@@Jude-yk9uc From this clip it's implied they might be competing with gambling games, but their games are different, Fubuki with her dice game while Miko with her spinning slot game, where the one who gets the perfect gambling result can stop playing the game. As can be seen from this clip, Fubuki got the perfect result (8 of a kind), while Miko hasn't gotten it yet, CMIIW.
@@Shiro_Seishun oh my god thank god it’s a challenge… I don’t speak Japanese so I legitimately thought she turned into a gambling streamer now. The same thing happened to 2 other streamers I watched and it all went downhill from then, so I was so ready to unsubscribe.
That’s actually INSANELY lucky for the odds she was going for. On average something like this would take 53.6 hours. And that’s if you’re lucky enough to get average, and not below average. It could easily take 80+ hours.
@@rich1051414No that calculation is for any 8 of the kind. The specific calculation can be found in the reply section of the top comment above. The one with a lot of numbers.
The "0.1% chance" on the thumbnail is seriously underselling it, rolling 8 of the same face is a 1 in 279936 chance, that's ≈0.0003572%, and 8 5s specifically is a 1 in 1679616 chance, that's ≈0.0000595%.
@@PaladinV2 You can't really easily state the 'average' amount of time, because it can take infinitely long to achieve this, which will skew an average (mathematical mean). You are never guaranteed to roll anything in particular no matter how many rolls you make. However you can calculate how many rolls it would take for 50% of people to have achieved 8 matching in a given amount of rolls (which is not exactly the average, but is probably closer to what you were going for). If you do that calculation, 1 in 279936 is correct, which is 0.0003572, or a 0.999996428 chance to not roll 8 matching. To get to 50% we would do log0.999996428(0.5) which is ~194,050 rolls. At 1 roll per second that would actually be ~53.9 hours. She was probably rolling closer to 2 seconds per roll though (maybe even slower), so that would be more like ~108 hours, or maybe even slightly longer in that case.
Saying it could take an infinite amount of time is kinda misleading, to guarantee a greater than 99.999% chance of success, it’s about 75 days, which is really long but it’s kinda cool that if you do this for 75 days straight there’s practically no world where you fail. Also that’d be a wild stream On the other hand to actually consider how lucky she is, the chance of hitting 8 of a kind in under 7 hours is about 4.5%. For the math behind that, it’s known that dice rolling follow a geometric distribution, so it’s also a known formula that the probability of success within n rolls is given by 1 - (1-P)^n where P is the probability of success. Just chuck P=1/279936 and n = 12,600 (about the number of rolls given 2 rolls a second for 7 hours) into that formula and it spits out ~0.0441 or ~4.5% so 🤓 actually the number of the thumbnail should 4.5% Anyways yeah she’s got good luck
Rolling 8 die and getting them all on the same face is 1 in 279936, the shiny chance in Pokémon is 1 in 4096, meaning she could've caught 68.34375 shiny Magikarps. If we're talking about specifically 8 5s, that's 1 in 1679616, meaning she could've caught 410.0625 shiny Magikarps.
@@PrisonMike196 During Hololive Night in July, the Dodgers were down at the bottom of the seventh inning. After Gura sang "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," the Dodgers took the lead and proceeded to win the game with a score of 8 to 5.
I had this on in the background when it happened, and I just heard the dice clink against the bowl stop and no talking and was immediately like "theres no way she did it that fast" and sure enough I tab over to YAGOO
Does anybody have a tracker on the chance based stuff Fubuki has done? Off the top of my head I know there’s the Blue Axolotl, The Door Game, Golden Magikarp, and now the 8 of a kind dice.
@@SeitanWorshipper if you assume each roll takes 5 seconds, you have 7 * 60 * 60 / 5 = 5040 rolls The chance of getting the 8 of a kind is 5040 * 1/279936 which is approx. 0.018 or less than 2%
@@SeitanWorshipper The probability is for each roll. Doesn't matter if she roll continuously or not; the odd isn't gonna be lower or higher. Each roll reset back to zero coz nothing from previous roll gonna affect the next roll; unless she rolled 5 and then pick up other dices which is not 5.
@@SeitanWorshipper not how math works. the probability for each roll is the same, but the probability of having encountered it is higher (each roll has the same chance but if you roll those dice twice as much your chances of having encountered it in one of those rolls is higher)
Wow... only 7 hours? According to my maths the chance of that happening within 7 hours assuming she continued doing 2 rolls every 5 seconds for the whole time (as in the start of the video) is about 3.536%, this is actually incredibly lucky. Here's the maths: 1 / (6^8) = 0.000000595 [chance of rolling octuple 5s] * 6 = 0.00000357 [possible octuples, since she probably didn't care about which number it was that showed on all the dice] 24 * 60 * 7 = 10080 [rolls per minute times minutes in an hour times 7 hours] Plugged into binomial distribution calculator P(X≥1) gives 0.03536 or 3.536%
I walked into this stream when it was happening and somehow, knowing Fubuki, I instantly knew what she was trying to do. She really loves her "achieve the statistically unlikely" endurance streams.
The probability is: (1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6)= 0.00000059537 = 0.000059537% That means she can win the 8 dice of the same number, 1 time each 1.679.616 plays, thats really hard
Since it can be 8 of a kind for any face the first roll is guaranteed to be alright. After that, it's a 1 in 6 for each subsequent roll to be the same. That's roughly a 1 in 280,000 chance
@@kev1nno Don't forget to count for the number of re-rolls. There's a (lets say an upper bound) 2.95% probablity that one of the rolls were all the same face after 8400 (1 every 3 seconds for 7 hours) 1-((1-0.00000357224)^8400).
man, you really feel the surprise growing on her face right after she notices it ^_^ also, I had to do some math to satisfy my nerd itch, for any other interested nerds: it's 1 in 1,679,616 chance to get the same result on a 8 dice from a small sample of checking, she was doing ~2 rolls/second she was rolling from approx 9:53 to 6:38:15, ~23,302 seconds so she rolled ~11,652 times, about 0.7% of the number of rolls in which you'd expect it to happen once. I don't know if there were any long interruptions during the stream, but even so, gratz to cat friend for getting there!
That's A Pure Million Chance luck there. Like that One Geometry Dash RUclipsr got a Perfect [REDACTED] Word in all Caps that generated on the URL on his Video. And they say is a more of 1 of a billion chance!
