How lucky is too lucky?: The Minecraft Speedrunning Dream Controversy Explained

4.02.2021
3 119 257 Näkymät

Buy my book Humble Pi now!
www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/610964/humble-pi-by-matt-parker/
UPDATE: Harvard Book Store have totally sold out.
My talk on 4 February 2021 at Harvard Book Store:
www.harvard.com/event/virtual_event_matt_parker/
Here is the original accusation against Dream.
Video: fiworld.info/goon/XYG93XGwyIF8mGw/videot.html&ab_channel=Geosquare
Paper: mcspeedrun.com/dream.pdf
And here is Dream's reply.
Video: fiworld.info/goon/YZ3V1ovWs4ujj4k/videot.html&ab_channel=DreamXD
Paper: drive.google.com/file/d/1yfLURFdDhMfrvI2cFMdYM8f_M_IRoAlM/view
"Matt flips a coin 100 times."
fiworld.info/goon/hGa82qHYlmyspH0/videot.html
"Holy Craps! How a Gambling Grandma Broke the Record"
content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1901663,00.html
Number of casinos in the world in 2011: 3,547
www.statista.com/statistics/221031/total-worldwide-casinos-by-region/
Roulette records.
www.roulette17.com/stories/record-reds-blacks-in-a-row/
CORRECTIONS
- At 09:08 I say “1 in 110 trillion” when I meant to say “1 in 110 billion”. The number on the screen is correct, it was just a verbal slip-up.
- At 25:27 I showed the 118 craps record as “1 in 1.2 × 10^9” when it should be “1 in 2.2 × 10^9”. The voiceover says the correct number.
- I slip and “more likely” instead of “less likely” at 33:47 (I think I may have even been going for “more unlikely”). But everything in the screen is correct.
- Let me know if you spot any more mistakes!
Thanks to my Patreon supporters who mean I can spend [[REDACTED]] hours filming myself trying to achieve improbably things. If you support me, you can get access to all [[REDACTED]] hours of bonus footage from this episode.
www.patreon.com/standupmaths
As always: thanks to Jane Street who support my channel. They're amazing. And I believe they have no opinion on Dream.
www.janestreet.com/
Endless filming by Matt Parker
Editing by Alex Genn-Bash
Some graphics by Ben Sparks
Minecraft consultancy by Oliver Dunk
Music by Howard Carter
Design by Simon Wright and Adam Robinson
MATT PARKER: Stand-up Mathematician
Website: standupmaths.com/
US book: www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/610964/humble-pi-by-matt-parker/
UK book: mathsgear.co.uk/collections/books/products/humble-pi-signed-paperback

Kommentteja
  • I’m not commenting on how many takes that took. But feel free to guess! (And if you must know: the complete footage of every attempt will be uploaded to Patreon. patreon.com/standupmaths )

    Stand-up MathsStand-up Maths2 kuukautta sitten
    • did you feel a little weird saying the same sentence over and over again?^^

      T LoT Lo11 päivää sitten
    • jkm

      DuckDuck14 päivää sitten
    • Sneaky magnet behind the board?

      shamanahaboolistshamanahaboolistUukausi sitten
    • I'm super in the idle Heroes and a lot of it is based on RNG and a lot of people in like the Facebook groups will talk about people cheating and hacks is stupid stuff like that because they're too stupid to realize that people are lucky and people are smart and can figure out how to use luck to their advantage and quantify that but whatever.

      Ellery JohnsonEllery JohnsonUukausi sitten
    • I wonder how long the bball thing took XD

      Charske VlogsCharske VlogsUukausi sitten
  • 23:30 how many takes did it take to get both of those in the same shot?

    Davyn SagerDavyn Sager14 tuntia sitten
  • Matt, bought your book in the UK for our flight back to Australia next week (assuming it's not delayed again). Thanks for making math fun :) I actually bought it as a friend recommended it so you've got word of mouth going there!

    Graham MastersGraham Masters18 tuntia sitten
  • The blaze rods have a much higher drop chance if he had an enchanted sword in the off hand. Maybe he found one once and used it to farm a lot of blaze rods, destroying the whole statistics? I don't know the propability of this theory either.

    Thomas SchmidtThomas Schmidt22 tuntia sitten
    • he didn't

      RichConnerGMNRichConnerGMN9 tuntia sitten
  • Hasn't Illumina beat Dreams records? So why does any of this matter I could see if he was number 1 in the world cheating people for fame and money but right now who cares if you enjoy his content

    Mike kinardMike kinard23 tuntia sitten
    • Most speedrunners have common luck, since most of the speedrunners are very skilled in the game and speedrun the game very fast.

      DexPlaysDexPlays13 tuntia sitten
    • he fooled millions of his fans.

      SyntaxSyntax21 tunti sitten
  • Brilliant video. Everything about it is pure quality.

    VoidSurfVoidSurf23 tuntia sitten
  • the subtle look of satisfaction in your face when that went in at 10:10 😂

    Matthew GMatthew GPäivä sitten
  • 10:37 sees Dani_ *there's dad!*

    NikolaBlahBlahhNikolaBlahBlahhPäivä sitten
  • Take "all odds" "all probability" ALL OF IT! You get a 45* gradient. It will or won"t. 1 in 22 trillion still falls at the feet of 50/50.

    nonnonsencenonnonsencePäivä sitten
  • Well...I found 2 dollars today I feel lucky enough for a week!

    RaywezRaywezPäivä sitten
  • Crazy, I find it interesting that one of the least likely statistical miracles we've all experienced that I can think of off the top of my head which is just the fact any of us specifically happening to be born is more likely than this Dream guy having legitimately accomplished this supposed feat. For you math nerds; probability of your birth: 1 in 4 x 10^14 (that's 1 in 400 trillion with a 'T') The probability of Dream not cheating has ~8 more zeros tacked onto the end...fascinating, but I guess it only has to happen once.

    Cosmic CoffeeCosmic CoffeePäivä sitten
    • To be fair, this is also kind of addressed in the video. There's a difference between throwing a dart out of a plane and having it land on a bullseye and throwing one out of the plane and painting a target around it.

      crashcrashPäivä sitten
  • Dreams run was so unlikely that the word improbable is misleading.

