Thread 713714095

>>713714095 (OP)
why would i ever pick a door based on probability when i am omniscient?

>>713714095 (OP)
>pick from one of three options at complete random
>if I picked right the first time then either other door could open
>if I picked wrong the first time there's only one goat door to open
>pick the last unopened door
>if I picked right the first time it's a goat
>if I picked wrong the first time it's a car
Makes sense to me

>>713714095 (OP)
every single probability problem boils down to 50/50.
>inb4 midwit plebbitors going "but achkually"

>>713714095 (OP)
What if you add more doors?

>>713714518
Does the host open more doors after you make your first pick too, or are there just more doors to pick from?

>>713714095 (OP)
Explain. Does this only matter with context?
What if you're presented with 2 doors and when you pick one an invisible door opens?

>>713714645
Your odds of picking the wrong door first become your odds of being right if you switch. Introducing factors that hide doors would only have a consistent effect on the outcome if you controlled which door (a car or a goat) was hidden.

>>713714095 (OP)
>b-but if you switch the probability is actually hi-
I chose correctly.
>imagine a million doors-
I chose correctly.
>B-BUT-
I chose correctly.

>>713714518
Then at some point you realize you go from 1/3 of picking the right, to 1/4, 1/5, 1/10. 1/200, etc.
And at that point, are you really feeling that lucky punk?

>>713714439
This. You either win or you don't. 50/50.

>>713714095 (OP)
what if he opens the door and wins? then you're fucked retard

look at all the coping and seething retards in this thread and laugh at them. the monty hall problem is the ultimate midwit detector. if you can't understand it intuitively, you have a lukewarm npc brain

>>713714576
Host opens all doors to reveal goats except for 1.
Hes still gonna ask if youre gonna switch to that 1 unopened door.

>>713714095 (OP)
The probability of a car behind the car door is one car out of one car, meaning one of the doors (the car door) has a 100% chance of being the car door, therefore this is a UX issue not a mathematical one

>>713714095 (OP)
I dont get it

>>713714095 (OP)
If the last door is a goat, then 1 and 2 both become 1/2. There's no such thing as a 1/3 and a 2/3 door, nothing indicates the second door has double the chance of the first one. Fuck, people are imbeciles

I dont gamble

>>713715415
You already picked the first door when there were 3 to pick from, it can't stop being 1/3 odds.

you either get goat or you get no goat
50/50

>>713714323
Where is giordano bruno's dream and le demiurge :-D ?

>>713714095 (OP)
>A 1/3 <- Pick A
>B 1/3
>C 1/3

>C is revealed to be a goat

>A 1/3
>B 1/3
>C X

>odds don't add up to 100% (which is how most human beings, and mathematicians, display odds, as a whole number)
>change the odds to they add up without changing the odds

>A 1/2
>B 1/2
>C X

>if we make up some mathematics... the odds change!
I still don't understand what the "right" answer is. There are some top internet answers that say if the host picks another door BUT DOESN'T KNOW what's behind the doors, then your odds don't change... when that has nothing to do with what just happened.

>>713715727
Odds chance constantly to reflect the new realities, the fuck are you talking about?

>>713714645
>Explain
"Did you pick the winning door on your blind guess or is it behind one of all the rest?"

For low IQ individuals (like (You)) it might be conceptually easier to expand the problem out to 100 doors
You pick 1 out of 100 doors
The host opens 98 goat doors
Should you switch to the only other closed door or stay? If you think you now have a 50% chance of picking the car either way you're a fucking imbecile

>>713714095 (OP)
Are you seriously still mad.

>>713716083
A has to stay at 1/3 because you picked it when it was 1/3.
The two doors you didn't pick are the ones that equalize their probability. The door you picked stays at 1/3.
>that's making up math, that's not how it works!
Explain how.

>>713716102
Your odds of being right the first time in an event that already happened don't change. It happened already so nothing that happens now affects its probability. Doesn't matter what kind of information the host reveals, your odds of having been right in one cannot have been anything but one in three and this cannot change.

>>713716119
The easiest way to explain the problem to midwits is that the guy offers you 2 doors for your 1 door, minus 1 goat.