Seriously her and kaela are the grinding goblins of hololive Grinding for hours to get that 1% chance thing that wouldn't have mattered to 99% of other people
Based on her cadence in the stream, she rolled once roughly every ~2 seconds (when she wasn't slowing down). She was rolling for ~6.5 hours at the time of getting this, so this would be approximately 11,500 rolls (probably in reality a bit less). The odds to get 8 matching dice after rolling 11,500 times is ~4.0%, or roughly 1 in 25. So definitely still extremely lucky despite the amount of time spent rolling. To have a 50/50 chance of rolling 8 matching dice, you would need to roll approximately 194,050 times. Rolling every 2 seconds, this would take nearly 108 hours of nonstop dice rolling. Just for a 50/50 chance to hit 8 matching. Crazy.
i opened the stream when its started then had some business, then i reopened her stream she threw out 8 of 5s out of nowhere at that moment. It was so coincidence.
*FUBUKI HAD A 4.09% LUCK* The probability of a single dice Roll being a success is p=1/6^7=1/279936. It's not 1/6^8 because while there is 1/6^8 of getting all 1s, you can also get all 2s, all 3s,..., all 6s so the overall probability is 6*1/6^8 = 1/6^7. I checked the live, and considered Fubuki rolled for 6h30 at about 1 roll every 2 seconds so 11 700 dice rolls. (less in reality I'd think) The probability we want to calculate can be derived from the geometric law. Though i'll briefly reexplain it here differently: What's the probability of having a successful roll in the first N rolls ? Well it's the contrary of having only failures in the first N rolls, the probability of having a failure on a roll is (1-p), so having only failures on the first N rolls is (1-p)^N. Therefore the probability of having a success in the first N rolls is 1 - (1-p)^N Applying this to Fubuki's case, with p = 1/6^7 and N=11700, we get that being as lucky as Fubuki (succeeding in 11700 rolls or less) is 4.09%. (notice that this is different from N*p = 11700 * 1/279936 which would yield 4.18% here. It's easy to see it couldn't just be N*p because rolling 100 times with 1/100 probability doesn't guarantee getting a success. However it's actually mathematically always a pretty good approximation (when p is small), always higher than the actual value (4.18% instead of 4.09% here))
> It's not 1/6^8 because while there is 1/6^8 of getting all 1s, you can also get all 2s, all 3s,..., all 6s so the overall probability is 6*1/6^8 = 1/6^7. The Fubuki's case is not about getting same side eight times - she got specifically number 5 eight times. So it is 1/6 ^ 8, thankyouverymuch. > The probability we want to calculate is derived from the geometric law. What's a "geometric law"? Probability calculus do not have any term or law with "geometric" in its name, except "geometric distribution" which is unrelated here. > It's easy to see it couldn't just be N*p because rolling 100 times with 1/100 probability doesn't guarantee getting a success. The subject is nominal chances (expected probability), not ratio between successful trials to overall number of trials (empirical probability). These are different things. Their values would approach each other by law of large numbers, but here it is not applicable because number of trials is not approaching infinity. Non-formal "law of truly large numbers" can be relevant - and it would work for 1% and 100 trials. But not as much for getting eight 5s at dices with ~12k trials. > Notice that this is different from N*p which would yield 4.18% here. It always overestimates the luck It does not "overestimates luck" - it gives estimated, nominal probability to get this exact sequence of trial outcomes (where all but one trial fails) . You can get 1 in 100 on first try, too. Or on second, or on third. Etc. If I want only to get the successful trial once - it would look like my nominal probability ("N*p") far underestimated my luck in these cases. So comparing actual outcomes to estimated probability is non sequitur. I don't get why you included formulas, just in general, as they do not explain anything and confuse even more (because there is no explanation of used variables attached - wtf is an "o(p)" for example). That's just voodoo mathematics, for the sake of showing off, I guess. Either do proper and formal explanations, or explain it in simple words, without unneccessary formulas or equations.
@@Sornemus > As far as I know, Fubuki's goal was to get 8 of a kind, not specifically 5s, so what I say holds. It's like rolling a six-sided with objective of rolling >2, getting 5 and going "wow, there was only 1/6 chance this would happen!" It is true, just like any other roll, but that's not really what we were interested in. Every dice roll in Fubuki's stream had an equal probability of 1/6^8 of showing up (well, if we did care about the ordering of the dices), but how many successful ones ? Precisely 6 of them so on each roll it was 6/6^8 she would get the eight of a kind. "The Fubuki's case is not about getting same side eight times - she got specifically number 5 eight times. So it is 1/6 ^ 8, thankyouverymuch." and when do you get the 'same side' eight times? never, it's always ONE of the sides when we roll the dices. That doesn't mean looking probability of events that are not one exact result of the experience is useless, when what we truly care getting any one of these specifc results. > You are right. This is not "geometric law" but "geometric distribution". I imported 'geometric law' from french 'loi géométrique' but that's not how we say things in english. I edited my comment. Yes geometric distribution is related here. Wikipedia: "In probability theory and statistics, the geometric distribution is [...] the probability distribution of the number X of Bernoulli trials needed to get one success". That's litteraly exactly what we're looking at. How many dice rolls (Bernouilli trial) for Fubuki to get one success. More specifically, with the notations of that wikipedia page, Proba(X=n) = the probability that the first success occurs on exactly the nth attempt. So the probably of getting as lucky as Fubuki was or better is Proba(X≤n) with n≈11700 as I said. And doing this we get the same formula I used : Proba(X≤n) = 1-(1-p)^n. It's obviously not at all necessary to "summon" the geometric distribution for this, I just explained intuitively how to get 1-(1-p)^n in my comment. I left the name of the geometric distribution so that people curious or confused about the math could have a way to look it up. It did not work. Also let me preemptively explain why we care about Proba(X≤n) and not Proba(X=n) despite Fubuki getting her first success on the nth attempt. What we care is getting AS lucky as Fubuki, not getting it on the exact same attempt as her. Let's say I roll a 1000-sided die, and 'being lucky' is rolling a high number. I roll 850. "oh that was only 1/1000 of happening". Yes, but 15% of dice rolls beat me and I beat 85% of them. What we care is that I'm in the top 15%, not the exact probability of me getting what I got. Same for Fubuki, what we want to answer is "if someone comes up and does the same thing, what's the probability he beats her i.e. that he gets an 8 of a kind in less (or as many) dice rolls", and that corresponds to Proba(X≤n). It would be unfair to use Proba(x=n) instead, drastically lowering the probability, for exemple with Fubuki it would give 0.00034% instead of 4.09%. > Expected probability DOES give information about empirical probabilities, in my exemple, if the expected probability were 100%, then it would end up necesarrily happening empiricaly, that's why I took this most basic exemple. (also in this context 100% does mean certain to happen, for math people). But most importantly my point was that the commonly shared misconception that 'this probability is N*p' can't be true because it would imply something we intuitively know is false. Expected ("theoretical") probability is useful because it can be 'applied' to our real world. Empiric probability gives intuition for certain expected probability. "here it is not applicable because number of trials is not approaching infinity" is a little bit silly because then it never gets applied in real life, the way you say it kinda makes it feel like expected probability is useless. But even with big number of rolls, the law of big numbers is totally unrelated to the original question here actually. We're not making many dice rolls just to rediscover that the probability of the 8 of a kind is 1/6^7. What we're doing is simply straight up applying the geometric distribution ("Proba(X≤n)"). And that can directly be interpreted empirically, without using the law of large numbers. "the probability of this event occuring (to Fubuki) is 4.09%" is all we've said and calculating it was unrelated to the law of large numbers. Though if you want you can say like what I said before, interpret this as meaning that if many many people tried doing the same thing, a proportion of around 4.09/100 would perform better. Although that's not what you were talking about, your paragraph about this doesn't actually even react to what you quoted it reacted to so it's not even clear what you intended to say. Or maybe you didn't mean to say what I said was wrong and wanted to add stuff. But it still feel weird because my point didn't involve "ratio between successful trials to overall number of trials" but there BEING just one success. PART 1/2 (follow up in next reply)