    Steven VaughnSteven Vaughn2 päivää sitten
  • Did you account for the fact that he stops killing blaze/trading for pearls once he has the necessary amount of that item? For example, if your goal is to roll a 7, 5 times, with two dice. You will always roll a seven on the final roll because you don't keep rolling after. Same with killing blaze and trading for pearls. Also there are enchanted items in MineCraft the greatly increase the drop percentages on blaze rods. I'm not sure if he had acquired any during the playthroughs but that could make a difference too. Idk if this would make enough of a difference to change anything but it could be worth looking into.

    Mike MajorMike Major2 päivää sitten
    • that moment when you say Minecraft as MineCraft

      F for RespectF for Respect8 tuntia sitten
    • Stopping rule only applies on the very last trade, if ever. The difference it could make is negligible (although I’m pretty sure they accounted for it anyway).

      Julian WJulian WPäivä sitten
    • Everything here was accounted for. Dream never had the looting enchantment on his weapons so we don't have to worry about that, and the stopping rule doesn't apply to Dream's odds. Others have explained it but to put it simply, Dream never stops bartering/killing blazes permanently. After one stream, he moves onto the next one where he does more barters and blaze kills.

      Fluffy White LlamaFluffy White Llama2 päivää sitten
  • Oh gosh I had just learned how to use z-tables!

    Spriteless MyselfSpriteless Myself2 päivää sitten
  • sounds like you watch summoning salt videos

    MɅRQVΞZZMɅRQVΞZZ2 päivää sitten
  • A philosophical question: does randomness even exist? Asked differently: are there (or can there even be) sources of randomness? There are sources of unpredictability (like rolling dice), but whether our universe is deterministic or non-deterministic is unknown - whether it contains (or is linked to inside or outside) sources of randomness. Let's roll two dice, your eyes will see the result and let's assume your result R0 is governed by randomness. But to determine the outcomd of your dice, there must be "something/someone", unseen in the background, that "rolled his own dice" (R1), to determine the result of your dice in the first place! But to get randomness into R1, there must be a R2, which in turn needs a R3 to feed its randomness, then a R4 etc. The whole concept of "source of randomness" becomes an infinite loop! So from this point of view only two scenarios appear on the surface: A) there is a "God of Randomness" or B) randomness does not exist, our universe is 100% deterministic. Gods throwing their "magical dice" (rock bottom randomness; results even unknown to them!) to determine outcomes, used where they don't want to decide the outcome themselves, sounds quite crazy. Although, on closer inspection the the concept of (source of) randomness is crazy in itself! Logic, mathematics or physics can't find, expose, create, generate or explain (sources of) randomness. Maths and computer programs can only create sequences of pseudo-random numbers. Then (as far as we know or believe) classical or quantum physics can only create unpredictability. Randomness is a great mystery...

    DarkSkayDarkSkay2 päivää sitten
  • How funny. I watch this video all the way through, go back to the FIworld homepage, then check my clock. It's 3:14. I knew I had to come back to write this

    Hunter MitchellHunter Mitchell2 päivää sitten
  • Guys, guys, guys. I know I'm late but the reason Dream was so good was because of the RGB in his pc. It's that simple!

    Spiffy _Spiffy _3 päivää sitten
  • Th ten billion human second century concept is amazing, and I'm saddened there's not another video on this but should it be in a future video I will be delighted. An excellent way of showing just how unlikely something is.

    OccasionalnerdOccasionalnerd3 päivää sitten
  • That one guy defending dream:"but its possible to occure therefore dream is innocent!"

    Iron WarriorIron Warrior3 päivää sitten
    • That's where the concept of a reasonable doubt comes in. Are the odds of 10B humans, doing the same thing once per second non-stop and still having the desired event occur only once every 100,000 years on average, reasonable? Even if it is theoretically possible, it's so astronomically unlikely as to render any debate moot. We can never be sure, but our confidence is as close to certainty as you can ever hope to get in practice. Unless this was a supervised competition, fully audited, everything airtight - such a result should be thrown away immediately. Even in the most ideal of conditions, it would merit an extensive investigation.

      VoidSurfVoidSurf23 tuntia sitten
  • Wonder how many times he filmed the darts and basketball parts and had to redo it lol

    nate williamsonnate williamson3 päivää sitten
    • Dude perfect: PATHETIC

      PlusxzPlusxz2 päivää sitten
  • How lucky is too lucky?? How many tries did that book throw take??

    james pondjames pond3 päivää sitten
  • Minecraft: We're big in the news! EVE Online, KSP: First time?

    AnvilshockAnvilshock3 päivää sitten
  • 26:09 dude.... That's a lot of craps

    Leon FilmalterLeon Filmalter3 päivää sitten
  • Did anyone else start again from 1:08 to see if he started with a beard

    Steven StokesSteven Stokes3 päivää sitten
  • i like how there was 5050 runs for flipping a coin 100 times

    levi clevi c4 päivää sitten
  • TLDR; Dream hacked, get over it kid

    DreamhunterDreamhunter4 päivää sitten
  • This is probably the best delivered explanation of this whole situation. It’s also explained very simply which is really nice

    LuxTenebraeLuxTenebrae4 päivää sitten
  • My question is, aren't the other streams available? Couldn't they look at the stats that occurred over all 11 streams?

    Anakin LigmanAnakin Ligman4 päivää sitten
    • @Elliott Hynes Nah, it makes the odds look better. It takes it from an astoundingly nonsensical one to a plausible one. But it only does this by combining runs where Dream actually got legitimately RNGfucked with these later runs where he gets absurdly "lucky", and it's silly because the runs simply don't look like they would have come from the same distribution at all.

      AthenriAthenri2 päivää sitten
    • They have! Check out antvenoms video, I think it makes the odds look worse.

      Elliott HynesElliott Hynes2 päivää sitten
    • Doing that is just going to obfuscate the relevant numbers. There's really no reason to want to do that. For an analogy, imagine that you're looking at me flipping a coin. I get 30 flips that are all just about normal. Then suddenly after I leave and come back, I get 30 heads in a row. If you're wondering whether I changed my coin, you wouldn't add in results that I got with something we're pretty sure is a real coin.

      AthenriAthenri4 päivää sitten
  • Only thing I can think of that might have some kind of impact is if he found a Looting sword which could massively affect the Blaze Rod drops, but even then the bartering is pretty damning...

    LS AriaLS Aria4 päivää sitten
  • i hate dream

    Дмитрий БондаренкоДмитрий Бондаренко4 päivää sitten
    • Pretty sure most peole here do

      F for RespectF for Respect8 tuntia sitten
  • He is too lucky. Let him be lucky. Kids follow the trend and such things. Kids would never follow real games where it require skills *cough * cough CSGO

    Tech GuyTech Guy4 päivää sitten
    • Dunno chief, waiting to a pixel change is neither skill nor fun on my book

      Qwe FhjQwe Fhj2 päivää sitten
    • Needing luck doesn't mean you don't need skill. I fail to see the logic.

      crashcrash3 päivää sitten
  • How long did it take to make that dart shot???

    o2 fanny high ligtho2 fanny high ligth4 päivää sitten
  • Uh

    Super 100Super 1004 päivää sitten
  • Great video, subscribed!

    Matías PascualMatías Pascual5 päivää sitten
  • As a maths tutor with lots of Minecraft playing students, I just want to say a very heartfelt thank you for this video!

    MrFeanaro9MrFeanaro95 päivää sitten
  • I freaking loved your video. Totally agree, mixing Minecraft with Mathematics education for a lovely purpose such as discovering CHEATING :D A PERFECT 10.

    Gabriel SauneroGabriel Saunero5 päivää sitten
  • Obviously it’s because he’s the main character. But of course, he traded his home for it.

    SandalphonCPU • 210 years agoSandalphonCPU • 210 years ago5 päivää sitten
  • Hello sir, if I wish to buy the book, where can I buy the extended version? Does Harvard Book Store still sell the original and or the ext? I'd like to know, thank you in advance.

    Kate vlrouxKate vlroux5 päivää sitten
  • I literally just learned how to put numbers in and take numbers out of scientific notation in algebra class why am I here :’)

    Guard #3Guard #35 päivää sitten
  • And he only got what would have been 4th place, what is 1st place odds!?!?!?!

    hatty 90hatty 905 päivää sitten
    • @Shaltinanwenor that's correct, he was on world record pace until he was in the portal room

      Null PointerNull Pointer4 päivää sitten
    • If memory serves, he was lacking one pearl when he went to the portal so he had to get another one. If he hadn't miscounted the pearls (or had a portal with one extra pearl in the portal) he was on pace for world first.

      ShaltinanwenorShaltinanwenor4 päivää sitten
    • As mentioned in the video this is an analysis of the full 6 streams. The law of large numbers states that as more trials are completed the odds will then to converge on the true value. Therefore over the 6 streams we should be seeing drop rates in line with the theoretical value. To give you an example, say you are in a dice rolling competition with 100 other people and your goal is to roll three dice and get all sixes in as fewer rolls as possible. Normally the odds of getting three sixes is 0.5% but you modify the dice to give you a 6 40% of the time meaning your odds of getting the three sixes is 6.4% per trial. You have 10x better odds of winning the contest than anyone else but you still will likely lose because there are 100 other people playing. In this case Dream modified the dice to favour him but that doesn’t mean that a few of the thousand other people he is competing with won’t get individual runs that are luckier.

      morbideddiemorbideddie5 päivää sitten
    • This wasn't the analysis of his odds in 1 run - it was an analysis of his odds over a week of streaming and hundreds of runs. His average luck over that long period of time was too high. You can get really lucky for just a small instant and it's not nearly as significant - it's sample size. Additionally, Dream is not the best speedrunner in the game and people can outperform him based on skill/strategy, no need to attribute the success of those on the leaderboard above him completely to luck.

      prowoprowo5 päivää sitten
  • But what if we had an enormous amount of bots playing minecraft... how many bot hours would it take to make these results likely... and is that even possible with the currently available processing power?

    Vasileios LempesisVasileios Lempesis5 päivää sitten
    • @Vasileios Lempesis No, just because a computer has done any amount of simulations, even if he did 10^25^25 amoutn of simulations, it still wouldn't change how likely it is that Dream did it. The only way to change it is if an actual run would be do-able in less time and thus be done more. Just because a simulation can simulate something within a second what a speedrunner has to do within 20 minutes or so doesn't change anything. It should not be taken into account. But if the run had been done after 10^22 times and there are runs that are almost equally as likely in there, then it becomes probable that a result like that has happened. Just like grinding in Doom or Goldeneye. If a newcomer to the speedrunning community gets a world record with incredible RNG then there are gonna be some eyebrows raised. Even though many other people have done those runs and gotten equivalent RNG it is still very unlikely for this one person to get this RNG on his first submitted run.

      crashcrash5 päivää sitten
    • @Vasileios Lempesis Right, obviously we don't have to *actually* run runs, we can simulate them instead, and then we can probably get a lot more done. The question is how much fidelity to actual minecraft play we lose by doing so. Like in reality what we want to do is to try to get 42 ender pearl trades and 211 blaze rod drops and see how often we need less than 262 barters and 305 blaze kills - skipping out on the entire surrounding framework of Minecraft.

      AthenriAthenri5 päivää sitten
    • @Athenri that's an excellent answer. However we would not have to run the simulation in real time, it would be merely a question of processing power for the simulations to be run in just a few seconds. With enough processing power you could start a livestream, run all the simulations the first second of the stream and just playback the one that fits your purpose. What is missing from the equation of course is how much processing power it would take to do that. But I agree we would probably end up with a huge amount of time required. Some sources are claiming a global computing power of 2 x 10^20-1.5x10^21 FLOPS in 2015 others project that we will be in the 10^21 range in 2030...

      Vasileios LempesisVasileios Lempesis5 päivää sitten
    • @crash an outcome with odds in the 10^22 range would be almost inevitable after 10^25 attempts. For the sake of discussion, one could claim that if an AI on a supercomputer is able to run that many simulations within a reasonable amount of time, then in theory, that should be also accounted for in the "10 billion human second century" argument. If that many simulations were occuring somewhere then one could claim that the run was merely a chance event (if we can agree that human runs and simulations are to be counted together). I surely don't mean that you would have to believe them, but that it would have been a mathematically valid claim.

