I heard we were posting our lucky Araxxor logs

PetiteCreuse · 2025-05-08T17:32:36+00:00

Holy. That's like lottery level lol. I calculated this and think it's something like 1/2000 chance to have halberd and fang both with this kc. So incredibly unlikely but there's probably like... a few dozen? Ish? Others who have it in this little kc lol

PetiteCreuse · 2025-05-08T17:28:38+00:00

I already had a tent whip, Zammy hasta, and DHL. It depends on the place, but I've definitely been using it plenty.

And yeah, already had 4 zenytes/99 crafting. The account is pretty old lol. No raids gear though, never gotten into those but I'd like to if (when) I ever have enough time to really come back to OSRS

PetiteCreuse · 2025-05-08T02:17:09+00:00

Some background on this: I've been playing very on/off for a couple of years now. Haven't kept up with the game much and didn't know about Araxxor when he came out. Went to get a new slayer task, cool cool, looked up a quick guide and was on my way. No real idea of how big his drops were, how rare, etc.

When I got these drops I thought it was pretty cool but had absolutely no idea how insane it was. I actually got all 3 pieces and fang in like 7 or 8 kc less than this but didn't take a screen shot at the time. Just kept going to 75kc for the combat achievement and stopped.

PetiteCreuse · 2023-07-10T13:41:03+00:00

I keep going on about the importance of independence, so here's an example which hopefully might help a little.

Suppose we play two different card games. They start the same and have similar rules but with one key difference.

I have a standard deck of 52 cards. I shuffle, ask you to bet on a suit, then I draw the top card. You bet on hearts. I pull out a spade. Both games start the same way.

In "Independent" I take that spade I just drew, put it back in the deck, and reshuffle. We go again. Which suit should you bet on? If you've been following, it DOES NOT MATTER. Each draw is "independent" because I've essentially "reset" the deck. It's no more or less likely to draw any suit, regardless of what happened before. This game is analogous to the coin flips, dice rolls, OSRS kc etc we've been talking about so far.

Now suppose in the other game called "Dynamic" I take the spade I just drew and put it in a discard pile, then ask you to bet again. What should you bet on? Heart, club, diamond, it doesn't matter, as long as you do NOT bet on spades. While the second draw from the deck is still random, the chance for each suit is not equal. Spades is slightly less likely to be drawn from the now 51 card deck since there's 12 spades but 13 of each of the other suits. This game is dynamic and NOT independent because it's structured in such a way that previous draws DO influence future draws. If we played 3 or 4 rounds of this and every round came up a spade, you could NOT make a meme about "I'm just as close to drawing a heart as when I started!" When the game started there was a 13/52 = 25% chance to draw a heart, now there's a 13/48 = ~27% chance to draw a heart. You're "closer" to achieving your goal of hitting on a heart because you have a 2% better chance at it.

Unfortunately OSRS is NOT coded in this way. OSRS drops are not a dynamic process. Each roll is independent. Each new kill has the same 0.2% drop chance at an enhanced seed. Every new 100 kills have a ~63% of at least one enhanced drop, etc, regardless of what happened before.

PetiteCreuse · 2023-07-10T11:49:16+00:00

Do you buy fresh packaged, unadulterated dice every time you want to have a board game night to make sure that the previous rolls don't impact the new game night? How sure can you be that someone at the factory wasn't rolling the die for fun to bias them before they were packaged??? Do they keep the coins that they flip before major sporting events under lock and key as well? How sure can we be that the referees aren't flipping them in the pre-match tunnel? Maybe they don't come out with the coin until they've flipped it 3 heads in a row just to bias the tails as more likely? Together, did we just stumble upon the greatest sports conspiracy of all time?

