Movies about situations that don't make sense and don't really work in real life, but everybody pretends they're totally an actual thing so they can feel intelligent for a brief moment?

>>212234535 (OP)
Based OP baiting retards with a simple logic puzzle

This was literally proven by simulation. I won’t pretend to understand why, but it just works.

>>212234535 (OP)
It's just a poorly worded riddle. It only works if you know that the host is trying to rig the game and has information he's not supposed to have (none of this is laid out in the riddle itself)

Interstellar
Inception
Memento

>>212234590
It's actually very simple. The difference is that your initial pick is not a candidate for elimination, so the fact it wasn't picked doesn't serve as an evidence in favor of it being correct.

>>212234535 (OP)
all this puzzle really shows is that a person's comprehension of a problem comes down to how well it's explained

>>212234637
>It only works if you know that the host is trying to rig the game and has information he's not supposed to have
What did he mean by this? The host doesn't know what's behind each door

>>212234653
I just don’t see why switching should improve the chances of winning. I’m not arguing against the proof, I’m just too stupid to understand

>>212234535 (OP)
This is like the irl version of the wojak grug vs normalfag vs gigabrain bell curve.
Grug and gigabrain change doors, and the normalfag seethes when he gets stuck with a goat instead of a sportscar.

>>212234590
It was proven when they cancelled the show because contestants figured out it was statistically better to always switch, so they did.

>>212234590
>>212234712
bro you have to understand
bro
probabilities
probabilities are real
and they alter reality you know
bro
bro I know the car doesn't move but
the probabilities
they're REAL

>>212234712
its betting that your first choice wasn't correct.

>>212234712
Once you understand it's the initial pick that makes the whole problem work it's easier to understand.
Ignore literally anyone that tells you to forget the "state of the game" when the host opens a door. It changes nothing.

When you pick your door you have a 2/3 chance of picking a goat.
That is the only thing that matters here, remember it.
Just keep in your mind you are MORE LIKELY to pick a goat starting out.
So when the host opens a door and reveals a goat it's statistically MORE LIKELY THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE THE OTHER GOAT BEHIND THE DOOR YOU PICKED.

It's that simple.
Just always remember that you've probably picked a goat in the first part of the game, so it's going to be better to switch away from it.

>>212234777
But after the door is opened why do the odds not just become 50/50?

>>212234535 (OP)
>first choice
>1/3 chance of being correct whatever player picks
>doesn't matter because game is completely reset by the presenter
>second choice
>1/2 chance of being correct whatever player picks
yep is that simple. switching doesn't do shit.

>>212234712
So after you picked the door, the host opens a different door. He can't open the door you picked.

So now you have one correct door, one wrong door and the door you picked, but you know the host wouldn't open your door regardless, and there was 2/3 chance the door you picked first is the wrong one.

That only works if "Host can't open the door the player picked" is part of the rules. If host could've opened your door, then it's 50/50, because the fact that he didn't pick it serves as an evidence to bump its chances.

>>212234841
because you didn't have a 50/50 chance of being correct initially, you had a 1/3 chance of being correct.

the host can only open a wrong door that isn't your door. so it doesn't matter when the wrong door is opened. so the situation ultimately becomes
>choose one of three doors
>now would you like to open the door you picked or the other two?

>>212234590
Try imagining it with more doors. Imagine 100 doors. You choose one. What are the probabilities? There is 1% in your door and 99% on all of the other doors combined. The host, who knows what door is the real one (And this is a key aspect, because if this was caused by randomness then it wouldn't make sense), opens 98 doors. Now, your chances are the same as before. They don't change because the host knew what doors were fake, he is simply revealing them. The chances you picked the right door when there were 100 is very low.

>>212234772
>the probabilities they're REAL

They are. Hard for brownbois to understand I know

>https://youtu.be/uYqCkMyC4Pk?si=wx5ZLY8RLfM5FfEV

>>212235021
>brownbois
try harder, i'm italian

>>212234977
To correct my comment, I think that if he randomly opens 98 doors the probabilities would be the same.

>>212234696
Kek, you are literally on mt. stupid. The ONLY reason the riddle works is because the host knows what is behind the doors. You are the biggest dunning-kruger on the planet

>>212235042
My condolences

>>212234935
>you had a 1/3 chance of being correct.
and after a door is removed, you have 1/2

>>212234935
>>212234886
Ok I think it’s falling into place, but please bear in mind I have a very low IQ. I’m gonna try to talk myself through this, feel free to call me a retard.

I probably picked the wrong door. He opens a wrong door but not my door. So if I did pick the goat he isn’t opening my door, he’s opening the other door. Now if I make my choice the odds are improved, instead of being wrong 2/3 I am only wrong 1/2. But only if I switch. Am I an idiot ?