It should then be obvious that 2/3 is better odds than 1/3, assuming the guy always makes this offer. If he doesn't, he's just trying to scam you because you've already won.

the 2/3 is the chance that your initial guess was wrong
I don't know why people insist on making it so complicated

>>713716358
Because HE OPENED A DOOR!!! that's not the same as me guessing my first guess was wrong, that just retroactively makes my first guess more likely to have been right!!! Don't you see??

>>713714095 (OP)
This retarded puzzle is proof that society is pure evil. It's a fucking lie. Anyone who perpetuates this is either
A. a sociopath who's gaslighting you, or
B. a herd mentality niggercattle who's just going along with it because they're too embarrassed and buckbroken to point out that it's nonsense.

>>713716221
*shrug*
I'd prefer to see a computer simulation of it.
>Explain how.
This puzzle has stumped people with doctorates for decades. I don't have to explain why it's dumb.

goats are cool

>>713716561
Your failure to understand how chance works isn't proof of other people being evil, you're just retarded. If I ask you to pick between eight choices you know nothing about, you pick, then I start revealing which choices were wrong, do your odds of having picked right increase? No.

>>713716561
there are formal mathematical proofs and simulations out there. if you were genuinely curious, i'm sure you could do either.

It's incredible to me that these threads pop up all the fucking time, this and the portal shit.
Fucksakes these questions are old as shit and have mountains of explanations, why the fuck do you come to 4chan to argue with retards over it.
B, 2/3s get over it.

>>713714095 (OP)
The one thing I learned with statistics is that, the most intuitive answer is always wrong. When probabilities are involved, it's never simple.

>>713716083
If the host knows where the car is, he's not going to be picking at random.

>>713715064
The more doors there are, the better it is to switch if he opens all but one

>>713716561
This.
It's a statistics diagram presented as a one shot gameshow question, and is all about sounding smart. Most people who bring it up don't actually understand probability and also said "50/50" when first shown it. aka it's a psychology question about proving social dominance over your fellow man.

>>713716646
montyhall.io is a functioning simulation of the problem.
Or you can google up another if you prefer.
The puzzle only "stumps" people with doctorates the first time around, once you explain how the probability actually works anyone who's taken a fucking stats class will understand and be on the side of the correct answer. It's not "made up math" to insist that your odds of being right at random can't RETROACTIVELY change.

>>713714095 (OP)
this bent my brain for awhile, but I figured if you extrapolate it to a crazy degree it then clicks. liek say there's 100 doors and the host opens 98 of them to reveal a goat, then obviously it would make sense to switch your door.

>>713716892
>The puzzle only "stumps" people with doctorates the first time around, once you explain how
No it still makes some of them angry.
I've seen an explanation that pigeons can understand it after a few tries but humans can't... and I haven't seen a study explaining if said humans are exposed to repeated tests or if they understand pattern recognition or even evaluating experiences.

>>713716867
>Most people who bring it up don't actually understand probability and also said "50/50" when first shown it.
... people with an IQ over 100 can surmise that the reason it's being offered to them as a hypothetical problem and not still being used on TV is because it was too much in the favor of contestants.

>>713714095 (OP)
Was that grouping always in the picture? Because when the group of two doors is presented as having 2/3rds chance and the one lone door has a 1/3rd chance, it’s a completely different statement from saying three doors each have 1/3rd chance.

Because the door is within the 2/3rd chance bracket, it absolutely maintains a higher likelihood of having the car after the other door within this grouping opens. The parent probability hasn’t dissolved.

>>713716892
>It's not "made up math" to insist that your odds of being right at random can't RETROACTIVELY change.
Why does the second door's chance retroactively change?
Is it changing because Monty picked the third door or is it something that can't be explained, just observed?

>>713714095 (OP)
The thing that makes this ”weird” is that in the parameters of the scene, the host can never reveal a goat behind the player’s door. That’s what provides more information about the remaining door.
If the goat could be behind the player’s door, then the next choice would have a 50% chance of a car. In summary, the chosen door and the other two doors play by different rules after the first choice, and that’s why they have different probabilities

>>713717139
>Why does the second door's chance retroactively change?
The doors don't have "chances". Your choices have chances of being right. The event of you making a one in three choice is in the past, and cannot be changed. You have one more choice in the future: will you switch or stay? Staying keeps the original odds, switching gives you whatever odds you didn't start with.
Choices have a probability of being right, doors don't have probability.

