I bothered to read it. You're wrong.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:35 amYou are not reading what I wrote.Fife wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:31 amNegatory. (and switching increases your odds to 66.7%, not 50%)
Each cup has a 1/3 chance of being a winner and a 2/3 chance of being a loser. That doesn't change.
The host giving away one of the 2 losing cups doesn't change the chance your first choice (no matter which one of the three it was) has a 1/3 chance of having the prize; and the remaining field having a 2/3 chance in the aggregate of containing the winner.
Run the simulation for yourself.
Read it again.
My choice to refrain and DB's choice to switch end on the same cup. The probability cannot be different for the same cup based on the choices of the participants.
Once you add more than one chooser, the error is pretty obvious. If you bother to read.
You changed the game when you added another player, and more importantly removed the host's knowledge of the winning location and his inability to reveal the winner. Unfortunately, math doesn't let you add in other rules and conditions and pretend the game is the same. Why not have 100 people playing all at once on the same three cups?
I didn't make this math up; I just read the book. I also have tried the simulation, and run the game IRL with three cards with my daughter a while back. Why don't you try that and see what your lyin' eyes tell you?