>>212235108
your odds of making a correct choice initially don't magically improve by removing an incorrect choice.

>>212235121
>Am I an idiot ?
welp you're on 4chan discussing a math paradox instead of being out french kissing cute girls
what do you think?

>>212235160
the monty hall problem isn't a math paradox. its just always explained so poorly that people think it is.

>>212235154
I hate when people say this like it's some sort of innate law of statistics. Your odds can absolutely shift. If the door with the goat behind it was revealed by random chance rather than deliberately then your odds would shift to 50%

>>212235154
>your odds of making a correct choice initially don't magically improve by removing an incorrect choice.
ok i'll spell it out for you reeeal sloow
>after
>a door
>gets
>removed
>(take a deep breath)
>everything...
>...resets...

>>212235154
right, it was already 1/2

>you have 1,000doors
>behind 999 doors, is goat shit
>behind 1 door, is a ferarri
>you pick a door randomly
>the host then proceeds to open 998 of the doors, all of which were goat shit
>you are now left 2 doors
>the door you chose
>the door the host didn't open
>the host now allows you to change your door
>if you knew the door you chose had the ferarri, you don't switch
>if you didn't know which door had the ferarri, you would switch because the chances are, the other door will not have goat shit
Hope this helps.

>>212234977
The host doesn't need to have perfect knowledge. Even if he picks at random, if you are in one of the outcomes where he happens not to reveal the door with the car, then the math still holds.

>>212235231
>Even if he picks at random, if you are in one of the outcomes where he happens not to reveal the door with the car, then the math still holds.
No it absolutely does not.

>>212235225
>first choice
>1/1000 chance of being correct whatever player picks
>doesn't matter because game is completely reset by the presenter
>second choice
>1/2 chance of being correct whatever player picks
yep is that simple. switching doesn't do shit.

>>212235092
>randomly opens 98 doors
He isn't opening them randomly, that's the thing. He is opening 98 doors he knows are the wrong ones and can't open your door, so the random door that's left that you didn't pick and he didn't open is much more likely to be the right one.

>>212235121
This is probably the best explanation itt >>212234977

>100 doors
>Pick 1
>99% chance to be wrong
>Host opens all the other doors except yours and the winning one
>you’re betting on if you picked the right door from the outset
>99% chance to be wrong
>the other door hasn’t been opened because it either hasn’t got a car, and you do, or it has a car and you don’t
>it’s far more likely to have the car than the door you picked

>>212235231
You're literally adding a random 50/50 on top of the initial 1/3 for no reason.
Of course he needs to know where it is.
He could eliminate the fucking prize and you have no chance of winning

>>212235209
>>212235197
no one is trolled bro

>>212234535 (OP)
you have to switch because it gives you 66% chance instad of 33% chanc3

>>212234772
Per capita be rayciss an sheeeit

>>212235262
Wrong. Run some simulations where the host selects randomly. Find the probability, conditional on outcomes where only goats were revealed, of winning after switching.

>>212235329
He doesn’t need to know, he could be randomly opening doors, he might hit the car and you’ve lost right then, but at this point if the game, every door he’s opened has been a dud.

>>212235305
So do the odds after switching become 50/50?

>>212235401
It's always 50/50, either you get a car or a goat

>>212235376
>we select car
>host reveals goat1
>we switch
>we lose
0-1
>we select car
>host reveals goat2
>we switch
>we lose
0-2
>we select goat1
>host reveals goat2
>we switch
>we win
1-2
>we select goat1
>host reveals car
>we lose
1-3
>we select goat2
>host reveals goat1
>we switch
>we win
2-3
>we select goat2
>host reveals car
>we lose
2-4

This is the part where you're too low IQ to comprehend that you lost the argument and I realize I've wasted my time with you

>>212235401
I’m not too sure on the actual mathematics behind it, but no. The bet is “did I managed to pick the right door when there was a 100 of them, or is the reason this other door wasn’t opened is because that’s where the car is”

>player 1 plays the monty game
>picks door A
>presenter removes door B
>player 1 goes away
>player 2 who hasn't heard or seen anything comes into play
>picks door A because his gf is names Amanda
>wins because the car was there all the time
Well well well...

>>212234935
>>212234977
>simplest answers posted
>spastics rush in thinking they're trolling

>>212234590
You can literally just make a flowchart of what each store and each choice represents, it's that easy

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

>>212235473
>conditional on outcomes where the host revealed only goats
cross out your fourth and sixth outcomes and get back to me on the odds.

>>212235578
>the software build to prove a concept is DEFINITELY not rigged because... just trust developers OK?!

