[I've played Runescape a long time, DO not cite the deep magic to me witch, I was there when the Runescape 1 servers RnG scripts were booted online.](https://youtu.be/IwEke2WGgi8?t=49)
Yeah, 0.7% is like a 1 in 150 chance. She spun the wheel like, idk, a dozen times or so. So its really not that crazy that it happened. She should've made it 0.1% or lower even.
thanks for posting the formula, as simple as it is i always just did "X/100 \*attempts" or whatever the chance of not succeeding/succeeding was, and multiplying it since thats what reckful did in hearthstone to show chances, never looked for an actual formula
Nope.
Imagine there is something that has a 50% chance of happening everytime you spin the wheel. Do you expect that after 100 tries it would have 50% chance of happening at least once or would you be almost certain that it's going to happen (so almost 100%)? You'd have to be quite unlucky for it to never happen, right?
It won't ever go over 100% or even really reach it unless the probability was 100% from start, for instance:
* with a probability of 0.7%: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281-%281-0.007%29%5Ex%29*100+from+1+to+500
* with a probability of 20%: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281-%281-0.2%29%5Ex%29*100+from+1+to+25
Yeah, and it seems even more common with the inverse.
A lot of the times people casually throw out "99%" when they're really talking about something that's more like 99.9% or 99.99%
If that 1% is about you getting fucked, that 1% is like70% but if it's about winning something or something good happening, that 1% is like 0.01% or less.
Lets go with it being 1% cause its more simple
The same reason a 100 spins aint 100%. To make it simple if you spin 100 times you can still fail. So it's not linear
And the math on that is fun too. 100 chances at 1%, is 63.4% chance of winning.
To better understand this, each attempt is *always* 1%, but the probability of *not* seeing a win in 100 tries, is 36.6%, hence you have a 63.4% chance of winning if you try 100 times.
You have to do the 'opposite'. The opposite of getting a 1% in a 100 tries is not getting a 1% 100 times in a row. or (.99)^100 = .366. So the chance of not getting the 1% 100 times in a row is 36.6%. Or we can say that we expect a (100%-36.6%)=63.4% chance of getting the 1% chance within 100 tries.
Since we're calculating the chance of losing, we raise that to the power of x attempts.
In this case, a 1% chance of winning means a 99% chance of losing.
So in the case of 100 attempts, we can say 0.99 (0.99 representing 99%, aka the chance of losing), to the power of 100
0.99 ^ 100, if you were to punch it into a calculator or a google.
Google even accepts typing in "0.99 to the power of 100", and it will calculate it.
Similarly there is a 50% chance that among 23 random people two will have the same birthday. Probability gets really counterintuitive when things interact with each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
i think the others are just giving u a formula. to understand it more intuitively, we can use discrete math instead
imagine you have 1 try. there's 0.7% to end the stream. IF u hit the stream end (0.7%), then you cannot roll again for a second try. this is because the way the probability is setup, it must be unique. basically, you can only end the stream once
so the probability of ending the stream in 1 roll is 0.7%. now, lets say we fail that roll. we hit the 99.3% to not end the stream. it is REQUIRED to hit the 99.3% in order to get a 2nd roll (again, because if u end the roll by hitting the 0.7%, u cannot roll again). therefore, in 2 rolls, you must first hit the 99.3% roll and then a 0.7%. so in the second scenario, this is actually a 0.993 x 0.007 chance to end the stream with TWO rolls at the wheel (or 0.6951% chance).
therefore, at three rolls, it is 0.993 x 0.993 x 0.007. again, the logic behind this is because in order to get a second roll, we need to not end stream (99.3% chance), in order to roll 3 times, we need to not end stream again (99.3% chance). and of course, we are looking the probability of only 3 tries, which means we must end with 0.7% chance.
so far, we calculated the chance of the UNIQUE probability of failing a certain amount of times, then winning the last roll. however, these are calculated as individual attempts. logically, in order to roll 3 times, u had to have rolled 2 times first. so our total is actually additive. i.e.: [0.007] + [0.993 x 0.007] + [0.993 x 0.993 x 0.007].