      Vasileios LempesisVasileios Lempesis5 päivää sitten
    • ​@Vasileios Lempesis You can do about 4 runs in an hour, so to match Dream's final run, around one in 8000, you'd need around 2000 bot hours. Totally not impossible. To match Dream's overall runs, we'll need 20 sextillion sets of...let's just say 32 runs. At 15 minutes per run, each set takes 8 hours. So we're, in the end, going to need around 160 sextillion bot hours before we expect a set to look as good as Dream's did. That's 1.6*10^23 bot hours. Let's assume we can run a billion bots concurrently. So we're getting 10^9 bot hours each hour. So we're getting 2.4*10^10 bot hours each day. We're doing it every day, around the clock, so in a year we get 8.76*10^12 bot hours out... So at one billion bots, we're going to need them to run for about 20 billion years before one of the sets is expected to be as good as Dream's. So if you had a billion bots running Minecraft non-stop trying to mimic Dream's runs for the entire existence of the universe to date, we still wouldn't get there. We'd be in the ballpark though!

      AthenriAthenri5 päivää sitten
  • Don't you love probabilities 😘

    alejandro.javieralejandro.javier5 päivää sitten
  • the human second century is slightly misleading in this case because a minecraft speedrun lasts over 10 minutes not 1 second

    S LS L6 päivää sitten
    • The fact that he counts every second as a run makes his chances seem even more unlikely

      F for RespectF for Respect8 tuntia sitten
    • that's the point, and it isn't even just a single run but his sequence of runs over multiple streams. What he's doing is describing an upper bound to show how unlikely that sequence of runs actually was.

      Null PointerNull Pointer4 päivää sitten
    • It's not misleading, you just fail to understand what he means. The human second century is just to give the odds a scale. It's odd to think about, but just imagine that people do a set of 6 minecraft streams just like he did and try to get his odds, but shrunken down into one second, and they do that every second for a century. It's weird that that much stuff is supposed to fit into a second, but seconds in a century are just meant to show how much it happens.

      prowoprowo6 päivää sitten
  • Do you have a methlab?

    SpyTUCSpyTUC6 päivää sitten
  • This guy looks like Dorian Yates if he decided to become a mathematician instead of a bodybuilder

    On yo feet maggotOn yo feet maggot6 päivää sitten
  • 17:17 ... Nice

    Christian SitzmanChristian Sitzman6 päivää sitten
  • We want bloopers

    GötarpGötarp6 päivää sitten
  • Patricia breaking the world record in roulette and craps directly after each other really sunk any chance Dream had to convince the world. Btw, what is minecraft?

    Christo du PlessisChristo du Plessis6 päivää sitten
  • The beard is 10/10

    king frozenking frozen6 päivää sitten
    • 3,14/2,71

      Qwe FhjQwe Fhj2 päivää sitten
    • 11/10

      PlusxzPlusxz2 päivää sitten
  • Hello. Nice video. But nowdays, there are more speedruns like that and Dream is not the fastest anymore. How lucky they must be.

    HOLLSONHOLLSON6 päivää sitten
    • the strats in minecraft speedrunning has changed since dream's cheating controversy. it is now even more skill-based than luck. instead of getting lucky with pearls, you just need to find a bastion which is easy with strats like eray

      ThatKyleThatKyle3 päivää sitten
    • They have faster times because they are better and use more optimized strategies. Dream is not the best minecraft speedrunner in the slightest. You do not need to be luckier than him to beat him. Anyways, people who use modern strategies trade so much gold with bastions that they don't actually need to get lucky to complete runs quickly.

      prowoprowo6 päivää sitten
    • Dreams luck in his submitted run are not suspicious, it’s suspicious that over the 6 streams he got consistently high rates which is incredibly unlikely. It’s like comparing getting 7/10 heads and comparing it to 70/100 heads. Same rate, vastly different probabilities. Also new runs use loads of new meta with ocean strays, bastions to minimise luck required in trading, quadrants in the nether etc. It’s basically a new run since Dream was doing it.

      morbideddiemorbideddie6 päivää sitten
    • Not nearly as lucky, honestly.

      AthenriAthenri6 päivää sitten
  • Bell curves don't lie.

    SilvertarianSilvertarian6 päivää sitten
  • 10:31 Dani 10th very cool.

    me meme me6 päivää sitten
  • Guys, he just had a good gaming chair

    mustafamustafa6 päivää sitten
  • Why do people always just unanimously decide that they like someone... who then turn out that they’re in some massive drama.

    The Swiss GuyThe Swiss Guy6 päivää sitten
    • I was going to put a neutrality phrase and then saw ur pfp

      PlusxzPlusxz2 päivää sitten
  • Astrophysicist getting the statistics wrong... no surprise here... astronomical ladder, Betelgeuse distance "correction", etc..

    Gauss NiwreGauss Niwre6 päivää sitten
    • The Astrophysicist doesn't exist. This is legitimately highschool level math.

      Llamma PajamaLlamma Pajama6 päivää sitten
  • Glad that Scott Stapp became an educational youtuber. Didn't know he was British.

    The UncleThe Uncle6 päivää sitten
  • This is my first time here. I've never enjoyed math so much.😀

    Harshita JoshiHarshita Joshi6 päivää sitten
  • I love how seriously you learned the ins and outs of the minecraft speedrun. Shows a lot of respect. ♡(◡‿◡✿)

    Gus ZiliottoGus Ziliotto6 päivää sitten
  • I don't want to know how many attempts he needed for the intro.

    C I R C U SC I R C U S7 päivää sitten
  • Curious why the puzzle on his book shelf during the bowling pins in background was not turned to full completion (maybe just me)

    Denis MDenis M7 päivää sitten
  • Timestamps for all lucky shots: 0:12 Dart 6:39 Basket 1.1 6:45 Basket 1.2 9:42 Basket 2.1 9:47 Basket 2.2 9:53 Basket 2.3 10:10 Basket 2.4 31:51 Pins

    Tomasz RasolomampiononaTomasz Rasolomampionona7 päivää sitten
    • 23:30 dice

      Raul F. DuarteRaul F. Duarte4 tuntia sitten
    • @Hazel the book one is just crazy.

