For people confused about the math: At the beginning of the mini game, we all have the same odds. That is already extremely established. We've all seen the identifying luck in Mario party videos. When evaluating the individual choices with hindsight, I had much worse odds than Mark had to face The person in chat that I was arguing with refused to acknowledge that at the beginning of the minigame I already said that there was a chance I wouldn't have played it. They were so insistent on explaining how the minigame works that they would not listen to the fact that I was explaining something that already happened, not the odds of something in its entirety or how the odds are balanced as a whole. I don't know how this video was edited but in case my argument wasn't clear, Yes: there was a chance that this wouldn't have happened at all. It is understood that the odds of not playing are present in the odds of choosing the correct option. Understood But what did actually happen is that in this instance of the minigame when we evaluate it in post, Mark had favorable Russian roulettes than I did. You're genuinely an insane person if you think that wasn't the case just because there was a chance I didn't have to play Russian roulette. The fact is I did have to play it over and over again and the individual odds I faced were different than the individual odds Mark faced in that specific run. The individual evaluation of two variables is not the same as the evaluation of the system.
i understand what you mean. the problem is that you CANT evaluate the two individually, thats just not how probability works, otherwise the odds are just incorrect. what youre saying is correct but it is not how probability works and holds no actual value as a calculation
16:28 i will forever associate this minigame with when simple said the game was lagging because he was downloading a dictionary with "the most words yet" and then he said he still had to download the definitions
they do the "happy birthday mark" gag every year... you really expect anyone to believe that the same person got their birthday this many years in a row? not only that but in the same month each time? get real
and the rats arrive just in time for foxen every year too???? something isnt adding up how old would have so many yearly spaced birthdays make someone? what is this accelerated aging gambit
nintendo's idea of making a minigame that seems completely unfair at first glance but is actually fair if you do the math is actually genius in the context of a party
What I love about when simple is playing with his friends is that it is impossible to tell when the shit they're repeating is a reference, an in-joke, or if this was the first time they'd ever said that
I've listed the odd for each player to win at any point in the game (1:26:19) and how the odds are updated after every event (not listing players that already lost as it is a trivial 0% chance to win): Start 1/4 each Mark survives Mark: 15/48 Rest: 11/48 Hark survives M&H: 11/36 N&S: 7/36 Simple survives Network: 3/24 Rest: 7/24 Network loses, levers reset 1/3 each Mark survives S&H: 5/18 Mark: 8/18 Hark survives Simple: 2/12 M&H: 5/12 Simple survives, levers reset 1/3 each Mark survives S&H: 5/18 Mark: 8/18 Hark survives Simple: 2/12 M&H: 5/12 Simple survives, levers reset 1/3 each Mark survives S&H: 5/18 Mark: 8/18 Hark survives Simple: 2/12 M&H: 5/12 Simple survives, levers reset 1/3 each Mark survives S&H: 5/18 Mark: 8/18 Hark survives Simple: 2/12 M&H: 5/12 Simple loses, levers reset 1/2 each Mark survives Hark: 1/4 Mark: 3/4 Hark loses, Mark wins So yes, when it was simple's turn, he did face worse odds than Mark ever had to face when it was his turn and just as Simple says, the game is indeed still fair, because the odds at the beginning are 1/4 for all players. But once he survived, the odds updated and the others have a higher chance of losing.
And this is still without adding Kurt Angle to the mix. but despite that the numbers still didn't lie and they spelled disaster for Simple when it was his turn
Actually, the odds are never 1/4 for anyone but P1, since the plungers reset after an explosion. P1 lives: 3/4 P2 now has a 1/3 chance of exploding P1 explodes: 1/4 Plungers reset, P2 now has a 1/3 chance of exploding.