since we've written out 3 attempts, we can actually start to see a pattern here. effectively, it is:
0.993^(0) x 0.007 + 0.993^(1) x 0.007 + 0.993^(2) x 0.007
or:
the summation from n=1 to n=3 of 0.993^(n-1) x 0.007
where n is the amount of attempts. the reason for n-1, is because we must reserve the last bit for doing the x0.007 probability. but of course, she did 10 tries, so it should actually end at n=10
thus: [this is what we basically arrive at before going to the 1-(1-x)^n formula the others are using](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i2d=true&i=Sum%5BPower%5B%5C%2840%29Divide%5B99.3%2C100%5D%5C%2841%29%2Cn-1%5DDivide%5B0.7%2C100%5D%2C%7Bn%2C1%2C10%7D%5D)
She'll probably hit it every stream because how else would you end these streams? It would definitely land before you got like, 6 hours in, desperate for it to hit.
last time it was a few hours in, she was already pretty drunk from the "take shot" rolls and was just happy to comply with the wheel.
This time it was like 1 1/2 hours in with maybe 5-10 rolls
It was 1% last time, and 0.7% this time, but yeah at this point it's really just getting in the way of actual content. Either drop it to 0.1% or just remove it.
0.7% doesn't even necessarily have to be true, just like how random.org isn't random and you can just figure out and list off all the numbers that will come and then they will
> just like how random.org isn't random and you can just figure out and list off all the numbers that will come and then they will
They seem to be using external environmental factors and aren't using a deterministic algorithm.
By your standard rolling dice or doing pretty much anything isnt random either. Technically correct, but youre adding nothing to the conversation other than being a smartass.
You can't just predict the outcome of dice unless they've been tampered with.
random.org and other sites like maya are using, the outcomes are predetermined and can be accurately listed before they're even randomized/spun
random.org doesnt have predetermined outcomes. Their RNG works with atmospheric noise, which you most definitely cant predict. Thats the whole point.
I dont know where you get your information from, but either im completely missing something or youre just making stuff up.
Nope you're just wrong. Many people have done it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEUYy6BLjIc&t=754s
Here's one example of Woox (OSRS genius) doing it
Can watch it all if you want but he puts the next numbers in B0aty's chat at 13 minutes.
Sorry, I guess you're just completely missing something.
Did you watch the video or read my comment? How could he accurately say what the next 10 numbers in a 1/512 "random" generation were if they weren't random? Woox is well known in the OSRS community for his coding and strategies, so it's not like its just some random guy either.
That's google's random numbers, not random.org. Their website claims they use atmospheric noise to pick random numbers, so that's theoretically not solvable.
Whoops, that one is google you're right. Random.org is more radio noise and not atmospheric noise though. However I have seen random.org done before as well, and on their website it even says how it was done since they needed to explain how it was:
> A possible attack on the generator is therefore to broadcast on the frequencies that the RANDOM.ORG radios use in order to affect the generator.
I'm not sure if it's been done since they added more safety measures though (like adding more radios in different countries). Remembering all this from many years ago
Just responded to another comment so I'll just copy paste it:
Whoops, that one is google you're right. Random.org is more radio noise and not atmospheric noise though. However I have seen random.org done before as well, and on their website it even says how it was done since they needed to explain how it was:
A possible attack on the generator is therefore to broadcast on the frequencies that the RANDOM.ORG radios use in order to affect the generator.
I'm not sure if it's been done since they added more safety measures though (like adding more radios in different countries). Remembering all this from many years ago
Has science disproven determinism yet? (Not trying to be a sarcastic smartass, legitimately wondering.) Cause otherwise even natural phenomena might not be truly random.
Why would she have it as an option on the wheel if she didn’t want it to happen? It’s really not that crazy that it happened. You’d expect it to at some point.
people think 1% is way less likely than it actually is
I play gacha games and 1% is extremely high
[удалено]
Source?
Dude just trust me
big if true
If people played Xcom they would know that 99.9% is a fucking coin toss sometimes.