      VoidSurfVoidSurf23 tuntia sitten
    • Thanks, also u forgot the book one at 17:16

      HazelHazel6 päivää sitten
  • i like watching people finishing games AFAP as well, especially when they need more skill than luck, like mario kart.

    Samuel RosenpenisSamuel Rosenpenis7 päivää sitten
  • I don't quite get it having insane odds means that you probably should'nt attempt it but when you got it you can't say that it didn't happened. I mean patricia getting 154 runs thus nobody having ever done more than 118 doesn't mean it's wrong cause someone should've get 119 to 153 runs before jumping to 154

    Unusual CommentUnusual Comment7 päivää sitten
  • Probabilities of what that streamer did are wrong here. As I understand from the video, a player makes barters until they have necessary amount of pearls. So it is not correct to calculate the probability of X or more pearls for Y barters, it should be instead the probability of Y or less barters for X pearls. Simple example of what I mean: a coin was tossed twice. It came up tails once. What is a probability for that? It depends of what the process was. First option: a coin was tossed twice. There are 4 possible outcomes, in 2 of them the coin come up tails once. So, the probability = 1/2. Second option: a coin was tossed until it came up tails exactly once. It means for the first toss the coin came up heads, and for the second toss it came up tails. So, the probability = 1/4.

    ДД7 päivää sitten
    • @crash I did not say that probabilities change depending on what happens before or after, I said that probabilities change depending on what the process is. If a process is "toss a coin 2 times", then there are 4 equally probable outcomes, in 2 of them the coin comes up tails exactly once. Therefore the probability of "2 tosses, 1 tails" is 1/2. If a process is "toss a coin until it comes up tails", then there are infinitely many possible outcomes, in all of them the coin comes up tails exactly once. But all these outcomes have different number of coin tosses. Probability for an outcome with N tosses is 1/2^N. Therefore the probability of "2 tosses, 1 tails" is 1/4.

      ДД4 päivää sitten
    • @crash nah, you're not understanding his comment. Probabilities model situations and it is, I agree, much more reasonable to ask the question of "how likely is it to get this many pearls this quickly" than "how likely is it to get more than this amount of pearls in this amount of attempts", because the pearls is what you're fishing for.

      AthenriAthenri5 päivää sitten
    • No. Probabilities don't change depending on what happens before or after. You can account for any bias though which this video goes into but getting a heads or tails is always a 50/50 no matter what. I can toss a coin 20 times and get 20 heads, but whether my 21st flip will be a head or tails is still 50/50. There is nothing physically changing about the coin to change those odds. It doesn't care what happened before.

      crashcrash6 päivää sitten
  • Why do people still not realize this means nothing? Whether it was astronomically lucky or not doesn't tell you whether or not the run is impossible, just how likely it is. If you can imagine it, and the laws of physics don't prevent it, then you have to be prepared for the possibility. All anyone has been able to do is prove that the run is just really unlikely. Want to know what else is unlikely? Astatine, the rarest element on the planet. If you want a chance of finding enough atoms together to make 1 gram of the stuff, you're gonna need to check an average of 30 quintillion tons of matter on our planet. So if you go out and find it all on your first 1 thousand, that's not evidence of cheating, that's just another instance of possible things that can happen when you make your system probabilistic. If anyone ever does it again, then your intuition about how unlikely it is is wrong. If no one ever does it again, that means your math is right. But so what if your math is right? Again, all you've shown it's improbable. Improbability is not a synonym with impossibility, and the use of improbability to judge something as impossible is literally called the appeal to improbability fallacy. Everyone has tackled this investigation from the wrong angle. What you all should have been doing is trying to recreate the initial conditions under which the run took place, and see if an unmodified version of the game would produce the same results. Either it would, or it wouldn't, and then you'd have a clear yes or no answer.

    Snow the Mega AbsolSnow the Mega Absol7 päivää sitten
    • ​@Snow the Mega Absol Congratulations, you've failed logic. The CCTV footage shows the face of the man, yet they can be either person, but never both. We know it has to be one of them but this 'empirical evidence' doesn't prove which one it is. The probability of me is 100%. I'm here. Like in the video, there's a difference between hitting a bullseye by throwing a dart out of the window of a plane and throwing one out and painting a target around it. Nice fallacy. If this is how you make your arguments then I'm afraid you've already lost. "The role judges serve in a court are as interpreters of words in laws that are not well defined by the authors of those laws." Same thing with this. "Either the rules were broken, or they weren't." And is dust floating around our planet moons or not? It isn't all black and white, and having a team like this try to find the answer and using all the resources they have to find the most likely answer is the best they can do. Again, someone can just get 100% drop rates and according to your logic, they shouldn't be held accountable. Obviously, this logic is flawed. Yet now you claim that the opposite is true simply because it isn't quite as bad? I don't think you realize the numbers at play. "Yeah kinda" Thank you. You may continue to your totally irrational worldview of how everything is wrong and your idea of the world is the only correct one and basing anything off of anything but 100% certainties is considered wrong.

      crashcrash2 päivää sitten
    • "but what if CCTV footage shows the face of the doppelganger? Is that empirical?" Yes "What about if he wore the same clothes as the convicted in court? They could've shopped at the same store." A quick check with the purchase history of that story would answer that. "Technically all possible." Indeed "Plenty of times has someone been convicted using CCTV footage." And the legal system is regarded as incredibly biased and broken, this is just one reason why "So according to your logic, these people should be freed from prison, right?" You haven't understood a thing I said. I'm not defending or accusing anyone, I'm pointing out that the methods yall have chosen to pass the conviction are fundamentally fallacious. "Idk why you have such a problem with 'the odds are too small to be considered likely enough to have happened'." The probability of you existing if we be generous and only go back to the start of the history of an anatomically modern human is in the ballpark of 0.0000000000000000000003%. That's too unlikely to consider that it could ever happen, so you don't exist and I'm just hallucinating. That's why it's objectively problematic. "Everyone else seems to accept this, yet you don't." So? That doesn't make it more true. I smell an argument from popularity. "If someone flips a coin 20 times and gets 11 heads and 9 tails and then leaves the room. When he comes back the flips it another 30 times and gets 30 tails in a row. " Ok "No rational person would simply believe he is still using a normal coin." So the inspect the coin? It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be. 'And using this to devalidate a speedrun is not arbitrary" It is arbitrary by definition "This is why courts have judges." The role judges serve in a court are as interpreters of words in laws that are not well defined by the authors of those laws. "You can't just put down rules in a book and have everything going smoothly." The equivalence to a court room and a speedrun is flawed because of this. A jury is not just legal, but political and moral. They have to decide not only based on the law, but what they feel is a big deal and whether or not they think what even happened was fundamentally a bad thing. They also have the totality and sheer volume of actual empirical evidence that we do, because that evidence is in a lot of cases physical, and investigators have deadlines. With a speedrun, you're hopefully not considering the ethics of what has happened. Either the rules were broken, or they weren't. If you're still trying to figure that out, don't make a decision prematurely. No one has actually figured it out yet. Likelihood is not a substitute for certainty. "Saying this is arbitrary is saying any judgement system using a jury is arbitrary as well." Yeah kinda