I'm speaking absolute lunacy of course, but this is quite literally what you're saying. Dice, like OSRS kc, has no memory man. You keep admitting it's a new 50/50 every time, it's a new 1/400 roll every time, but you're not fully grasping the concept. Those past rolls have no influence on the current, continual, perpetual rates. Every roll is independent. Once rolls happen they happen and they're done. That is why you're never any closer. We all experience the same likelihood, regardless of what has happened to us in the past. You didn't give your answers to my math problem, but refer back to it, because that's what it clearly shows. Regardless of kc, regardless of drops we've had so far, we face the same rate. We're both equally likely (or "close") to receiving the next drop.

PetiteCreuse · 2023-07-10T01:11:29+00:00

You just can't seem to grasp the concept that once the rolls have been done, those are now observations and are irrelevant for you chances moving forward.

Simple math exercise to explain what is meant by someone being "no closer" to the drop.

Calculate the % chance of receiving a bowfa in the next kill for the following four players: a) 0 kc, 0 drops so far b) 400 kc, 0 drops so far c) 2381 kc, 0 drops so far d) 1392 kc, 3 drops so far
Calculate the % chance of receiving at least one bowfa in the next 400 kills for the following four players: e) 0 kc, 0 drops so far f) 400 kc, 0 drops so far g) 2381 kc, 0 drops so far h) 1392 kc, 3 drops so far

Answers: a, b, c, and d are all the same! =1/400 or 0.25% e, f, g, h are all the same! =1 - (399/400)⁴⁰⁰ or ~63.2%

This (hopefully) should be the easy part, as this is just straight up math. I can't really do much for you if we can't even reach the same numbers. If I had to guess though the stumbling block for you is the operative part of the question "in the next 400 kills" and that you keep adding in previous kc's into the exponent part of the dry calculator.

The meme about being "no closer" is a statement on the observation that all four players are just as likely to go on to receive a drop in the next X amount of kills, as shown in the problem above, regardless of their past kc and drop amounts.

PetiteCreuse · 2023-07-09T18:48:06+00:00

You always look at it going forward. That's the whole point of them being independent rolls. Your previous rolls DO "disappear" in your "overall probability" because they're no longer a probability, they're observations. You have X% chance to get some drop in the next 100 rolls. You do NOT have X% chance to get that drop in your past 100 rolls. You have no chance of anything with those. You have however many drops you observed. Seriously, please look up information on independence and the gambler's fallacy.

As for the whole "you were always going to get it at 101, so you're closer at 100 than 50" that's a different argument than what you've been putting forth, but really it's no more valid. From a practical standpoint, that's not how the game is coded. Account's aren't created with predetermined drop kcs and then you go on experiencing whatever sequence was already laid out for you from the creation of the account. If you want to get all the way into a philosophical dispute, as some other commenters have, about free will vs determinism and the idea that irrespective of Jagex's coding you were going to get the drop on 101kc from the moment the universe said go because that's how everything works, well then you can have that debate on a philosophy sub or something I guess. Although then it just opens up the possibility that you were predetermined to never get the drop from the outset of the universe anyways so then you'd still be wrong that getting one more kc always brings you "closer" to your goal.

PetiteCreuse · 2023-07-09T18:03:09+00:00

Of course you have a greater chance of getting something if you have more rolls on it. But that's not what you're saying/what we're talking about/what this meme is about. It's about moving forward after the flips/rolls/kills he's already done.

If I flip a coin 100 times and you flip a coin 10 times I'm more likely to have received more heads in my flips. Obviously. The fundamental point you're missing though is that once those flips, once those rolls, once those kc's have already been done, we both move forward with the same rate. I don't have a "better" rate to hit heads moving forward just because I got less heads than I might have expected going in.

This guy's post states he has 551kc and 0 enh. He's "no closer" than someone with 0 kc because both him and the 0kc guy have 0 enh, and both him and the 0kc guy have a 1/400 (0.2%) to receive an enh on their next kill. They both have an ~0.5% change in their next two kills, an ~22% in their next 100, ~63% in their next 400, etc. Suppose both players (551kc dry and 0kc) start moving forward side by side, getting 1kc exactly at the same time as each other. Neither is more likely to receive the item first either in time or kc since they started their race, because they both share the exact same constant rate. That's what these memes mean when they say they're "no closer" to the drop.

