/biz/ - Business & Finance

Yes I switch and pick door #3
inshallah my brothers

>>52386429
What if I want a goat?

Yes because its gone from a 1/3 to a 1/2 chance.

Since the third door has been rendered irrelevant, doors one and two present an equal chance of containing the thing, so there's no reason to switch. If you think or say otherwise, you're falling for Jewish mathemagic.

>>52386429
No because he knows I picked the right door and wants me to change.
Very jewish move ser.

>>52386554
This

>>52386554
>mathemagic.
My new favorite word.

>>52386429
I open both doors and i'll kill anyone that tries to stop me

>>52386592
roll for initiative.

>>52386429
Yes, you always switch you have 2/3 chances of success if you switch and 1/3 if you stay.

>>52386429
no
because if the host knows whats behind the door he picked no.3 cause he knew it had a goat, and opening it would make me want to open door no.2, since that's what he wants because he knows that monerochan is in door no.1

>>52386554
Wrong
Change the numbers:
1000 doors. 999 have goats, 1 has the prize. The host knows which one has the prize. You pick a door randomly... say door #378. Now, the host opens 998 of the doors, revealing the goats. The only two doors closed are #378 and #791. Would you stay with #378 then?

It was never a 1/3 chance to begin with.

>>52386642
that's wrong, you're changing the problem. the host only opens one other door, even if there are 1000.

>>52386627
One guy said it for me

>>52386642
Nice pilpul rabbi I'm not falling for your tricks.

>>52386429
Famous statisticians got this one wrong, it's just a super tricky question, not an intelligence issue.

>>52386429
No because the goat being revealed has increased the odds of my choice being correct more than the odds of the new choice, 66% if I stay and 50% if I pick the other door. Additionally game shows have a vested interest in me losing and the "opportunity" to change my choice could be a trick on their part since they know if I chose right or not

>>52386642
Doesn't matter how many doors there are. Two doors. One prize. One goat. 50/50. The "reveal" is a red herring.

>>52386642
i mean since 998 doors are still obsolete there really is no reason to switch, its 50/50 at that point

>>52386642
Your example isn't fractionally equivalent to OPs problem.
For your example to make sense the contestant has to open 333 doors instead of 1.

>>52386554
It hinges on the fact that the host can see whats behind the doors. Its not like a door was opened at random.

>>52386429
yes, always switch because 50% > 33%

the problem isn't a problem when you stop obfuscating the obvious fact: ALL BUT ONE INCORRECT DOOR gets eliminated.
everything else is trying to make the problem a "paradox" or "confusing" when it's all bullshit.

>>52386429
why would you switch? its 50/50 between the 2 remaining doors

>>52386642
Why the fuck not dumbass

>>52386669
>>52386736
Well, since 3 doors is the absolute minimum to play either way, they could scale it up to 1000 doors with either of these formats. But, the since at 3 doors it's still ambiguous, the math for my example still applies
>>52386712
>>52386717
You have to factor in that the location of the prize doesn't change between you picking a door and the host opening the goats, and so the host knows which door has the prize.

if any of you are actually retarded and think it's 50/50 and don't get it just try it out yourselves. you'll find that switching is the best thing to do

>>52386642
You're not dealing with a thousand doors, you're dealing with two. Of the two, one has an anime girl and one has a goat. You aren't capable of knowing what's behind your door choice because you could have picked door two initially instead and then been asked if you want to switch to door one. In both cases, you're just randomly selecting if you want door one or two regardless of initial choice.

>>52386429
am i retarded. originally there's 1/3 chance that any door will have $. if you stay with #3 there's 1/1 chance you get a goat and now 1/2 chance that #2 has $. obviously if you want $, you will switch to either 1 or 2... 1/2 chance of getting $ is better odds than 1/1 getting a goat... what the hell is the trick exactly?

>>52386429
The likely hood you picked the right door the first time was 1/3 chances. The likely hood you pick the right door the second time is 1/2 chances.
Multiply them together for compounding interest and you get 1/6 chances of choosing the right door by switching.

>>52386749
tard

>>52386429
Yes, switching your choice essentially allows you to choose doors 2 and 3, instead of just door 1.

Door 2 has a 66% chance of containing the prize.

>>52386778
>if any of you are actually retarded and think it's 50/50 and don't get it just try it out yourselves. you'll find that switching is the best thing to do

2 doors, 1 prize, 50/50. how is that not true?

>>52386778
>i saw a youtube video "explaining" this to me and you're all SOOO stoopid
You probably also believe the sum of all positive integers is -1/12 because someone presented it using a completely retarded process.

>>52386429
Trick question, there's a bunch of Jews backstage who switch Monero-chan and the goat, no matter what door you pick. Then you're charged a $100 door maintenance fee, a 50% goat tax, 50% luxury tax, have to pay for being on the game show, the goat is taken away to give to some poor unfortunate Negros, and then you have to watch a diversity training seminar where said Jews and Negroes rape Monero-chan.

>>52386429

So lets say you have 3 scenarios, each scenario you pick the first door, and the X is what you want, and the G is the verified goat door that gets opened, 0 is a hidden goat behind a door.

X 0 G
0 X G
0 G X

If you do not switch you win 1/3 of the time (hit the X). In 2/3 scenario if you switch you win.

So it is not a 1/3 chance or 1/2 chance, it is a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch.


HOWEVER. This is only the case if the host can only pick doors that do not have the winner in it, like: >>52386642

If the host is just as random as you, there is no point to switch.

>>52386798
>Yes, switching your choice essentially allows you to choose doors 2 and 3, instead of just door 1.

how? it doesnt surely.

>>52386802
Because you forgot about time hacking math choices based on transcendental nature of freewill.
It's basically how AI neural networks work.

>>52386820
>If the host is just as random as you, there is no point to switch.
Then the game wouldn't make sense, because the host could randomly reveal the prize...

>>52386820
>So it is not a 1/3 chance or 1/2 chance, it is a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch.

i dont get it, how?

>>52386717

One or four digit iq.

>>52386842
Yeah but the way this question is often asked it is often left out and leads to confusion.

>>52386784
The trick is that you also have to take the host's choice into account.
From wikipedia:
>Most people come to the conclusion that switching does not matter because there are two unopened doors and one car and that it is a 50/50 choice. This would be true if the host opens a door randomly, but that is not the case; the door opened depends on the player's initial choice, so the assumption of independence does not hold. Before the host opens a door there is a 1/3 probability that the car is behind each door. If the car is behind door 1 the host can open either door 2 or door 3, so the probability that the car is behind door 1 and the host opens door 3 is 1/3 × 1/2 = 1/6. If the car is behind door 2 (and the player has picked door 1) the host must open door 3, so the probability that the car is behind door 2 and the host opens door 3 is 1/3 × 1 = 1/3. These are the only cases where the host opens door 3, so if the player has picked door 1 and the host opens door 3, the car is twice as likely to be behind door 2 as door 1. The key is that if the car is behind door 2 the host must open door 3, but if the car is behind door 1 the host can open either door.
I think it relies on the assumption that the host will always open a door that has a goat behind it.

>>52386554
Unfathomably based post.

>>52386429
Nah, clearly #2 has the ass end of the goat. Then I'm selling that bitch for gold.

>>52386829
You had a 1/3rd chance of choosing the correct door, leaving a 2/3rd chance that the prize was in the other doors. Revealing whats behind door #3 doesn't change that - the odds of the prize being in one of the other doors is still 2/3.