@@Sornemus (PART 2/2 of my reply) > To be fair I'm not sure about what you refer with "nominal probability", but I believe that's not what I was refering to? N*p is not a ratio, it goes above 100% as soon as N>1/p, I just thought about it here as an algebraic expression really. Let me clarify what I meant with this and what I meant by 'overestimate'. Maybe there's a good 'probability/intuitive' reason why it's a good estimate but. What I meant is that when 1-(1-x)^n and nx are very close to each other when x is very close to 0 [and it's justified by 1-(1-p)^n = 1 - (1-n⠀p + o(p)) = np + o(p) when p approaches 0. It's just a bonus note that I found interesting when redoing the math. I'm not gonna reexplain what small o notation is nor how such developments are made, this is more advanced math than the rest and too big for a simple youtube comment on an unrelated video. If anyone wants to learn about it, search for Taylor series expansion, small o notation and related math. I just left that here for people that already know such math because I thought it was cool. Basically it gives a mathematically justified reason to say that these expression are close to each other]. And the reason I said overestimate is because for x in [0,1], n*x ≥ 1-(1-x)^n for any n. I'm just stating it I'm not giving a proof right there, but that's what I was refering to by 'overestimate'. It is an overestimate. "You can get 1 in 100 on first try, too. Or on second, or on third. Etc. If I want only to get the successful trial once - it would look like my nominal probability ("N*p") far underestimated my luck in these cases. " You seem to either misunderstand what N means (because if you get on the second try, then N=2 and 2*p IS greater the actual luck of it happening being 1-(1-p)^2), or didn't realise that yes N*p is always greater than 1-(1-p)^N the actual probability. Though most likely all of this is because you wanted to apply your nominal probability baggage that you had with you, but you applied it to sutff I said that was unrelated to it, so it lead to you doing an inapporpriate application of it (and you saying my stuff was wrong when it wasn't). Now about your conclusion that said "I don't get why you included formulas, just in general, as they do not explain anything and confuse even more (because there is no explanation of used variables attached - wtf is an "o(p)" for example). That's just voodoo mathematics, for the sake of showing off, I guess. Either do proper and formal explanations, or explain it in simple words, without unneccessary formulas or equations." First about what you said in parentheses. My bonus note that involved "o(p)" had a specific warning "for math people here", I did not intend to explain this part, as I explain in the parts in brackets a few paragrahs ago. You can easily ignore it otherwise. Though my original comment was kind of crowded just for this bonus note so I edited it to make it into a seperate reply to this comment and remove it from the original one. I believe the rest of my variables, which where litteraly only N and p where quite clearly defined when used. For the rest of what you said, "Either do proper and formal explanations, or explain it in simple words, without unneccessary formulas or equations". I peacefully disagree. I don't thin it has to be entirely formal OR 'simple words' as in no math. For a YT comment like this being entirely formal would be useful to pretty much noone, cause it wouldn't be understandable clearly to lots of people and be annoying to read. Instead, I prefer to do something that does explain in simple words why things are how they are, and I think my original comment IS a simple worlds explaination. BUT yes I specifically added 'formulas' in my comment, when I could have just used only the raw numbers all the way instead of posing p=1/6^7 and N=11700. These are really minimal and my goal doing this is that people can not only understand why we could calculate that Fubuki's luck was 4.09%, but also explain the core of the calculations, so that viewers reading it can recognize it when it arises in different situations. And I think using p and N does help with that, considering all the relevant explainations accompany it. (here actually using N and p might even be less daunting because we're using big numbers). It turns out I quite like math and that I want to become a math teacher. Math being seen as elite formal or misused and oversimplified is quite a problem, and I think we can just do better with the correct explainations, that people can not only understand, but also extract the math out of it to reuse it and continue to understand in many more situations, and I think a few equations can really help with that, and because the explainations go along, the equations get less scary. One should not confuse formal and rigorous. My comment was rigorous in the sense that the explaination was valid to get to that 4.09% result, without being super formal. I believe teaching math to wider audiences is easier and better when being clearly explained with sentences, rigorously, which a small dose of equations can help to understand and expand the acquired knowledge, without being overly formal. (unrelated to all that, while writting this pretty long comment, I listened to Fubuki's latest songs and they are absolutely fantastic, I love it. Bokura no seiza
A bonus note from my original comment (as said in my reply) : So yes 1 - (1-p)^N ≠ N*p But N*p is actually a pretty good approximation of it especially as p gets very small. (For the math people here, notice that 1-(1-p)^n = 1 - (1-np + o(p)) = np + o(p) when p approches 0 i.e. that 1-(1-p)^n is equivalent to np as p approches 0) So yeah the true calculation for things like this Fubuki dice roll is 1-(1-p)^n meaning getting a success in the first n tries with a probability p of success each time when all events are independant [getting it for the first time precisely on the nth attempt is p*(1-p)^(n-1)]. But while n*p is meaningless it's actually pretty close especially when p is small, and it gives a higher chance than it truly is. With Fubuki it gave 4.18% instead of the true 4.09% of Fubuki getting this lucky. AND ARCHIVE OF MY ORIGINAL UNEDITED COMMENT : For anyone curious about the overall luck Fubuki got : The probability of a single dice Roll being a success is p=1/6^7=1/279936. It's not 1/6^8 because while there is 1/6^8 of getting all 1s, you can also get all 2s, all 3s,..., all 6s so the overall probability is 6*1/6^8 = 1/6^7. I checked the live, and considered Fubuki rolled for 6h30 at about 1 roll every 2 seconds so 11 700 dice rolls. (less in reality I'd think) The probability we want to calculate is derived from the geometric law. Though i'll briefly reexplain it here. What's the probability of having a success roll in the first N rolls ? Well it's the contrary of having only failures in the first N rolls, and having only failures on the first N rolls is (1-p)^N. Therefore the probability of having a success in the first N rolls is 1 - (1-p)^N Applying this to Fubuki's case, with p = 1/6^7 and N=11700, we get that being as lucky as Fubuki (succeeding in 11700 rolls or less) is : 4.09% Notice that this is different from N*p which would yield 4.18% here. It always overestimates the luck. It's easy to see it couldn't just be N*p because rolling 100 times with 1/100 probability doesn't guarantee getting a success. So yes 1 - (1-p)^N ≠ N*p But N*p is actually a pretty good approximation of it especially as p gets very small. (For the math people here, notice that 1-(1-p)^n = 1 - (1-np + o(p)) = np + o(p) when p approches 0 i.e. that 1-(1-p)^n is equivalent to np as p approches 0) So yeah the true calculation for things like this Fubuki dice roll is 1-(1-p)^n meaning getting a success in the first n tries with a probability p of success each time when all events are independant [getting it for the first time precisely on the nth attempt is p*(1-p)^(n-1)]. But while n*p is meaningless it's actually pretty close especially when p is small, and it gives a higher chance than it truly is. With Fubuki it gave 4.18% instead of the true 4.09% of Fubuki getting this lucky.