      Snow the Mega AbsolSnow the Mega Absol2 päivää sitten
    • @Snow the Mega Absol but what if CCTV footage shows the face of the doppelganger? Is that empirical? What about if he wore the same clothes as the convicted in court? They could've shopped at the same store. Technically all possible. Plenty of times has someone been convicted using CCTV footage. So according to your logic, these people should be freed from prison, right? Idk why you have such a problem with 'the odds are too small to be considered likely enough to have happened'. Everyone else seems to accept this, yet you don't. If someone flips a coin 20 times and gets 11 heads and 9 tails and then leaves the room. When he comes back the flips it another 30 times and gets 30 tails in a row. No rational person would simply believe he is still using a normal coin. And using this to devalidate a speedrun is not arbitrary. It's using likelyhood and statistics to come to a conclusion. This is why courts have judges. You can't just put down rules in a book and have everything going smoothly. Lines aren't always black and white. Saying this is arbitrary is saying any judgement system using a jury is arbitrary as well.

      crashcrash3 päivää sitten
    • @Snow the Mega Absol do you need to define a point to pass judgement? You probably use the term moon. But it has no real definition. Do the thousands of tiny rocks orbiting a planet count as a moon? Does dust? Yet you still use the definition so trying to get the highground like this is not gonna work. What if a streamer has 24 hours of footage of him getting a blaze rod every kill and a pearl drop every barter? Do you think we should say those runs are valid? Should we free all prisoners who didn't confess on the off chance they have a doppelganger who committed the crime? Proven beyond any reasonable doubt. That's more than enough for this. And for your case of 'those big numbers are shaky and fluid at best' is unsubstantial. Unless you can show me slight changes in the droprates that make the number actually that much different. Millions of simulations couldn't get the drops Dream did, so obviously there's some validity to it. Even the number his own statistician came up with made him conclude that Dream likely altered the game.

      crashcrash3 päivää sitten
    • "They literally never say that it is impossible for someone to roll a 1 in 20 sextillion chance." Whether or not you say it out loud doesn't mean you don't believe it. And clearly people do, which is objectively wrong. It's not even the right number either, just one generated from biased sampling of selected rng elements. If you consider every single rng element, down to whether or not a lava tile emits a particle effect, then suddenly your painting is incredibly different. "This is not the appeal to improbability fallacy because they don't use the fact that it is improbable to say it is impossible" See above. If you believe it's impossible, then that is fallacious. If you don't, but still don't think the run is legit, then your judgment is fundamentally arbitrary, so you're in the wrong either way. "They say that it is improbable beyond any reasonable doubt and it is so much exponentially more likely that he is cheating" So where's the cutoff point? At what point do you decide to accept a run just because it is "too lucky"? You can't put a bar on that anywhere, to do so would be a completely arbitrary decision and a disgusting way to practice moderation. "which is the only rational conclusion." Whether you call it rational or not doesn't mean it's the only conclusion at all. "but I have no idea who you're arguing against in that case" I'm not arguing at all, I'm pointing out to no one in particular that all the shaky fluid statistics don't, have not, and never call tell you anything as to the objective truth. Any yes, the mods have decided that the run is, in fact, not legit as backed by their decision to reject it. The fact that they made a decision at all without actually knowing is highly presumptuous at best. If they actually didn't know, don't make a decision. If they did, share the results from an empirical analysis rather than a shaky courtroom style shout fest where people throw around big numbers in an attempt to create a narrative, when those big numbers are shaky and fluid at best, and straight up wrong at worst.

      Snow the Mega AbsolSnow the Mega Absol3 päivää sitten
  • Genius.

    Ryan de KwaadstenietRyan de Kwaadsteniet7 päivää sitten
  • The ten billion human second century is an incredibly smart shortcut to look at odds and it feels like a concept I am going to use when thinking about rare events.

    TheR3dMageTheR3dMage7 päivää sitten
  • 12:02 : bruh, the video will continue 30 minutes and you don’t habe time?!

    secretyzeroo TMsecretyzeroo TM7 päivää sitten
  • Lotteries regularly go unwon, so the odds of someone winning it is not 1. It's nearly 1. But it isn't 1.

    Jonathon Cowley-ThomJonathon Cowley-Thom7 päivää sitten
    • True but sometimes multiple people win, so I guess Matt was trying to say is that on average 1 person will win per draw? His wording could have been better though.

      morbideddiemorbideddie7 päivää sitten
  • And he hasnt even taken world and nether spawns, gold drops and chest loot

    kèhbabkèhbab7 päivää sitten
  • This video was poggers

    Joseph NormyleJoseph Normyle7 päivää sitten
  • Dream: Sees this video. *Sweats profusely*

    StratStrat7 päivää sitten
  • Don't disagree with anything you said, but as someone who dabbles with programming (especially java) I just want to quicky pip in. Random number generation in Java (and other codes) is not really random or fair. There are methods to seed the RNG functions to produce the same results multiple times over, which is why usually those RNG functions are fed a seed based on your system time so you actually get a "random" output (this is the default constructor of the object when you just call the random function). Similarly the same code ran through the same engine behaves differently based on what system or environment is running it, Java is especially notorious for this and doubly so with its random generation functions. This means theoretically it's also possible to fudge the game RNG one way or another based on what hardware is running it. I remember years ago testing this with a very simple code to write out an array of numbers between 0 and 10 and found some environments would overwhelmingly favor between 4 and 6 with few 1s or 9s while another would pretty much near evenly output all of the numbers.

