Using Math to Settle Pokémon's Biggest Debate

[@adef]

Go to mondly.app/adef to get 96% off of lifetime access to 41 languages and start learning today. Hope you enjoyed this one, gamers! I'm always nervous to do *anything* even tangentially related to **drama** because I truly think youtubers that just cover drama / cheating scandals are the scum of the earth, but I hope that this one brings more positive eyes to shiny hunting than negative ones!!

[@endorb]

I enjoyed the ad read being almost entirely in french, I thought that was a creative bit, never seen one like that before

[@bggamingdeluxe5658]

duolingo on top

[@lancesmith8298]

Using this one as a quick warning that’s gonna be more visible: the lights on the Eiffel Tower are copyrighted. Yes, specifically the lights. Granted that’s never been enforced, ever, but the copyright on the artistic expression of lightbulbs on metal expires in 2055.

[@liammorantz413]

Is it accurate to say that your odds of hitting *within a certain time period* increase in a multi-game? Or does formulating an extreme case of this scenario also lead to absurdity? That is, if I played enough games would the math say I *had* to hit within one hour, making the premise unsound? Thanks for the vid!

[@BLABLJABUDL]

Man, August the Duck is being FRAMED with this one! But I agree, covering drama is bad, but CAN be usefull if the ytuber that does it is extremely Objective.

[@AbsolBlogsPokemon]

Thank you so much for being the confident Pokemon Math Guy we needed to break this down!!

[@natel42069]

Omg its absolblogs

[@kipkipkippers]

thank you absol

[@_lexi]

matt jumpscare

[@METC500]

hi absol it's me metc

[@adef]

KING

[@ajktulm]

Mom, can we have 2/8192? Mom: no, we have 2/8192 at home 2/8292 at home: 1 - (8191/8192)^2

[@wanderingwatcher3981]

hehe, 99.99% as good at home, mom might be right here

[@PrinceTalonSabre]

2/8292 is worse than full odds, glad i dont have that one at home 😂

[@gabrielbarrantes6946]

You are the only one here that understand what's happening and why the video is wrong lol.

[@ЛилияЯмилевна]

​@@gabrielbarrantes6946 why? Genuine question

[@shadoww7301]

@@gabrielbarrantes6946 how is the video wrong

[@Shad0wM0ng3r1]

I was expecting 1 billion lions vs 1 of every pokemon

[@natel42069]

Same

[@NathanYouTubeGaming]

Yeah me too.

[@beem4248]

Well its obviously the pokemon

[@TheBlade-]

That was already settled by astroid videos

[@not_aro]

this was solved by Asteroid Videos

[@batlrar]

I think this distinction is actually more of a language issue than a statistics issue at heart. People who have basic knowledge of statistics would say that playing more than one game at once gives you better odds, but what they're truly saying is that it gives you better odds over time, not per encounter. This is inherently understood when you're talking to other people with similar knowledge levels, but doesn't truly reflect the results and people who aren't experienced with statistics will have their assumptions reinforced.

[@Tobykachu]

I think he missed something when he talked about whether time spent shiny hunting was more important or number of encounters. To the average player, time spent is immeasurably more important, but for KZbinrs, number of encounters is more appealing.

[@ScyrousFX]

100% agreed. We all know what people mean when they say more games = faster encounters = better shiny ''odds''. I really don't understand why the commentary at 4:20 was needed. It's like he's casting unnecessary doubt over the (correct) assumption that more games = more shiny encounters. What afdef actually disagrees with is the definition of the word odds in this context. All in all, for a video that's supposed to clear things up, this was rather poorly done imo. At multiple points he reiterates that more games don't increase the odds, but that's not at all important in the context of pokemon shiny hunting, where time is easily the most important factor.

[@wyzeinfinity7243]

It's like what I always say you can know enough to believe you are right but not know that your wrong and make it make sense to others at the same time

[@Gallicien]

@@ScyrousFX you're boosting your encounter rates, not your shiny rates, how the fuck would it not be a full odds hunt?

[@purplecosmonaut]

Yeah, he's arguing semantics. The whole video seems to be in poor taste too. Some full odds shiny hunters are already elitist about it, the last thing we need is more to fuel their egos. Most people care about the speed at which you find shinies, not so much the total encounter numbers. That's more of a content creator thing they use to give an idea of how long it took. All of which is valid ofc, but not the point of the "multi hunting is method hunting" argument. He either missed the point or ignored it on purpose.

[@batcrow6224]

It was in fact, a good bit

[@mrmatt7246]

i agree!!!

[@oh_wall]

He a real one for that

[@kintaro1851]

4:02 To answer the question: That was the first ad I didn't skip, because it was so unexpected. So I guess it fulfilled its purpose.

[@pikmindx]

I guess someone beat me to the punch. Danm, I'm late.

[@Maestria00]

Same for me. I usually skip add segments, but I listened to this one in its entirety.

[@ShayyTV]

very well said at the end, and i think it extrapolates even further into stuff like RNG manipulation... i see so much discourse over what counts as "pure" and "proper" shiny hunting and in reality, we do this thing for fun! do it how you want and do what makes you happy. using your knowledge of the game to hunt for the thing you want is pretty rad.

[@XenithShadow]

Yes, but using a system to make the hunt easier and then tell everyone else you didn't use said system is not fair on everyone else. The important part is people being honest in the acheivements.

[@crashveretia8046]

hi shayy! :DDD

[@tracyblanchard7663]

​@@XenithShadow Full odds means full odds. If we're going to make it an achievement barrier, then the term means what it says on the tin. Otherwise, what else improves your encounter rate and thus diminishes the 'full odds' wording? Using repels to limit encounter results? Running instead of walking?

[@amberhernandez]

I'm bringing Crabominable to a tournament next week to prove you wrong!!

[@mordestar5777]

Shayy it's late, find a shiny.

[@almophant1673]

The sponsorship segment was a fantastic bit.

[@sadp9013]

Yes the accent was pretty good 😂

[@jamiek8123]

yes, yes it was, also great transition in particular, using the Masuda method language thing into the language app bit, just great

[@aussiecanuck3628]

Bien fait

[@Shnarfbird]

Nice try

[@celine-ig1km]

As a French person, I was listening aside and when I heared my language, I went "Wait wtf" and looked back to the video xd

[@AutumnReel4444]

If you are mad on the internet about a stranger being more efficient than you, no one can help you.

[@yepmulti]

fr. it actually blows my mind that there can be community drama over how people go about looking for shinies. like, sometime after the release of scarlet and violet there were people getting upset over whether or not someone matches the pokeball colors with the shiny colors (I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP). if you have any sense of elitism or feel superior over the way you look for differently colored pixels on a screen you desperately need to get a life.

