Monte Hall Hoax

[Martin Hash]

Actually, the more I think about it the more I'd like to see it used on a 100 door problem.
If you pick a door, and 98 goat doors are opened, leaving your choice or the "other" door .... will you really lose 99% of the time if you don't switch?


Maybe you would.
Hmmmmm.

You know what? Fuck goats, cars, and doors anyway.

Illusions: whether optical, oral or statistical, are effective because they so easily fool people; just look at out current politics.

[Fife]

Always switch. Your odds if you stick are 1 in 3. Your odds if you switch are 1 in 2.

There are only two doors.
Your odds are 1 in 2 either way.

"But before there were two doors there were three ...."

Irrelevant.

NOW there are two doors.
NOW the odds are 50/50 on both doors.
If there were 100 doors before, but only two now - your odds aren't 1:99 if you don't switch when there are only two remaining doors.

Yep, actually, what I said needs a modification. Switch and your odds are 2 of 3. Stay and they are still 1 of 3. Always switch though, given the choice as set up in the fact pattern. Every time.

The way to analyze it must depend on the fact that Monte knows where the car is all along, and the fact that he will always reveal a goat after you make your original pick.

[DBTrek]

Yep, actually, what I said needs a modification. Switch and your odds are 2 of 3. Stay and they are still 1 of 3. Always switch though, given the choice as set up in the fact pattern. Every time.

The way to analyze it must depend on the fact that Monte knows where the car is all along, and the fact that he will always reveal a goat after you make your original pick.

When I think of it in terms of 100 doors it seems to make sense.
The odds of you picking the right door really are 1 in 100.
And Monte will almost always be able to show you 98 other goats.
But the odds that you picked a goat the first time are still really, really high (99%).

So ... by considering the same problem with different numbers, I see what they're getting at. I see the trickery at play.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The Monte Hall Problem is just a counter-intuitive way to describe the real difference of the probability of a discreet event versus a series of events.

If I flip a coin and it comes up heads, that was 50/50. Now, if I flip it again, and ask you to call the flip, a rational person knows that while tails is a 50/50 probability, the probability of two heads in a row is less than 50/50. It is rational to choose tails. The distance of time between the two flips (or door choices) is irrelevant. The relevant thing is the extra information I have from knowing the series of events.

[Martin Hash]

WTF. Knowing how a coin flipped in the past does NOT affect your odds now.

I was showing you guys a statistical illusion that everyone believes, and let you peek behind the curtain. If it’s 50/50 for me now, it was 50/50 a week ago. 2 + 2 does not equal 5, no matter who or how many say it is.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The odds of getting heads twice in a row is 1/4. Considerably smaller than the 1/2 chance it will come up tails.

Adjusting predictions based on better data is rational.

[Martin Hash]

One of the specious arguments all Evolutionists use when I point out the odds against hemoglobin being spontaneously formed is greater than the number of atoms in the universe (it’s a situation of irreducible complexity), they always say it must have happened near the beginning.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It does look a bit like special pleading, don't it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

mea culpa: I've changed my mind on the Monty Hall problem.

[C-Mag]

mea culpa: I've changed my mind on the Monty Hall problem.

ON THIS SITE, MARCH 5TH, 2021
AN OPINION WAS CHANGED ON THE INTERNET