5 HN users recommended this explainer5 months2021–2025score 5.5
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN recommends it as an engaging lesson in probability and in how statistics can expose cheating.
Matt Parker analyzes the Minecraft speedrunning controversy in which Dream was accused of cheating via improbably lucky drops. He walks through the probability and the statistical arguments in the original accusation and the reply.
“It not only exposes the cheater, it also gives some intuition into negligible probabilities.” (HN, 2021)
The article recommends watching the video by Matt Parker, and so do I. Great refresher on probability (or luck, if you will) For convenience: [this video]
Great refresher on probability via Minecraft cheating.
Maybe nice to mention that Matt Parker's Stand-up Maths video on the cheating on a MiceCraft speed-run is really very nice [0]. It not only exposes the cheater, it also gives some intuition into negligible probabilities. [0]: [this video]
Exposes cheater and builds intuition for negligible probabilities.
The key point (in the end) seems to be that the odds for a streak like Niemann had are about 1 in 80k. Statistically speaking, I'd say that's a long shot from a smoking gun. Here's a good rundown of a case where a cheater is considered to have been exposed by statistical evidence, but those odds were on a completely different scale, 10^22: [this video] Basically the mistake that is easy to make is that we shouldn't ask: "what is the probability that Hans plays five tournaments like that in a row?", but "what is the probability that someone will play five tournaments like that in a row?". Even if we correct for the fact that there are probably more Minecraft speedruns happening than GM tournaments, odds of 80k just seem a bit too low to call it evidence.
Rundown of a cheater exposed by statistical evidence.
There have been several of these deep dives into manipulated speed runs and they seldom disappoint. Since we are on HN, I'll mention another mathy one that was summarized by Matt Parker: [this video]
I think the problem is that below 10^-6 there's a pretty broad range of magnitudes that are effectively 'happens to n people every k years (if they try very hard)'. Which makes them rare but not impossible, which is annoying because you can't rule it out but you can't expect to easily reproduce it either. That does tend to be the best way to think about those probabilities. For any probability you can make it happen If you try enough times or with enough people you can try to force it to happen. Below -6 is a pretty wide range of stuff you can just barely make happen if you have enough people, enough tries and enough time. It's only once you get to the 'wouldn't happen to 10^10 people in a million years' that you get to the stuff that you can be fairly sure has never happened. Matt Parker has quite a good video on it [1]. He settles on 10^-19 as something that you can be fairly sure has never happened (deliberately). As for other stuff in the probability rows, maybe include a couple of well known paradoxes like the birthday paradox. And be clear what you're saying, things like getting dealt a royal flush depends a lot on the type of poker game. [1]: [this video]
Settles on 10^-19 as odds never deliberately achieved.
BBC's radio show More or Less did a great piece on this recently. [link] It is related to Matt Parker's youtube video [this video] which has already been mentioned on this post.
Related Matt Parker video already mentioned in thread.
It can still be a fair die. The context implies it's not, but it's only unlikely, not impossible. See [this video] It introduces a 10 billion human second century i.e. 3.1 x 10^19. If your chance times it is greater than 1 then it's definitely plausible to be done by someone, somewhere.
Explains why unlikely events can still plausibly occur.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
7 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Read more
Read more
Citations, criticism and jokes