[@HuneeBruh]

@@yepmultiI mean with how easy shiny hunting is in SV I can somewhat see what they mean

[@yepmulti]

@@HuneeBruh literally who cares

[@PrinceTalonSabre]

​@@yepmulticlearly the people that bitch about it care. I think it'd be great if we all could respect other people's opinions and way of doing things without the hostility, but it's inevitable someone gets butthurt over a string of words a stranger types anonymously. Best thing we can do is take it as a joke and move on. Impossible to tell who's serious and who isn't most of the time thru text 😅

[@enzomercier2789]

Not being in the shiny hunting community at all, be it hunter or content watcher, it seems to me from the few comments shown in the beginning of the video that people are displeased by the way this method of hunting is called rather than the method itself. Which I honestly get, as the method basically boils down to "spend more money", it probably shouldn't be labeled in the same way as the default one.

[@starfishman1000]

A comparison I like is simply rolling dice. If your goal is to roll a 1 on a 6 sided die then you have a 1 in 6 chance. If you have only 1 die and roll it 10 times, then your odds for getting 10 1's is identical to a person who rolled 2 dice 5 times. In the end you rolled 10 dice either way. The person with 2 dice could just do it faster. Edit: Changing the desired number from 6 to 1 for a better example. Using two copies of the game at the same time improves speed of encounters/rolls, but not the probably for any roll to be a 1. Using a D4 instead of a D6 though would not improve the speed of rolls/encounters, but does improve the probability of any roll being a 1.

[@JzanderN]

I think all D&D players can confirm that rolling 6 dice does not guarantee rolling a 6.

[@Laezar1]

Ok but that's a bit silly, like, if you roll more dice everytime then your odds per dice isn't increased but your odds to get a 6 in a given period of time is increased. The argument would make sense if there was a cost associated with each dice roll and that cost was what you compared your odds to (like say you have to pay a fee for each roll, so rolling multiple at once doesn't help you make more money in your gambling endeavours). In this case the only cost is time so that's what you should be comparing the odds with.

[@starfishman1000]

@@Laezar1 There's a reason I specified rolling only 10 dice total each time. The goal with this example of probability is exactly that YES, you're likely to take less personal TIME to get to the final results, but it does not improve the possibility of getting that desired 6. Like the video says. Each copy of Firered and a Gameboy you have will generally improve the speed of which you'll find a shiny, but it does not improve the odds. Adding more dice does the same thing, it improves the speed not because your odds are better but because you're getting the results faster. If you were shiny hunting with a limit of 10 encounters then it doesn't matter if you are using 1 copy of the game or 10, your odds are the same but your speed is not. Compared to if you hatched 5 masuda method eggs 1 at a time to hatching 5 random eggs all at once. Hatching the random eggs would be faster to do, but getting a shiny from the masuda eggs would be more likely with a slower speed.

[@MathNerdGamer]

@@Laezar1 "your odds per dice isn't increased but your odds to get a 6 in a given period of time is increased" That's precisely what this video is about, so the analogy is apt.

[@gabrielbarrantes6946]

​@@starfishman1000this reasoning is flawed, because we are analyzing a stopping time, the case you are using as example is something different... If you look for the first 1 you have more probabilities using two dices than just one in each toss.

[@ApolloK]

Really, the easy answer is just that they get their shinies faster, not because the odds change, but because they're getting encounters faster. This is a weird argument to be having, but hey, Absol feature! I'm glad.

[@gabrielbarrantes6946]

Can't believe people believe this you can mathematically prove the odds increase. Why is people arguing they are the same?

[@NightKev]

@@gabrielbarrantes6946 So you didn't watch the video then?

[@gabrielbarrantes6946]

@@NightKev I did and posted a comment showing the computation he didn't show in the video, proving the odds indeed increase.

[@IschmarVI]

@@gabrielbarrantes6946 no, the odds don't increase, because each individual game is entirely unaware of the existence of the respective other game, i.e. functions inside a vacuum that does not factor in the existence of the other game, nor is there a "game master" that manipulates the process in some way (i.e. no "monty hall"). Of course, you do double the amount of encounters that you get, i.e. you get 2 encounters at the same time. That obviously means that the *unmodified full-odds* check for getting a shiny pokemon kinda gets applied twice: once on every game. But that doesn't change the fact that each of these checks is full-odds. And I don't see how you could prove it to be otherwise. Unless, you somehow are able to prove the existence and application of quantum physics within the mathematical system. In that case, good for you. Because if you are able to do so, you will probably be very rich very soon. (also, I cannot seem to find that comment that you mentioned. I looked through the comments -because I am kinda bored, lol- and the only thing I found was a comment that doesn't really explain anything other than maybe a few things about your attitude)

[@claire1131]

As a French person I have to say you did a great job for the sponsorship, you spoke really well :)

[@LolcowAdmirer]

Im sorry to hear that

[@adef]

merci!

[@HuneeBruh]

My condolences

[@claire1131]

@@HuneeBruh haha, for a foreigner he did a great job I understood what he was saying ;)

[@Cyuutie]

As another french person, I confirm ! It was very good

[@isquaturcurls9591]

12:00 just because you had to walk uphill to school both ways got me hahaha

[@comexk]

If you do 8192 rolls with a 1/8192 chance each, the probability of at least one roll being shiny is not 100%. But there *is* a probability of at least one roll being shiny, and you can calculate it. 1 - (1 - 1 / 8192)^8192 ≈ 0.632, or a 63.2% chance.

[@peachesaupear8455]

@@comexk Math fact! That value is approximately 1-(1/e) and the probability gets closer and closer to that as the numbers in the place of 8192 grow.

[@chinoide]

He made a video explaining that a few months ago. To be honest the last bit explaining that the counter adds every encounter individually summarizes why it’s not method hunting, everything else he goes on much more detail on that video, but we always love to see more from our fav pokemon math guy :)

[@mostlyghostey]

Thank you! This is the point that I wanted to make but didn't want to figure out the math to make the point

[@andijacobsen9148]

And the average number of shinys you'll get per 'round' of encounters is: 1. It's not 100% you'll get a shiny, but you'll also often get multiple.

[@sammcgarry5822]

​@andijacobsen9148 the average would round up to one, if you had to round to the nearest whole number. But computing a mathematical average would give you 0.63 shinies per round of encounters

[@EvelynnEleonore]

you're not more likely to roll a 1 on any given dice, but if you roll a lot of dice at once, chances are you'll get a 1 before someone rolling just one dice repeatedly does

[@EvelynnEleonore]

(not disagreeing with you, trying to summarize as best i can)

[@matthewwilliams8267]

Essentially, playing multiple slots just means you have multiple base spins at once, while method hunting increases your chance on ONE machine Edit: better worded analogy. Multi-system hunting is like spinning multiple slots at a casino- you decrease the time it'll take you to get a desired outcome by increasing the amount of actions you do. You still have to put a buck in every machine though. Method hunting is like getting multiple rolls on the same machine at the same time- you put in a dollar, you can see 4 results before having to put in another.

