The BIG Problem With Game Theory
Credibility score: 49/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "The BIG Problem With Game Theory" and rated it 49/100 for credibility (a BS score of 51/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-24. Its weakest claim — "Admits small sample size as a limitation of his experiment" — scored 45/100 and was flagged as missing context. 30 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Opening with viewer comparisons to other creators — a bit of self-deprecating humor. — Just Vibes (50/100)
He's just leaning into the comments, trying to build rapport. Harmless fluff. 😈
Bragging about a previous video's success — a classic ego boost. — Just Vibes (50/100)
He's just basking in the glow of his last hit. Nothing to fact-check, just a mortal enjoying their fleeting moment. 😈
Admits small sample size as a limitation of his experiment — Missing Context (45/100)
Admits the data is thin because he was caught off guard by his own success 📉
Admits to using an outlier that lacked community context — Missing Context (45/100)
Calls himself out for using a niche reference that didn't land with the audience 🚩
Claims the channel declined because MatPat sold out and made 'fun' theories he didn't believe 📉 — Loaded Language (45/100)
Uses 'decline' and 'sold it to the company' as emotional triggers for a structural shift 🚩
Uses a host's nationality as an argument against criticizing them 🇬🇧 — False Equivalence (45/100)
Equates being British with being un-rag-able. That's a reach 💀
Claims his video was 'unbelievably' successful and loved by everyone 🚀 — Just Vibes (50/100)
Purely emotional hype about his own success. No data, just vibes ☁️
Admits to calling a company a 'community' because it sounded better — Missing Context (45/100)
Admits he was selling a vibe instead of the reality. Pure branding over substance 🚩
Claims the sale was about maintaining quality and family time — Loaded Language (45/100)
Uses 'family time' and 'maintaining quality' to mask the business mechanics of a massive sale 🎭
Claims company leadership is 'run by Satan' as a dramatic setup 😈 — Loaded Language (45/100)
Using 'Satan' and 'the devil' to describe corporate leadership is pure theatrical flair 🎭
Accusing YouTube of predatory corporate exploitation via loaded questions — Loaded Language (45/100)
Using rhetorical questions to mask a heavy critique of corporate greed 🚩
Claiming a specific date for unionization due to declining conditions — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Framing a corporate labor shift as an 'infamous' historical event 💀
Declares 'probably not' without a shred of evidence. Just vibes. 💀 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Predicts the future with absolute certainty, but offers zero basis for it. That's not a prediction, it's a shrug. 😈
Uses 'awful,' 'ludicrous,' and 'insane' to describe deadlines. Pure emotional button. 🚩 — Emotional Button (45/100)
He's hitting all the outrage words without explaining *why* they're awful or insane. That's not a critique, it's a feeling. 💀
Admits his experiment isn't 'great' but insists the results are 'interesting.' A classic volume game. 😈 — Volume Game (45/100)
He downplays the experiment's quality, then immediately hypes the 'interesting' results. That's how you soften the blow before the big reveal. 🍒
Confesses to being 'very loose' with judgment. Another preemptive strike. 💀 — Volume Game (45/100)
He's telling you his judgment was 'loose' right before presenting his findings. That's not transparency, it's an excuse in advance. 🔥
Sets up the experiment with a disclaimer about memory and loose judgment. — No Frame (75/100)
He's upfront about the subjective nature of his 'experiment' and its potential flaws. At least he's honest about it. 😈
Misreads 'cat fingers' as 'rest in peace' and reacts to his own mistake. — Just Vibes (50/100)
He's just reacting to his own misreading. A classic mortal blunder, nothing more. 💀
Just a flurry of disconnected phrases and names — pure chaos, no real claims. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
He's just throwing out game terms and social media handles. It's a stream of consciousness, not a statement. 🤷♀️
Declares Susie will kill Noelle based on 'things I've heard' — that's not evidence, that's gossip. 💀 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
He's making a definitive prediction about a game's plot from 'things I've heard' and two minutes of 'evidence.' That's not a conclusion, that's a guess with a crown. 👑
Admits his 'conclusion' was rushed, poorly researched, and didn't match the actual theory. 🤦♂️ — No Frame (75/100)
He's openly confessing his process was a mess and his 'conclusion' was wrong. Refreshing honesty, for a mortal. 😈
Presents an 'original theory' with specific, in-game evidence. ⚔️ — No Frame (75/100)
He's laying out a specific game theory and backing it with an in-game mechanic. That's how you build a case, even if it's just for a game. 🎮
claims the Roaring Knight is a 'fusion' using wild speculation — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Claiming a 'fusion' based on three pictures is peak fan-theory confidence without actual logic 💀
uses a joke to validate a theory that's mostly guesswork — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling a theory 'real' just because it's 'less complicated' is doing some heavy lifting with words 🎭
concludes that the entire community is just 'crazy' theorists — Just Vibes (50/100)
Just calling the fandom 'crazy' to end a segment—it's more of an opinionated vibe than a real claim 💀
claims Gaster created Deltarune based on Twitter and dialogue hints — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Building a massive conspiracy theory on a single line of dialogue and some old tweets 💀
Blaming corporate structure for creative output via emotional framing — Emotional Button (45/100)
Uses the 'struggling worker' narrative to pivot from content quality to corporate guilt 🎭
Defensive disclaimer about not 'defaming' the company — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Claims they aren't 'defaming' the company right after a massive critique 🚩
Claims no intent to defame Lunar X while citing 'publicly available' sources — Loaded Language (45/100)
Using the 'we aren't defaming them' shield while actively critiquing their business model 🛡️
Repeats the 'not defaming' stance as a closing disclaimer — Volume Game (45/100)
Doubling down on the disclaimer to hide the sting of the critique 💀
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →