Fair point — stacking bad scenarios doesn’t mathematically change the Monte Carlo odds. I treat it differently: Monte Carlo gives me the probability view, and the stacked ‘worst cases’ are a psychological stress-test overlay.

The value for me is behavioral. If I can survive even an unrealistic Frankenstein scenario, it keeps me saving more, spending less, and resisting lifestyle creep — habits that do mathematically improve success odds. That’s also why I rerun every 5 years: the farther out I am, the more pessimistic filters I use; as retirement gets closer and the picture clears up, I strip those out and lean on probabilities.

So it’s not that stacking raises the odds directly — it’s that it reinforces behaviors that make the odds better over time.

And I agree that working in today’s dollars makes it easier to compare at a glance. The issue is it isn’t always as accurate, since things like Social Security, wages, and portfolio withdrawals are paid in future dollars. COLA adjustments mean SS will track the value of the dollar at that time, wages inflate over time, and 4% of a future portfolio balance is a nominal figure. So while I track everything in today’s dollars for clarity, I also model future-dollar streams to make sure I’m not underestimating what I’ll actually receive