[@antfayden]

Its not about the individual die odds. Its YOUR odds that matter. If you roll one die its about 16% chance to roll a 1. With 2 dice your odds bump up to 30%. The same applies to shiny hunting. But t isnt linear. Rolling 6 dice doesnt result in 100% chance of rolling a 1. But it still increases your odds

[@qPalee]

cool video but unfortunately i heard french

[@sirsamiboi]

Tbh I think the french language gets a bad rep because of its... "people"

[@da_moune]

funny enough i’m never happy to hear my own mother tongue either but mad props to adef for the funny bit

[@wrestlingfan836]

DID THE LIONS WIN?!?!?? Oh…

[@AdfasSSBM]

Me (a person from the Detroit area) on January 29th, 2024:

[@ItsCvrter]

L COWGIRLS W LIONS RAHHHHHH

[@gramps3392]

Forward down the field

[@cooltubes547]

The lions don’t have a ghost of a chance I don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s even debatable.

[@Kosmicd12]

gamesop employee's dialogue got a laugh outta me

[@adef]

glad someone paused for it lmao

[@PrinceTalonSabre]

for some reason i feel like you missed a letter, but i wonder which... maybe gameshop or gameslop? perhaps gamesoap or gamesoup. 😂

[@ferologics]

lmao

[@montesideacc]

@@adef that shit killed me, at first i thought it was "would u like to join our rewards program" but the actual dialogue was a lot funnier

[@thedude882]

TLDW version: A method reduces the expected number of encounters. Multi-game reduces the expected time, but it doesn't change the expected number of encounters. I wonder why we care about the number of encounters, time is much more important to me.

[@frostbyte2899]

Real though

[@BirnieMac1]

Probably because we dont have a standard unit time measure for each encounter Because its easier for people to mentally gauge how long a single encounter takes; it’s easier for people to make the mental approximated association than interconvert

[@MyNameIsSalo]

probably because people lose track of time. These hunts can take weeks..

[@ellag3265]

If people decide to sit down and eat or shiny hunt really sedately, or their games load slow or fast, their times will be different. "Took me 100 hours" can mean very different things to different people but we know immediately that 10 encounters or 100,000 encounters is something special/crazy.

[@chizzicle]

How would I measure my time. Like, I am currently doing full odds hunt around 9000 encounters deep, some of the hunt has been done with full focus on the encounters, and it has been fairly fast, but most of the time I've been hanging with friends or family, doing other stuff, which significantly slows down the encounters, like maybe up to 3 times slower. Is the time spent on both instances valued equally, or should I add modifiers to adjust the time when I am more distracted. Or maybe it's the overall time, in which case I am around 9 months deep. I am not saying the time does not matter, but it does get murky really fast. Encounter numbers are easy, I can easily check my counter and tell you the exact number of encounters is 9033, and sure there might be a slight mistakes there as well, encounters when I didn't remember to increase the counter, but the error margin there is within couple of % at most, but with time depending on how you count it could be 20 hours or could be 6500 hours

[@kenttimothy]

respect the commitment for the ad read bro

[@oler777]

9:02 oh no, I missed the dart bord and got missing no

[@Daedalus-Inc]

I would assume, before watching most of the video, that it functions like advantage in dnd. Two simultaneous encounters are technically more likely to have a shiny than one. The odds of an individual roll isn’t increased, naturally.

[@remmingitis]

This is a lovely comparison! I think I would only caution that advantage is a touch different than multi-game hunting in that advantage does actually increase odds, because while the dice themselves are independent our TREATMENT of them is not; we are checking for the higher result and ignoring the lower, treating two dice as a single result! This is because (generally), the point of advantage isn't to find a specific number, but to find a *higher* number-- rolling a 1 and a 2 still nets you a better roll than with otherwise, even though both are bad! This is also why if somebody rolls with advantage by accident, they can't just pick one of the dice and claim it as their intended roll-- advantage means those dice are paired, and so they have to scrap them both and start completely over with a single roll. With shiny hunting though, you're not looking for any higher value but for just one single value-- that sweet, sweet 8192. It does not matter what else is on that die, whether its 1 or 8191-- all we want is the one outcome. Rolling 2, 5, or 100 dice at once doesn't change the odds that you get it, because each die is a single individual check for a value. You just save yourself the time of picking up the die, throwing it, waiting for it to land, and repeating it 100 times.

[@symphinx]

The only reason this debate has annoyed me is because I’ve often seen full odds hunters act high and mighty about not using methods, while running loads of systems at once. It’s true that it doesn’t mathematically increase each game’s chance of a shiny, but we need to ask ourselves why do people use methods in the first place? I think it’s as simple as “it takes an average less amount of real life time”, and guess what other thing you could do for that result that doesn’t include in game methods. Ultimately, I just wish people would hunt however they wanted, and didn’t assign different values to full odds and method hunted shinies. It’s all about having fun in the end

[@TheDragonQueen-uh4lm]

Yeah, why do people brag about not using method hunts? Your essentially bragging you wasted more time looking for a shiny, when you could have spent less. You could even argue that farming for Herba Mystica and getting shinies in less than a minute is more impressive considering the more active effort compared to just pressing a few buttons every once in a while while watching TV. I just like people being happy they found the shiny they like, doesn't matter if they spent 3 minutes or 3 months.

[@michaelvaldes3572]

@@TheDragonQueen-uh4lmI’m pretty it’s that people don’t have that choice. Not everyone can buy several consoles to hunt while you have folks out there claiming they’re so dedicated to full odds shiny hunting, going through that grind, only to have 15 devices hunting at once. It’s demoralizing to people who want to hunt using their old ds from 2010

[@TheDragonQueen-uh4lm]

@@michaelvaldes3572 yeah, that's defo a factor too. I always find it crazy to see clips of people hunting in old games with 6+ DS's. Just looks exhausting having to keep up with running away and encountering constantly.

[@Only_Some]

Congratulations on becoming Captain Obvious..

[@Jlaps941]

Yeah to me using multiple systems is no different than using speed up if you’re hunting on an emulator, and you’d definitely get shit on for trying to boast about hunting full odds but admit you used speed up.

[@JakkAuburn]

Best ad segment I've seen in a while

[@Ls_corvette]

I didn’t even realize because I’m shiny hunting while watching this

[@coep_leader4898]

For those interested in more mathematics/statistics, 8:51 is an archetypical example of Monte Carlo sampling methods. Simply put, if you throw a dart randomly at the board a large number of times, one would expect the ratio of darts hitting/missing the bullseye will approach the ratio of the bullseye/full dartboard area. This is a method used in many computational subfields, my favorite being the calculation of path integrals in statistical field theory.

[@Skandinav56]

As a french person, I can tell you that your french sponsor was on point, I was NOT prepared

[@adef]

merci!!

[@EliasMorals]

9:09 same thing goes for Horde, Doubles, and HGSS starter hunts. You are not making the bullseye any bigger. You are just throwing 5, 2, or 3 darts at once/in faster succession

[@YOM2_UB]

Technically those darts are just as connected as the rerolls from the shiny charm or Masuda Method are. The only difference then is that you see all the rolls instead of just one of them. So really the only methods are things like Pokeradar, DexNav, Wormholes, and SV event outbreaks, which are the ones that don't just use multiple 1/8192 or 1/4096 rolls but have their own rolls that are individually higher odds than that.

