Life is an RNG fiesta

""I'm in too deep now, I can't even put out""

"The RNG of this game is so brutal, quitting this game was like a breath of fresh air."

"Game kills me each day"

"I was soo close to going back to BDO while watching this video I kept telling myself wow it looks so fun again. Then it got to the point when he was enhancing and the PTSD kicked in..... thank you Peon you saved me from more mental pain!"

"Yup never hitting that enhance button ever again. I have removed all gambling games from my life & my mental health has DRASTICALLY improved."

"I remember enhancing for TRIs years ago, crying over the losses and going back to asula. Good days."

"This is true story for me. I installed bdo again last week bc i was really out of games to play. I missed my char so much but remembering all the struggles of me trying and failing to get tri and tet has made me uninstall the thing again after just 20mins."

"I absolutely hated the enhancement system in this game. It's the worst rng part of bdo IMO. I'm so glad I quit"

"LOOL man said PTSD. Imagine a game doing that to you xD"

"Progression in BDO is made with lots of painful tears, it makes you feels like you're giving up on yourself when you're trying to quit. I have quit twice from BDO, it was not an easy divorce, yet everytime I saw a BDO video I remember my characters, thousands and thousands screenshots of my adventure, the spreadsheets I made just to calculate my BDO business plan, it has taken so much from you that you'd never felt completely whole."

"Enhancement made me quit the game, I was addicted ... I almost opened my veins on those TET-PEN attempts >.<"

"This game is just too dangerous for someone with no self control. I'm glad that I was able to quit playing."

"REPEAT AFTER ME: I WILL NOT GO BACK TO BDO IT WILL CRUSH MY SOUL"

"20:18 thank you so much for this section, i was about to download this cancer again"

"you can go back, once you start upgrading then you'll remember the pain and quit once again. it's safe guys."

"seems he went into all stages of depression and finaly arrived to the last stage , acceptation"

First of all, if you study a population of fifty-eleventy million people and discover that Over9000 of them are Janitors, does that mean you will become a Janitor?

No. In fact, it says very little about specific "individuals" in that group other than something is "more likely" within a certain degree of confidence. Individuals in that population are little more than a set of probabilities if one is attempting to predict the likelihood of something appearing in them that was measured in that population. That's it.

One specific person in that group might be an astronaut. That person might even be you. In fact, given random selection, you have a very slim chance of being that one astronaut, but it's still a chance. IF, however, one individual in that population was selected that just happened to be "you."

But, lets say we're selecting an individual in a population "at random." Our chance of selecting a Janitor is very, very, high. But, if YOU are trying to select yourself from this random population, what are the chances you'll hit the mark if you threw a selection-dart at a chart of this population? Slim to none.

Only what is directly measured can be meaningful, here. And, in a population, you don't measure fifty-eleventy billion people to make verifiable inferences about one specific individual person. At best, you have a "probability" that certain things will be true given an individual is truly a legitimate member of any statistical population.

How often is it that you are exactly like one other person? How often is it that you, yourself, feel you are representative of an entire country's population? (No need to wait for the answer... :)) How heavily can I judge you, based on a statistical population, if you're sitting on the couch in my living room?


Next up - He doesn't define critical variables used to substantiate his assertions. That is a sin. He should be denied the use of a statistical calculator for thirty days for refusing to define his "study's" variables...And, for using that to construct a false premise, he should have his pocket-protector confiscated.


What. Is. "Luck."

The presenter obviously ccrelates it with what? What do you correlate it with? "Randomness."

Well, golly, I guess "Luck" is "Random" and thus, since I have a bunch of stuff I don't measure, I'll just lump it all into this amorphous thing called "Luck." (Exactly like he did with his "Astronaut" calcs and all his other B.S..)

A real researcher would look at that and shout "B.S." You know what that "Luck" variable thing that he didn't bother to measure or define actually is? "Error."

What he is actually talking about is a degree of error that he has subtracted from his confidence level in his statistical analysis just because he has chosen to call it "Luck." It's a false conclusion he is presenting to the viewer. He's saying "I don't know what Luck is, but I am going to assign it a variable instead of just acknowledging it should actually be added "Error."" Because of this, his confidence level is lower than what is needed to truly yield a statistically meaningful result... But, he maintains that is what he is presenting. Which is... false.

But, he's not talking to anyone familiar with population studies or statistics. Those people wouldn't stand for one minute of his interpretations, much less "like and subscribe" so they can get some "discount" on some other B.S. he's hawking.


What is "Luck?" What is it "in real life?"

