/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5911050
The issue is where you draw the lines, also look at that OR statement.
We have door car, door goat A, door goat B

1. pick door car, do not switch and win
2. pick door car, do switch and lose
3. pick door goat A, do not switch and lose
4. pick door goat A, do switch and win
5. pick door goat B, do not switch and lose
6. pick door goat B, do switch and win
If you look at it this way switching is good as switching wins 2/3 of the time.

But what if I give you the options 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. and 6.
1. win
2. lose
3. lose
4. win
5. lose
6. win
Now it looks like a 50/50 chance.
Now I tell you that both sets are the same thing, the first one just has more words that confuse you. Now math says I am wrong, but math never has explained how this is as my argument seems very valid. One thing that comes up is whether there are two rounds or one round, I do not see how this changes things in a practical sense.

Example: If I have a person in a strength lifting contest who wins two round to be the grand winner or the same person wins one round to be the grand winner, that person is still the grand winner which is the same outcome because their strength was greater then any of the competitors (simple highest number wins). {yes i know this ignores muscle fatigue and other variables, but they do not matter in this argument} It is the number of contestants that changes the odds not the number of rounds, as if we grab more people we increase the likelihood of adding a new person who has greater strength(a even higher number).

Do you see any connection to the gamblers fallacy here? Because that one makes sense to me, this doesn't as I see it as a 50/50 with switching being irrelevant.