[@BabyPowderW]

Imagine speaking French (cool video)

[@tobymyles9764]

Bro how is ur comment from 20 hours ago???

[@Shad0wM0ng3r1]

how did you do this 20 hours ago

[@yonas136]

@@tobymyles9764 it's a french tech

[@SupercriticalSnake]

Je suis la jeune fille!

[@minirop]

@@tobymyles9764 the release time of the video is when it was made public. Bébé Poucre W probably is a patron so they have access to the unlisted video days before the rest of us.

[@magicalmage85]

I'm pretty sure the argument about odds for multi game hunting isn't "per encounter", it's "per unit of time". If you roll a dice once every minute, you have a 1/6th chance for at least one six per minute. If you roll six dice, you have 2/3rds chance for at least one six per minute.

[@ROCKMANDRONIAN]

I want to start this saying I have no horse in this race; I just watched a neat math video about pokemon :) At 7:40 you bring up that the Shiny Charm is effectively increasing your odds to 3/8192 by performing three "rolls" on an individual encounter. Isn't this functionally identical to having 3 copies of a game and getting 3 encounters? The shiny charm is just doing the work of having a "multigame" for you instead of making you press more buttons on more game boys, right? For the dartboard analogy, it seems that the Shiny Charm would be allowing you to throw 3 darts at once, instead of either increasing the bullseye size, or increasing the speed of throwing. I guess my question is whether 3 darts at once is functionally different than changing the speed of thrown darts to match that 3 dart output?

[@miggtorr]

Totally agree! Glad someone else brought this up! :) Yeah, I don't see any evidence that the base odds per shiny roll actually change. As you say, each shiny roll (whether occurring in the background or as an individual encounter) is always 1/fullodds. Shiny charm just does three consecutive full-odds shiny rolls behind the scenes, whereas 3x multi-hunting does the same number of full-odds shiny rolls in-front-of-the-scenes. The only difference is that the player experiences each roll as an encounter in the multi-hunting scenario and every 3 rolls as an encounter with charm, but in the end, you'd expect to get the shiny after the same number of full-odds rolls. His dartboard analogy WOULD make sense if it were actually changing the base odds of each shiny roll to 3/8192, but I don't see any evidence that that's what's happening. All the documentation I can find on Bulbapedia says that the odds are *approximately* 3/8192, because the base odds per roll are not changing. Rather, the game is just performing a full odds roll three times. So the odds work out to be roughly 3/8192 per *encounter* but it's not exactly 3/8192.

[@XenithShadow]

Well yeh, the dart board analogy is not actually correct. Whats actually occuring if your throwing 3 darts at the same time and counting as one throw, whereas playing on three games you throw 3 darts in the time it take someone else to throw "1" dart.

[@ROCKMANDRONIAN]

@@XenithShadow But these are functionally the same thing right? I guess that's what my point is, that the only difference is how you count it. The point as far as the actual math is concerned is they're identical, right? if people want to ascribe a title of "full-odds" to a specific way of hunting, that's a separate issue of clarifying what "full-odds" vs "method" means.

[@XenithShadow]

@@ROCKMANDRONIAN As some one else explained in a different comment, using 3 consoles is actually even better than a shiny charms for total shinies encountered as while extremely unlikely it is possible to simultaneously encounter 2 shines while using 3 consoles whereas you would discard one of those shinies when using a shiny charms as you only encounter one of the pokemon. But yeh aside from that super unlikely edge case in both scenarios 3 rolls are occuring to see if a shiny is found just that in the shiny charm case those roll happen behind the scenes.

[@codahighland]

Does the Shiny Charm actually work that way, though? The number on screen says 3/8192, which is NOT the same as three trials of 1/8192. That distinction is a major thesis of this video.

[@PokeToT]

did not expect to see my face at 10:46 LOOOOL. what a fun video! idk any math but a shiny hunt, no mater the odds, should be A JOURNEY!!! YES!!!

[@miggtorr]

🙌

[@SnoFitzroy]

"Should be a journey" Hard disagree. I just want the sparkly different color thing. I do not care about "the journey," I want to get to the destination. I will never comprehend the "it's about the journey" line of thinking because it's just objectively wrong. I'm ON the journey TO GET TO THE DESTINATION, that's literally the point of the journey, so the journey should be as streamlined as possible. This applies to LITERALLY everything people say this annoying thing about, including literally travelling.

[@PokeToT]

@@SnoFitzroy this takes away from the experience of simply living in the moment. shiny hunting (by itself) is boring. but shiny hunting as a secondary activity, like while watching a show, while hanging with friends, when you phase a bunch of times, or streaming a shiny hunt with chat, etc. - ALL of that adds to how special the moment is when it finally shines. this is me just speaking from experience, you can disagree for your own satisfaction, but everyone is different and if you personally enjoy the destination more than the journey, thats fine, but it's not objectively wrong. the memories associated with the destination, make the destination much more special.

[@matheusbecker2351]

It all comes down to "time". If I shiny hunt on a emulator that can speed up the game to, let's say, 4x speed, how is it any different from playing in four different devices at the same time? Heck, if you're eventually going to find the shiny anyway, be it in 100 or 10000 encounters, why not just hack it? People should just mind their own business and let people use whatever method they find it more fun.

[@Mimiyan_or_Pikapikafan]

This also includes any shiny hunting methods that don't increase odds, like Horde hunting in gen 6, doubles grass in gen 5, and Partner trainer random encounters in gen 4. All are full odds (assuming you don't have the shiny charm) and have multiple Pokemon appearing like having multiple systems does. I personally don't like keeping track of encounters tho since I'm one of those weird people who cares more about how long it took if you're hunting on a single game so... I'm currently doing a hunt in Pearl with Cheryl and hoping for a Budew. I've already gotten a Cascoon but if the next shiny isn't a Budew I don't care I'ma continue my playthrough lol

[@Thunder-Sky]

"I want to give an extra special thanks to..." >move my mouse over video to skip sponsor read "...Absol for answering a lot of my questions" oh, okay nevermind

[@aladdinde3191]

As a French person, I'm shocked that you nailed French tbh. Listened to the entirety of the bit and didn't even have to look at the subtitles! Thank you for your hard work once again (basically thinking this every time I watch one of your videos). I hope that you get the recognition you deserve for your fun methods, and thanks again for this creativity that you always show.

[@brahahaga]

As a lot of commenters here have already pointed out, I also do think its disingenuous extrapolating the point to "per encounter" or "odds". If the point of 'increasing the odds' is to accelerate the process, aka shortcuts, playing multiple games also accelerate the process, therefore making you accomplish the goal (finding a shiny) faster.

[@brahahaga]

btw great sponsor segment

[@styggly]

"Is this a good bit?" Brother, I genuinely do not remember the last time I cry-laughed during a sponsored segment. it was an incredible bit.

[@FullMetalLuffy]

Going against my new policy here of Zero Math, Only Turtle. But i think i can make an exception because it might lead to a shiny turtle

[@Eryncerise]

[Captain America voice] I understood that reference.

