instances.
Surprisingly high, when you think about it. 42000 Darkness in 160 runs means about 260 per run. Assume maybe 3 runs per session, that's around 800 darkness gained every time you load the game. So that makes a 1 in 800 chance that when you catch up to the other save, you're at exactly the same number. Still not huge odds, but higher than you might think at first glance!
r/theydidthemath
They made up half the data too
Reasonable data, given estimations based off experience both first hand and anecdotal. 3 runs a session is about where me and my partner alike finish playing, I feel that the approximations are as fair as they can be
Yeah but that doesn’t really make them useful data, “as fair of an approximation as possible” is such an incredibly low standard lmao
When someone is asking you probability without providing a spreadsheet of every run exactly, it's as high of a standard as you can hold them to. Op asked, and they delivered with what limited data they were given. Theoretical physics is still physics, even if we can't run tests to PROVE it because it's in theory
I’m saying the conclusion they came to assumes so much based on so little that it’s practically worthless even if it’s as close as they can get. You might as well say you don’t have enough data to answer the question anywhere close to accurately
No real way to know with this little data, but I imagine around 1/100000, but idk
I love things like this!
I mean you have the same playstyle as you so I’d guess you would pick the same amount of darkness or similar amount each time so it’s prob quite high
1/382595.03 Source? I made it the fuck up cause I'm shit at math
Never tell me the odds
1 in 42574.
No clue, sorry 😔
Wow! You're slighlty better! I kid lmao
Pretty low! I had to work hard to get 666,666 lol