>>52386859
Yeah, the problem is written that way to confuse people. You have to intuit from the order of events that the host knows which door to has the prize.

>>52386850
Remember the G door is open you can't choose it.

X 0 G: if you switch you switch to the door with 0 and lose.
0 X G: if you switch you switch to the door with the X and win.
0 G X: if you switch you switch to the door with the X and win.

Those are all the cases in the entire game. You win if you switch 2/3 of the time, and if you don't switch you win 1/3 of the time.

This should be obvious without even doing it out though, since the odds of you winning (1/3) if you stay has to be the inverse of what would happen if you switch (1 - 1/3 = 2/3), since it is a binary choice.

>>52386704
>No because the goat being revealed has increased the odds of my choice being correct
Wrong because the host knows and he was going to open a door with a goat anyway. Your pick had a 1/3 chance and it remains 1/3 even after a goat is revealed.

>>52386868
The odds are 50%. Running off to YouTube videos and Wikipedia is not math.

>>52386948
Just stating something with no proof isn't math either, but here you are.

>>52386948
It depends on if the host knows or not really is the entire crux.

50% if he doesn't know. 2/3rds to 1/3rd if he does know.

brainlet

>>52386948
that isn't the question. they're not asking what the new odds are for your next pick, they're not asking "did the odds go up or did they go down or did they stay the same", they're asking if switching your choice is to your advantage.
say the odds were 33% and now they're 50% -- still, you already picked one. so why should you switch? your odds improved even if you didn't switch. not switching is a choice between two doors, you cannot "not take" the 50% chance. you're taking it.

>>52387027

That's the whole /pol/ stormfagging.

At the start you have a 2/3 chance of picking a goat.
The host has to open a door that has a goat behind it (he can't reveal the car).
If you picked a door with a goat (2/3 chance) then the host has to reveal the other goat, that means 2/3 times the final unchosen door is the car.

>>52386429
>Anon discovered 21 (the movie) for the first time.

>>52386746
>hinges
I see what you did there

>>52387064
>you already picked one. so why should you switch?

yeah. thats how i see it. switching does nothing.

Why is /biz/ so retarded?

>>52387097
I learn magic for she

>>52386429
I don’t get it, if I can get two goats, why they fuck not

>>52386429
MONERO IS A SHITCOIN
DEFINITELY NOT A HEDGE TO BITCOIN
DEFINITELY AN AFFILIATION SCAM

>>52387132
>Why is /biz/ so retarded?

because we dont understand maths

>>52387132
indians aren't good at math

>>52386868
>The key is that if the car is behind door 2 the host must open door 3, but if the car is behind door 1 the host can open either door.
this is exactly the key point. your decision sets the host's decision in motion between one of two avenues which he has to take, which when complete adds information that you didn't have before.
one answer is "yes, it's mathematically to your advantage to switch," but this isn't observable by you (or the host).
in reality, you don't actually have any advantage, because the more useful definition of an advantage is something that you can actually leverage through your own willpower, not some abstract circumstance we'll all find out about after all three doors are open.
in reality, an earpiece in the host's ear tells him "door 3" and he points to it almost reflexively, as it is opened for him by stage workers, so he can seamlessly run the show. it is a stage act. "the host can open either door" isn't true. he's instantly told which one the producer chose backstage.
you should still understand the math and the word problem attached to it, but you should also understand real fuckin' life, or you'll get grifted like this out on the street.

>>52387132
>script kiddie thinks he can overturn obvious math

1 in 3 chance of getting it right 1st time. You switch and lose it all.

I couldn't live with myself. 1 in 4 and up I'd swap tho.

>>52387131
Its called conditional probability. The math jews in this thread are forcing you to take the hosts choice into account in your math equation. They are too "smart" to understand 50/50 odds.

>>52387240
If you think it's wrong for some retarded mongoloid reason, then write your own simulation and report back to us.

>>52386642
Finally I understood this problem. Ty. Also, everyone else who answered is absolutely retarded. I guess we got a long way to the bottom, considering the IQ on biz is still so low .

>>52386429
BUT WHAT IF THERE WERE 100MILLION DOORS???

>>52386554
wrong.
First you have a 2/3 chance to pic a goat. then a goat gots removed so the chance is higher that the remining door is a supergoat or whatever the price is.

>>52386802
>>52386808
how this clears it up retard

>>52387132
>>52387418
Once again mathematics prove that you can't beat just plain ol' bad luck

All of you are missing the point, it's not actual usable XMR, it's a monerochan - doesn't even have a feminine penis, completely worthless.

So the goat is the better option here, you should stick with the door you picked initially and hope that the 66% vs 50% chances favour you. You could also ask the host if you can change to the door which he opened for the 100% goat, but I doubt he will let you win so easily.

https://www.mathwarehouse.com/monty-hall-simulation-online/

>>52387418
You just played yourself. You show that every door has an equal probability, but you're not factoring in correctly that the host eliminated one of those doors. You get 1/3 odds reduced to a binary that is now 50/50.

Caroline sort of looks like a goat.

This is the dumbest gorilla Jewish nigger shit that doesn’t account for the change in the game state. When you are given the choice to change there are only 2 doors available. You can’t retroactively go back and say oh well there was another door when I originally chose. Regardless, the host is always going to eliminate 1 of the goats so they’re effectively only 2 doors when you make your first choice. Idc what your (((intellectual))) math says about probabilities

>>52386628
Only correct answer itt

>>52387132
This simulator is based on the same false probability assumption that the contestant's original choice is always in the 1/3 possibility set and the host's choice is always in the 2/3 possibility set. If the contestant's original pick is in a 2/3 possibility set then there is no advantage in switching.

>>52386554
This is the truth.
They say you're supposed to always switch because you start out with a 33.33% chance of being right but once he opens the door and if you switch you go from 33% to 50%.
Doesn't make any sense

Because the host cannot reveal the car, if you switch doors the only way you loose is if you picked the right choice at the beginning (1/3) so if you change doors you go from 1/3 chance of car to 2/3

>thread with the most traffic on the board is the pretend to be retarded thread

>>52386554
Exactly. This whole mathematical circlejerk is a pointless exercise that hinges on the unintuitive assumption the host is completely fair unbiased and his choice of dud door to pick is completely fair.

It goes against basic common sense that the host has no agenda or bias and is completely random in which one of the empty doors he chooses. It's only use is making regular people feel small when some smug jew points out results from a completely fair computer simulation running some numbers. It's a great exemplification of just how useless maths can be outside of a practical setting and how many great minds are wasted on pure mathematics.

Niggers and Jews.

>>52386628
>>52387781
nope, incorrect for reasons explained here >>52387202
it's not a hand of poker between the host and the player, the producers create a sterile scenario so that there is no observable tell thus no more information; there's no real-world advantage the player can obtain.
it's only a question of the math, therefore the word problem is intended to query you on conditional probability, which is why switching in the blind is the "better" choice.

>>52387882
you also didn't read or didn't understand >>52387202

>>52387844
There's three doors.
You pick one.
There's 1/3 chance you are right.
2/3 chance it's on one of the other two doors.
The host opens one door. He's always going to pick one with a goat. So he's giving you new information. But the chance you were wrong with your first pick is still 2/3.

So after there's only two doors left, the initial pick is still 1/3 probability but switching doors gives you a 2/3 chance.

>>52386554
You can code a simulation of this fairly easily, switching wins out. Unless you believe that your computer's CPU is controlled by Da Joos too, but if that's the case I don't know why it'd lets you post here.