[@anakruger2412]

This was a super good way to explain the differences between types of hunts, thanks for another video! :D

[@LoganVersus]

the dart board segment is actually the greatest explanation of shiny hunting i have ever heard

[@Illegal_Immigrant]

This is a very good video! It really does help convey the information in an understanding, yet concise bite sized chunk. It also just makes me happy to have another adef video lol

[@Futureguitarist15]

I feel like 90% of probability conversations are just arguing semantics. No, using multiple games obviously doesn't increase the individual odds of each game but it does increase YOUR overall odds as the player. Using the darts analogy, someone who was able to throw 4 darts randomly at once would have better odds than someone only throwing one dart at a time the same way that someone who buys 4 powerball tickets has better odds of winning than someone who buys 1. Essentially, the only thing we're arguing here is that they're just doing individual encounters faster as opposed to doing multiple encounters simultaneously. If the difference is the players ability to hit the A button simultaneously as opposed to randomly (but faster) is it not still considered a higher probability? Either way the argument is silly and anyone who feels that strongly about how other people choose to enjoy a video game needs to get a life lol

[@ScyrousFX]

I understand the video’s point that multi-game shiny hunting doesn't change the 1/8192 odds per encounter, but that's never been a point of discussion for me personally. By playing multiple copies of the game, you're still significantly increasing the number of encounters. Your 8192 copies of FireRed example doesn't guarantee a shiny, but you’ll likely find one within mere minutes. So while the odds per encounter don’t change, the higher encounter rate does have an obvious benefit. I feel like it was kinda unnecessary to call that into question - atleast that's how I perceived some of your commentary. Feels like we're splitting hairs over the true definition of method hunting, rather than looking at the net results. In the end, the result is what matters, no? Someone playing on 10 copies of the game is getting more shiny encounters within the same time frame. Thus, I can only conclude it's a valid and effective way of obtaining shiny pokemon more quickly. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say faster shinies = better odds. Yes, it's not the correct definition when it's the rate of rolls being increased, but we all understand what's being said. Just my two cents I guess.

[@SuperLemonfish]

The crux is time vs attempts. Time is obviously the actually important factor here. Why? Well our lives have finite time, but theoretically near infinite attempt possibilities. Time is our valuable resource here. And even when attempts are what is touted in the title of the video, the *reason* it sounds impressive is because it implies a very high expected "time to catch". Because we all know each attempt will take roughly X time. So its like "wow, hes got a big journey ahead of him!" But then it turns out, hes driving a car, that distance, rather than running it. Yup, same distance, but much less.... Impressive? Or tedious.... Or whatever. Its not the same, is the point. And Double game hunting does roughly halve the expected time to catch, so *functionally* within the real world (not within the game data, but within the real life time you spend sitting there pressing A) yea you increased your odds. And i think its definitely reasonable to lump this slightly distinct but ultimately mostly the same method, in the "method" category. Now, using methods is just smart.... Like why would anyone WANT to sit there and mash A for a really long time?.... Idfk. But regardless i believe multi game hunts should probably be in the method category. After all, would you really consider a 1000 game simultaneous emulation hunt the same as a single game hunt? The category seems innately different at that point. 1000 game hunts would be over much much faster, and require computer setups and method stuff. Vs the raw game hunt is just like if you were a kid doing it as the devs intended or... Whatever im rambling now.

[@matheusbecker2351]

I found it interesting that you brought up the "impressiveness" of the shiny. That's because when I started to shiny hunt I was like "wow, these shiny hunters are amazing, look how much time they spent! They are so lucky!". However, after catching a few shinies myself, I started to realize that, sooner or later, eventually the shiny would appear. And that made the whole process a little less exciting. I still like to shiny hunt sometimes, but it's definitely not as impressive as I thought it were at the beginning.

[@SuperLemonfish]

@@matheusbecker2351 yea, and i believe that perceived impressiveness is why ppl go for raw shiny hunts. And for that exact same reason, multi game hunts should not count as raw, because they are alot faster and alot less tedious and less "impressive". Personally I don't understand the appeal to any of this.... Idk lol XD

[@bell.with.one.e]

Does using emulator speed-up count as a method? What about mashing the buttons faster? What about going to an area with a higher encounter rate? If time is all that matters, then simply "paying attention while hunting so you waste less frames" is a "method hunt". For that matter, riding a bike is a method hunt! So none of these things count as full odds...right?

[@SuperLemonfish]

@bell.with.one.e emulator would count as method imo, but the others wouldn't because they are assumed for normal play. Paying attention is a basic aspect of playing the game, as is pressing the button however fast you can/want. Going to different grass patches is also a pretty basic element of the game but, I suppose it *could* be considered a different category if certain grass patches have extremely different catch rates. But it doesn't seem like a method hunt, rather its just a hunt within a certain region. So the odds are different. (So it should not be hidden info. You should say in description, hunting for X in Y region) It does, after all, effect your pokemon, as they mention what route they are caught in. So if you want route 69 lopunny that might be valuable to you idk.

[@carriioneater]

Well the ad certainly worked i was very confused why you were suddenly speaking french and tabbed back over to youtube

[@jedirieb]

