Monte Hall Hoax

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Bruh, I think you are 100% right on the Monty Hall situation, and, what is more, I think you have the logic, math, and programming chops to prove it.

DB is right, disproving 30 years of Monty Hall bullshit could actually make you famous.

Proving there is a god would have done it too.

That is just super hard because God hides the evidence of His existence in order to encourage faith, and you can't out-fox God.

[Martin Hash]

Bruh, I think you are 100% right on the Monty Hall situation, and, what is more, I think you have the logic, math, and programming chops to prove it.

DB is right, disproving 30 years of Monty Hall bullshit could actually make you famous.

Proving there is a god would have done it too.

That is just super hard because God hides the evidence of His existence in order to encourage faith, and you can't out-fox God.

But Fife ain’t God... (Hey, are you thinking what I’m thinking?)

[SuburbanFarmer]

Jesus Christ you guys did 8 pages on this?

The odds were always 1 in 3. Those odds didn’t change when Monte decided to show you one of the goats. It makes zero difference that he showed you a ‘wrong’ choice’, you still don’t know if you were right or wrong.

You now have a 50/50 choice between 2 doors, to see if you hit the 1 in 3, but it makes no difference if you switch or stay. It’s not a random re-shuffled choice. You either hit it or didn’t.

The interesting question is: if this is true (as most peoples' intuition suggests), then why are the computer models wrong?

I maintain it is because the "Monty opens door 2 or 3" assumption in the decision tree version is a bad assumption that gives switchers better odds in the model than they really have. If that bad assumption is built into the computer models, whelp, bing bang boom - you get 30 years of people spouting claptrap telling you that they are the ones 'following the science.'

I could be wrong, though - math is gay, and statistics are the gayest kind of math.

The ‘always switch’ thing comes from people doing ‘math’ and forgetting that in the real world, the car never moved, and Monte will never open a door with a car (because he knows where it is).

Based on that, the ‘choice’ is now whether to change or not. Your odds of making the correct choice are now 50/50, but it makes no difference which choice you make (stay or switch).

You never had more than a 1 in 3 chance at the car.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Proving there is a god would have done it too.

That is just super hard because God hides the evidence of His existence in order to encourage faith, and you can't out-fox God.

But Fife ain’t God... (Hey, are you thinking what I’m thinking?)

I knew God was a slippery fucking lawyer.

[Martin Hash]

Jesus Christ you guys did 8 pages on this?

The odds were always 1 in 3. Those odds didn’t change when Monte decided to show you one of the goats. It makes zero difference that he showed you a ‘wrong’ choice’, you still don’t know if you were right or wrong.

You now have a 50/50 choice between 2 doors, to see if you hit the 1 in 3, but it makes no difference if you switch or stay. It’s not a random re-shuffled choice. You either hit it or didn’t.

The interesting question is: if this is true (as most peoples' intuition suggests), then why are the computer models wrong?

I maintain it is because the "Monty opens door 2 or 3" assumption in the decision tree version is a bad assumption that gives switchers better odds in the model than they really have. If that bad assumption is built into the computer models, whelp, bing bang boom - you get 30 years of people spouting claptrap telling you that they are the ones 'following the science.'

I could be wrong, though - math is gay, and statistics are the gayest kind of math.

The ‘always switch’ thing comes from people doing ‘math’ and forgetting that in the real world, the car never moved, and Monte will never open a door with a car (because he knows where it is).

Based on that, the ‘choice’ is now whether to change or not. Your odds of making the correct choice are now 50/50, but it makes no difference which choice you make (stay or switch).

You have zero advantage either way.

I could have convinced you there is a god. How come more people aren’t like SF?

[SuburbanFarmer]

The interesting question is: if this is true (as most peoples' intuition suggests), then why are the computer models wrong?

I maintain it is because the "Monty opens door 2 or 3" assumption in the decision tree version is a bad assumption that gives switchers better odds in the model than they really have. If that bad assumption is built into the computer models, whelp, bing bang boom - you get 30 years of people spouting claptrap telling you that they are the ones 'following the science.'

I could be wrong, though - math is gay, and statistics are the gayest kind of math.

The ‘always switch’ thing comes from people doing ‘math’ and forgetting that in the real world, the car never moved, and Monte will never open a door with a car (because he knows where it is).

Based on that, the ‘choice’ is now whether to change or not. Your odds of making the correct choice are now 50/50, but it makes no difference which choice you make (stay or switch).

You have zero advantage either way.

I could have convinced you there is a god. How come more people aren’t like SF?

Most people do 12 years of public education. I was only subjected to 4.

[Martin Hash]

The ‘always switch’ thing comes from people doing ‘math’ and forgetting that in the real world, the car never moved, and Monte will never open a door with a car (because he knows where it is).

Based on that, the ‘choice’ is now whether to change or not. Your odds of making the correct choice are now 50/50, but it makes no difference which choice you make (stay or switch).

You have zero advantage either way.

I could have convinced you there is a god. How come more people aren’t like SF?

Most people do 12 years of public education. I was only subjected to 4.

That’s some fucking funny shit right there!

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Jesus Christ you guys did 8 pages on this?

The odds were always 1 in 3. Those odds didn’t change when Monte decided to show you one of the goats. It makes zero difference that he showed you a ‘wrong’ choice’, you still don’t know if you were right or wrong.

You now have a 50/50 choice between 2 doors, to see if you hit the 1 in 3, but it makes no difference if you switch or stay. It’s not a random re-shuffled choice. You either hit it or didn’t.

The interesting question is: if this is true (as most peoples' intuition suggests), then why are the computer models wrong?

I maintain it is because the "Monty opens door 2 or 3" assumption in the decision tree version is a bad assumption that gives switchers better odds in the model than they really have. If that bad assumption is built into the computer models, whelp, bing bang boom - you get 30 years of people spouting claptrap telling you that they are the ones 'following the science.'

I could be wrong, though - math is gay, and statistics are the gayest kind of math.

The ‘always switch’ thing comes from people doing ‘math’ and forgetting that in the real world, the car never moved, and Monte will never open a door with a car (because he knows where it is).

Based on that, the ‘choice’ is now whether to change or not. Your odds of making the correct choice are now 50/50, but it makes no difference which choice you make (stay or switch).

You never had more than a 1 in 3 chance at the car.

I agree. But smart people did a bunch of computer models that say we are wrong. I can't prove them wrong because I think computers are for nerds, and straight up refuse to de-cool myself by fuckin' with no programs.

[Martin Hash]

Anybody who doesn’t use Twitter is cool in my book. Goddamn twits, anyway.

[Martin Hash]

I’m never going to get famous at this rate.