>>212235579
>we select car
>host reveals goat1
>we switch
>we lose
0-1
>we select car
>host reveals goat2
>we switch
>we lose
0-2
>we select goat1
>host reveals goat2
>we switch
>we win
1-2
>we select goat2
>host reveals goat1
>we switch
>we win
2-2

2 wins, 2 losses. 50% win rate with switching every time, conditional on the car not being picked by the host by happenstance

>>212235579
We needn't assume perfect knowledge on the part of the host because we are already implicitly in a scenario where the car wasn't revealed (otherwise there is no question because you already lost). Whether you got to this situation because the host picked doors with goats through previous knowledge or by chance is not relevant.

>>212234712
>I just don’t see why switching should improve the chances of winning. I’m not arguing against the proof, I’m just too stupid to understand
easiest way to think about it is to realize the odds have to add to 100% so if your door has 33% chance then the remaining door has 66% chance

>>212235484
Alright, so he’s never opening our door, and we only had a 1% of picking right in the first place, but he leaves us with a door that is 50/50, so that door must have better odds since he left it for us?

>>212234535 (OP)
Most heist or crime movies are like this. Bro be like 'yeah that's how it be in the underworld you gotta watch out'.

>>212235646
>Whether you got to this situation because the host picked doors with goats through previous knowledge or by chance is not relevant.
No, it is actually extremely important. Otherwise we just end up with a 50% winrate as expected

See: >>212235473 >>212235633

>>212234712
>I just don’t see why switching should improve the chances of winning. I’m not arguing against the proof, I’m just too stupid to understand

Because the host eliminates wrong doors for you, that means your essentially getting to open all of the hosts doors if you switch. You're getting free picks.

When you switch you basically get to open both of the hosts doors. Opening 2 doors is better than 1 right?

Like others have said increasing the amount of doors but keeping the rules the same make it more obvious. There's 100 doors. You pick 1, the host gets the other 99. Now you get to open your door or you can open 99 of the hosts? Which is better?

>There are three doors.
>You pick one of them at random.
>You are given the choice of either sticking with your door, or choosing both of the remaining two doors, and if the car is in either of those two doors you get it

>>212235611
You could probably figure out how to make your own simulation in python with some jeet tutorials yourself in a day, you’ll get the same result

there's a quote from mad men where they're pitching a hairspray commercial and don says
>every time you say "and then" its a chance for the viewer to get lost
which these threads prove.

>>212235751
these threads have been full of trolls pretending to misunderstand the concept for years because they think it's funny

>>212235706
Ty I like the way you phrased this.

STILL waiting for >>212235494 to be addressed by probfags btw

>situations that don't make sense and don't really work in real life, but everybody pretends they're totally an actual thing so they can feel intelligent for a brief moment?

>>212235633
>>212235686
You missed something

>we select car
>host reveals goat1
>we switch
>we lose
(Probability = 1/6)

>we select car
>host reveals goat2
>we switch
>we lose
(Probability = 1/6)

>we select goat1
>host reveals goat2
>we switch
>we win
(Probability =1/3)

>we select goat2
>host reveals goat1
>we switch
>we win
(Probability = 1/3)

>>212235706
>Opening 2 doors is better than 1 right?
not if the cars is nehind the door i picked initially
you know, the car who doesn't move and stays where it was when I made first pick

>>212235830
I’ve never understood what this is trying to convey

>>212235863
a single electron will create an interference pattern with itself

>>212235830
that's actually quite explainable, you just have to understand how the electrical infetterence from your brain cell works when lights are on and when they're off

>>212235852
When your ego is too big to admit you're wrong on an anonymous forum so you shit up the thread with nonsense instead

>>212235854
But there’s no way of knowing that, only that you had a 1/3 chance initially of picking it.

You will win 1 out of 3 times, but you’ll also loose the other 2.

>>212235914
>But there’s no way of knowing that
exactly as you can't know the car is in the other door

my australian friend helped me understand this riddle and the lying door riddle

>>212235863
electrons and photons behave both like particles and waves, except when you measure them in which case they go back to being just particles

>>212235854
>not if the cars is nehind the door i picked initially
>you know, the car who doesn't move and stays where it was when I made first pick

Your right the car doesn't move. You get to pick 1 door. The host gets 2.
What has the better odds?
Now you have the choice. Open your door, or open both of the hosts doors.

>>212235401
no. If you switch you now have 66%

>>212235967
>or open both of the hosts doors.
the host eliminates a door with a goat
so what remains is a (1) door with the car and a (1) door with a goat
it's 1/2

>>212236010
Since the host can't open your door or the winning door (as that ends the situation), it doesn't matter when the host opens a door.

Thus,
>1/3 chance of being right
>2/3 chance of being wrong
which has the better odds of the car?

>>212235942
No, but you can know the odds, which is 1 in 3, that you’ve picked the correct door initially.