>>713717138
The idea is: the first door you picked is most likely the wrong one.
So once another door is opened you're left with these two things at once:
1. most likely you're sitting on a wrong door at the moment
2. you only have one other option to choose from, which means it's more likely the right one than your initial choice
Switching increases your odds.

>>713716892
>montyhall.io
>.io
Why are trannies so obsessed with .io domains?

If you are retarded enough to actually be confused by the Monty Hall problem then you should just end it now.

>the odds for the 2 sets don't change
but they do. you reduced the number of doors to open to 2. so each door is 1/2

>>713717648
>n-noooo, the host is an omniscient god who will prevent me from picking the door he intends to open, it's only 50%

>>713716954
no it will not, the chances before and after remind the same, so switching my door pick won't improve the chances
it's all an illusion

>>713717687
No, you picked between the sets when none of the doors were open so your pick must be 33%. The number of open doors NOW doesn't affect your odds THEN.

>>713716689
It’s always Sunday.

>>713714095 (OP)
what if you want the goat?
it can make free milk

>>713717825
That's very arbitrary, I don't believe in days

>>713716689
>Every day of the week is Sunday, get rekt

>>713714095 (OP)
Maybe my version will help you understand.
When you first make a choice, there are 3 possible outcomes.
>Goat 1
>Goat 2
>Car
As you imagined, the chance of winning is 1/3.
Now, the game show host revealed one of the goats., what do you do?
>If you selected Goat 1 and you switch, you win
>If you selected Goat 2 and you switch, you win
>If you selected the car, you lose
Open the door effectively flips the chance of winning and losing. Because your loss becomes a win, and your win becomes a loss. And your chance of losing originally was higher.

Door A, B have a goat, door C, has a car.
Case 1:
If you choose door A, the host opens door B. Now you have a choice to switch door to C. If you don't you open door A and get a goat, if you do you open door C and get a car.
Case 2:
If you choose door B, the host opens door A. Now you have a choice to switch door to C. If you don't you open door a and get a goat, if you do you open door C and get a car.
Case 3:
If you choose door C, the host opens either door. Now if you switch you open a door to reveal a goat, and if you don't you open door C to get a car.

So in 2 of 3 cases, switching gets you a car. Or a 2/3 chance of winning by switching doors.

>>713717914
>what if you want the goat?
Hi Ahmed

>>713714095 (OP)
>I pick door #1 for a 1/3 chance of car
>Door #3 opens to reveal a goat
>If I change my choice and pick door #2, I have a 1/2 chance of car
>If I stay on door #1, I have essentially re-chosen door #1 for a 1/2 chance of car
>Odds are the same if I stay or change
It's that simple brainlets

>>713717453
Well it’s more likely to be wrong than right but I don’t see why it’d be described as the most likely to be wrong. I appreciate your genuine response to this, so the grouping isn’t a tangential thing - it’s just circling the ones you didn’t choose? But it’s still visually fucky.

If that grouping doesn’t actually mean anything and that it was really meant to be three doors each with an equal probability, then the chances are 50/50 after the goat reveal. That’s just it, by keeping the same door I’m not “locking in” my probability from before I’m just choosing that fucking door at this moment.

>>713717427
Then the choice is a choice, not a door, but it is presented as a set of doors.
Ergo the model is wrong.

>>713714095 (OP)
It becomes 50/50.

>>713718074
>I pick door 1, 1/3 odds
>I stay on door 1, 1/2 odds
How does this work, pray tell? Do your odds of having picked right at first increase retroactively?

>>713714095 (OP)
So I either get a car or a girlfriend?

>>713714095 (OP)
if i pick the door right can i sex the goat?

>>713718197
Goat is not the girlfriend, anon.

>>713718232
I disagree

>>713718197
you get the goat
you can ride it like a horse or it can be your gf

>>713714095 (OP)
Okay so the intuitive way to understand this is you drastically increase the amount of doors to one millions:
>Be on game show
>Pick one door out of a million
>Host opens every single door to reveal goats besides the one I picked and one other
>Host looks at me, asks if I want to change doors.
Yeah, I think I do.

>>713718074
You failed to use the new information you gained after the goat reveal

>>713718171
The first pick means nothing because the state of the game changes when the goat is revealed. After that, you're being asked tk make a choice that is unrelated to the previous choice.