She's playin' Yacht Dice. Meanwhile, me playin' Yacht Dice in Clubhouse Games 51 Worldwide Classics on my Nintendo Switch: "DAMNIT! NOT A SINGLE YACHT!"
The odds of getting 8 5's are the same as any other combination of numbers. The previous roll was just as improbable as this one. The only difference is the arbitrary significance we place on certain combinations.
The thumbnail is, ironically enough, kind of reverse clickbait. 0,1% is (roughly) the chance of rolling a 5 of a kind. An 8 of a kind is actually a *_0,00036%_* chance, or about a *_1 in 280000_* chance, so Fubuki was *significantly* luckier than advertised here. Also, she got off _incredibly_ easy with only 7 hours. Assuming she did one roll per second every single second nonstop, the expected time it would take for her to get an 8 of a kind would be *_78 hours._*
Assuming it took her 3 seconds per roll - she rolled twice and got the results on 0:06 timer... That's 20 rolls per minute. 1200 rolls per hour. And ~8400 times she rolled.
@@fademusic1980 odds are actually 1:1,679,616 so if she did around a roll a second she only rolled ca. 25,000 times and thus got rather quite lucky I’d say
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
She gets, 8 of 5s. YAGOO
Ya goo buff
Wow you're right! 八 (kunyomi) and 五 (onyomi). That's insane.
Only a fool will tell you that's inaff, but this is peak hololive
"this is hololive :)👍 "
-gura
@@Tunaan360 Nah. It's actually "yattsu (8) no go (5)". Not YAGOO, not Kunyomi or Onyomi. Hachi-Go.
That scream brought back some memories. Some very red and golden memories
"Akai na..."
Classic fbk moment
My introduction to hololive.... Ahh its coming back, welp along with the pcr violations to my nose and the lockdowns
あかいなー
Akai i na
Fubuki realized she had some luck leftover for this year, and decided to use it all here.
Seeing her mouth and eyes slowly widen is a treat
The slow pogface realization is so so darn cute and adorkable xD
:D
Direct translation on that part:
:o
:O
:D
And then there's Miko out here spinning slots for 48 hours...
@@SickLiq can someone explain to me whats up with that 😭 is she just a gamba streamer now?
@@Jude-yk9uc From this clip it's implied they might be competing with gambling games, but their games are different, Fubuki with her dice game while Miko with her spinning slot game, where the one who gets the perfect gambling result can stop playing the game. As can be seen from this clip, Fubuki got the perfect result (8 of a kind), while Miko hasn't gotten it yet, CMIIW.
@@Shiro_Seishun oh my god thank god it’s a challenge… I don’t speak Japanese so I legitimately thought she turned into a gambling streamer now. The same thing happened to 2 other streamers I watched and it all went downhill from then, so I was so ready to unsubscribe.
Don't worry, Yagoo will never go down that path, but some members do have gambling problem lol
Aw dang it
“She has been rolling 8 dices for almost 7 hours”
Understandable have a nice day.
That’s actually INSANELY lucky for the odds she was going for. On average something like this would take 53.6 hours.
And that’s if you’re lucky enough to get average, and not below average. It could easily take 80+ hours.
@@rich1051414No that calculation is for any 8 of the kind. The specific calculation can be found in the reply section of the top comment above. The one with a lot of numbers.
The "0.1% chance" on the thumbnail is seriously underselling it, rolling 8 of the same face is a 1 in 279936 chance, that's ≈0.0003572%, and 8 5s specifically is a 1 in 1679616 chance, that's ≈0.0000595%.
Even if she rolled once per second, it would, on average, take almost 78 hours to achieve this. I think Fubuki got extremely lucky!!
@@PaladinV2 You can't really easily state the 'average' amount of time, because it can take infinitely long to achieve this, which will skew an average (mathematical mean). You are never guaranteed to roll anything in particular no matter how many rolls you make. However you can calculate how many rolls it would take for 50% of people to have achieved 8 matching in a given amount of rolls (which is not exactly the average, but is probably closer to what you were going for). If you do that calculation, 1 in 279936 is correct, which is 0.0003572, or a 0.999996428 chance to not roll 8 matching. To get to 50% we would do log0.999996428(0.5) which is ~194,050 rolls. At 1 roll per second that would actually be ~53.9 hours. She was probably rolling closer to 2 seconds per roll though (maybe even slower), so that would be more like ~108 hours, or maybe even slightly longer in that case.
dang. someone actually did the math for the probability. o7
Me when I see the actual possibility is lower than any SSR character in any gacha games, imma be like
I like those odds..
Saying it could take an infinite amount of time is kinda misleading, to guarantee a greater than 99.999% chance of success, it’s about 75 days, which is really long but it’s kinda cool that if you do this for 75 days straight there’s practically no world where you fail.
Also that’d be a wild stream
On the other hand to actually consider how lucky she is, the chance of hitting 8 of a kind in under 7 hours is about 4.5%.