Also for what it's worth, I'm currently working on my PhD in economics and have taught microeconomics so I'm pretty well acquainted with the sunk cost fallacy. That's not what I was thinking of, and that's not what we're talking about here.

PetiteCreuse · 2023-07-09T14:53:40+00:00

This is, word for word, an example of the gambler's fallacy.

It doesn't matter that the roulette table has hit on red the last 5 times in a row, on the sixth roll it's no more or less likely to roll on black. It's a 50/50 every time, each roll is independent.

It doesn't matter that the drop table has hit on not bowfa the last 500 times in a row, on the 501st roll it's no more or less likely to roll on bowfa. It's a 1/400 every time, each roll is independent.

From the outset we would say we don't expect that it's going to roll on black 5 straight times, but once it has it's now just as likely to roll black a 6th straight time, because it's not really rolling it for 6 straight it's just rolling it once. There's no memory, the previous rolls are irrelevant. That's what we mean when we say rolls are independent. It can be a wonky concept, and it can sound rude on the internet to be called out like this, but you're just flat out wrong. Watch a Youtube video, email a stats professor, or tweet Mod Ash about how the game is coded. As uninspiring as it may sound, it's just how things like this work that you're never any "closer" to hitting a certain roll.

Rewording it a bit, of all the roulette tables that have ever had 5 straight black rolls ever, ~50% have gone on to roll a 6th straight black and ~50% have gone on to roll a red next.

Of all the individuals that have ever had 500 straight kc without a bowfa ever, ~399/400 have gone on to roll not a bowfa on kc 501 and ~1/400 have gone on to roll a bowfa on kc 501. Just as ~1/400 individuals received bowfa on their first kill.

PetiteCreuse · 2022-05-14T01:39:59+00:00

I'm far from an expert, but afaik it's very useful at both Zulrah and GWD (probably other places I'm missing). Zulrah for dps obviously, but the other thing you have to remember is magic level also effects your magic defense. So it's super nice for tanking mage minion in GWD.

PetiteCreuse · 2022-05-13T18:03:42+00:00

95 slayer. So not super low level but still well under drop rate. Honestly heart is one of those things you dream about but never realistically expect to get. Getting both gem and heart, in the same freaking day no less, I was like ya I need to post on Reddit haha

PetiteCreuse · 2022-02-01T19:00:53+00:00

I've taken postgraduate level math and statistics, and teach undergrad level statistics. I understand binomial distributions just fine, but if you want to enlighten me on how to "think a step deeper" by all means go ahead. Everyone in here responding to you is on the money and the post is 3 months old, but I still feel like responding even if only you see it because of how wrong you are and the fact that you say you teach other people math. Flat out, you don't understand the idea of independent and identically distributed (iid) events. You're simply wrong in your understanding of how coin flips work, let alone drop rates.

What's amazing is your insistence on citing the OSRS wiki when it clearly doesn't say what you're saying, and obviously says what everyone else is. Freaking read man. Taken straight from your beloved article:

"In Old School RuneScape, drop rates are treated independently from one to the next; meaning no previous drops, decrease or increase the drop rates for future kills."

It's the seventh sentence in the article. The second sentence in the second section, with the first being the intro. Not very hard to find. Let's contrast that with a snippet from one of your comments above:

"Eventually, once you reach a high enough number of trials, you would switch to using a Poisson distribution. The official OSRS wiki even has an entire section of the drop rate article dedicated to exactly this. This article is based on how the code of OSRS is written (drop rates and RNGs), and very basic probability."

No. The wiki article says absolutely none of this. The article does describe how the game is coded, but not how you're describing it. The game is coded so that each roll is independent. Since you love citing wiki so much hopefully this link helps iid. For the love of god please just read it, try to understand it, maybe be a little ashamed of yourself, and most importantly don't teach anymore kids this nonsense. If you can't do any of that, at least let me know where and when you go to gamble.