@@MH_Binky The odds that anyone wins the game will still be 1/4 before P1 starts, so yes they will never have 1/4 chance when it's their turn, but they can have those odds when it's not their turn
Okay but have you considered the game might be lying to you. What if the game doesn't pick a fuse at the start but instead rolls a d4 to see if it detonates upon being pushed in? It would be weird but also a lot more fair and could explain the amount of coincidence to win a 75/25 instead of a 50/50
I think the best way to simply explain it is if you just imagine there's only 2 people playing with 2 levers: The first person has a 50% chance of winning or losing, if they win then the second person has a 100% chance of losing. However overall the second person doesn't have a 100% chance of losing, they have a 50% chance of winning due to the first person's 50/50
i was about to argue that having 1 more lever than players changes this, but checked and it doesnt. draw odds are also equal to any player losing. crazy that THIS is the fair mario party game
1:29:38 It's surprising but the chances of losing each round is Exactly the same. Whilst the chance of losing when presented with less levers is much higher, someone else losing earlier is the same thing as you winning so the probabilities work out the same. You can also treat it as each contestant gaining information for each safe lever pulled, but it's much clearer if you draw out a probability tree. Take the example of 4 levers, 3 contestants: Contestant A: 1/4 chance of losing Contestant B: A has 3/4 chance of picking a safe lever, and B has 1/3 chance to pick an unsafe lever. 1/3 x 3/4 = 1/4 Contestant C: A and B pick safe which has a chance 3/4 x 2/3. So the chance of C losing is 3/4 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 1/4 This method can be applied to any number of contestants, n, as long as the number of levers is n+1. This is somewhat easy to sea in the contestant C case, looking at how each nominator factor gets cancelled. The general probability is n!/(n+1)! = 1/(n+1)
Responding to someone in chat saying it’s prerecorded to say “Yeah it is prerecorded” is hilarious. Imagine the coordination required to time those chat messages with the prerecorded footage, it’s masterful.
1:26:57 i know simpleflips trying to flex his A in statistics is just standard simple gaslighting and a joke, but dk doesnt get a free pass at this game, all the players have equal chances of winning if you factor in the earlier parts of each round, for example on 3 players 4 triggers, dk has a 1/4 chance of losing, mario has a (3/4)x(1/3) (dk has to win then mario loses) which again is 1/4 of losing and yoshi has (3/4)x(2/3)x(1/2) (dk mario win then yoshi lose) which again is 1/4 chance of losing. The bomb minigame is actually very fair. Simple gets an F in statistics
1:45:00 or whatever: your math is wrong. Everyone of the three players has a chance of 25% of getting bombed. The first player (obviously) has 1 in 4 cases, 75% cases of survival. if he doesn't survive, then the chances shift. if he does survive, the next player has a 33% chance of getting bombed. however, that only happens in 75% of cases (in the other, the first player got bombed). So his actual chance of getting bombed in the round is 33% * 75%, which is 25%. Same goes for the last player, he has a 50% chance of getting bombed, but that only happens if player 1 doesn't get bombed (75%) and player 2 doesn't get bombed (67%). So his actual chance of getting bombed each round is 50% * 75% * 67%, which is 25%. So, starting each round, each round is fair (even though it may not feel like it) And every round after that, everyone gets the same 25% odds of getting bombed, with the exact odds of dying on the exact turn x getting multiplied by 25%^(x-1), but since everyone has the same share of chance each round, with each passing round, each player's chance of dying, in any round, slowly adds up to equal shares of 1/3
I genuinely cannot tell if Simple is doing a bit like insisting that Jay-Z is the correct option or if he does believe that the math is rigged against him.
I feel like Simple was just saying that, in the case that it reached him, he had a 50/50 shot. Yes he does have an overall 25% chance to die just like the others - but once it reaches his turn, he has less choices, making it harder for him on his turn specifically. He still has a 25% chance to die on any given round, but once it reaches him it's a 50/50. I think that's what he's trying to say
@@hazelcarey8753 Yeah, if you ignore what makes it fair, I guess it is unfair. Simple is still wrong because you can't make statements about the entire system while only looking at a small, non-representative part of it. You can't just ignore the reason you're wrong and claim you're right.
I will never get over how Toad's Midway Madness is designed to trap a player in a loop at the very start while every one else has fun actually playing the game.
the odds are the same for everyone in the Bowser's Bigger Blast minigame because of conditional and unconditional probabilities. The probability of winning is an unconditional 1 / 5, but the existence of conditional probabilities that are smaller than 1 / 5 makes the game appear unfair based on player order. The unconditional probability is what actually determines your overall outcome if you logic it out, the basic idea is that it *is* 100% necessary to consider previously gained information when evaluating current odds. The probability of "drawing two cards that are the same suit" is an unconditional probability, "Drawing the same suit as a card in your hand" is a conditional probability because it’s outcome is reliant on a previous outcome(s). "Winning the minigame" is unconditional and "winning AFTER someone has gone" is conditional. For example lets think about 5 people drawing straws, which is very similar to the minigame (person 5 isn't technically a player but can be imagined as the "house", if they get the short straw no one loses), the odds for everyone to draw the shortest straw are the same at the beginning of the game. Player one doesn't draw the shortest straw, which is a 1 / 5 chance and means that player two, now dependent on player one not drawing the shortest straw, does technically have a different probability of drawing the short straw, 1 / 4, but its conditional. Lets imagine player one DOES draw the shortest straw though, now player two has another different conditional probability of drawing the shortest straw, 0. In a game where in every round player 1 selects the wrong option, it would *appear* to be better to go last but that's only an illusion. That scenario is dependent on the fact that the first person to go already lost which is unlikely, just the same way that all the players winning and NOT choosing the wrong option is unlikely. The chat member arguing wasn't necessarily wrong, but more than anything they didn't realize that simple was referring to the conditional probability being worse, which is totally true.