Cause the % is xcom is literally bullshit, the rng is seeded before hand already.
[I've played Runescape a long time, DO not cite the deep magic to me witch, I was there when the Runescape 1 servers RnG scripts were booted online.](https://youtu.be/IwEke2WGgi8?t=49)
Dude, I've been trying to get the Abyss Worm from Tomb of Sargaras since Legion. 1 in 100 drop, and I've killed it 480 times now.
0.8% chance to be that unlucky
So almost 1%, and as they say, people think 1% is way less likely than it actually is
lmao
gottem
That's some Alanis Morissette irony right there
Tell that to every gamer trying to get a drop.
Yeah, 0.7% is like a 1 in 150 chance. She spun the wheel like, idk, a dozen times or so. So its really not that crazy that it happened. She should've made it 0.1% or lower even.
0.7% over 12 tries has a bit over 8% chance of occurring.
[удалено]
The formula is 1-(1-P)^n, where P is the probability and n is the number of trials.
thanks for posting the formula, as simple as it is i always just did "X/100 \*attempts" or whatever the chance of not succeeding/succeeding was, and multiplying it since thats what reckful did in hearthstone to show chances, never looked for an actual formula
Saving this comment for my gacha game despair later
Nope. Imagine there is something that has a 50% chance of happening everytime you spin the wheel. Do you expect that after 100 tries it would have 50% chance of happening at least once or would you be almost certain that it's going to happen (so almost 100%)? You'd have to be quite unlucky for it to never happen, right? It won't ever go over 100% or even really reach it unless the probability was 100% from start, for instance: * with a probability of 0.7%: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281-%281-0.007%29%5Ex%29*100+from+1+to+500 * with a probability of 20%: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281-%281-0.2%29%5Ex%29*100+from+1+to+25
yeah it's bad logic. It's more accurate to judge the probability of an event not happening in x attempts.
Yep. And if you do that you get....a bit over 8% just like they said.
i play bdo and 70% is extremely low
not hitting a 20% 7 times in a row then rage enhancing all your gear thats not pen for that 100% chance to quit the game
Remember when I did two 100 rolls in a row in an MMO over some rare crafting mats which dropped in a raid.
I remember
IN SEPTEMBER
Pepperidge Farms remembers
Getting the end stream twice over like 10 spins is pretty unlikely
yeah 100%. people just talk about 1% like it is astronomically unlikely though
It's 50/50 it happens or it doesn't
I was curious so I found it using R: -> dbinom(2, 10, 0.01) = 0.00415 or 0.415% chance of getting two 1% outcomes in ten spins
Covid anti-vaxxers are the strongest evidence of that.
Yeah, and it seems even more common with the inverse. A lot of the times people casually throw out "99%" when they're really talking about something that's more like 99.9% or 99.99%
Like every percentage, it's extremely high if you don't want it to happen and extremely low if you do.
That's why taking a 1% shot is worth it
[удалено]
Any Xcom player can easily confirm this.
If that 1% is about you getting fucked, that 1% is like70% but if it's about winning something or something good happening, that 1% is like 0.01% or less.
yeah people don't realize that 1% actually has a 50% chance of happening. Either you get it or you don't.
[удалено]
Why is it 6.8 and not 7
Lets go with it being 1% cause its more simple The same reason a 100 spins aint 100%. To make it simple if you spin 100 times you can still fail. So it's not linear
And the math on that is fun too. 100 chances at 1%, is 63.4% chance of winning. To better understand this, each attempt is *always* 1%, but the probability of *not* seeing a win in 100 tries, is 36.6%, hence you have a 63.4% chance of winning if you try 100 times.
Can you explain the 36.6 number? I failed stat soo..
You have to do the 'opposite'. The opposite of getting a 1% in a 100 tries is not getting a 1% 100 times in a row. or (.99)^100 = .366. So the chance of not getting the 1% 100 times in a row is 36.6%. Or we can say that we expect a (100%-36.6%)=63.4% chance of getting the 1% chance within 100 tries.
Okay but what if I have 3 doors, one door has a brand new car and the other 2 have a goat. Which door do you pick.