I think the conclusion is technically correct, but not for the reason stated, as there's a subtle flaw in the comparison made: The shiny charm (and similar) don't provide a flat increase in the odds. I'm not 100% sure this is true, though it is based on what I consider to be credible sources, but I welcome being corrected. Explanation: Let's use the example you gave, using the shiny charm in a game with base 1/8192 odds. You claim this increases the odds to 3/8192. Best I can tell, this is only approximately correct: The game actually performs three full odds rolls, and if any are shiny, then you get a shiny. The odds of that are (1/8192) * 1 * 1 + (8191/8192) * (1/8192) * 1 + (8191/8192) * (8191/8192) * (1/8192), since it doesn't matter if any of the rolls after a success are shiny or not. Contrast this with three full-odds encounters, say from three independent games, with no shiny charm. I agree, these are independent, so each one has 1/8192 chances of being shiny. The combined odds of getting at least one shiny is 1 - (8191/8192)^3, which is... identical to the earlier calculation. But wait, that's at least one shiny! In particular, all three could be shiny, so these cases are clearly different. While that's certainly true, let's consider the most common case where someone stops after getting a single shiny. Now, for the multi-game approach, there's always the chance of getting multiple shinies on that last set of attempts, and that's always going to make them different. For the moment, I'm going to ignore that small chance of multiple shinies on the last set. Under these conditions, each method is going to end with a shiny after a certain number of attempts (probably, of course - it could never end). For each shiny charm encounter, the odds of getting a shiny are identical to getting at least one shiny with a three-game hunt, which means the odds of getting no shinies is 1-P(at least one shiny), which is identical for both. Thus, every set of three full-odds encounters which does not find a shiny is identical to a single shiny charm encounter which does not find a shiny. This is why I ignored the chance of multiple shinies on the last set of attempts: Every attempt up to that point, which I believe is what most people care about, is identical. So long as you count the total number of rolls rather than encounters. Now, that's definitely not true if, as you assert in this video, the shiny charm actually increases the odds to 3/8192, as opposed to being three 1/8192 rolls. I haven't seen the source code, so I'm not 100% sure which is correct, and many places are inconsistent about which is the case. However, taking a look at how Anubis explains it (This is a SV source, but I don't think anyone's claiming the shiny charm has changed functionality since its inception: www.reddit.com/r/PokeLeaks/comments/yxtbj6/datamine_official_shiny_rates_ver_101_via_anubis/#lightbox), rolls are consistently used to explain effects like the shiny charm. Notably, 3/4096 (since this is gen 9) never shows up in his description for the shiny charm, but rather 1/1365.67. This doesn't prove who is correct, as both methods equate to that with very little difference/error between 3 rolls of 1/4096 and 3/4096, and it makes sense for the final column to be an easily digestible 1/x probability. Yet I do think it's telling that so much effort is spent on "rolls" rather than just stating increased odds. The comparison in this video is definitely true for the gen 8 Dynamax Adventures, which apparently have exactly 1/300 base odds. Interestingly, the shiny charm still acts on this, giving two additional rolls, or perhaps flat increasing the odds if I'm wrong, to (approximately) 1/100. So comparing a single DA encounter is never going to be comparable to any integer number of full odds encounters at 1/4096 (gen 8), but if the shiny charm does indeed induce multiple rolls, then the above arguments are still valid for multi-game hunts with full-odds DA encounters vs single-game shiny-charm-odds DA encounters. Edit: To be clear, I agree with the takeaway message, as I couldn't care less how people hunt or how they choose to count it. Also, I did have an earlier comment that I deleted, as I don't feel like it gave the video enough credit, nor was it quite as thorough. Edit 2: I saw some people mentioning horde hunts, and that's a great point. I think most people would agree a horde hunt is a method hunt, as it's not a single encounter at full odds. Instead, it's 5 encounters at once, at full odds or with shiny charm odds. This is exactly identical to 5 games at once performing single encounters, either at full odds or with shiny charm respectively, without the edge-case difference, and regardless of whether the shiny charm is a flat increase or uses additional rolls (in the case of all using shiny charm).

[@miggtorr]

YES! So happy someone else brought this up! This needs to be up higher, haha. :) I 100% agree with you, all evidence seems to point to the fact that base odds per shiny roll do not change, even if the number of rolls per encounter do change. Barring those edge cases you described (e.g., multiple shinies on the last set), both scenarios should be mathematically identical.

[@dew-it8744]

Wait, this isn’t the news?

[@jackdillon7565]

The bullseye analogy really made it click. Nice video

[@SJrad]

multigame hunts effectively increases the encounter rate. the odds themselves stay the same, but you are rolling the dice more often

[@ArcaneAvian19]

It's the same as rolling a bunch of d20s. Adding dice doesn't make any of them more likely to hit a 20

[@kazinwho]

It's so surprising to me that this is even a debate - I am absolutely terrible at math and cannot calculate probability at all, but it just seems obvious to me that multi game hunting is not a "method hunt," because as you say, each game is still at 1/8192 odds and are not related.

[@BlueVacktor]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!! This topic has plagued the online shiny hunting space for so so so long, and I will now forever send folks to this video 🎉

[@cooisa]

Just finished watching the video, I thought it was really good! I've never looked into shiny hunting streams really but I love your videos on the math behind ideas in pokemon hunts. Thank you, Mr. Pokemon math guy

[@Shad0wM0ng3r1]

stop

[@CardKingAce14]

You hunted 8192 pokemon for a shiny with a 1/8192 (0.012207% or 1/8192.00) drop chance. You had a: 36.78569865% chance (1/2.72) of getting exactly 0 shiny, 63.21430135% chance (1/1.58) of getting more than 0 shiny, An unenlightened being would say 'but 1/x over x kills means I should get it', but you know better now. This all boils down to odds vs rates. Odds are the likelihood of it happening and rates are the encounters over time. If you had 8192 consoles it is like taking 8192 darts and throwing them at the dartboard all at once. While with a method hunt is throwing darts at a faster speed. A method hunt increases the odds. But both of these also increase the rate of obtaining a shiny. You can compare multi-gaming to a horde hunt each pokemon are individual to one another, but the rate of seeing a shiny is increased.

[@diddycallout1893]

Finally someone gets it

[@Laezar1]

I think it's a bit obvious that it doesn't increase the odds per encounter though? when people say it increases the odds it just means it increases the odds to find a pokemon in a given amount of time, it's still an increase in odds just not for the encounter metric.

[@nekrazero8331]

I spent a good half hour explaining this to my friend on a different game where increasing difficulty added additional boss drops but each drop didn't have different odds, and he couldn't wrap his head around how it wasn't a higher chance of getting what he wanted yet he still got the item faster.

[@CrowLady0_0]

wish i had 8192 pokémon games

[@SnoFitzroy]

Emulators:

[@foreachepsilon]

Masters in Statistics here. I was skeptical coming in but you ended up explaining it well, and I 100% agree.

[@NovaSaber]

The methods that increase your odds are like buying multiple tickets for the same lottery. Playing multiple games is like buying tickets for multiple different lotteries.

[@sarahnuovo2389]

I hate math but love pokemon and learning more about how pokemon games work. I love your work so much because I understand your examples and therefore your math, and continue to deepen my pokemon knowledge. Keep going!

[@discgolfwes]

Love the way you explain complicated ideas!

[@nutshelledturtle1759]

I feel like a much simpler way to put this is that it's the same as speeding up the game

[@joeyblunk8135]

LOVED the dart board analogy! Also, I enjoyed the French bit.

[@sloth_super]

Missed opportunity to be the 'Pokemon Math-ter'

[@milk-in-the-box]

i had no idea this was an argument even going on, but i guess i don't really have my finger on the pulse of the shiny hunting community right now. good to know that i seem to have a decent understanding of these things despite being bad at numbers. good video! :)

[@venabre]

Multi-game hunting is just like shinies in Legends Arceus or Scarlet/Violet. The base odds are the same (roughly), but you are still more likely to find one just because of the sheer number of encounters you generate during your playthrough

[@way2clueless]

I was genuinely so happy when I saw adef post.

[@bruhgart]

I read the title wrong and thought this was a Breaking Bad collab.

[@Shad0wM0ng3r1]

We need an Adef, Ackolade, ShepskyDad collab

[@fe_three_rosses]

oh hell yeah they all rule

[@SnoFitzroy]

No we fucking don't

[@l.n.s3709]

As a french person, this is one of the rare times i didn't skip an add just by how well made it has been integrated to the video. Also your french is very hilarious, surprised by how good your prononciation can be on certain words and funny to see how some english words made your phrase harder. Much love

[@shadow105720]

It doesn't change the odds at all. It increases the encounters per unit of time, but at the full odds.

[@Divine_Fæ]

So glad somebody actually explained to those who don't understand probability that results don't affect each other. Even though the odds are there, the denomination isn't changed. You can always hit the exact same spot on that "dart board".

[@JHamron]

It doesn't change probability it just changes frequency of attempts. Pretty simple.

[@soulfulfakealligator]

You can say that multi-game hunting increases the odds of getting a shiny within a certain time frame, right? Increasing the number of encounters within a time frame should increase the odds of getting a shiny within that time frame

[@DeliciousJames]

Your videos always make me wish I followed through on doing a math minor in university

[@Someguy_53]

Bro fell off

[@kevincronk7981]

But why would anyone ever want to do full odds? I'd do any way to increase the odds

[@MightyImitation]

I actually disagree with the dart board analogy. I get where you're coming from, but 3 rolls/checks within one game operates no differently to 3 games doing one check. So if you're using a method that makes the odds 3/8192, i.e the game checks for shininess 3 times against the regular 1/8192 odds with every encounter, then it doesn't matter if it's happening within one game, it's doing the exact same thing as you doing 3 encounters yourself by using 3 games to do an encounter each. The odds are and always will be 1/8192, just the method checks more times within one game, and the multi game setup has more checks because there's more games. In other words, both the method and the multi game setup are giving you faster checks/dart throws, therefore reducing the time of finding a shiny (in most cases). There is no functional difference between the two whatsoever, so if you hunt with multiple games, expect similar results to methods. Whether that affects a shiny's value to you is subjective, people can hunt how they like. EDIT: The time where the larger bullseye analogy would be accurate is if the base odds for the method were changed from 8192 to something else. If the base odds were halved to 4096, i.e every pokemon has a 1/4096 chance of being shiny on every encounter, that's different from having two checks/rolls/dart throws against 8192. From 6th gen onwards, the base odds were programed to be 4096, so 6th gen and above have a bigger bullseye. In 4th gen and below, the methods simply increase the shiny checks, they don't change the base odds.

[@miggtorr]

I was hoping someone else would bring this up; I agree with you 100%! :) Yeah, I don't see any evidence that the base odds per shiny roll actually change. As you say, each shiny roll (whether occurring in the background or as an individual encounter) is always 1/fullodds. Shiny charm just does three consecutive full-odds shiny rolls behind the scenes, whereas 3x multi-hunting does the same number of full-odds shiny rolls in-front-of-the-scenes. The only difference is that the player experiences each roll as an encounter in the multi-hunting scenario and every 3 rolls as an encounter with charm, but in the end, you'd expect to get the shiny after the same number of full-odds rolls. Glad someone else brought this up! :)

[@sallytheuselessbird]

I feel like its a simpler thing for the idiots that the video is directed at to understand though

[@CKTDabbler]

My favorite drama KZbinr back at it again. Classic

[@benpalmer1583]

Oh, is a "method hunt" or "changed odds" like a thing people use to downplay success of some shiny hunts? My first reaction is that it'd obviously make shiny hunting faster. I'd have looked at it as in the time that each game would get an encounter we would instead get n encounters, so rather than 2/8192 we have 1/8192 + 1/8192 * 8191/8192, which is rather close to 2. Or more broadly a summation of i=1 to n of (1/8192)(8191/8192)^(i-1). We cannot add the probabilities since they are not disjoint (you could get shinies in multiple games). I know that this is also simplifying things (not all games will get encounters at the same time, so they will desync. This might mean that you do not like the thought of blocking a set of 1 encounter in each game to view the probability of there being at least 1 shiny in that encounter block; however, the odds of a shiny appearing in an encounter block is greater than a single encounter. However, this is obviously equivalent to the probability of doing that many encounters in a single game equal to the block size n. This also ignores the internal mechanism for the games to determine their randomness and create shinies.

[@untossible_trash007]

Omg thank you so much for making this! the amount of times I’ve had to explain this to people is insane, I’m so glad we have a Pokémon math guy now who can explain things super clearly like this

[@TheUltraNerd]

while I think the math is all super interesting, I actually disagree with this video and think it kind of misses the point. I don’t think this debate has ever been a question of whether multiple games increase the odds, but rather if it decreases the effort required. and even then, I don’t think the arguement has ever really been in good faith. the main thing I always come back to is Horde Hunting in Generation 6, which lets you see five Pokemon at once in a single encounter, each with their own chance to be shiny. this isn’t really any different from doing single encounters on 5 copies of the game, and yet pretty much everyone agrees that Horde Hunting is a method hunt. seeing multiple Pokemon at once obviously does increase your odds of finding a shiny within a set amount of time, so then why are these two methods, which are functionally exactly the same, treated so differently? in my opinion, it’s because it’s never been about odds or even effort, but that this whole debate is arbitrary. shiny Pokemon have no inherent value, only the value you give to them based on your own experiences, and people trying to argue that certain shinies are not truly full odds, or cheated, or at all less valuable because of how they were hunted, is just a way for people to try and invalidate other people’s personal victories. I don’t think explaining the math will change anyone’s mind, especially when you ignore that time and effort are the most important factors in many people’s eyes, not just the statistical probability of each encounter.

[@OsirusIrdia]

Yep. This video completely missed the main point of the debate which revolved around time and effort to get the shiny. It was NEVER about shiny chance per encounter. This guy probably has a "holier than thou" attitude to anyone who does not full odds/multi-console full odds hunt.

[@TheUltraNerd]

@@OsirusIrdia no, he was pretty respectful about everything, just mistaken on what the main point people were arguing about was. just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you should make assumptions about what else they believe so you can get angrier

[@baricode]

​@@OsirusIrdia You can disagree with someone without attacking their character

[@FissionCube]

@@OsirusIrdia he has an entire segment at the end dedicated to talking about how it doesnt matter what method you use, i dont think you understood the aim of this video

[@FissionCube]

yeah id certainly agree that it ignores the argument people are trying to make about it cutting down time and not actually being about the maths, but then again from the start he frames it as being about the maths and correcting people who get the maths wrong, not being about correcting the argument itself, so in a way i guess were all missing the point lol

[@VerbalLearning]

You don't even need to play pokemon to shiny hunt technically speaking. You could use a random number generator program/app/website and set the list of numbers to range from 1 to 8192 then pick a number within that range as your target and then you just hit the "generate number" button untill it hits the number you chose as your target. Now i obviously can't say that the way pokemon does it's number generation when generating encounters and checking for shinies is the exact same as the way a random number generating tool generates its numbers but in essence they should be similar enough.

[@BBG07endless]

To be honest I think everything you said here is very intuitive and doesn’t really counter the commenters’ points? You aren’t changing the odds of any given encounter but you’re speeding up the process of finding a shiny. Somewhere baked into the impressiveness of the original 1/8192 odds is the idea of how long an encounter takes, and how many encounters you’re likely to have in a typical game or day. I think it’s totally reasonable to consider speeding up that process an advantage, and maybe even be mad about the term “full odds” being applied if you’re into getting mad about that kind of thing.

