>>42389457I can explain the math.
You have a 1/512 chance per egg, no matter what. It doesn’t improve or get worse as you continue hatching eggs.
If those are the odds, then we look at what statistically hatching eggs for shinies can be considered. You can see it as
>the amount of consecutive failures it takes to succeedSo, we look at the rate of failure, or 1-(1/512), it’s 511/512. You are that likely, per egg, to fail. If we failed 500 times in a row, the likelihood of that happening is (511/512)^500, around .376, or a 37.6% chance of failing 500 times in a row. That means, on the flip side, you are 1-that p value to fail failing 500 times in a row, or to succeed, which is 1-.376, .624, or 62.4% likely to succeed once by 500 eggs.
What this tells us is how much data lies under a specific number. 62% of successes are under 500, 50% of successes are under 360, 95% of successes are under 1530, and 5% of successes are under 30. These numbers change upon different odds (see
>>42389867), where for a 50% confidence you’d need (4095/4096)^X=0.5, meaning 50% of those possible successes lie under around 3000.
What I’m suggesting is that changing the seed at a consistent rate will likely reduce how long it takes to succeed because you are eliminating bad seeds by not hunting past a specific number. The number 360 is just coin toss odds. You can choose your own confidence intervals and work from there.
None of what I’m suggesting actually guarantees it so that you’ll get them quicker, only that you avoid long seeds that take up 3-4 times what quicker and reliable ones do, and get a more average number than say that guy who took 30,000 falinks to still fail, which is a statistical anomaly, but still should’ve been a sign at 10,000 failures something was deadly wrong with the seed.