To be fair, you have to have a pretty high IQ to understand the monty hall problem.

>>52387895
Yeah, use whatever buzzword you want. You're stealing monero chan from me.

>>52387882
It's actually based on a real TV show in Britain (Monty Python) which had to suspend the game because they fucked up and were giving players a 2/3 chance of winning by switching.

>>52386554
Bingo

>>52387939
Yes, but one of those options is the door you're with, stupid

Ultimately, you're still rolling ONE

>>52386796
Lol, you're clueless

>>52387854
>Because the host cannot reveal the car

do we know that or not?

>>52387958
*Monty Hall sorry

>>52386429
I hope this a light-hearted troll rather than an actual attempt at demoralization.

The question is confusing and has even temporarily confused mathematicians and statisticians. .

>>52387949
>Unless you believe that your computer's CPU is controlled by Da Joos too
They are literally designed in Israel.

Door 2 will have the goat as well, which if you can anticipate disappointment by virtue of the metaphorical cynicism this problem displays with only one half of the goat showing, we can deduce the only rational choice to be door 1 as the direction the goat is facing and the end of it being obscured, much like how we see the bear market and can't see the end yet, and so I choose assets that aren't necessarily dependent on the trends.

>>52387939
1/2

>>52387958
>It's actually based on a real TV show in Britain (Monty Python)

monty python was not a game show

>>52387980
No, that's the point, switching doors is like getting to pick 2 doors at once.

>>52387999
racial prejudice against scientific knowledge is one of my favorite aspects of human tribalism.

>>52388013
Monty Hall my bad

The real question is... does the host always do this no matter what you choose? Then the answer is clearly switch, if the host wants you to lose and will just reveal the goat if you initially chose one then you stay

https://youtube.com/watch?v=iBdjqtR2iK4

>>52386554
People who believe in switching are the same people who believe in Heisenberg uncertainty principle, quantum entanglement, renormalization and all other manner of Jewish mathematical legerdemain.

>>52388017
No you fucking faggot, you're opening ONE DOOR
>oh but you're picking 2
NO. YOU ARE NOT. YOU ARE OPENING ONE DOOR.

This entire 'trick' hinges on the idea that the host wants you to win and switch. Maybe the host wants you to switch because you got the right now.

>>52387882
>the host has no agenda or bias and is completely random in which one of the empty doors he chooses.
>problem literally says the host will show you a door that has a dud prize
nothing in the problem indicates that the host's choice of door is random

>>52387980
Yes, but if you had chosen another one, then the door that would have opened would have been your door. The door with the car is never opened.

>>52388034
also using science to advance racist or other social agendas is my runner up. but something about rejecting the theory of gravity because a white guy made it is pretty funny to me. it's impressive how stupid some people can be.

this problems fucking stupid
no there is no advantage to switching
fuck monty hall and his gay logic

>>52387939
The math can automatically update in my head. I don't need to switch doors

>>52388070
Think about it for a second, retard.

If the option you chose is the one with the car, then obviously he couldn't have opened it. If it isn't, it wouldn't have opened. There is no fucking difference.

>>52388060
The premise is that the host always offers you to switch. Under that premise, it's better to switch.

>>52388060
Switching only works if the host ALWAYS offers the change. If you're offered the change only sometimes, with the host having an interest in you not winning, then it doesn't apply.

>>52387919
It's clearly you who doesn't understand it, he's literally backing what I said brainlet.

y'all better be pretending to be retarded.

>>52388067
*Completely random in which empty door he chooses between the two

>>52386554
stick to pension funds brainlet

>>52386429

You're the dumbest fucking retards on this board. The chance is 1/3 if the host does nothing. If the host reveals a goat, your chances have dropped by 1/9, since the goat reveals its udder under the Scooby-Doo doo mattress. If you switch, your chance of winning is reduce by a corvette swimming in an Olympic pool.

>>52388072
>gravity
Show me where you found it, and describe its mechanism of action.

How does the problem change if the host only sometimes offers the participant to change and not always?

>>52388197
As far as I can tell, things like to fall to the ground.
I'm not sure though, since birds are thing, but they can only fly so high. maybe birds have their own gravity, idk DYOR.

>>52388057
This. Don't forget string theory, time "dilation", dark matter, multiple universe theories and other such stuff that is obviously nonsense to anyone with a properly analytic mind.

If you want to get into paradoxes you should look into vaccine numbers. Did you know that you could have a test for covid that is 98% effective for showing true positives and 98% effective for showing true negatives and still for any person with the test done be extremely unlikely to have covid if covid is actually very rare? It's true, based on Bayes' theorem. You have all these people testing positive for covid because so many people take the test.

easiest way to understand is:

you have door A. which means 1/3
host shows one of the GOATS and eliminates door C with it

if you keep your door, it means you're still running 1/3 chances because even if you know door C was a goat door, your decision locked of picking door A still runs a 1/3 (33%) chance of being right regardless, because revealing a goat keeps the dynamics the same
now if you have the chance do switch to B door after the first goat reveal, your new decision is guaranteed to run in a 50%, 1/2 chance

There's a greater likelihood you'll pick the wrong door than the right one, so it seems to me you should switch, as we know the game hose must choose incorrectly. If you choose incorrectly initially then switching offers a clear advantage, if you choose correctly initially there is no advantage/disadvantage statistically speaking.

>>52387418
Undeniably and objectively based. Although in real life you should take into consideration of the host is jew or not before switching, he obviously wants you to lose. If you pick, the host would tell immediately "oh sorry, you lost" and that's it...but if you picked the correct choice he would say "oh goy, why don't you change your pick? It's mathematically to your favour, see this funny picture explaining the odds"

>>52386429

>>52388201
In the direction of lower profitability for the contestant

>>52386605
>roll for initiative
Fav post on biz today.

>>52388259
Wait, so does math work or not? Are you saying this covid bayes thing is true, because math? But switching doors is not true, because math is fake? I have a hard time following your properly analytical mind, presumably because I’m dumb and indoctrinated.

>>52387418
are people here really this stupid? the original problem happens exactly once
why the fuck are you running 3 scenarios to justify whats only going to happen once?

>>52388485
It doesn't say the host chooses incorrectly though. If the host is intentionally choosing incorrectly then I agree you should change.

>>52388601
>I have a hard time following your properly analytical mind, presumably because I’m dumb and indoctrinated.
ah well if you're going to be like that I won't answer you.

>>52386494
Where is the missing 1/6?
Fucking imbeciles.

>>52388353
lmao

It's not even that hard, just plot it on a truth table. Here are literally all the possibilities. Count the successes for switching and staying. Or is basic fucking addition now also a Jewish trick?

>>52386642
Honest question to anybody not trolling but actually dumb enough to not get this and who thinks switching doesn’t matter: are you either a leftist or a far rightwinger? My theory is moderates from both sides (though there aren’t any moderates left on the left) will have no problem understanding basic math and logic, whereas the extremists on both sides are convinced they know better than math.

>>52386700
Buddy, I got this right when I was ten, first time I heard it. It’s a 90 IQ high pass filter.

I have a question. Is the host "my nigga"

>>52386429
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lb-6rxZxx0

Here you retards, you always switch to #2.

>>52388756
>are you either a leftist or a far rightwinger
Radical centrist.

>>52386429
The real question is which group makes up only 2% of the population but controls the media, finance, politics and will cancel you if you mention them?

>>52386554
These are the kinds of fucking retards giving financial advice on /biz/ holy shit
You always switch

>>52387265
Monty Hall does not require conditional probabilistics to solve.

>>52386717
No, you retard. If you stay with your choice you are betting on the fact that you picked 1 door out of 1000 correctly. If he shuts all the other doors and only gives you a couple options left you are much more likely to win from a switch.
Jesus no wonder everyone on /biz/ is fuckin broke.

>>52388904
Same, but I can count. Does >>52388752 not demystify it for you?

REEEEEEE HIROSHIMOOT LET ME POOOST

>>52388907
The key is always to check early life on Wikipedia.

But for the question. If you don’t switch, you have 1/3 chance to pick monero chan.

If you switch, you have 1/3 chance to pick monero chan, then switch and lose. You have 2/3 chance to not pick monero chan, switch and win. Therefore, switch.

>>52387869
It’s not pretend. This is how retarded /biz/ is, confidence substituting for competence as always. Please note the signs, since this is an example with an objective truth, how the people arguing against objective truth share a common trait of being very obnoxiously defensive, saying how anyone who disagrees are sheep who fell for propaganda. Draw from this the conclusion that people who behave that way are very rarely worth listening to.

>>52388752
Most people in /biz/ are contrarians. I don't dispute the results, but I find the explanations lacking. I feel like there is something here that none of you are covering.

>>52387949
>he doesn't know about the ime

>>52386494
that's a gamblers fallacy retard. Stick to pensions.

>>52389064
what they arent saying is that the problem is written one way and they are interpreting it how they want to
this anon already cracked the case and exposed their jewish lie if you are interested: >>52386820

>>52386554
The proper terminology is the gamblers fallacy.

>>52386429
>Who knows what's behind the doors
Wow nice a version of this that actually explicitly states the most important detail

>>52386465
fpbp

>>52389054
I choose to believe everyone is pretending to be retarded to rustle your jimmies.

>>52388633
Checked. Not like you could answer anyway, if you had half a brain you’d realize you were BTFO in the first part.

>>52386429
Pick door #3. Fuck Monero.

>>52386798
This is retarded. Every door that is not opened has the exact same probability of being the door with monero chan behind it. if you pick two and not one you still have a choice between 1 and 2 and 3 you already know about retard.

>>52388904
Ok you got me. Ok, are all the people who don’t get it left, right or centrist extremists rather than moderates? My theory is you end up thinking you know better than everyone else (radicalism) and thinking you know better than math (this thread) via the same lack of basic humility.

>>52389064
Would you rather pick at random before the host eliminates a wrong answer, or afterwards?

>>52389151
Anon, we both know that's not true.

>>52389151
> I choose to believe everyone is pretending to be retarded to rustle your jimmies
That’s what I did for the first couple of years. Eventually that defense wears down.

>>52388850
She says:
>There is a 1/3 chance that the car is behind the door you picked initially. That means there must be a 2/3 chance the car is somewhere else.
This is false. It would only be true if the prize reveal was done after the contestant's first pick and no further choice was involved. In that case she is correct and the chance is 1/3, but this scenario is different. She assumes that the only way to get to a 2/3 chance is to switch, but it's possible that the contestant's original pick was in the 2/3 possibility set and the host's goat pick was in the 1/3 possibility set.

There are only two options:
Contestant's original pick is in the 2/3 probability set.
Contestant's original pick is in the 1/3 probability set.

The contestant has no way of knowing which set his original pick is in (2/3 or 1/3) and so there is no advantage in switching. By switching he is just as likely to increase his odds as reduce his odds.

Isn't deciding to switch or not a 50% in the end, what the fuck are people talking about?

>>52389118
No, jesus christ, no, lmao. it's a gamblers fallacy.
Jesus EVERY DOOR HAS THE SAME CHANCE OF HAVING A GOAT/MONEROCHAN

>>52389213
When you are driven to radicalism, the radicalism is seen as necessary to survive some sort of hostility in your environment, thus you cannot except new information that could compromise your radicalism because you need radicalism to survive the hostile environment. So new information becomes the enemy. And some people can't parse information for truth value any way.

>>52389266
thats some freestyle math if I've ever seen one

>>52389266
...wat?

>>52389276
can you refute this? >>52388752
the catch of this fucking problem relies entirely on the host knowing which door has the goat and NOT choosing ever the door with the car. if these are met then what anon said is 100% accurate. im sure if you think about it for a bit you will also reach the same conclusion just as a I did

>>52389275
Your first choice is a 66% chance of picking a goat. If you have chosen a goat, switching doors at the end will be a car or whatever because the second goat is eliminated. Therefore, picking a door and then switching gives you a 66% chance to win the thing you want.

>>52389304
>>52389306
This is why you don't try learn complex mathematical skills through a Wikipedia article.

>>52389294
While that is true, you describe a rational person’s descent into radicalism. I hold that another path to radicalism is the combination of low iq and low humility. Sure there would be an overlap in that dumb braggards would be more likely to find themselves in conditions promoting radicalism, but I contend that a dumb, confident person born with a silver spoon will also soon be a radical. It’s inevitable if you’re dumb and self-aggrandizing enough.

>>52389227
Lets say you pick in your mind a door, but you do not announce it. The host then reveals a door with a goat. There is a 1/3 chance this was your door. If it was your door, then you will switch. However, if it wasn't your door, would you still switch doors in your mind?

>>52389390
dude you will never be in the 2/3s simply because they are by default the host's
he will always have a goat and a car, and he will always reveal his goat. he has control of 2 doors, and one is always a 0 chance. that leaves his other door as a...?

>>52386802
The host knows what is behind the doors and is making deterministic decisions based on that information. His action is visible to you, giving you more information about the state of the system than you otherwise would have had.

This doesn't compute in most peoples brains because the information it gives you is probabilistic; they can't deduce for sure which door is correct just from his choice, so they discard the information as irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant though, 2/3 of the time the host will have picked the only door available to him.

>>52389427
That changes the math: the host may simply open the door you had in mind.

>>52389462
The host doesn't state that though. For all you know he might be choosing at random which one to pick.

If he said something like "Let me help you, I will choose a goat from the remaining doors" then it works. The question doesn't state this.

You don't seem to appreciate how the mind of a jew works.

>>52386429
this one's so famous how did this thread get 176 replies?

>>52389427
Please keep thinking. You are close.
You have just proven that if the host burns a door before you pick, all the idiots in this thread who think it’s 50/50 are right. That means that in their heads, they are really modeling the problem such as if the host burns a door before the pick. If he does, two doors remain, one with a goat and one with a price, and you have a 50/50 chance.
So, why is it different when you pick a door first, and the host then has a choice between the two remaining doors (and where his choice is forced to the one door with a goat in 2/3 of cases)?
If you let the host burn the door first you have 50/60, but if you pick a door first (and switch) your chances improve to 2/3. Think about it until you understand why, once you get it it will seem totally obvious and most posters in this thread will appear as the over-confident idiots they are.

>>52389480
But would it make your odds of winning worse?

>>52389452
>he will always have a goat and a car
The host doesn't always have a goat and a car though, in his set of doors. That's a false assumption. The two doors left to the host *may* have two goats. You can say his two doors have a 2/3 chance of winning if you know that he always has a goat and a car, but if his two doors have two goats then his two doors have a 2/3 chance of losing. If you include that possibility then there is no advantage in switching.
>>52389266

>>52389515
It makes no difference at that final state. If he picks the prize from the two remaining doors (50% chance) then the game terminates then and there. If he reveals a goat (50%) then the original logic applies and you should switch.

>>52389550
Yes, the whole trick is he is picking based on what you picked, meaning he has 2 doors available to him instead of 3. If you don't knock a door out of the running then you're back to.. 1/2 in this case rather than the better 2/3 you'd have had had you prevented him from picking a door.

What happens if you choose a door and the host says “i can reveal whats behind one of the two other doors if you want to” would you say yes?

How can biz be this retarded?
It's really simple.
You pick a door, you have 33% chance to guess, 66% to miss.
Host opens a goat, no matter what you choose.
You HAD 66% chance you had missed and 33% chance you had guessed. So you SHOULD switch doors because one got eliminated where a goat was, leaving you with a 66% chance to win with switching and 33% chance winning without switching

>>52386429
When you first pick a door there is already a 2 out of three chance of it being a goat

>>52389515
Right, that's why this question is often a bit bullshit because it relies on the reader making deductions about the script the host is following by knowing how gameshows work.

If you're smart you can figure it out though; he can't choose the door you picked, because then the next stage of the gameshow where you choose whether to stay or switch can't happen. For the same reason he can't choose the winning door, it would ruin the show.

>>52389733
I refuse to believe they are really retarded.
4chan was built to troll thats all this thread is.

>>52389549
It's weird fathoming that you go from 1/3 to 2/3 by switching, eventhough by that point there's only 2 doors left. Almost as if the probabilities of the first pick (out of 3 doors) magically go over to the second pick (out of 2).

But I guess that's exactly where the error is - in seeing them as separate picks, while in reality they are continuation of one single pick.

I feel like such a retard going step by step. But it seems that by removing one door, the host basically puts the remaining 2/3 chances of the two doors you didn't pick into the one remaining unpicked door.

I abstractly understand that, and >>52386642 makes it especially simple. But I just cannot grasp it, intuitively.

>>52386704
>Additionally game shows have a vested interest in me losing and the "opportunity" to change my choice could be a trick on their part
Behold the only smart man in this thread

>>52386429
I pick door number 2 because

goat-monero-goat

Therefore monero chan is on door #2

>>52387132
It’s just a trick question/intentionally poorly worded to illicit responses like this. It should mention explicitly or not whether the host of the game knows for sure they are picking a door without a prize behind it, because the probabilities all hinge off that. Instead, it’s one of those retarded brain teasers designed to get everyone raging over probability. I hate these questions because they’re always like this, it’s not even difficult it’s just word games.

>>52389733
>>52389761
Can it be the difference is between knowing and really understanding? A lot of people "know" shit without grasping it, and come to retarded conclusions when rigidly applying their formulaic "knowledge" to unapplicable situations. Those that go by intuition don't fall for that trap.

Not saying nobody here grasps it, but I'm sure many midwits don't see the difference between knowing and grasping.

>>52389817
Imagine it like this then:
There are 3 doors, you pick one. Then, instead of opening one of the other doors to reveal the goat, the host asks would you like to switch to BOTH of them, and you would win as long as at least one has the prize? (Lose if they've both goats). Would you switch then? It's essentially the same mechanics, mathematically

>>52389889
That's a nice spin, haven't seen that one before.

I guess I'm starting to get it. There's 3 ways the host can pick a door, if you've picked A
>door B, no choice
>door C, no choice
>door B/C, has choice

And only in the third scenario do you lose by switching, because you've already picked the right door. So that's one way to see why switching is 2/3.

Still not grasping lmao. Analytics was never intuitive for me.

>>52389728
>>52389549
I feel like OP's question is taking a subset from my original scenario.
>>52389427

If the host saved you from choosing a goat once, and gave you a second chance, then it means you got two choices in a game where you have 1/3 chances of winning. Thus your chance of winning is 2/3. I feel like the option of switching after a wrong answer has been revealed is basically equivalent to being given X amount of retries, where X is number of wrong doors revealed. So for example, if there were 4 doors and 2 goats were revealed, it would be like playing a 1/4 game 3 times giving you a 3/4 chance of winning if you switch.

>>52386554
You're wrong. Initially, you knew nothing about anything behind the 3 doors, just that one held the prize. After revealing an incorrect door (the one they reveal will always be an incorrect door in this scenario and that is important.) you have gained more information and a better chance at guessing where that prize is (it's 50/50 now). However, if you choose not to change your door, you are not "upgrading" to the 50/50 chance because you have kept the same choice you made when you had 0 information (a 33% chance). Only retards cannot understand it when its spelled out like this.

>>52389817
>But I just cannot grasp it, intuitively.
You're not supposed to. It's from a game show. The whole sequence of events is specifically designed to trick people. Anyone who hasn't seen it before will probably fall into the trap... even trained mathematicians. I myself didn't understand it until I read about the 1000 doors version.

>>52390199
I've seen it and know the answer. I've also seen the 1000 doors version :)

Still don't grasp it.

>>52386429
the problem with biz is that it's actually really difficult to judge how many are trolling or just retarded

>>52389361
Yes you retard, IT'S A GAMBLERS FALLACY LOOK IT UP.

Jesus, doing math on it is dumb because there is no math to do on it. It's basically numerology at that point. Everydoor has the exact same chance of being a winner/looser and opening a door doesn't change that.

>>52390213
can you still not grasp it even after seeing this? >>52388752
its what made me understand the problem.

>>52390247
Holy shit. 1 out of three doors being open doesn't change the odds of it being a winner or a looser or not.

Wrap your mind around this.

>>52390229
thats like saying you have a 1/6 chance to roll a 6 on a dice when the dice is loaded. there are outside factors at play and you refuse to acknowledge them

>>52390282
You're post hoc adding shit to the word problem to justify your smooth brain.

>>52389761
People are not trolling here, it's just a tricky question. Doesn't mean you're a complete and utter retard if you think it's 50% if you keep your choice. Some people may say "hey it was 1/3 originally but now it's a completely new game with 50/50 odds" and it makes totally sense. Although the correct answer is that switching gives you more probabilities of actually winning. People here troll in claiming lost ether in the blockchain or the btc frozen price in the trezors, kek

>>52390293
whatever man. you wrote looser so you're an esl to top it off. the choice to remain dumb is yours. if you scroll up you will notice my first post itt was calling someone a retard because I ALSO thought it was a 50/50 like you. and then I took my time to understand the problem, something you refuse to do apparently.

>>52390314
It's a pleb filter, it shouldn't take much effort or explanation for you to understand.

>>52390326
>You made a typo so actually I am right

Literally the dumbest thing you have said. If you cannot understand the gamblers fallacy that is your own dumb ass fault.

>>52390355
Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the basic principle at work here, I'll explain. After the host reveals a goat, you now have a one-in-two chance of being correct. Whether you change your selection or not, the odds are the same. There is enough mathematical illiteracy in this country, and we don't need the world's highest IQ propagating more. Shame!

>>52390400
funniest thing is you still havent addressed the truth table. godspeed anon.

>>52390431
There's nothing to address you retard. It's literally numerology.

>>52390420
haha, I always appreciate a good troll.

>>52390420
Let say you start the game. The host will reveal a goat after you choose a door. However, you are not allowed to switch. Has the chance of you winning increased to 50% simply because the host revealed a goat. No, it remained 1/3.

>>52390482
Anon, there are 4 types of people in this world.
Those who understand on their own
Those who can understand when they are shown
Those who cannot understand ever
and Trolls.

>>52390453
He doesn't understand that the application of his numerology post hoc assumes the question is not fallacious which it is.

>>52390400
Gambler’s fallacy is to think conditional probability applies when it doesn’t. By thinking gambler’s fallacy applies to this problem of unconditional probability, you are in fact the one committing gambler’s fallacy.

>>52390525
A gamblers fallacy is thinking that a dice roll on one increases the odds of the next dice roll being something other than one. The question was simple: Do you change your door? You are throwing your numerology ontop of the problem because you are an idiot.

Everyone throwing around so much bullshit I can't even tell who's on what side anymore...

>>52390571
Because the set of possible outcomes of the first and second dice roll are INDEPENDENT of each other.

The set of possible choices of doors pre and post goat reveal ARE DEPENDENT on each other.

>>52390482
>>52390063
Combing these two principles.
If you do not switch, then the odds are the same if you were never offered a chance to switch to begin with. Hence, it would be 33% chance of winning if you did not switch. If you are offered a second choice, what would be the odds of wining if you switched? It cannot be 50%, because 50% + 33% is less then 100%. You are 100% certain of winning a prize if you choose one of the two. So it has to add up to 100%, so it must be 66%.

Everyone talking about 50-50 needs to think how would the odds be different if you were not allowed to switch, but a goat was still revealed. I think the problem with people's analysis is they limit themselves to just the original scenario and don't explore what happens if you slightly change things. Like for example, not being given the opportunity to switch.

>>52390607
>The goat doors are dependant on one another

Are they? Why?
They are not.

>>52390632
It's literally the same set of doors shrunken from 3 doors to two doors.
SAME set.

>>52390618
Holy fuck this anon has to be trolling

>>52390648
But the doors aren't dependent on one another. Being in a set doesn't make them dependent on one another you dumb nigger.

Thank you, OP, for posting this thread. I learned nothing about the Monty Hall problem, I already understand it. It taught me, instead, just how both dumb and arrogant the posters are on this board. Knowing this, I can be more careful to ignore them and understand they're arrogantly cherishing their foolishness. They haven't the slightest bit of curiosity. I'm not kidding, too. I really needed this reminder. Thank you.

Anyone else reading this thread -- this is the big takeaway. Understand and remember vice. This board is 1% genius and 99% violent fools.

>>52390661
ha, I fell for the troll.
any way bye.

>>52390632
Because the quizmaster opening one door and not opening the other door gives information about the doors, while it gives no information about the door you chose. Your first door still has a 1/3 chance but the remaining door has the other 2/3

>>52390661
The host reveals a goat every single time. Imagine are you not given the option to switch.
You choose a door, the host reveals a goat, and then you deduce your odds of winning. It is still 33%. It has not changed.

Now repeat the exact same scenario, except you are offered a chance to switch. Does this new option increase your original chances of winning if you don't switch? No, you still have 33%. Yet, of the two choices remaining one of them must be the prize. So switching must give you a 66% chance of winning because 100% - 33% = 66%.

>>52390668
2/3rds?

>>52390668
>50 because the chance of getting a gold ball first is higher on the double gold box?

>>52390722
You already have a gold ball. There's 2/3 it came from the first box and 1/3 from the second.

It's literally intro probabilities level. Look up the complement of an event...

1/3 Good choice
2/3 *Not* good choice

It's at your advantage if you switch. You can try it out since i know most of you niggers are retards

Say it's in Door 1 and you DON'T switch

>You choose Door 1
You're right
>You choose Door 2
You're wrong
>You choose Door 3
You're wrong

Doesnt take a genius...

>>52390754
thats what I meant, i did not mean to greentext, >50 should read as higher than 50. I just did not wanna say 66% for sure because I went with logic, not statistic lmao

>>52390668
You can either look at this like you had a 1/3 chance of picking the double gold ball box, or you can look at it like you had 2/3 chance of picking a box with a gold in it, and then it breaks down further that you've got a 1/2 chance of picking the double gold ball from the 2/3 boxes with gold. multiplying 2/3 by 1/2 and you get 2/6 which is the original 1/3

so the odds is just 1/3

Obviously it's to your advantage, in the first pick you had a 1/3 chance and you were wrong, you now have a 1/2 chance.

Additionally you also already have a goat, so if you are wrong and there is another goat behind door two then it's nothing lost, you literally end up in the same situation as you were already in and you got another shot to win.

Why is this considered difficult? Are people just retarded?

>>52386465
Kek

>>52386429
You switch.
The fact that anon misses is that there's a nost and this isn't random chance.
So to summarize
1. You make your random choice(1/3rd)
2. The host knows what all doors leads to.
3. Of the remaining door, he picks one with a goat(non random)
4. He offers the choice to stay or change the door
At this point, the random choice that you made still has the same probability as before but the second door inherits the goat probability.

You really need to realize that there is a non random choice.

>>52390824
>you now have a 1/2 chance.
Also wrong. Don't be so smug

>>52390819
>You can either look at this like you had a 1/3 chance of picking the double gold ball box
I feel like you speedran the quesiton or just did not read it at all

Here you go, you brainlets. output:

>0.3287
>0.66

switching doors is always better

>>52390668
By definition you have put your hand into either box 1 or box 2. Therefore it's 50/50 silver or gold

>>52390668
It's 50/50, we can discount the two silver ball box as we now have more information (that our box cannot be the box with two silver balls) so we know there are two possibilities, either the ball is gold or silver, there is one of each.

>>52390867
>but the second door inherits the goat probability.
Yeah if only you could make that understandable enough. How do options inherit probabilities?

I often wonder if people in these kinds of threads are being retarded on purpose or they actually don't get it. I tend to wards not pretending since I know when this has been brought up in real life people actually struggle to understand it.

>>52386429
I don't even have to read it or understand the problem to say that the correct answer is to switch to the other door. Damn, I'm smart.

>>52390879
The only possible scenario where you pick out two golds is when you pick the double gold box and that's a 1/3 chance.

it's a simple question.

>>52390890
is the chance of getting a gold ball on your first try the same on both boxes? think this one through

>>52390918
But there's a greater probability of the gold ball originating from box 1 instead of 2.

Imagine if there were 100 balls in a box. Box 1 is all gold, box 2 still just one gold ball and 99 silver. Would you still say it's 50/50?

>>52390925
4channers tend to be smarter than your average bears, except for the psychotics who use this site.

>>52390918
Wrong, you have a bigger chance to pick the box with only gold balls because with the other box there's a 50% chance to pick a silver ball

>>52390925
No one is being retarded. It’s a logic v (((probabilities))) debate. Both can be correct

>>52390953
Yea true I didn't think of that

>>52386465
this is the right answer

>>52386429
the host knows what is behind the doors

>>52390925
People are just trolling. This board is for high IQ doge-bonk and gamestop traders only.

>>52391030
the question is retarded as the host knows
what is behind the doors, it is not a game of chance

>>52390819
The question wants to trick you because while it states you pick a box "at random", 100% of the time in this scenario, you will get a box with either two gold or one gold and one silver. The third box is not factored in.

Now of the scenarios of which you pulled a gold
GG -> Right gold
GG -> Left Gold
GS -> Only Gold

So 2/3 of the time you pick a gold ball it's in the box with two of them.

So many pseudointellectuals frothing ITT circlejerking each other with “muh different sets”. Anyone who thinks switching will gain you a probability advantage likely also thinks that after flipping a coin and getting tails 9x in a row the 10th flip has a higher chance of getting heads. Think about it.

>>52390709
Switching doesn't change the percentage though, tf. Why would it? Both doors independently do no change the chance of getting a goat or not. It makes no sense what you are saying. Weather you switch the door or not you have the same chance regardless of what it is. Let's so X% rather than 33% The percent is always X. What you are doing is some numerology to make it seem different but it's always X

they keep coming

This entire thread fails to take the magic factor into account. Is the host a wizard? That changes everything.

>>52390933
that wasnt the question though

>>52391121
No, retard
It does increase the chances, because the host has removed a goat door from the choices. If the host doesn't remove a goat door from the choices, your chances stay the same.

Literally proven here:
>>52390883

Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial and rejected her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them calling vos Savant wrong.[4] Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still did not accept that switching is the best strategy.[5] Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating vos Savant's predicted result.[6]

>>52391191
so who is in the wrong here?

>>52386627
>Yes, you always switch you have 2/3 chances of success if you switch and 1/3 if you stay.
an example of a stupid kid who thinks he's smart.
The odds of it being door 2 are the same as if it was door 3.
go back to school and stop reading facebook memes

>>52391170
The question..................
Has any derived the probabilities?

>>52391190
no it doesn't you moronic fuck. the chance is always X. Does flipping a coin and it landing on tails make it more likely you will get a heads?

>>52391221
he asked the probability of getting another gold ball, not the probability of getting the 2 gold ball box.

>>52391142
what if the name of the host is david friedman goldberg?

>>52391214
i see the logic now, its still jewish math but i get the line of thinking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

t. a past no switch, doesn't matter guy

>>52390919
Initially you have a 1/3 chance of picking the correct door, and a 2/3 chance that the other doors are correct instead. The host reveals one of the incorrect doors. There's still a 2/3 chance that the remaining door - the door which you didn't pick initially and the door the host didn't reveal - is the correct door.

>>52388938
Nigger it doesn't actually increase your chances it just rhetorically increases your chances
You fell for the Jewish common core mindtricks

>>52391221
its 2/3 this thing gets asked all the time on pol it
is better than the goat thing as the goat game assume s
the game is fair and that the host doesn't know where the second goat is

does the host have to ask? does he always ask? is he asking only once?

the host having no knowledge is obviously silly

>>52391230
You can run a simulation here to see how you're wrong, but you won't, cuz you're trolling https://trinket.io/python3/81f741ce1c

this is a jewish trickery question and this is meant to be confusing. the example works when there are far more boxes, unknown vs. known. in this example, it is for less demonstrable and looks to be word play.

>>52391235
It's the same thing
The only scenario where you pick two gold from the box is where you pick the box with two gold.

Again, you know you picked a box with a gold ball from your first draw, so you picked one of the two out of three with at least one gold ball.
>2/3 odds
The chance the next ball is gold is 1/2 since you there are two possible boxes that have at least one gold, and yours is one of the two
>1/2 odds

(2/3)*(1/2)=2/6 OR 1/3

same as picking the only box with two golds, 1/3.

Simple question simple answer.

Monty hall is better.

this thread is so funny I wanna suck op off as a thanking gesture

>>52386554
Based and correct. The problem changed when the goat was realized. No need to keep the jewish mathemagic bullshit original equation. Goyim are so gullible it hurts.

>>52391320
I dont agree with your first probability. you already KNOW you did not pick the 3rd box. its a non factor. why the fuck are you factoring it in? legit question

>>52391246
>There's still a 2/3 chance that the remaining door
See you didn't really explain it, you just said the same thing again.

Explain how the probability of the two doors becomes the probability of one door. Do not just say it.

>>52391375
Because the third box is always a factor.
We don't know what's in the box and what we don't know can and will hurt us. Always expect the unexpected. That's why we factor in the third box.

>>52391121
Just extrapolate to 1000 doors.
You choose a door and the host reveals goats behind 998 doors.
Do you switch or do you keep your selection?

Now imagine you winning is dependent on winning the prize 50/100 times. Will you split your choices 50-50, will you choose to always keep your choice, or would you choose to switch every time?

>>52386465
Correct choice

>>52386554
No idea why none of the retards are trying to explain it this way, but here:
When you choose one of the 3 doors you have a 66% chance of choosing a wrong door, in which case the host can only remove the other wrong door. ---> 66% of the time changing your choice will result in choosing the correct door.
Then if you scale this up to 100 doors, 99% of the time you'll choose wrong and the host can only remove the remaining 98 wrong doors and leave the right one, so 99% of the time changing wins.

>>52391408
Sorry that's not enough doors for me to understand your example, can you try using 100,000 thousand doors or maybe a million?

>>52391420
we're gonna need more doors.

I cant believe i've seen this problem for years and it took me almost 3 examples of this post and the subsequent fallout to realize i was wrong

my stubbornness led me to believe i was right

the problem is much clearer when expanded to more unknowns

The next time someone on this website tries to give you financial advice, just remember this thread.

>>52391320
So much effort to come to the wrong conclusion

>>52391446
They wore you down. Now you’ll believe anything.

>>52391405
hm. I understand now. but you have to fake not knowing whats in the box for that to work, which is the entire point of the red text. but then if we dont know whats in the box, whats stopping it from being 3 boxes with 1 gold and 1 silver each? then the answer would be 0

>>52391498
I must consult with the oracle

>>52391476
dam you hurt my feelings fr

im a weak man

>>52391396
There's a 2/3 chance the doors you didn't pick contain one care and one goat. When that's the case, the remaining door always has a car.

>>52391290
Does flipping a coin give you a better chance of the intended result? Yes or no?

>>52391511
the oracle wont save you now muhammad. hes busy trying to to fuck one of the 2 goats

>>52390122
Ok so when it’s just a 50/50 chance you choose the same door you already chose the first time. It’s still a 50/50 chance and you are still choosing 1 of 2 doors, not knowing anymore about what’s behind either of the two closed doors

>>52391537
By that time, it's just one door. Out of two. And a 2/3 probability? Explain the exact mechanism by which the probability of the host-revealed-goat-door gets inherited by the second door. Otherwise I do not comprehend this Talmudic sorcery.

The host are good guy, you just need to trust em, that's why trust is expensive

Nobody has addressed the more salient problem. Supposing you chose correctly, how are you gonna get the car through the door?

This thread on a solved mathematical problem is going to hit the bump limit...

>>52391607
because the new information of the goat in the third room has given you a new formula to deal with. switching in this example seems to provide no real value, but you are now choosing a 50/50 over a .33 because of this new information

>>52391617
They are garage doors silly.

>>52391620
This happened because you fucks thought you could challenge God.

>>52391552
No, coin flips are independent.

I get it, you can't wrap your brain around why switching increases your odds. That's because the door that the host opens (the one with the goat) is not an independent choice.

The host will never pick your door, and he will never pick the door with the prize. Therefore it is not an independent random choice, and he increases your probability of picking the winning door, but only if you choose to pick again. If you don't choose to switch, you're still at 1/3 odds.

>>52391607

C = CAR G = UNKNOWN GOAT R = RANDOM GOAT THAT WILL CHANGE DEPENDING ON YOUR PICK

C G R
1/3 (1/3 1/3) = 2/3

R will always be a 0 because the host will always choose a goat (while also knowing where the car is)

so now you have

C G R
1/3 (2/3-0) = G is the 2/3 since R is always 0
just switch the letters around now and you will see that the host always wins 2/3s of the time.

>>52389370
>>52389370
Nope, it gives you 1/2.
Look, I hashed it out on paper, yeah if you choose the car initially then you'll get two scenarios where you pick the goat if you switch since one goat doors is chosen at random, but for every scenario where you pick the car initially there are two scenarios where you pick the goat initially, and if you switch in case you initially picked a goat, then there is only sceneario if you switch, you pick a car.

Look at the pic related where I drew it, first branch group is which door(a, B or C) the car is behind, second branch group is what you pick, if you didn't switch that'd give you the probabilities of having picked the car or the goat, green circles are scenarios where you picked the car, red scenarios where you picked the goat. Third branch group is what door you end up with if you switch, you can see that there is the same number of scenarios where you end up with a goat as where you end up with the car.

>>52390571
> A gamblers fallacy is thinking that a dice roll on one increases the odds of the next dice roll being something other than one.
Yes, you mongoloid apeman, that would be an example of someone mistaking unconditional probability for conditional probability. Just as you are doing here. However, do note that the formulas for conditional probability hold for unconditional probability too, as long as you don’t lie about correlations that are not there. That’s why some people who incorrectly believe the Monty Hall problem has anything to do with conditional probability will still be able to model the problem correctly using their tools, making some people mistakenly think conditional probability applies.
In reality, the following is a correct re-modeling of the Monty Hall problem, with the same math but no conditional probabilities:
A game has three doors, behind one is a price. You get to pick one door. What are the odds you picked the door with the price?
If you understand the answer is 1/3, you understand all the maths involved in the Monty Hall problem. The “twist” doesn’t actually have to be modeled or taken into account at all. The host offers you to switch, picking the group containing the other two doors? The chance the price is in that group is 2/3. The host opens one of the doors in that group, revealing a goat? Doesn’t change the fact that there’s a 2/3 chance the price is in that group. The host opens the door before or after offering you to switch? Makes zero difference. The problem can be reformulated as “three doors, one with a price, you pick a door you DON’T want, which is burned, the host then picks one of the remaining doors without a price and burns it - what are the chances that the price sits behind the remaining door? It’s a simple truth table.

>>52391856
(Cont)
Repeat the experiment 1000 times, 1/3 of times you burn the door with the price, remaining 2/3 of times you don’t, and the host never burns the price, so in all cases where you didn’t burn the price, which is 2/3 of cases, you’ll win the price. No conditional probability

>>52391856
>>52391867
don't bother, he's retarded or trolling (no effective difference)

>>52391867
Switching always gives the opposite of what you chose initially, you can't choose the open door. Of course it has to be taken into account.

>>52391867
Perhaps the easiest way to understand is this: 3 doors, one with a price, you get to pick one. You understand that you have a 1/3 shot at the price. Now the host comes in and burns one of the remaining doors, but he DOESN’T let you switch. He just does it for show. To understand Monty Hall, you have to understand that at this point, your chance to pick the right door at the start was 1/3, and the host burning a door doesn’t change that. It doesn’t, important to note, suddenly turn your odds of coming home with a price into 50/50. Repeat the game 1000 times and 1/3 of contestants will have picked the right door and get the price.
Once you understand that the host burning the other door doesn’t magically increase the odds of your first pick being right (not to 50/50 or any other number above 1/3), you are ready to accept that it also doesn’t change the odds of the price being behind a door you didn’t pick from being 2/3. The burning of a door is just a showy way of allowing you to pick both the doors, obviously giving you a 2/3 chance of winning.

>>52391925
I know, what I’m really hoping for is in the next Monty Hall thread there won’t be some retard bringing up conditional probability and Bayes.

>>52392059
…and the related morons who screech about gambler’s fallacy. Those are the worst idiots of them all.

2 of 3 doors contain a goat. If you switch at least 1 of the remaining 2 doors has a goat. The fact one door opens to show you it has a goat behind it changes nothing, you already knew one of them had a goat so the original 2/3 chance holds when switching.

The monty hall problem doesn't reveal anything mathematically interesting, it is just worded in a deliberately unclear way to make it seem like it does. Most people read the problem and think the host just happened to reveal a goat, thus no point switching your original choice. If it were instead clearly stated up front that the host will *definitely* eliminate one of the goat doors after your initial pick no matter what, then it becomes more clear that switching improves your odds from 1/3 to 2/3

>>52386429
no
1/2
50%
half

>>52390937
That doesn't matter. We are given a starting point of "You have taken a gold ball" and then we are asked the consequences after that has been established

>>52386642
Yes because I am lucky

>>52392765
That would be a pretty ultimate Chad move.

>>52386669
He made the choice to not open the other door based on the information he has. It gives us information about that door that we don't have about the door we already chose.

>>52391607
If there is a car behind the door, the host doesn't open it. By not opening it the host implicitly tells you there's likely be a car behind it.
This doesn't apply to the door you chose because the host doesnt open that one by default.

>>52391425
You need infinity doors. Then you choose one door at random, ie. 1: lim x=>0 and then the host does also. Then you just transform into the dirichlet association, integerate over the binomial poisson distribution lambda and transform back through your inverse laplace formula.

>>52391425
You need infinity doors. Then you choose one door at random, ie. 1: lim x=>0 and then the host does also. Then you just transform into the dirichlet association, integerate over the binomial poisson distribution lambda and transform back through your inverse laplace formula. Simple.

>>52388756
I'm a right wing uber nazi and want to literally gas six trillion kikes, and I understand the fucking monty hall problem and also became a millionaire off crypto last year. Got a graduate degree in physics too.

Killing all the kikes is the moderate position. The extremist position is killing them and then reducing their corpses to ashes and then funding a gargantuan space program to send their ashes to the center of the sun to make sure the planet is truly free from kikery forever. I think that might be a bit extreme and perhaps too costly. Fuck off, normie scum

>>52389728
>It makes no difference at that final state. If he picks the prize from the two remaining doors (50% chance) then the game terminates then and there. If he reveals a goat (50%) then the original logic applies and you should switch.
No that's not true. I agree you have 50% chance of getting it in the final state, but you also have a 50% chance of getting it if you stay where you are. However, if he intentionally chose a goat (non-jew), then you have 66.6666% chance if you switch. If he did not intentionally choose a goat (jew), then it is completely random what you should do. Whether you stay or switch makes no difference, it will still be 50%.

Every door in the entire observable universe has a goat behind it... except one, which has a Monerochan. You pick a door at random. Then, the host opens every door in the entire universe, except two, and all of them have goats. The two unopened doors are the one you chose and some other door somewhere else. Do you stick with the door you chose?

>>52393336
who put the goats there

>>52389728
To go back to the other guy's example with the 100 doors - suppose you choose 1 door and someone tells you they willl get rid of 98 of the other doors for you that there is a goat behind, then yes it would be in your interest to switch. The chances of the one that he left being the goat would be 99/100, while it would be 1/100 that it was the one you initially chose.

However, let's say there was a random selector just randomly picking off 98 of the doors - completely at random. Then miraculously, it happened that it did not pick off anything, even though it went through 98 different items. That is a huge chance. Now it's down to 2 that are left. But it's still completely random which among those two it's behind.

>>52393398
SBF did

hey retards, actual statistics grad student here.

there are 100 doors

you choose the 99th door

the host (who is not a jew) then reveals to you that all but two doors are wrong: the 16th door and the 99th door, which you chose.

do you switch then? if not then you're a fucking idiot. all answers below me are worthless and wrong and every other post is not worth reading. you're welcome

>>52393474
We already told this story with 1000 doors, 100 doors, infinite doors, and all the doors in the universe

>>52393243
I’m not saying all extremists are idiots, you idiot. I’m saying there’s a statistical strong bias for the idiots towards the extremes.