[@sanguinesatellite808]

i’m unfamiliar with shiny hunting so do correct me if i’m wrong, but does that really matter? when people discuss how fast they got a shiny, i usually see them measure it in encounters rather than actual time spent. when the results are measured in encounters, it basically doesn’t matter whether you were playing one instance of the game or three instances of the game simultaneously. it most definitely shortens the amount of real-world time it takes to find one, but if the results aren’t being measured in terms of real-world time spent, then that really doesn’t mean anything

[@MrEssexRay]

​@@sanguinesatellite808 well if someone says e.g. "this one took 20,000 encounters" youre generally gonna think it took a long time but if they had 20,000 copies and reset twice to get it it's no longer a grand feat is it

[@RaichuKFM]

This was a nice video! I already knew the math behind this, but it was still interesting to hear how you explained it and also the culture and terminology with shiny hunting, something I hadn't really known much of anything about before. Also that sponsor segment was an *incredible* bit.

[@Lumpfriend]

I was not in the slightest familiar with this argument, but this video feels very incomplete without talking about the main factor that would actually affect how this feels in practice, time spent dedicated to the hunt. Increasing encounter rate (raising number of trials) or increasing odds (raising probability of success) both decrease the average expected time it should take to find a shiny, but in different ways, and it's not easy to compare them intuitively. Obviously this depends heavily on the time required per encounter and thus many different in-game factors, but I think giving an example with all other things being equal would have been both more educational to see how the math is different for raising encounter rate & odds each, and to ground the video more in actual shiny hunting practice bc as is it feels pretty abstract and only relevant to this very idiosyncratic argument over terminology

[@OsirusIrdia]

Quite Patrick you're scaring him!

[@TimothyRE99]

They actually increase it in (almost) exactly the same way. AFAIK, every single odds-reducing method actually provides additional shiny rolls. If anything (this is the "almost"), multi-game hunts have a benefit because "per encounter/batch", method hunts can only give you 1 shiny even if more than one roll lands shiny, while multi-game hunting can give you more than one. (Really, I do think for effectively-synced multi-game hunt, each batch should count as a single encounter, no matter how many pokemon show up at once, but I used "batch" here just so folks don't get on my ass).

[@Lumpfriend]

@@TimothyRE99 Oh, so are you saying the way the game code handles things like the masuda method, chain fishing, etc etc methods is to just do multiple internal rolls for shiny rather than just roll with a different chance of success? I'm not familiar with how the game decides whether a Pokemon is shiny other than that it has something to do with the personality value

[@TimothyRE99]

@@Lumpfriend Yeah. Shiny charm and masuda method at least give 2 and... 7(?) extra rolls each. (I'm iffy on the latter one. There are variations between generations and I think the latest one is bugged and forgoes the original roll when granting the extras.)

[@seventoast]

I've heard this same misconception discussed with coins: If you flip a coin 5 times in a row you have only a 1/32 or 3.125% chance to land all tails; but counterintuitively, if you flip tails 4 times the chances of flipping tails a 5th time *is still 50%.* A lot of people expect that, having already flipped 4 tails in a row, the next coin flip is more likely to be heads, and this expectation tends to grow the longer the "streak" goes. Many even gamble using this principle, for example by choosing to place bets on black in a game of roulette after red has won many times consecutively because they wrongfully expect black is now more likely to win

[@connordelaney6254]

I imagine a normal person cares more about the speed vs the number of encounters. People just put the number in video thumbnails because it's eye catching

[@TheRich464]

Loved the add will watch again! To be honest great video as always and I appreciate the effort for the advert read. I’ve watched more KZbin than I care to admit but this is definitely one of the best advertisement reads I’ve seen. Keep up the great work ❤

[@wretchedpkmn]

You're 100% right about all the math, but I think where the more educated part of the community lands is that full odds does not solely mean 1/8192. It is a fan made term and has an ambiguous definition, and the behaviors exerted by the full odds community implies that it means more than just the chances itself. I'll be making a video soon enough and I hope you'll entertain the ideas 😉

[@wretchedpkmn]

There's other philosophical arguments as well, such as is the odds the individual odds of a game, or is it YOUR, the players odds at any given time. It's just not as simple as "the chances don't affect each other," which nobody outside of KZbin comments will really argue against.

[@waves5072]

full odds hunting isnt even full odds hunting, the real full odds hunting is searching for the real bit of physical memory on the carriage for the personality value of the shiny

[@TimmyTSV]

Please make "e plays Pokemon" as a competitor to "π plays Pokemon" with better inputs :)

[@mattparker-2]

I really don't like when people make stupid comments acting like they know what they are talking about. Everybody knows that φ would be clearly superior.

[@SnoFitzroy]

@@mattparker-2 what about pi to the power of e?

[@cupidex7]

Vraiment nice le sponsored segment. J'apprecie beaucoup!

[@emerald4218]

I think the "encounters spent or hours spent" point is a great point into why the argument exists. Ask any full odds hunter why they hunt on multiple systems and they'll tell you something along the lines of "To get through encounters faster". Valuing the "encounters spent" more. You could hunt on 30 games doing 1 encounter every 20s on each game and find a shiny in 45 minutes, you'll probably say you found the shiny in 4000 encounters instead of 45 minutes. Where as someone might use Masuda method hatching 1 egg every minute on a single system and gets a shiny on the 500th egg. It's a smaller number but it still took 4x longer than the multi hunter. To them the increased commitment is more important than the final encounter number It's why some people who hunt full odds are against methods, even if they only use 1 system so that the time spent is identical, the total encounter number is smaller so it feels less special. And why some method hunters are against multi systems, because they don't care about the final number, they just see it as cutting down time, which they value more But that's just my insight on the matter. Now I'll leave before I get cooked alive for expressing my opinion on the internet

[@IsuKen]

"Was this a good bit? We were so worried when we were writing it. But now I'm glad! It's better than some previous bits if you ask me." "GET ON WITH IT."

[@stigmaoftherose]

I'll say this: the problem with people who use multiple games isnt that they are "cheating" as a shiny hunter, they are disgusting consoomers who encourage bad buisness practices.

[@SnoFitzroy]

how is buying secondhand copies of games that aren't made or sold anymore "encouraging bad business practices"? What bad business practice? You know some people get extra copies as gifts, right? You're making a lot of assumptions here and none of them are realistic or make any sense

[@stigmaoftherose]

@SnoFitzroy you need to pretend to be obtuse, it's obvious I'm referring to the people who buy multiple copies of the current game and system.

[@lugame900]

As a French person the "segment sponsorisé" is really fun and honestly your french is great

[@TheFoxMaster101]

5:22 you get twice as many encounters while it is true that it doesn't increase your odds in a given encounter it does double the amount of encounter lets say you get 5 encounters per min with one copy and 10 with two at just 7 hrs your odds of having gotten a shiny are 17.5% more than only using one copy if you don't consider increasing the odds that you have gotten a shiny in a given amount of time a method than you should redefine method to include it also boost of having gotten a shiny in a given time isn't minimal until over 100 hrs

[@pf9878]

who calls multi hunting not full odds the fuck? I was in the shiny community and no one ever said anything like that

[@TheMe9595]

I thought this was going to be about RNG Manipulation as soon as you mentioned the biggest controversy in shiny hunting. I was expecting im a blisey to show up