Notice how the presenter tends to mention a great deal of "skill" and "hard work" associated with people who have achieved the top-tier spots in their chosen profession. Notice it. And then, notice how he throws in "luck" as explaining why... someone else didn't have those same achievements.

"Others weren't as lucky."

"Class over, lesson done, I have solved the Achievement Problem and you can now feel better about yourself and enjoy criticizing "Achievers" because they were, after all, just "more lucky" than you."

No.

Now, that doesn't mean you can win a footrace if you don't have any legs. It also doesn't mean you can't achieve success if you are severely disadvantaged, either! It means that there is largely "something else" going on that isn't specifically due to "random chance." If you don't define such things, you can absolutely not just lump them into one statistical measurement called "Luck" and then make inferences solely based on one... word. That's demented.

Were you born into a wealthy family that is filled with people who are professionals with technical expertise and who may frequently associate with others in those positions? Did you, yourself, choose to pursue a technical or scientific career path, devote yourself to that, and also join the military as a pilot or in an MOS closely associated with your scientific education? Are you physically fit? Did you also engage in pursuits like going to "Space Camp" and to lectures and symposiums and "Job Day" meetings where you met professionals in various space-related programs? Did you apply for NASA's Astronaut program? Did you do that independently or were you afforded the opportunity while in the military? Well, then you may now be "lucky" in that you are much more likely to be able to secure a position in an Astronaut Training Program than... not being lucky enough.

But, if you take a huge dump on a NASA interviewer's shoe, you might then not be judged as qualified to be a NASA Astronaut. DARN LUCK!

You could also be ugly. So, maybe that's why you didn't get the job despite being qualified? Well, "bias against ugliness" is actually a "thing." Does that mean it's associated with "Luck." No. That you didn't choose a quality doesn't mean it should now be called "Luck." It just means you're ugly and that, itself, is "somewhat" qualifiable and marginally quantifiable.

But, how strong an effect does that have on your Astronaut candidacy? Well, to judge that, we'd have to measure that, first. Right? And, if we haven't measured it first can we then just chalk it up to "Luck" and ignore it? No. And, if we can't, can we even judge your candidacy solely based on that one characteristic you couldn't control, yourself? Heck no! We'd have to weight it and to do that we'd have to study it. We can't just lump it under "Luck."


Eg: Did that wind at the back of those runners count as "Luck?" No. It was applied to all runners running in those races, right? It may not have been constant across all races, though, right? So, what do we say about it? It's a variable that isn't easily possible to predict, beforehand, but we can measure its effects after-the-fact. So, if we wish to "predict" something, it's a margin of error we'll just control for by.. throwing it out the window. If we want to "measure" something, then we can measure it after it occurs.

Will you make a World Record today in your race? Do I know the wind is blowing or not?

"

Luck also has the mayor part in PoE....

You're making the same mistake the Youtuber did - "Luck" is not the same thing as "Randomness" is it? Is your "qualifiable" interpretation of "something lucky" quantifiable? And, if it is, how is it quantifiable?

If you're playing PoE and running Tier 1 maps, how "likely" is it that you are going to get a six-link chest drop? The likelihood of that happening is pretty low when it's relatively compared to someone who's running back-to-back runs of Tier fifty-eleven maps that they have spent a load of currency customizing, isn't it? When that six-link drops, is it just "lucky" because there is are degrees of freedom/RNG involved here? Is it "lucky" that the player spent three Exalted Orbs worth of currency in crafting their end-game map so they could get a much better chance of having five Exalts worth of drops come from playing that map? Remember - They also had to put in work to achieve that "luck."

One can heavily, very heavily, influence things that some people interpret to be "lucky."

In real life, "Luck," or random chance, can be manipulated to a certain extent when one is attempting to achieve a goal. For instance, one does those things where it is more likely that "chance" will operate in one's favor than not. If one is not a race-car driver, one will not likely ever win a race-car race that includes variables many consider to be "random chance." What is the likelihood of becoming a published author if one never writes a book? Is it a failure of "luck?"

Most of the time "in real life" things that people consider to be "lucky" are, in fact, just occurrences that aren't easily understood and are difficult to predict because of that. (It's also a very favored excuse by some...)

Note: And, his assumptions regarding some other stuffs are just... wrong. For instance, those who inherit wealth are more likely to end up with less wealth over time, in "general." Certain outliers do exist, like the "extremely wealthy" who have such absurd passive incomes it's very difficult to just blow it all without purposefully trying to be a screw-up. :)