I love you Simple. You're such a beacon of positivity and self-growth and it feels weird to see you upset (for lack of a better word) at a mass of people for not understanding your interpretation of the statistics in the bowser game. I hope it didn't hit you too hard and you're okay
Man, almost an hour long Mario Maker vs. w/ idiots video, and then 3 hours of Mario Party highlights. It's like someone asked me exactly what I wanted to see.
The stats argument is really funny because in the end, both stances are correct Statistically, due to how the minigame works, every person has an equal overall chance of losing, because player 1 and 2 need to survive in the first place for player 3 to get their turn However, when it comes down to individual choice, player 3 *on their turn* has a worse decision chance compared to player 1 or 2, even if the overall round chance for each player is the same, and when it comes to doing the same thing 5 times in a row, player 1 gets 5 1/4 attempts, while player 3 has to do 5 1/2 attempts. Again, they have equal odds overall, but the individual turn feels extremely stacked because of the decision having to be made Which, comes down to the argument, Simple acknowledged that every person has the same luck on each round right from the start, and he was talking about the individual turn rather than the overall round luck. It just ended up being a total misunderstanding (that resulted in a very long-running debate which made for a funny stream)
what the fuck is "meteor happens?" Is it from a stream? There's no way I'd have missed the origin in a video... Is the point just to get people to ask what it is? wtf is happening??
The problem with the probability is that Simple's framing it one way and everyone else is framing it differently. Simple's complaint (from what I understand) is that when he has to pull the lever, he has worse odds than Mark. This is objectively true. Simple's choice is a 50:50 and Mark's a 25:75. The problem is that people assume this complaint is about the WHOLE game being rigged in Mark's favour, which isn't true, since if he fails the 25:75, Simple doesn't have to pull and thus skips his poor odds. Because of this, all players do have a fair chance at the beginning of the game, since earlier players have more safe options, and later players can get lucky with the previous player blowing up. From Simple's perspective, it's utterly insane to argue that a 50:50 and 25:75 are the same probabilty. From the perspective of chatters, Simple just doesn't get how conditional probability works. Thus, both sides talk past each other because they have different premises.
this is very clearly chat not listening, simple reiterated many times that it was the one interaction after the earlyer interactions are allready defined
if that’s true, simple’s premise makes no sense as a complaint. if he’s just sad he lost, why bring up probabilities at all? maybe he’s trying to say that losing in his position simply (hehe) felt worse than in mark’s, which i could understand, but that’s just speculation on my part.
Watching the long games with the squad can really do something to your vibe. Its like synching in with their broness with each other and just leaning back on the couch listening to it all with a smile on your and you adding quips of your own in your head.
I don't know if Simple figured out the BBB statistics, but I'll explain anyways. Lets start with the last round of the game since it's the simplest: DK goes first and has a 1/3 chance to lose, then Mario goes and has 1/2 chance to lose. Seems unfair right? But the odds are actually even with both DK and Mario having a 1/3 chance to lose every cycle (Each cycle is the same and starts with DK). This is because Mario only plays if DK survives: ie Mario has a 2/3 chance of playing each cycle and mario can only lose if he plays. So Mario has a 2/3*1/2 = 1/3 chance of losing each cycle, the same as DK. The benefit of not having to go if DK explodes perfectly balances the cons of less safe options. But, you might be thinking like Simple, that Mario has a disadvantage when it was his turn. And in that moment he does because the 1/3 chance that DK would explode didn't happen. and that has a meaningful impact on Marios chances. This is just how any turn based competition works. For example: Lets say you and your friend are taking turns rolling a die (d6) and whoever rolls highest in a cycle wins (You each roll once in a cycle). (Ties are a draw). But, if your friend rolls first and rolls a 5. Then you only have a 1/6 chance of winning (rolling a 6). But we all know that this is perfectly fair. If we only look at the instance where the friend rolls 5 then it seems unfair. But in doing so we are ignoring the instances/possibilities where a 1,2,3,4, or 6 are rolled. We only get each players odds of winning and losing by factoring in all possibilities. So it is innacurate to start the analysis from Mario's turn because it ignores the 1/3 chance risk that DK took for this situation to occur. So, lets move on to the 2nd round. DK goes first and has a 1/4 chance to lose. Mario only goes if DK survives (3/4 of the time) if he goes he has a 1/3 chance of losing therefore, he has a 3/4*1/3 = 1/4 chance of losing. Yoshi only goes if DK and Mario both survive (3/4*2/3 of the time) and has a 1/2 chance of losing. Therefore, Yoshi has a 3/4*2/3*1/2 = 1/4 chance of losing. If DK, Mario, and Yoshi all survive the cycle resets with the same odds as before. 1/4 times DK loses, 1/4 of the time Mario loses, 1/4 of the time Yoshi loses, and 1/4 of the time the cycle resets. I'll let you guys apply this to the first round where you get the same result with 1/5 chances.