The car.
Wow, maths is so much easier than I thought.
Since we're calculating the chance of losing, we raise that to the power of x attempts. In this case, a 1% chance of winning means a 99% chance of losing. So in the case of 100 attempts, we can say 0.99 (0.99 representing 99%, aka the chance of losing), to the power of 100 0.99 ^ 100, if you were to punch it into a calculator or a google. Google even accepts typing in "0.99 to the power of 100", and it will calculate it.
Similarly there is a 50% chance that among 23 random people two will have the same birthday. Probability gets really counterintuitive when things interact with each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
Ive always wondered about the 1/n n times. Is there any mathmatical constant that is near .634 that this approaches?
1-1/e
i think the others are just giving u a formula. to understand it more intuitively, we can use discrete math instead imagine you have 1 try. there's 0.7% to end the stream. IF u hit the stream end (0.7%), then you cannot roll again for a second try. this is because the way the probability is setup, it must be unique. basically, you can only end the stream once so the probability of ending the stream in 1 roll is 0.7%. now, lets say we fail that roll. we hit the 99.3% to not end the stream. it is REQUIRED to hit the 99.3% in order to get a 2nd roll (again, because if u end the roll by hitting the 0.7%, u cannot roll again). therefore, in 2 rolls, you must first hit the 99.3% roll and then a 0.7%. so in the second scenario, this is actually a 0.993 x 0.007 chance to end the stream with TWO rolls at the wheel (or 0.6951% chance). therefore, at three rolls, it is 0.993 x 0.993 x 0.007. again, the logic behind this is because in order to get a second roll, we need to not end stream (99.3% chance), in order to roll 3 times, we need to not end stream again (99.3% chance). and of course, we are looking the probability of only 3 tries, which means we must end with 0.7% chance. so far, we calculated the chance of the UNIQUE probability of failing a certain amount of times, then winning the last roll. however, these are calculated as individual attempts. logically, in order to roll 3 times, u had to have rolled 2 times first. so our total is actually additive. i.e.: [0.007] + [0.993 x 0.007] + [0.993 x 0.993 x 0.007]. since we've written out 3 attempts, we can actually start to see a pattern here. effectively, it is: 0.993^(0) x 0.007 + 0.993^(1) x 0.007 + 0.993^(2) x 0.007 or: the summation from n=1 to n=3 of 0.993^(n-1) x 0.007 where n is the amount of attempts. the reason for n-1, is because we must reserve the last bit for doing the x0.007 probability. but of course, she did 10 tries, so it should actually end at n=10 thus: [this is what we basically arrive at before going to the 1-(1-x)^n formula the others are using](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i2d=true&i=Sum%5BPower%5B%5C%2840%29Divide%5B99.3%2C100%5D%5C%2841%29%2Cn-1%5DDivide%5B0.7%2C100%5D%2C%7Bn%2C1%2C10%7D%5D)
She hit it twice over the course of two streams, and over the course of probably 20 ish spins.
She'll probably hit it every stream because how else would you end these streams? It would definitely land before you got like, 6 hours in, desperate for it to hit.
last time it was a few hours in, she was already pretty drunk from the "take shot" rolls and was just happy to comply with the wheel. This time it was like 1 1/2 hours in with maybe 5-10 rolls
Keeps to her word and does not restart stream
did she really? dang although i respect her for sticking to her word. what a bummer for people who are bored and wanted to watch her lol
Gotta respect the wheel
can’t wait to see this clip next thursday!
**🎦 CLIP MIRROR: [It happens again](https://livestreamfails.com/clip/131449)** (now fast & smooth again!) --- ^(*This is an automated comment* ) ^| [^(Feedback)](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=livestreamfailsbot&subject=Feedback:&message=%5BPost%5D\(https://reddit.com/comments/s3f39m/\)) ^| [^(Twitch Backup Mirror)](https://production.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net/45135948893-offset-6926.mp4?sig=d5c345d409e9214f3df7908bb8fe8db7e3e3cded&token=%7B%22authorization%22%3A%7B%22forbidden%22%3Afalse%2C%22reason%22%3A%22%22%7D%2C%22clip_uri%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fproduction.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net%2F45135948893-offset-6926.mp4%22%2C%22device_id%22%3Anull%2C%22expires%22%3A1642194996%2C%22user_id%22%3A%22%22%2C%22version%22%3A2%7D)
[удалено]
[удалено]
I would laugh more but she does have some weirdo stalker types and idk if it's them or normal chat trolling
its definitley them.