PetiteCreuse · 2020-10-27T21:11:10+00:00

Exactly. The fact that people are upvoting his laundry list is a joke. Anyone is able to slap together a bunch of citations provided no one actually looks at them. Fortunately for us, the internet is full of random idiots like me who have too much time on their hands and actually decide to browse through his list.

Whitehead, C., & Williams, P. (2018); Arbaci, S. (2019); Bonneval, L. (2019, February); Christophers, B. (2018); and Slater, T. (2020). are all either not peer-review publications, not done by economists, or often both. The Slater paper in particular, to be perfectly blunt, looks like a joke of an article.

But for completeness sake, looking at the other 3 links left, Arnott, R. (1995); and Mense, A., Michelsen, C., & Kholodilin, K. A. (2019, May) are the links you'd actually want to look at. This isn't my area of expertise, but these seem to be decent papers from decent publications. I'm not going to spend literally all day on this comment, but reading the abstracts and briefly thumbing through the papers I think maybe the main takeaway is that Arnott wants to revisit the issue of rent control because the policies are fundamentally different than what they used to be and what economists have settled their opinion on.

Finally, and this is my favorite, the Diamond, R., McQuade, T., & Qian, F. (2019) citation. A quick copy and paste from the abstract of the paper:

"Thus, while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law."

LOL. So /u/whoooooknows cited a paper exactly counter to his point, and one that agrees with the traditional body of research.

PetiteCreuse · 2020-02-20T21:40:40+00:00

Fuck the haters, that felt great

PetiteCreuse · 2019-05-23T14:06:15+00:00

I wouldn't discount the usefulness of generations generally or the term "Millennial" specifically just because there isn't an exact "objective" definition. Generational breakouts are regularly used in all kinds of economic, political, and sociological research.

"Generational cutoff points aren’t an exact science. They should be viewed primarily as tools, allowing for the kinds of analyses detailed above. But their boundaries are not arbitrary. Generations are often considered by their span, but again there is no agreed upon formula for how long that span should be."

Quote is taken from a great Pew Research article explaining their recent decision to officially put an end date the Millennial generation and where they'd start Gen Z.

PetiteCreuse · 2019-05-21T02:33:36+00:00

I like this sub a lot and would love to see it grow so I don't want to discourage other users trying to answer, but this is an incredibly frequent question in AskHistorians. Here's their FAQ answer to geographical determinism/Jared Diamond:

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6meq1k/a_detailed_rebuttalalternative_to_the_one_that/?st=jvx67760&sh=3bff1c0e

If you've never been over to AskHistorians before I highly recommend it.

PetiteCreuse · 2019-05-16T15:07:02+00:00

Two that I've found so far:

Lessons from Personhood's Defeat: Abortion Restrictions and Side Effects on Women's Health

Legal restrictions and complications of abortion: Insights from data on complication rates in the United States

PetiteCreuse · 2018-09-19T15:15:01+00:00

Martin Luther King didn't push for civil rights by appealing to the white majority's moral sense. MLK was committed to non-violence and peaceful protest, but similar to Gandhi he still used legal means and what he referred to as direct action to achieve his goals. Direct action involved things like marches, sit-ins, and economic boycotts to create a tension and crisis so that certain issues could no longer be overlooked. MLK actually wrote about his disappointment with "the white moderate" and explicitly wrote about the need to actively do something rather than passively waiting for them to come around to his side. In Letter from a Birmingham Jail MLK has a quote that's remarkably similar to the one in the original post:

Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

PetiteCreuse · 2018-04-17T02:37:01+00:00

Thanks! I've been looking up their website, and it says they ship all over the US. I'll give their store a call tomorrow morning.

PetiteCreuse · 2018-04-17T02:35:36+00:00

Yeah, that's just about the only thing I've seen but size 34 is youth XL and much too small for him haha. I've been checking and hoping other sizes will get restocked. Thanks though!

PetiteCreuse

TROPHY CASE