So Simple is partially right when saying DK has an advantage. But this advantage starts after DK survives pushing a switch and ends after the last player survives pushing a switch. From the start of each cycle (after someone blows up or after the switches reset) the odds are completely fair for each of the remaining players.
There's 2 different questions. 1) What are the chances of the bomb exploding when the switch is pressed? 2) Given that it is Yoshi's turn to press the switch, what are the chances of the bomb exploding? For question 1; DK has a 1/4 chance of blowing up the bomb. Luigi has a 3/4 chance to have an opportunity to press the switch. Then has a 1/3 chance to blow up the bomb. The total probability for Luigi is 3/4 * 1/3 = 3/12 = 1/4 to blow up the bomb. Yoshi has a 3/4 * 2/3 = 6/12 = 1/2 chance to have an opportunity to press the switch. Then has a 1/2 chance to blow up the bomb. The total probability for Yoshi is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 to blow up the bomb. Finally, there is a 3/4 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 6/24 = 1/4 chance of no one blowing up the bomb, in which case the play area resets and we start at the top with DK again. Conclusion, no matter which position you are in, you have a 1/4 chance to blow up the bomb in any given cycle of the game. (This is with 3 players, the same math with 4 or 2 players will show 1/5 and 1/3 respectively). For question 2; It is already Yoshi's turn, so the probability of previous events is irrelevant. There are 2 switches, so Yoshi has a 1/2 chance of blowing up the bomb. Now the mistake in this video, the answer for question 2 is used for question 1, which is wrong. Simple isn't wrong with his math, but using it to say that DK has a better chance of winning is wrong. Honestly, the hardest part of probability isn't usually the math. Usually, making the question is the hard part.
so to explain the pick a switch minigame math: how we get our equations and what each of them mean, the first fraction in each equation is the odds of you picking the switch that kills you, while the rest of the fractions are the chances your opponent picked a safe switch in the round before you. 1/5 = 1/5 1/4*4/5 = 4/20 = 1/5 1/3*3/4*4/5 = 12/60 = 1/5 1/2*2/3*3/4*4/5 = 24/120 = 1/5 1/4 = 1/4 1/3*3/4 = 3/12 = 1/4 1/2*2/3*3/4 = 6/24 = 1/4 1/3 = 1/3 1/2*2/3 = 1/3 the reason that it feels so stacked against you as a person picking later is because you are looking at it from the perspective of in the moment, from the beginning of each round you have the same exact odds due to the fact that you might not get a turn, but also if you are looking at it from the perspective of being someone who has to pick you are already thinking emotionally, you are ignoring the fact that when you are thinking from that perspective, you have already decided your opponents are each choosing safe switches. Rationally your odds are exactly the same, however emotionally it feels much worse. also, you might think that the odds would change after the first turn once everyone has chosen a safe lever, however you would be attaching the same fraction on to each equation, for example we'll use round two first the odds that you would get through the round safely: 3/4*2/3*1/2 = 6/24 = 1/4 now the odds each player would pick a safe lever on the second round (from the start of the first round) 1/4*1/4 = 1/16 1/3*3/4*1/4 = 3/48 = 1/16 1/2*2/3*3/4*1/4 = 6/96 = 1/16 if anything is wrong feel free to lmk
Yeah, in isolation having the 50/50 is worse odds. Mathematically, it makes more sense to group everyone together into distinct chunks starting at every 'reset' of the bomb-russian-roulette board after either everyone succeeds or one person blows up. The chance for any one person to fail is still a total of 1/N+1 where N is the number of players (since the number of switches is always one more), because in order for your greater chance to fail to come up, you previously had everyone else also succeed, which itself wasn't guaranteed. Being at the back of the line is worse for you in the moment you walk up, but you only walk up once everyone else has succeeded. If the person before you blows up, you become the new front of the line, but if the person after you blows up, you become the back of the next line. The bad luck that happened to you was that you ended up at the back of the new line, thus meaning that in the super-zoomed-in isolation of you having to flip a 50/50, that's worse for you in that moment. This is to say, I believe both things are true: that you having 50/50 odds if you end up having to press a switch is worse in that moment, since if you succeed the board resets and everyone else gets to roll easier odds again, which is attributable to you ending up at the back of the line, *and* at the same time mathematically the game is fair, you all have an equal chance of being the one that gets the bomb by the end of a given set of switches, because you would not be given the chance to get the bomb if someone else got it first. Hell, I went to look and see if anyone did any analysis, and one person simulated FIVE MILLION ROUNDS of Bowser's Big Blast and got a set of results that show that, in the long run, everyone gets first, second, third, and fourth about number of times with a little wiggle room of a fraction of a percent difference... Though it's not clear to me if that datasheet accounts for the player order in the minigame at all. Again, zooming in makes the probability math uneven! I do not believe you are wrong, and at the same time the game isn't unbalanced, *as a whole*.