>>713718302
That's not a goat
That's an anime girl

>>713718074
>>713718384
this

>>713718448
Wrong again

This paradox actually makes perfectly reasonable and logical sense. The host eliminated a bad alternative to your current choice so changing your choice means you're increasing your odds over choosing had he not opened the door.

>>713718384
On the contrary, the first pick mean EVERYTHING, because the first decision you make is more likely to be a wrong one than it is to be a correct one.

>>713718384
Wrong. Your first choice can't stop mattering.

>>713714439
consider an alternative
there are 10 doors
you choose a door
8 doors open revealing goats
did you choose the right door?

still confident in your choice? 100 doors, 1,000 doors, 1,000,000
switching isnt a bet that the other door has the prize, it's a bet that your initial choice was wrong. And that's a surprisingly safe bet

This is the most Jewish math I've seen since physicists made up "dark matter" lol

>>713714095 (OP)
If you have trouble understanding this, just realize that the host knows what's behind each door, and opened one knowing that there is a goat behind it.

>>713716320
Say there are 10 doors. You pick one. 8 doors disappear except the one you picked and another. The goat is guaranteed to be behind one of these two doors. The likelihood that you choose the right door the first time is only 10%, so it is much more likely that the goat is behind the other door that you didn't pick.


The first choice is not an isolated event

>>713714095 (OP)
By switching doors you change the win condition from "Choose the correct door at the start" to "Choose the wrong door at the start". That's why is easier to understand this problem if you increase the number of doors to 100, 1000, etc. because you're more likely to pick a wrong door.

>I pick a door out of a x doors
>merchant game show host panics
>opens x-2 doors
>begs me to switch my door
>'oy vey think about my family you're taking food from our mouths'
>stand resolute with my choice
>it's a car
>ride off with my hot x-1 goat brides as merchant game show host cries
Think about it retards. If you chose wrong the host wouldn't have offered you a second chance.

>>713718130
No, because you will objectively speaking have a higher chance of picking the right door if you switch. The first choice is 33% chance of being right, but if you then switch the doors after, you have a 66% chance of being right. There is a higher likelihood that you did not pick the door right the first time, so you should always switch.

The most obvious example is to make it a 100 doors instead. You pick one, and then 98 of them disappear. You had a 1% chance of picking right the first time, which means that it's much, much more likely that the goat is behind the door you didn't pick

>>713718130
>>713720064
I meant to say the car, not the goat

>>713714095 (OP)
If the host opens one of the doors isn't that the same as if you only ever had 2 options? That makes it 50/50.

>>713714095 (OP)
Ok, but what if you were playing with another person at the same time? Should you swap your door with theirs?

>>713720064
Do this experiment 100 times. You will find that there it will be behind door #1 50 times and door #2 50 times and make you feel retarded.

>>713720517
In that case it's legitimately a 50/50

>>713720598
You do realize simulations have already been run on this right?

>>713720784
And which door are they behind? I've had enough of this kabal magic.

>>713721140
If I link you to a simulation video right, do you honestly believe it's going to show you 50/50?

>>713714095 (OP)
Math nerds are retarded.

>>713721268
Definitely not. I'm saying if you actually simulate the experiment. It will be 50/50 because that's what it is.

>>713720598
It literally won't. This isn't a 50/50, because there are 3 doors. You were more likely to pick the wrong door in your first choice, which must by necessity mean that you more likely to win if you then switch. It's a 50/50 if there were only ever 2 doors. Think of it like gaining more information about your first choice

>>713720650
Why though? Wouldn't it still be better for you to switch? It's not like the arbitrary action of "choosing" actually changes real life probability in that situation

>>713721410
So run a simulation if you think you're right. I can link you a dozen videos showing you're wrong.

>>713721412
Except there's 2 doors now, not 3. There is 1 car behind one of 2 doors. The odds of the car being behind either door are equal. So the odds are 1/2 for door 1 and 1/2 for door 2. So 50/50 chance of getting it right. There isn't magically a higher probability after the first guess unless the car is moved.

>>713721410
So what if there are a 100 doors, anon? You pick 1, and 98 others are removed. Do you honestly think that's a 50/50, when there is only a 1% probability that you picked right the first time?