For the math behind that, it’s known that dice rolling follow a geometric distribution, so it’s also a known formula that the probability of success within n rolls is given by 1 - (1-P)^n where P is the probability of success. Just chuck P=1/279936 and n = 12,600 (about the number of rolls given 2 rolls a second for 7 hours) into that formula and it spits out ~0.0441 or ~4.5% so 🤓 actually the number of the thumbnail should 4.5%
Anyways yeah she’s got good luck
Imagine all the shiny Magikarp she could’ve encountered with that kind of luck
Rolling 8 die and getting them all on the same face is 1 in 279936, the shiny chance in Pokémon is 1 in 4096, meaning she could've caught 68.34375 shiny Magikarps.
If we're talking about specifically 8 5s, that's 1 in 1679616, meaning she could've caught 410.0625 shiny Magikarps.
Japanese 8 (Kun reading) = Ya
Japanese 5 (On reading) = Go
Fubuki specifically got *YA GO*
NO WAY! That is INSANE!!!
THE YAGOO IS REAL!!!!😂
Then there's the 8-5 score that the Los Angeles Dodgers won the Hololive Night game to.
Hololive truly is filled with good luck❤
@@skunkfac3 Wait what
@@PrisonMike196 During Hololive Night in July, the Dodgers were down at the bottom of the seventh inning. After Gura sang "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," the Dodgers took the lead and proceeded to win the game with a score of 8 to 5.
She did it... I cannot believe it that it happened the same way as getting the Golde Magikarp arc.
aoi na!
@@kamo7293 blue? Akai na!
I had this on in the background when it happened, and I just heard the dice clink against the bowl stop and no talking and was immediately like "theres no way she did it that fast" and sure enough I tab over to YAGOO
The look on her face when she rolled that eight of a kind was one of pure joy and delight.
That’s called perseverance right there, Man I Love Fubuki
Wow. Only 7 hours to pull a 8 of a kind is really an insane trick from Fubuki.
Big "Akai Neeeee..." energy
The slow transition from utter shock to smiles was a beautiful site to behold. God, I love this fox
Into the pantheon of Hololive moments this goes.
That fact that she got this much quicker than fishing for a golden Magikarp 3 years ago... Oh the memories of that one.
0:09 the sheer magnitude of the ":D"
And at this moment, Miko is still rolling slots
I can never get enough of watching a happy Fubuki... or angry Miko, for that matter.
Does anybody have a tracker on the chance based stuff Fubuki has done? Off the top of my head I know there’s the Blue Axolotl, The Door Game, Golden Magikarp, and now the 8 of a kind dice.
There also was the Rust roulette, but she always lose😅
That's a chance of 0.000357224% or in other words 1 in 279936. What the actual fox
She didn't roll once though. After rolling continuously for 7 hours the probability is much higher.
@@SeitanWorshipper if you assume each roll takes 5 seconds, you have 7 * 60 * 60 / 5 = 5040 rolls
The chance of getting the 8 of a kind is 5040 * 1/279936 which is approx. 0.018 or less than 2%
@@SeitanWorshipper The probability is for each roll.
Doesn't matter if she roll continuously or not; the odd isn't gonna be lower or higher. Each roll reset back to zero coz nothing from previous roll gonna affect the next roll; unless she rolled 5 and then pick up other dices which is not 5.
no its 8 dice so its 1 in 6^8 which is 1 in 1,679,616 or roughly 0,00000059%
@@SeitanWorshipper not how math works. the probability for each roll is the same, but the probability of having encountered it is higher (each roll has the same chance but if you roll those dice twice as much your chances of having encountered it in one of those rolls is higher)
Poor miko, white fox is blessed xD
Gacha addiction has reached levels previously thought impossible.
Wow... only 7 hours? According to my maths the chance of that happening within 7 hours assuming she continued doing 2 rolls every 5 seconds for the whole time (as in the start of the video) is about 3.536%, this is actually incredibly lucky.
Here's the maths:
1 / (6^8) = 0.000000595 [chance of rolling octuple 5s]
* 6 = 0.00000357 [possible octuples, since she probably didn't care about which number it was that showed on all the dice]
24 * 60 * 7 = 10080 [rolls per minute times minutes in an hour times 7 hours]
Plugged into binomial distribution calculator P(X≥1) gives 0.03536 or 3.536%
The luck of our foxy friend is crazy. No matter what she gambles in she always wins first.
Thanks for the video, Whatopia. Fubuki has amazing luck, WOW! ❤
Amazing
I walked into this stream when it was happening and somehow, knowing Fubuki, I instantly knew what she was trying to do. She really loves her "achieve the statistically unlikely" endurance streams.
That is some Kakegurui level shit... Yumeko Jabami is drooling after seeing this
Thats some dedication, i approve.
5-5-5
Standing by
Henshin
Complete
Wizaaado me!!!!
And there is Miko with her elite luck still trying to get God in her slot machine
Fubuki shall now be known as Fuluki
Amazing that things eventually happen when given enough chances
Gets 8 of a Kind, straight 5s. Has heart attack. Miko gets sadge.
FOX FRIEND LYYYYYFE! 🦊
The probability is: (1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6×1/6)= 0.00000059537 = 0.000059537%
That means she can win the 8 dice of the same number, 1 time each 1.679.616 plays, thats really hard
Between the akai na and this, im sure foobs is skirting on the edge of insanity
The chances of this are lower than you think, it's 8 times to get a 1/6 chance
It's 7 times, since the first dice doesn't matter. But that's still just a 0.000357224% chance 🤯
Since it can be 8 of a kind for any face the first roll is guaranteed to be alright. After that, it's a 1 in 6 for each subsequent roll to be the same. That's roughly a 1 in 280,000 chance
@@kev1nno Don't forget to count for the number of re-rolls.
There's a (lets say an upper bound) 2.95% probablity that one of the rolls were all the same face after 8400 (1 every 3 seconds for 7 hours) 1-((1-0.00000357224)^8400).
Umm does anyone think that the chances of this are not low?
Math works out to about 7/2000000 rolls will be 8 of a kind
Botan be like: "Damn, I could've used this luck on something else."
So that's where all the shiny magicarp luck went
0.1%?? Naaah bro thats more like 0.00036% chance!!
i'm so happy for fubuki. it's hard work but good work.
I bet Whatopia won’t ❤ this
Checkmate
"Idol Death Gambling" - Fubuki, probably
She achieved the probability of 0.000357% :0
After this I believe in fubuki, my prayers will reach her
The facial expression change is Gold.
I guess she's a lucky fox in 2024....
What a lucky fox
All her karma points got spent on that moment...
