If you claim the existence of sources, you have to be the one to link to them as well. The same principles as in court can be applied here. The one who is claiming something (accusing somebody) has to prove the claim is right (the accused is at fault). You have to prove the sources exist, which is easily done by linking to them of course 
Shifting the responsibility of searching for these supposed threads to other people makes it also conveniently possible to say “but you didn’t search right” afterwards so don’t even think about it in case you were 
In case you were not, this paragraph doesn’t apply to you, but you don’t need to tell me whether you were or not either.
Now now, you might ask yourself if I have anything meaningful to say as well? I did search in your place because my time is of course worth significantly less than yours. I am sure you have a lot on your plate already and that is why you rushed it without linking to any threads. I make it my goal to assume benevolent intent even if I might come across as quite passive aggressive or downright condescending at times.
This is the only thread I could find with a video, when searching for “100% success rate” (as you have mentioned in your post). Don’t worry I searched without the quotation marks. Note that excluding the word “failure” in the search terms even broadens the search and does not exclude threads from the search results that have the word failure in them as well.
I advise you to make sure to read the comments on that thread. But since your time is valuable, here are my findings: The success rate in the video wasn’t 100% after all! That came as quite a shock to me as well, I was ready to quit this game immediately if the chances were rigged!
But let us entertain the thought a bit more actually. If I were a malicious developer with the aim to tweak the chances, I would better make damn sure that 100% isn’t a part of that tweaking. Because otherwise with millions of people checking that 100% chance for correctness, I would find way more than 2 threads (one was without a video 
) claiming a failure at 100% and then some YouTube videos warning me of the issue while I search for the good old “Is it worth playing” videos I like so much.
I got the sneaking suspicion you have viewed the video and immediately jumped to the conclusion that it must be right. This is a fairly deep rooted systemic issue that ultimately results in the success of fake news (Careful! That’s a claim, and I am too lazy to prove it, so you have to take that with a grain of salt. Or you can also choose to just not believe it).
The solution is to just be better than that! Check your sources! You don’t need to do it every time. Everybody slacks off once in a while, I also trust PBS Space Time to not jumble up their facts and sometimes they do, but the key to that is to just admit it and be done with it.
For example I said a chance of 0.6% is equivalent to roughly 1 in 50 times before I actually edited it to roughly 1 in 160 in my post above, I don’t think anyone noticed but it was still a mistake I can admit if called out for it! Don’t tell the others though 
Having said that I am of course open to being corrected here, that is after all what I am doing to you, and one should never do to other people what you wouldn’t like to be done to yourself. One of the many things I am thankful to my mother for teaching me.
I could only do a meager search based on what you said after all. Maybe you misremembered the title of the thread or maybe it was on a different forum after all? Meet me half way and link me the thread you were referring to and I will be happy to read it when I am next in the mood for writing a wall of text 
Edits: Grammar