Ever since I was about 5 I noticed that random events weren't as they should be. Specifically I noticed that occasionally I could predict a random event and that when playing board games the outcome of the dice was not even close to an even six way split. But I've always rationalized that as observational bias...
>Until now because for once I've actually measured it
I was playing pokemon showdown with a full team of pic related (inb4 /vg/) using only 70% accurate moves and across multiple games with multiple turns per game I quickly had a decent sample size of 100 attacks. Though this large sample size was hardly needed because I was only 25% accurate in practice which assuming the accuracy of 70% is accurate is about a 1 in 10e20 chance.
>1 in 100000000000000000000
Naturally I though that the random number generator was at fault however that is not the case as pokemon hoedown uses a proper pseudo random number generator which though not exactly 70% is extremely close.
Getting to the /sci/ part
>How do you think this works
To be clear I've observed
>statistically impossible odds of random components of games both in and out of my favor
>occasional knowledge of the outcome of a random process before the process has been completed
My bet is on quantum mechanics
You can talk all you want about your anecdotal evidence. Once you get into an actual study and I read about it online in the future then we can talk.
>>8515311
or you misunderstand what random means
Hey /sci/ 1/6 times I roll a die and I predict the number
I must be quantum mechanically psychic huh guys
> roll 1d6 six times
> never roll a 6
I CALL BULLSHIT
>>8515311
>hey /sci/, how do you reconcile probability theory with my story that didn't actually happen?
>>8515332
*probably didn't happen
Sounds like apophenia to me. Get it all the time, it's usually followed by mini existential crises
Also >>>/vp/
>>8515311
Sleep
>>8515311
That;s not physic bulshit, that's just your subconscious being good with predictability.
>>8517370
this, also a lot of luck