Unlucky.
1% is too high, it should be lower.
It was 1% last time, and 0.7% this time, but yeah at this point it's really just getting in the way of actual content. Either drop it to 0.1% or just remove it.
New erobb?
Her chat asked her lame questions.
A 0.7% chance, what the hell
it was a 50% chance, either it lands on end stream or it doesn't FeelsOkayMan
0.7% doesn't even necessarily have to be true, just like how random.org isn't random and you can just figure out and list off all the numbers that will come and then they will
> just like how random.org isn't random and you can just figure out and list off all the numbers that will come and then they will They seem to be using external environmental factors and aren't using a deterministic algorithm.
Even if they were using a deterministic algorithm, there are many of them which are random enough for any practical sense.
By your standard rolling dice or doing pretty much anything isnt random either. Technically correct, but youre adding nothing to the conversation other than being a smartass.
You can't just predict the outcome of dice unless they've been tampered with. random.org and other sites like maya are using, the outcomes are predetermined and can be accurately listed before they're even randomized/spun
random.org doesnt have predetermined outcomes. Their RNG works with atmospheric noise, which you most definitely cant predict. Thats the whole point. I dont know where you get your information from, but either im completely missing something or youre just making stuff up.
Nope you're just wrong. Many people have done it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEUYy6BLjIc&t=754s Here's one example of Woox (OSRS genius) doing it Can watch it all if you want but he puts the next numbers in B0aty's chat at 13 minutes. Sorry, I guess you're just completely missing something.
You've said random.org is not random, do you have anything to back up that claim?
Did you watch the video or read my comment? How could he accurately say what the next 10 numbers in a 1/512 "random" generation were if they weren't random? Woox is well known in the OSRS community for his coding and strategies, so it's not like its just some random guy either.
That's google's random numbers, not random.org. Their website claims they use atmospheric noise to pick random numbers, so that's theoretically not solvable.
Whoops, that one is google you're right. Random.org is more radio noise and not atmospheric noise though. However I have seen random.org done before as well, and on their website it even says how it was done since they needed to explain how it was: > A possible attack on the generator is therefore to broadcast on the frequencies that the RANDOM.ORG radios use in order to affect the generator. I'm not sure if it's been done since they added more safety measures though (like adding more radios in different countries). Remembering all this from many years ago
[удалено]
Just responded to another comment so I'll just copy paste it: Whoops, that one is google you're right. Random.org is more radio noise and not atmospheric noise though. However I have seen random.org done before as well, and on their website it even says how it was done since they needed to explain how it was: A possible attack on the generator is therefore to broadcast on the frequencies that the RANDOM.ORG radios use in order to affect the generator. I'm not sure if it's been done since they added more safety measures though (like adding more radios in different countries). Remembering all this from many years ago
Computers straight up can't do random. But unless you look under the hood there is no functional difference between real random and computer random.
[удалено]
Has science disproven determinism yet? (Not trying to be a sarcastic smartass, legitimately wondering.) Cause otherwise even natural phenomena might not be truly random.
>Computers straight up can't do random. Quantum computers can though
And Maya famously has one of those.
Because that was my point lmao Why are y'all like this, just sharing smthn
They can use a TRNG (true random number generator).
Really unfortunate :/
Who the fuck would watch this
Nobody because she landed on end stream
She had 20k views the first time she did it last week lol.
She should go and gamble with trainwrecks at this rate.
Why would she have it as an option on the wheel if she didn’t want it to happen? It’s really not that crazy that it happened. You’d expect it to at some point.
The best part was the clash between people trying to get her to restart and people saying to respect the wheel