>>212234772
Do the experiment in real life a bunch of times and tally the results, if you get anything other than something close to the expected answer you'll revolutionize statistics.

>be bored
>need attention
>post a Monty Hall thread on /tv/
>179 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
every time

>>212236083
>that you’ve picked the correct door initially.
who the fuck cares about previous choices? is your life still dictated by choices you made years ago?

>>212236083
That's faulty logic. The true odds of a car being behind your door are either 0% or 100%, the 1/3 probability is just an estimate given our current knowledge about the game and can be changed as we're exposed to new information

>>212236010
>the host eliminates a door with a goat
>so what remains is a (1) door with the car and a (1) door with a goat
>it's 1/2

He eliminates the door with the goat AFTER you pick. So both those doors are now yours. You get open 2 doors instead of 1 if you swap.
2 is better than 1.
he's basically giving you two rolls of the dice if you swap. You get to open 1 door if you keep your pick. You get to open 2 doors if you switch your pick.

>>212236163
>is your life still dictated by choices you made years ago?

yes.

I would have insisted that I get to keep the goat.

>>212234855
you're a moron

>>212236196
>He eliminates the door with the goat AFTER you pick.
yeah no shit
>three doors closed
>pick A
>host shows C has a goat
>"do you swap your choice A for B?"
>car is either in A or B so whatever you do you have a 50% chance of getting it

i understand not getting it at first but if you still don't get it after short explanation, then you're a moron. Same with the golden balls

>>212234712
imagine if it was 100 doors. you pick one, then the host eliminates 98 of them.

>>212236174
Oh yeah you’re right, brb buying a lottery ticket, it’s 50/50 if I’ve picked the right numbers.

>Premise: Monty is guaranteed to open a goat door
>Premise: Your initial pick has a 1 in 3 chance of being the car
>Case 1: You initially pick the car. Monty opens a goat door. If you switch, you get the other goat and lose.
>Case 2: You initially pick a goat. Monty opens the other goat door. If you switch, you get the car and win.
So if we adopt a switching strategy, we lose when we are in case 1 and win when we are in case 2. We are in case 1 one third of the time and in case 2 two thirds of the time.

>>212236317
I'm not even a 50% guy I'm just pointing out that your logical premise is flawed

>>212236294
>three doors closed
>pick A
>host shows C has a goat
>"do you swap your choice A for B?"
>car is either in A or B so whatever you do you have a 50% chance of getting it

That's not the game though.
You don't switch A for B. You switch A for B and C.
You get both of the hosts doors. He just shows you and the audience an incorrect door first for showmanship.

>>212236396
>You switch A for B and C.
C was already shown to be a wrong door
Why the fuck should I consider it still in play

>>212236396
>You get both of the hosts doors. He just shows you and the audience an incorrect door first for showmanship.
And how are we supposed to know that he isn't liable to pick the door with the car behind it to save the show money?

>>212236439
Because it was in play when you made your initial choice

>>212236327
Very well stated Ty for this

>>212236478
>Because it was in play when you made your initial choice
who the fuck cares? I'm making another choice you mong
do you consider the choice you did last week when you have to decide something today?

why do people keep explaining this over and over when it's clear the only holdouts are trolls? who's trolling who anymore?

>>212236439
>C was already shown to be a wrong door
It wasn't. It's shown after you make your decision. So it doesn't effect your odds.

By offering the swap you basically get to choose to see whats behind 1 door (your initial pick) or 2 doors (by swapping to the host)

Then after that decision is made the host will show you what's behind all doors, eliminating incorrect doors first. The fact he eliminates incorrect doors first does not change your odds.

>>212234590
Imagine 3 doors. One has a prize behind it. You pick one door at random. Then the game show host asks if you would like to choose both of the other doors instead. The two unchosen doors hold a 2/3 chance of holding the prize compared to your original door which has a 1/3 chance. In the Monty Hall problem, switching doors after one is taken away is functionally equivalent to choosing two doors, and that comes with a corresponding statistical advantage of 2/3.

>>212236460
>And how are we supposed to know that he isn't liable to pick the door with the car behind it to save the show money?
If the game is cheating then the logic puzzle doesn't really matter and your odds are always zero.

>>212236627
Yes I understand now Ty as well. You guys explained it better than Wikipedia

>>212234535 (OP)
TO ALL RETARDS IN THIS THREAD:

There are two goats and one car. Let's say your first pick has the car behind it. You will get the car by staying. There is a 1/3 chance in this since there is ONE car and TWO goats. Following?

Let's say you pick one of the goats. The host will NOT reveal the door with the car, obviously. So the other goat is eliminated, THEREFORE the other closed door has the car, THEREFORE by switching to the other door you will get the car. Because there are TWO goats and ONE car (2 plus 1 is 3), there is a 2/3 chance of this.