Ultimate Jojo roll. ｺﾞｺﾞｺﾞｺﾞｺﾞｺﾞｺﾞｺﾞ！！！！
Truly an Akai na Moment right there
Bro the voice sounds like she was in the bring of insanity
Hitting the statistic anomaly is crazy
These Dices aren't normal....
Must be an alien with Alarm allergy
Wait a minute is that a..
That's bizarre
have a great days mate
This is actually some insane luck, even though she did for 7 straight hours, it's 1/6^7 chance per roll. Absurd
One of the foxes of all times
Koumei players when this happens and u become an immortal god for a whole minute
Never a dull moment when it's Fubuki and Miko lol
that heavy breathing reminded me of the scratch thing from zombie tsunami
WOWWWWW SSG FRIEND
man, you really feel the surprise growing on her face right after she notices it ^_^
also, I had to do some math to satisfy my nerd itch, for any other interested nerds:
it's 1 in 1,679,616 chance to get the same result on a 8 dice
from a small sample of checking, she was doing ~2 rolls/second
she was rolling from approx 9:53 to 6:38:15, ~23,302 seconds
so she rolled ~11,652 times, about 0.7% of the number of rolls in which you'd expect it to happen once.
I don't know if there were any long interruptions during the stream, but even so, gratz to cat friend for getting there!
The chance of 8 fives is 0.00006%, not 0.1%, what is this
I cannot fathom the mental fortitude fubuki has to even attempt stuff like this. But then I am reminded she dug a hole in minecraft for 2.5 hours.
8 5's. YA GO. Same as the score of the Dodgers game on Hololive night.
Suddenly that golden Magikarp is looking a lot easier
That's A Pure Million Chance luck there. Like that One Geometry Dash RUclipsr got a Perfect [REDACTED] Word in all Caps that generated on the URL on his Video.
And they say is a more of 1 of a billion chance!
After doing the math, this should have taken 2 1/4 days of continuous rolling to achieve.
She rolled for 7hrs?? Truly the gambling queen
The face of winning Yacht Dice
Took her less time than finding a shiny Magikarp
Seriously her and kaela are the grinding goblins of hololive
Grinding for hours to get that 1% chance thing that wouldn't have mattered to 99% of other people
Very impressive from Fubuki
That's how probability works. Doesn't matter what you rolled before, the dice don't "care" about those rolls.
Fubuki "Lets go gembling!!"
Based on her cadence in the stream, she rolled once roughly every ~2 seconds (when she wasn't slowing down). She was rolling for ~6.5 hours at the time of getting this, so this would be approximately 11,500 rolls (probably in reality a bit less). The odds to get 8 matching dice after rolling 11,500 times is ~4.0%, or roughly 1 in 25. So definitely still extremely lucky despite the amount of time spent rolling. To have a 50/50 chance of rolling 8 matching dice, you would need to roll approximately 194,050 times. Rolling every 2 seconds, this would take nearly 108 hours of nonstop dice rolling. Just for a 50/50 chance to hit 8 matching. Crazy.
Now we need to see a distribution curve compared to what fubuki rolled.
Fubuki's luck really turned around after the ball crane game
i opened the stream when its started then had some business, then i reopened her stream she threw out 8 of 5s out of nowhere at that moment. It was so coincidence.
You are 4 600x more lately to find someone with your exact birthday than this happen
Fubuki sounds heal the soul
Remember.... Akai Na.
Shiny hunting is basically this~
YAHTZEE!
No, wait. Ya...goo?
YAGOO!
I can do this pretty regularly while playing 40K, but only with 1's for some reason.
*FUBUKI HAD A 4.09% LUCK*
The probability of a single dice Roll being a success is p=1/6^7=1/279936. It's not 1/6^8 because while there is 1/6^8 of getting all 1s, you can also get all 2s, all 3s,..., all 6s so the overall probability is 6*1/6^8 = 1/6^7.
I checked the live, and considered Fubuki rolled for 6h30 at about 1 roll every 2 seconds so 11 700 dice rolls. (less in reality I'd think)
The probability we want to calculate can be derived from the geometric law. Though i'll briefly reexplain it here differently:
What's the probability of having a successful roll in the first N rolls ? Well it's the contrary of having only failures in the first N rolls, the probability of having a failure on a roll is (1-p), so having only failures on the first N rolls is (1-p)^N.
Therefore the probability of having a success in the first N rolls is 1 - (1-p)^N
Applying this to Fubuki's case, with p = 1/6^7 and N=11700, we get that being as lucky as Fubuki (succeeding in 11700 rolls or less) is 4.09%.
(notice that this is different from N*p = 11700 * 1/279936 which would yield 4.18% here. It's easy to see it couldn't just be N*p because rolling 100 times with 1/100 probability doesn't guarantee getting a success. However it's actually mathematically always a pretty good approximation (when p is small), always higher than the actual value (4.18% instead of 4.09% here))
> It's not 1/6^8 because while there is 1/6^8 of getting all 1s, you can also get all 2s, all 3s,..., all 6s so the overall probability is 6*1/6^8 = 1/6^7.
The Fubuki's case is not about getting same side eight times - she got specifically number 5 eight times. So it is 1/6 ^ 8, thankyouverymuch.
> The probability we want to calculate is derived from the geometric law.
What's a "geometric law"? Probability calculus do not have any term or law with "geometric" in its name, except "geometric distribution" which is unrelated here.
> It's easy to see it couldn't just be N*p because rolling 100 times with 1/100 probability doesn't guarantee getting a success.
The subject is nominal chances (expected probability), not ratio between successful trials to overall number of trials (empirical probability). These are different things. Their values would approach each other by law of large numbers, but here it is not applicable because number of trials is not approaching infinity.
Non-formal "law of truly large numbers" can be relevant - and it would work for 1% and 100 trials. But not as much for getting eight 5s at dices with ~12k trials.
> Notice that this is different from N*p which would yield 4.18% here. It always overestimates the luck
It does not "overestimates luck" - it gives estimated, nominal probability to get this exact sequence of trial outcomes (where all but one trial fails) .
You can get 1 in 100 on first try, too. Or on second, or on third. Etc. If I want only to get the successful trial once - it would look like my nominal probability ("N*p") far underestimated my luck in these cases.
So comparing actual outcomes to estimated probability is non sequitur.
I don't get why you included formulas, just in general, as they do not explain anything and confuse even more (because there is no explanation of used variables attached - wtf is an "o(p)" for example). That's just voodoo mathematics, for the sake of showing off, I guess. Either do proper and formal explanations, or explain it in simple words, without unneccessary formulas or equations.