>>713721561
I can link a dozed videos of your mom getting blacked, doesn't mean you know anything about probabilities

>>713721678
Concession accepted.

>>713720650
>>713721479
Besides, you can imagine that you're always playing with another person, that being the host, since he's "chosing" the other door indirectly by opening the other one. What then?

>>713721562
Your first guess is more likely to be wrong than correct, which means that out of the 2 remaining doors, you are more likely to be on the wrong one

>>713721583
Yes because the same odds are that it's behind the other door than the one picked the first time. Simple math buddy. 1/2 = .5 = 50%

>>713721780
That's the first guess. The second guess is equally likely to be wrong and correct because there are 2 doors

>>713721704
And yet you haven't provided a single video. And you're also arguing with at least 2 other people and you can't prove any of them wrong.

>>713721410
you can play it right now and prove yourself wrong you fucking retard https://montyhall.io/

>>713721942
You really need me to Google monty hall simulation video for you?

>>713721813
I think you're just yanking my chain at this point. If not, don't feel too bad. The problem is very counter-intuitive to the human mind, and that's why even some mathematicians are confused about it at first

>>713714095 (OP)
everyone should take a statistics and probability class in high school
you either picked a goat, a goat, or a car. if you picked a goat or a goat and switch then you now have a car. so in 2 out of the 3 scenarios, where your first choice was either a goat, or a goat, you now have a car and win.

>If your initial door had a goat, then switching wins the car.
>If your initial door had the car, staying wins the car.
>Your chances of picking a goat initially are 2/3.
So in 2/3 scenarios, I should switch. I don't know which scenario I'm in, but switching is the rational choice since I'm not a goatfucker.

>>713722151
It's only counter-intuitive to your mind. It's okay we can't all be smarter than a fifth-grader.

>>713722448
Nah

>>713722194
>Nintendo outta nowhere
Shut up tendie.

>>713720517
>>713721479
It's a 50/50 if the host reveals a goat in the unpicked door.
It's the standard 1/3-2/3 if he reveals a goat in either of your doors.
>but why?
Because that's the final odds and can be proven through simulating it.
>but why tho?
It's not straightforward to explain a mathematical proof to the extent that we can't actually explain why the probability changes, it just does, we can simply describe what it changes to depending on the change to the experiment through logic.

>>713722194
>no. of wins
>35 to 75 in 100 games
Usually these graphs compare the choices across the same dataset rather than independent dice rolling.

>>713723643
C'mon
>It's beacuse uhhh....
>Because proof but uhhhhh....
>The maths and stuff ehhhhh....
>It just is OK?

>>713724940
>It just is OK?
It literally is tho when there are simulations that demonstrate this.

>>713714095 (OP)
It actually took me years to get it. I think it goes like this: the first roll is 1 in 3, but you can also do another roll which is 1 in 2 so it's a no brainer to take it right?

>>713714645
Consider the same problem with 100 doors. You pick one and then the host opens 98 empty doors.

Obviously you would switch to the sole remaining door. The 3 door puzzle just pares it down to the smallest instance.

>>713714095 (OP)
>you have to choose from 2 doors
>imagine 3rd door in your mind that is a wrong one
>by changing your initial choice, you should have higher probability to win according to goat puzzle

>>713715415
Midwit answer.

>>713714439
This meme is the most plebbitor thing you could do.

>>713714095 (OP)
This is a really simple concept and I don't understand why people have trouble wrapping their heads around it. The presenter has to reveal a goat in one of the doors you didn't choose. Now, if you chose correct, then he's free to reveal a goat behind either of them. But if you chose wrong, he has only one door that's viable for the reveal because there's no goat behind the other one. You'll choose wrong 2/3 times on average. Thus, it's more likely that the reveal door was forced and that the other one you didn't choose is correct. Sticking with your choice is retarded.

>>713725619
>I don't understand why people have trouble wrapping their heads around it.
Skill issue. I understand why they have trouble just fine.

>>713724940
Yes. Sadly it is that.

The easiest way to intuit the solution is to up the number of doors to 1000. You choose one at random. The host then removes 998 doors and confirms the prize is behind the remaining two doors. The odds are 999\1000 the door you didn't choose is the prize because you basically chose a random shitter door at first.
Then you realize this holds true for 100 doors, 10, and the example 3 doors but at a scale that's harder to intuitively conceptualize.