    83athom83athom8 päivää sitten
    • This isn't *wrong* per se - but there are a couple of issues with it as applying to Minecraft: 1. Since this is across multiple runs, not just one, you'd want to know how often you hit a "degenerate" seed like that. 2. The seed is called thousands of times per second in the Nether, of which the RNG calls we're interested in constitute a low two-digit number here. This *is* in fact, a random sample of that generated sample, so unless you have reason to believe that the entire maybe 100k large sample is off and not just local regions inside it, that's a no-go. 3. In support of 2. you don't see results like this from any other speedrunners. 4. If he had, deliberately, somehow, found a way to set a seed in that version of Minecraft that would let him control the RNG for drops, for example, that would disqualify his run.

      AthenriAthenri8 päivää sitten
  • The chance of finding a 1/100 wild encounter rate shiny Pokemon (1/4096) with 6 perfect IVs (1/32^6), a favorable nature (1/25) and ability (1/2), it being the uncommon gender in a species with the most uncommon gender ratios (1/7), and holding an item with a 1/100 chance to be held... 1 in 1.54 x 10^19. This is about the rarest possible encounter possible in Pokemon without getting too much into the weeds, but according to Matt this occurrence is totally feasible. It demonstrates the astronomical luck that this streamer would have needed for his run to be legit. This happening in a community with many known cheaters on a game known for its seasoned modding community? I'm gonna bet that he's a cheater.

    8BitXatu8BitXatu8 päivää sitten
    • @smol kookie However, I doubt there are any real pokemon that have a 1% occurrence somewhere, a 1% chance to hold a particular item, _and_ a 6:1 gender ratio.

      EebstertheGreatEebstertheGreat16 tuntia sitten
    • It would be rarer if it had pokerus as well, and shiny rate was 1/8192 until gen 6

      smol kookiesmol kookie3 päivää sitten
  • So if someone could only get 4th fastest with dubious means how did someone get the fastest time

    Frst RspndrFrst Rspndr8 päivää sitten
    • What Athenri said - this analysis is about Dream's luck over a massive sample size of a whole week of playing. Being moderately lucky over a very long period of time can have a lower p-value than being extremely lucky for a moment. For example, getting 7/7 blaze rods and 2/2 pearls (perfect at the time of his run) is way more likely than getting his total drops over the week, even though he did not have an individual run getting that lucky.

      prowoprowo6 päivää sitten
    • What cheating like this gives you is not so much impossible results - what it gives you is impossible *consistency* in your results. None of Dream's runs were anywhere *near* impossible. His final run was about a one in 8000 occurrence. That's not *that* rare. The issue is that the consistency of those results across 24 hours worth of streaming was impossible.

      AthenriAthenri8 päivää sitten
  • 5 takes and how many takes would it take to get that kind of luck in minecraft

    Quinn JohnsonQuinn Johnson9 päivää sitten
  • "I'm not saying he used a hacked client with 100% certainty. I'm just saying that if every human being throughout the planet's entire lifetime realistically played Minecraft nonstop for 100 years of their lives until they pass away the chances of getting those odds would still be off." He's basically saying that because there's TECHNICALLY a chance going by the laws and rules of Math and Science to be professional here, but it's obvious that he's silently telling us and to avoid the dislikes by Dream's irrational fans that he 100% used a hacked client in his run.

    Sean AverySean Avery9 päivää sitten
    • Why a hacked client? I could tweak the chances in a few minutes by just making a datapack. This would just be loot table editing

      Rohnek KdosiRohnek Kdosi19 tuntia sitten
    • @warron24 Dream is a developer too.

      Owen PennerOwen Penner5 päivää sitten
    • @warron24 That's possible, but not in this situation anymore for countless reasons later on that proves that couldn't have been the case with some of the stuff Dream shared unintentionally giving himself the final nail in the coffin while still denying everything. The game also couldn't have just made a buggy mistake as Java is very simple and can't just have some sort of glitch like that happen where it improves his odds as the moderators and Karl Jobst's video discusses.

      Sean AverySean Avery5 päivää sitten
    • I think he was also leaving open the possibility that Dream he wasn't cheating but had his chances improved by something he wasn't aware of. I don't know enough about Minecraft to know if that's possible.

      warron24warron245 päivää sitten
    • Thanks you literally saved my life.

      Owen PennerOwen Penner6 päivää sitten
  • Also fun fact, he is wrong (maybe) with the humanly plausible thing of 3 x 10 to the power of 19 because Sullivan was struck 7 times by lightning which is 4 x 10 to the power of 32: much higher than his idea which makes dream's speedruns look like they were common.

    Bubbler Guy SuperBubbler Guy Super9 päivää sitten
    • @Athenri and no need to write paragraphs on everything i say

      Bubbler Guy SuperBubbler Guy SuperPäivä sitten
    • @Athenri yes but the fact that it happened shows that there can be instances where humans are wrong and a guess is just a guess. its just a point to show that anything is possible and how little we know about reality and the world

      Bubbler Guy SuperBubbler Guy SuperPäivä sitten
    • @Athenri godamn tell em Athenri that will teach em

      lolong Donairelolong Donaire8 päivää sitten
    • You're assuming independence in who is "chosen" to be struck by lightning. I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Not all people are equally likely to be outside in weather where lightning is remotely possible.

      AthenriAthenri8 päivää sitten
  • me getting 250 out of 400 blaze rods : thats only like 44% chance right? him: its 0.00000000000000000000000008%

    Bubbler Guy SuperBubbler Guy Super9 päivää sitten
    • @Athenri its called exaggeration for comedical effect buddy

      Bubbler Guy SuperBubbler Guy SuperPäivä sitten
    • for the intuition on this - when you *double* the amount of, say, blaze kills, the *average* drop amount doubles. But the deviation, how much we expect it to vary, is only multiplied by the square root of 2. So if, for example, you normally would get (bear in mind, I'm going to make up random numbers now for illustration) you kill 10 blazes, and are expected to get between 3 and 7 blaze rods. If you kill 40 blazes, you're expected to get between 16 and 24. If you kill 160 blazes you're expected to get between 72 and 88. So where for 10 blazes, we believe the result until we have more than 70% drops in the first case, for 160 blazes 55% is actually all we'll believe. In reality the *specific* numbers are different, but the gist, that quadrupling the number of kills quadruples the average but only doubles the deviation holds.