Someone else used the phrase "conditional probability" and that's I think a good way of explaining it. In the moment, what you feel is the perceived probability of 50/50, but the actual conditional probability is still lower. ... Which is to say that the game is balanced and fair but doesn't always feel fair. And also that math is so cool and weird.
Yes Simple, your odds were 50/50 on your turn, but the others before you have to pass their check first, and that makes all the difference.... that smaller chance they lose, is a chance you get to avoid your 50/50, and that balances the odds perfectly !
You can tell simple is STRESSING about these odds and I don’t blame him. It’s easy to lose the plot of what we’re even talking about. Especially because i don’t think it was ever in question that the game was fair when looked at as a whole. The contentious part is the personal feeling of unfairness and how valid it is to look at the situation through that lens (of individual instances determining your chance of survival), no math required. Correct me if I’m wrong because it seems like no one understands anymore
Mark has a 25% chance of dying, so Simple can only die in that remaining 75%. Hark has a 33.33% chance of dying, so Simple can only die in that remaining 66.66% of the remaining 75%, which is 50% remaining when combined. Simple has a 50% chance of dying when it gets to him, 50% of the remaining 50% is 25%. Both Mark and Simple have a 25% of dying per cycle. The same is also true for Hark, since he has a 33.333% chance to die after the 75% of Mark not dying, which is also 25%, but he wasn't in the topic of the discussion. The remaining 25% unaccounted for is obviously the situation where nobody dies, which is the other half of Simple's 50/50.
Regarding the Bowser's Blast minigame, Mark indeed had better odds. A one-in-four (25% chance to be wrong) is way better than 50-50 odds. It kind of relates to the Monty Hall effect. If the minigame shuffled the player order each round, each player would have a much more equal chance to win, imo
It's good to see Mark getting some wins after YEARS of being gaslit daily by Simpleflips and also being locked in the house and fed exclusively undercooked pizza bagels and having only a nintendo 64 with one controller that has a broken joystick to keep him company. It was pretty screwed up that all of that happened live on camera for years but yeah justice for Mark.
@@chrisblevins-f5v He wasn't because the worse odds when he has to choose are countered by the fact that he is going last, and therefore he has the chance of not having to play at all if the players before him choose wrong.
As far as I can tell the initial state of the game the chance to blow up is P1 = 1/5 or 0.2 P2 = 4/5*1/4 or 0.2 P3 = 4/5*3/4*1/3 or 0.2 P4 = 4/5*3/4*2/3*1/2 or 0.2 If you're confused about why it's like that, for P2 to even try P1 would have had to hit one of the 4 safe ones. Likewise for P3, P1 and P2 would have to survive. The key thing is that you have a chance to not even go at all and that influences your chances. Then subsequent rounds add a bit more until the odds all equal 0.25 or 25% chance to blow up. A little needlessly complicated for this but the other 0.2 or 20% is in the chance that no one explodes, which isn't an end state. so if you wanted to see the probability of P1s second try it would be 4/5*3/4*2/3*1/2*1/5 or 0.04 and like the first round everyone has this chance. A shortcut you could do is multiply 0.2(the result of the first round) to the new chance which in this case is still 0.2 which equals 0.04 when p4 blows up P1 = 1/4 or 0.25 P2 = 3/4*1/3 or 0.25 P3 = 3/4*2/3*1/2 or 0.25 then subsequent rounds add a bit more until the odds all equal 0.33 or 33.33% and since P3 blew up P1 and P2 odds start at 0.33 and move to 0.5 or 50%
> Buys a Chomp Call > Misses out on several items because he has 3 already > Doesn't use the Chomp Call when he's right behind the only person who has a star > Loses all his items to Bowser Genius-level plays 👏 Edit: Oh I didn't realize it's a different Chomp Call in this one lol