>monty hall thread
>the people who are trying to explain why it works the way it does don't actually understand why
>there are always people who come into these threads absolutely certain the problem is wrong and they are right because /v/ is filled with egotistical retards who think they're smarter than they really are

Every monty hall thread without fail. I'm not sure which of these two are funnier.

>>713717360
>>713718578
>>713719367
>>713725619
Only these anons get it.

>>713716892
statstrannysisters...

>>713714645
>Does this only matter with context?
yes, since the one who opens the doors knows what's behind the doors and the only doors he can't open is the one you picked and the correct door.
If you stumbled upon 3 doors, one is open and no context then yeah the choice is 50/50, but this is not the case

>>713716083
It's because the host has to open a goat door. If you pick a goat on your first pick (which happens 2/3 of the time), the host is FORCED to open the other goat, and thus FORCED to make switching result in you getting the car. The other 1/3 of the time, where you pick the car on the original pick, the host can open either door, but is still FORCED to make switching result in a goat.
Thus, because what is beind the switch door is entirely decided by what you picked at the start, the odds of switching being correct are the same as the odds of your first pick being wrong.
This only works if the rules indeed force Monty to play like this. If he is just picking a door at random and can maybe reveal the car, the whole thing falls apart and it really is 50/50.

the probability is already 50/50 at the start, the third door may as well not exist at all if the host is going to open it

You can do this with a deck of cards. Your goal is to get the ace of spades.
Take a card at random set it facedown table. Your friend looks through the deck looks for the ace of spades and puts another card down and guarantees you that one of the two cards is the ace of spades.
The card he put down is always the ace of spades unless you luck shittered 1/52 on your first choice.

>>713717042
Nothing like the problem actually appeared on Lets make a deal. When Monty Hall was asked about it he actually did show how it would have worked if something like that was on the show, and that turned out to be "If you picked the car at the start I might offer you money to walk away without revealing any doors, if you pick a goat I might just give you the goat and too damn bad. Hell, I probably didn't tell you there was 2 goats and a car, you might not even realise there's a zonk left when I reveal the goat."

>>713727120
Your choice determines which door the host opens. The state of the door not mattering doesn't exist pre-initial selection.

this topic made me recall a mathematical problem that stumped many world of warcraft players back when. the warlock class had a talent that diverted 42% (or some such number, my memory insists on 42) of damage taken to a minion. assuming the minion has a health pool comparable to the warlock, how much effective health does this talent grant?

blizzard forums had threads on this running for tens of pages. the most common answer was 42%.

>>713726645
skill issue I guess

>>713727120
What if you open it before the host does?

How does that work?

>>713728661
Percentages fuck people up, I see this in Elden Ring threads too.

this is only confusing because people don't take into the account the alterations made for theatrics of a game. if it were possible for a car to be revealed when the host opens the first door then their intuition that everything is equal would be correct.

>>713728661
>>713729187
I thought I'd give an example of what I mean.

Lets say you stacked 90% damage negation. You find a talisman that can add an extra 5% damage negation to your already stacked 90%. Is this talisman worth using? Most people say no, because they think, I already have 90% negation. How could this measly 5% matter?

And then you do the math. With 90% damage negation, if you take a hit for 1000 damage, the damage becomes 100. But if you instead had 95% damage negation, you would instead take just 50 damage. By adding the extra 5% negation, you cut the damage you take entirely by half. Damage negation becomes way stronger point for percentage point the more of it you stack.

Same shit for character stats, no one seems to understand how those work either. They take one look at a huge HP bar and think "overleveled", when in reality they have no idea how stats work and don't realize how big percentage bonuses can inflate your stats.

>>713714095 (OP)
>>713714815
million doors makes sense but 3 the chances mathematically change but in reality i think it would end up 1/3 using actual simulated samples
>>713714819
fuck this card once i stopped every picking it i won more

>>713730070
it depends whether or not different sources of damage negation stack in an additive or multiplicative way
you're correct if it's additive, but if it's multiplicative the extra 5% barely matters

>>713729686
kek you are probably right
it's some kind of "endowment effect"

>>713714095 (OP)
this is fucking retarded
if a chose a door and looked my answer
then the possibility of getting a car behind that door is 1/3
and after one of the door is revealed to empty, the possibility remains the same, if I didn't chose anything any door in the first place then it will be 50/50
why would suddenly fucking increase? well it should on paper but the reality it's not, it's all a fucking illusion

>>713718345
Still a 50/50

>>713730263
I should have specified that the talisman will bring your percentage from 90 to 95, specifically. You can see the total percentage amount in the stat screen anyway so its not like you have to guess.