@@Sornemus
> As far as I know, Fubuki's goal was to get 8 of a kind, not specifically 5s, so what I say holds. It's like rolling a six-sided with objective of rolling >2, getting 5 and going "wow, there was only 1/6 chance this would happen!" It is true, just like any other roll, but that's not really what we were interested in. Every dice roll in Fubuki's stream had an equal probability of 1/6^8 of showing up (well, if we did care about the ordering of the dices), but how many successful ones ? Precisely 6 of them so on each roll it was 6/6^8 she would get the eight of a kind.
"The Fubuki's case is not about getting same side eight times - she got specifically number 5 eight times. So it is 1/6 ^ 8, thankyouverymuch." and when do you get the 'same side' eight times? never, it's always ONE of the sides when we roll the dices. That doesn't mean looking probability of events that are not one exact result of the experience is useless, when what we truly care getting any one of these specifc results.
> You are right. This is not "geometric law" but "geometric distribution". I imported 'geometric law' from french 'loi géométrique' but that's not how we say things in english. I edited my comment.
Yes geometric distribution is related here. Wikipedia: "In probability theory and statistics, the geometric distribution is [...] the probability distribution of the number X of Bernoulli trials needed to get one success". That's litteraly exactly what we're looking at. How many dice rolls (Bernouilli trial) for Fubuki to get one success.
More specifically, with the notations of that wikipedia page, Proba(X=n) = the probability that the first success occurs on exactly the nth attempt. So the probably of getting as lucky as Fubuki was or better is Proba(X≤n) with n≈11700 as I said. And doing this we get the same formula I used : Proba(X≤n) = 1-(1-p)^n. It's obviously not at all necessary to "summon" the geometric distribution for this, I just explained intuitively how to get 1-(1-p)^n in my comment. I left the name of the geometric distribution so that people curious or confused about the math could have a way to look it up. It did not work.
Also let me preemptively explain why we care about Proba(X≤n) and not Proba(X=n) despite Fubuki getting her first success on the nth attempt. What we care is getting AS lucky as Fubuki, not getting it on the exact same attempt as her. Let's say I roll a 1000-sided die, and 'being lucky' is rolling a high number. I roll 850. "oh that was only 1/1000 of happening". Yes, but 15% of dice rolls beat me and I beat 85% of them. What we care is that I'm in the top 15%, not the exact probability of me getting what I got. Same for Fubuki, what we want to answer is "if someone comes up and does the same thing, what's the probability he beats her i.e. that he gets an 8 of a kind in less (or as many) dice rolls", and that corresponds to Proba(X≤n). It would be unfair to use Proba(x=n) instead, drastically lowering the probability, for exemple with Fubuki it would give 0.00034% instead of 4.09%.
> Expected probability DOES give information about empirical probabilities, in my exemple, if the expected probability were 100%, then it would end up necesarrily happening empiricaly, that's why I took this most basic exemple. (also in this context 100% does mean certain to happen, for math people). But most importantly my point was that the commonly shared misconception that 'this probability is N*p' can't be true because it would imply something we intuitively know is false.
Expected ("theoretical") probability is useful because it can be 'applied' to our real world. Empiric probability gives intuition for certain expected probability. "here it is not applicable because number of trials is not approaching infinity" is a little bit silly because then it never gets applied in real life, the way you say it kinda makes it feel like expected probability is useless. But even with big number of rolls, the law of big numbers is totally unrelated to the original question here actually. We're not making many dice rolls just to rediscover that the probability of the 8 of a kind is 1/6^7. What we're doing is simply straight up applying the geometric distribution ("Proba(X≤n)"). And that can directly be interpreted empirically, without using the law of large numbers. "the probability of this event occuring (to Fubuki) is 4.09%" is all we've said and calculating it was unrelated to the law of large numbers. Though if you want you can say like what I said before, interpret this as meaning that if many many people tried doing the same thing, a proportion of around 4.09/100 would perform better.
Although that's not what you were talking about, your paragraph about this doesn't actually even react to what you quoted it reacted to so it's not even clear what you intended to say. Or maybe you didn't mean to say what I said was wrong and wanted to add stuff. But it still feel weird because my point didn't involve "ratio between successful trials to overall number of trials" but there BEING just one success.
PART 1/2 (follow up in next reply)
@@Sornemus (PART 2/2 of my reply)
> To be fair I'm not sure about what you refer with "nominal probability", but I believe that's not what I was refering to? N*p is not a ratio, it goes above 100% as soon as N>1/p, I just thought about it here as an algebraic expression really. Let me clarify what I meant with this and what I meant by 'overestimate'. Maybe there's a good 'probability/intuitive' reason why it's a good estimate but. What I meant is that when 1-(1-x)^n and nx are very close to each other when x is very close to 0 [and it's justified by 1-(1-p)^n = 1 - (1-n⠀p + o(p)) = np + o(p) when p approaches 0. It's just a bonus note that I found interesting when redoing the math. I'm not gonna reexplain what small o notation is nor how such developments are made, this is more advanced math than the rest and too big for a simple youtube comment on an unrelated video. If anyone wants to learn about it, search for Taylor series expansion, small o notation and related math. I just left that here for people that already know such math because I thought it was cool. Basically it gives a mathematically justified reason to say that these expression are close to each other]. And the reason I said overestimate is because for x in [0,1], n*x ≥ 1-(1-x)^n for any n. I'm just stating it I'm not giving a proof right there, but that's what I was refering to by 'overestimate'. It is an overestimate.
"You can get 1 in 100 on first try, too. Or on second, or on third. Etc. If I want only to get the successful trial once - it would look like my nominal probability ("N*p") far underestimated my luck in these cases. "
You seem to either misunderstand what N means (because if you get on the second try, then N=2 and 2*p IS greater the actual luck of it happening being 1-(1-p)^2), or didn't realise that yes N*p is always greater than 1-(1-p)^N the actual probability. Though most likely all of this is because you wanted to apply your nominal probability baggage that you had with you, but you applied it to sutff I said that was unrelated to it, so it lead to you doing an inapporpriate application of it (and you saying my stuff was wrong when it wasn't).
Now about your conclusion that said "I don't get why you included formulas, just in general, as they do not explain anything and confuse even more (because there is no explanation of used variables attached - wtf is an "o(p)" for example). That's just voodoo mathematics, for the sake of showing off, I guess. Either do proper and formal explanations, or explain it in simple words, without unneccessary formulas or equations."
First about what you said in parentheses. My bonus note that involved "o(p)" had a specific warning "for math people here", I did not intend to explain this part, as I explain in the parts in brackets a few paragrahs ago. You can easily ignore it otherwise. Though my original comment was kind of crowded just for this bonus note so I edited it to make it into a seperate reply to this comment and remove it from the original one.
I believe the rest of my variables, which where litteraly only N and p where quite clearly defined when used.
For the rest of what you said, "Either do proper and formal explanations, or explain it in simple words, without unneccessary formulas or equations". I peacefully disagree. I don't thin it has to be entirely formal OR 'simple words' as in no math. For a YT comment like this being entirely formal would be useful to pretty much noone, cause it wouldn't be understandable clearly to lots of people and be annoying to read. Instead, I prefer to do something that does explain in simple words why things are how they are, and I think my original comment IS a simple worlds explaination. BUT yes I specifically added 'formulas' in my comment, when I could have just used only the raw numbers all the way instead of posing p=1/6^7 and N=11700. These are really minimal and my goal doing this is that people can not only understand why we could calculate that Fubuki's luck was 4.09%, but also explain the core of the calculations, so that viewers reading it can recognize it when it arises in different situations. And I think using p and N does help with that, considering all the relevant explainations accompany it. (here actually using N and p might even be less daunting because we're using big numbers). It turns out I quite like math and that I want to become a math teacher. Math being seen as elite formal or misused and oversimplified is quite a problem, and I think we can just do better with the correct explainations, that people can not only understand, but also extract the math out of it to reuse it and continue to understand in many more situations, and I think a few equations can really help with that, and because the explainations go along, the equations get less scary.
One should not confuse formal and rigorous. My comment was rigorous in the sense that the explaination was valid to get to that 4.09% result, without being super formal.
I believe teaching math to wider audiences is easier and better when being clearly explained with sentences, rigorously, which a small dose of equations can help to understand and expand the acquired knowledge, without being overly formal.
(unrelated to all that, while writting this pretty long comment, I listened to Fubuki's latest songs and they are absolutely fantastic, I love it. Bokura no seiza
A bonus note from my original comment (as said in my reply) :
So yes 1 - (1-p)^N ≠ N*p
But N*p is actually a pretty good approximation of it especially as p gets very small.
(For the math people here, notice that 1-(1-p)^n = 1 - (1-np + o(p)) = np + o(p) when p approches 0 i.e. that 1-(1-p)^n is equivalent to np as p approches 0)
So yeah the true calculation for things like this Fubuki dice roll is
1-(1-p)^n meaning getting a success in the first n tries with a probability p of success each time when all events are independant [getting it for the first time precisely on the nth attempt is p*(1-p)^(n-1)]. But while n*p is meaningless it's actually pretty close especially when p is small, and it gives a higher chance than it truly is. With Fubuki it gave 4.18% instead of the true 4.09% of Fubuki getting this lucky.
AND ARCHIVE OF MY ORIGINAL UNEDITED COMMENT :
For anyone curious about the overall luck Fubuki got :
The probability of a single dice Roll being a success is p=1/6^7=1/279936. It's not 1/6^8 because while there is 1/6^8 of getting all 1s, you can also get all 2s, all 3s,..., all 6s so the overall probability is 6*1/6^8 = 1/6^7.
I checked the live, and considered Fubuki rolled for 6h30 at about 1 roll every 2 seconds so 11 700 dice rolls. (less in reality I'd think)
The probability we want to calculate is derived from the geometric law. Though i'll briefly reexplain it here.
What's the probability of having a success roll in the first N rolls ? Well it's the contrary of having only failures in the first N rolls, and having only failures on the first N rolls is (1-p)^N.
Therefore the probability of having a success in the first N rolls is 1 - (1-p)^N
Applying this to Fubuki's case, with p = 1/6^7 and N=11700, we get that being as lucky as Fubuki (succeeding in 11700 rolls or less) is :
4.09%
Notice that this is different from N*p which would yield 4.18% here. It always overestimates the luck. It's easy to see it couldn't just be N*p because rolling 100 times with 1/100 probability doesn't guarantee getting a success.
So yes 1 - (1-p)^N ≠ N*p
But N*p is actually a pretty good approximation of it especially as p gets very small.
(For the math people here, notice that 1-(1-p)^n = 1 - (1-np + o(p)) = np + o(p) when p approches 0 i.e. that 1-(1-p)^n is equivalent to np as p approches 0)
So yeah the true calculation for things like this Fubuki dice roll is
1-(1-p)^n meaning getting a success in the first n tries with a probability p of success each time when all events are independant [getting it for the first time precisely on the nth attempt is p*(1-p)^(n-1)]. But while n*p is meaningless it's actually pretty close especially when p is small, and it gives a higher chance than it truly is. With Fubuki it gave 4.18% instead of the true 4.09% of Fubuki getting this lucky.
Oh no fubuki used all her luck 🤣🤣🤣🤣
She's playin' Yacht Dice.
Meanwhile, me playin' Yacht Dice in Clubhouse Games 51 Worldwide Classics on my Nintendo Switch:
"DAMNIT! NOT A SINGLE YACHT!"
Miko coming out of nowhere 😂
The odds of getting 8 5's are the same as any other combination of numbers. The previous roll was just as improbable as this one. The only difference is the arbitrary significance we place on certain combinations.
Rolling dice for almost 7 hours is crazy 😂
How is our Friend this cute (and lucky)?!
That's amazing.
Stardew players like me have better odds of winning the slot jackpot on our first spin than that.
The thumbnail is, ironically enough, kind of reverse clickbait. 0,1% is (roughly) the chance of rolling a 5 of a kind. An 8 of a kind is actually a *_0,00036%_* chance, or about a *_1 in 280000_* chance, so Fubuki was *significantly* luckier than advertised here. Also, she got off _incredibly_ easy with only 7 hours. Assuming she did one roll per second every single second nonstop, the expected time it would take for her to get an 8 of a kind would be *_78 hours._*
The White Fox called 8 Fives. It is granted. 😁
Happy friend
Her lucky,spended for this 😌👌
Assuming it took her 3 seconds per roll - she rolled twice and got the results on 0:06 timer...
That's 20 rolls per minute.
1200 rolls per hour.
And ~8400 times she rolled.
8400 rolls for 1:260,000 odds is pretty good
@@fademusic1980 odds are actually 1:1,679,616 so if she did around a roll a second she only rolled ca. 25,000 times and thus got rather quite lucky I’d say
@@ToboJobo you are calculating the odds for a specific group of 8. She was rolling for any eight of a kind. The odds were 1:6^7
Last time i heard a Holomem get this excited that they forget how to speak was Gura when she got her trident finally in Minecraft. Lol