arXiv:2608.20552 · nightly build-off

Parlay Shockwave Simulator

A grid of correlated "parlay legs" — each cell an independent random stake (i.i.d. Exp(1)) — and the running best route through them is the last-passage time, computed by the real DP recursion G(i,j) = w(i,j) + max(G(i−1,j), G(i,j)). Now force the final leg — the far corner — to hit a freakishly large total. Watch how that single conditioning event warps the fluctuation statistics of every leg along the way: normal Tracy–Widom noise far from the shock, a squeezed Gaussian zone near it, and a razor BBP boundary between the two.

One-point fluctuations for exponential LPP under upper-tail conditioning

Simulation controls

Grid size (N×N)30

Number of parlay legs per side. Bigger grid = smoother regimes, slower run.

Shock strength (kσ)1.8

How freakish the final leg must be, in standard deviations above its typical value. 0 = no shock (pure baseline).

Target accepted runs800

Grids kept via rejection sampling: simulate many random grids, discard any whose final leg isn't shocked enough.

Ready. Baseline not yet simulated.

threshold: — accept rate: —

Fluctuation heatmap (variance ratio, conditioned / baseline)

← pinned / Gaussian (near shock) BBP boundary Tracy–Widom (far / unaffected) →

variance crushed transition band variance unchanged bottom-right corner = conditioned shock point • top-left = origin

Sample a leg — click a marker or chip

Variance ratio along the diagonal geodesic (origin → shock corner)

How this is actually computed (not hardcoded)

1. The grid. Every cell (i,j) gets an independent Exp(1) weight via inverse-CDF sampling (-Math.log(Math.random())). The last-passage time is filled with a real O(N²) dynamic program: G(i,j) = w(i,j) + max(G(i-1,j), G(i,j-1)), boundary cells only see one neighbor. G(N,N) is the max-weight up-right path from the origin to the far corner — your "parlay" payout.

2. The shock. First a baseline pass simulates thousands of independent unconditioned grids to learn the real empirical mean μ and std σ of G(N,N). The threshold is set to μ + kσ.

3. The conditioning. Rejection sampling: keep simulating fresh random grids and simply throw away every one whose corner value doesn't clear the threshold. What survives is a genuine (if noisy, for large k) sample from the upper-tail-conditioned law — no formulas assumed, no shortcuts on the tail itself.

4. The regimes. For every cell we track running variance across accepted (conditioned) grids and across baseline (unconditioned) grids, and plot the ratio. Cells near the shock corner get pinned toward the high value the conditioning demands → variance collapses (Gaussian-like). Cells far away, off the geodesic, barely feel it → variance ratio ≈ 1 (still Tracy–Widom, the ordinary LPP fluctuation law). The crossover band between the two is the paper's BBP regime. The probe histograms directly overlay the empirical conditioned vs. baseline sample distributions per cell so you can see the shape actually change, and report a computed sample skewness (Tracy–Widom is right-skewed ≈ 0.29 in the GUE case; Gaussian is symmetric, skewness ≈ 0) to flag the likely regime — a real statistic off the real samples, not a label.