      AthenriAthenri8 päivää sitten
  • Minecraft jury duty

    Daunte LoveDaunte Love9 päivää sitten
  • Imma give you like and comment just for the introduction even tho I haven't yet seen 2 minutes of video

    CaroCaro9 päivää sitten
  • Lol, I just paused the video at 29:03 to make a calculation regarding 10^22, and what do I see in the background...

    → to the knee→ to the knee9 päivää sitten
  • 27:23 - Why is it not just 1 in 2^32? (Assuming it could be 32 black runs OR 32 red runs)

    → to the knee→ to the knee9 päivää sitten
    • Chances of getting red or black is 0.474. For 32 tries on either black or red the probability is 2*(0.474^32) = 8.4e^-11. Converting that the odds are 1/1.18e^11.

      morbideddiemorbideddie9 päivää sitten
  • Thanks for getting me interested in statistics! What a well made video!

    VioletsuperstitionsVioletsuperstitions9 päivää sitten
  • 15:21 - When P(THAT) rolled onto the screen, I lolled. More like chuckled out loud, but whatever.

    → to the knee→ to the knee9 päivää sitten
  • I thought it was Jim Carrey in the thumbnail.

    Matthew SaintsMatthew Saints9 päivää sitten
  • i hate cheaters

    CODE PRODUCTIONCODE PRODUCTION9 päivää sitten
  • Great beard! Hope you stick to it

    Bernardo PereiraBernardo Pereira9 päivää sitten
  • First, I enjoyed your presentation. Your approach reminds me of the block box concept in Engineering - where you ignore what the apparatus does and just look at output and input out of it - ie not really caring about the validity of the compensation mechanism. Second, I wonder how unlikely are the current records that are acknowledged? Are they within the Human century benchmark or are they more likely than Dream's but still unlikely?

    Hanan GHanan G9 päivää sitten
    • Note that this analysis was using a sample of a week of Dream's speedruns, it wasn't about an individual run of his. Dream gets moderately lucky over a large sample size, which is why his lucky is attracting way more attention than some runners getting extreme luck in just 1 run that places them at the top of the leaderboard. This is why assuming that people above him on the leaderboard are more lucky than him is wrong. Also, that kind of assumes it's all up to luck how high you place. There are people significantly better than him at the game, and the current records actually use more innovate strategies that allow you to trade so much gold that you are likely to get enough pearls each run.

      prowoprowo6 päivää sitten
    • At the time the mods included a graph of Dreams' drops Vs another speedrunner and it was clear that dreams' was way higher. The reason Dream's run was disqualified was because he livestreamed for 24 hours. If he hadn't speedran and just uploaded the single run then he would've gotten away with it because having such a small sample size makes the luck more believable.

      crashcrash9 päivää sitten
  • or those algorithm pleasing things... we are on it. don't cha worry.

    LoLrand0mnessLoLrand0mness10 päivää sitten
  • This is a good video, I think Dream's argument should have been centered on the fact that java.util.Random has some serious issues... mostly not being random. It actually uses a seed to generate it's values *pseudo* randomly, which is why there are so many interesting tricks in the game like finding diamonds using clay patches, and while world seed doesn't affect drops and spawn rates, the theoretical value of those things likely doesn't tell the whole story. This kinda makes me think that it's more likely that the game isn't what we thought rather than Dream intentionally changing the values

    Gabe KeeterGabe Keeter10 päivää sitten
    • Then that'd fail to explain why every single other streamer gets drops largely in line with the expected amount. Even the luckiest one they could find other than Dream was far far less lucky.

      AthenriAthenri10 päivää sitten
  • I don´t even play Minecraft but I enjoyed this video very much, thank you Sir!

    Sir AmorasSir Amoras10 päivää sitten
  • He just has a really good gaming chair guys

    Patrick SaramaPatrick Sarama10 päivää sitten
  • Nice video, thanks a lot! I think it would have also been interesting to analyze the luck of just one of the videos. To see how plausible that one is. Yours is the 1. video I watched on this topic, but purely relying on my instinct I'd think having such a luck in not just one, but 6 takes, like Dream had, is mindboggingly improbable.

    Sir RoundedSir Rounded10 päivää sitten
    • The probability of his eventual best run was like, one in 8000. Rare, not exceedingly so. Definitely entirely plausible. But six livestreams, altogether like 30-odd runs with this kind of bonkers outliers? No way.

      AthenriAthenri10 päivää sitten
  • What surprises me about this, is the amount of people that defended the paper. I'm glad I wasn't the only one that felt it wasn't well written.

    Thaddeus CosseThaddeus Cosse10 päivää sitten
    • I think, judging by this video, I could start writing papers like this. I hated mathematics cz I wasn't good at it.😂😂😂

      Harshita JoshiHarshita Joshi6 päivää sitten
  • +

    Samuel FederSamuel Feder10 päivää sitten
  • new topic: when is a game too dependent on RNG to be speedrun?

    Mrbuck832 IdkMrbuck832 Idk11 päivää sitten
    • The new straits are faster and are almost impossible to not get all he pearls

      Stacy McCabeStacy McCabe4 päivää sitten
    • Eh, it’s rng dependent but so are loads of popular speed runs to a large degree. Ocarina of time, goldeneye etc. Additionally, removing RNG means that the runs are only about execution, part of the appeal of RSG (as opposed to SSG) is the fact your playing a new world each time and the skill is in reacting to the world and routing a new route on the fly. And if you don’t like the lottery aspect you can play FSG or do live events etc. Plenty of options and no-one is forcing runners to do RSG.

      morbideddiemorbideddie10 päivää sitten
  • destroyed 100

    T LoT Lo11 päivää sitten
  • As fast as possible? You mean... Afap

    john billjohn bill11 päivää sitten
FIworld