>>713730519
yeah because the goat showing not being the car also increases your original pick to 2/3 so both are 2/3 it becomes 50/50
however as you increase the doors it becomes more mathmatical

>>713728661
I don't know anything about WoW, but 42% is definitely wrong.
Diverting 42% damage means the effective damage you're receiving is 58%. So your effective health would be 1/0.58 which is ~72% increase.
It's easier to see if you make it 50% diverted. You're only getting half the damage, so your health is effectively doubled, which is 100% increase in health, not 50%.

>>713730845
its 30 but you also have armor and resistance to account as well as if you use it with voidwalker which gives you 10% physical also

>>713730519
It's not a choice between three doors that gets reduced to a choice between two doors. It's a choice between one door and "the other two doors, simultaneously." You're twice as likely to get the car if you switch because it literally includes twice as many doors.

>>713721971
>.io
no thanks trannoid post thw cideos you boasted

>>713730776
>the goat showing not being the car also increases your original pick to 2/3
it doesn't though
>both are 2/3
the combined probability of all remaining options can't be greater than 100%

>>713730989
what if the car door has a car and a half

>>713731095
I hadn't thought of that. You might be a genius

>>713714095 (OP)
what did the goat mean by this

>>713730913
I have no idea how you got 30. If you're including other types of damage reduction then it's impossible to say without those values and knowing how the apply (e.g what order)

>>713718805
Yes. See >>713714323

>>713715018
I intuitively understand that it's just being misleading on purpouse

>>713714323
king shit

For everyone else, pic related, don't be retarded.

>>713730519
>then the possibility of getting a car behind that door is 1/3
correct
>and after one of the door is revealed to empty, the possibility remains the same
correct
>if I didn't chose anything any door in the first place then it will be 50/50
yes, but you did choose a door, that's the whole point
>why would suddenly fucking increase?
because the host knows whats behind every door and when he reveals the wrong door the other door odds increases. But not yours, cause you never knew what was behind so it remains at 1/3

>>713731329
.3

>>713731336
>I have no idea how you got 30
talking about the skill

>>713716689
This is more of an English comprehension test than a math test, because that's just an obtuse way of asking "what day is it 126 days after a sunday".

>>713721942
here's one, it's actually very concise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRUxbzJZ9Y&t=22s

>>713725303
>only two doors left
meaning its a 50/50 chance

>>713730519
this reads as if I had a seizure
and this the 3rd time today
am I getting old? I keep missing keys and forgot to write words

>>713731524
oh right, yeah that works out to ~42.8% health increase.

>>713731691
What were the odds you picked right when YOU made your guess?

>>713731691
it's depending on the first choice you made, your choice at the start was a 1/100 chance of being right, then all wrong doors are revealed, one is left. the one left has a 99/100 chance of being the right door, the one you initially chose had a 1/100 chance of being right

>>713731691
The doors have weighted probabilities now. Not every binary choice is 50-50.

>>713731691
how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?

Hello I am Monty Hall. Here are three doors, A B and C. Two of these doors have goats behind them. One of them has a car behind them (also known as 'the prize'). Let's play a game.
Step One: Okay, pick a door. As we know, any one of these doors you pick has a one in three chance of having the prize. Okay you picked door A. As we just said, all three of these doors have a one in three chance of having the prize behind them (also known as being 'correct'), so DOOR A HAS A 1/3 CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT. DOOR A HAS A 1/3 CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT, ANON. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS, ANON?
Step Two: I will now open every other door except for one, so that only two doors remain - the one you picked, and one other door. I, Monty Hall, know where the prize is, and will make sure the prize door remains unopened. If you selected the prize, OF WHICH THERE WAS ONLY A 1/3 CHANCE ANON, that means leaving your door shut, and leaving one other random goat door shut. If you didn't select the prize, OF WHICH THERE IS A 2/3 CHANCE ANON, that means leaving your goat door shut, and also leaving the prize door shut which you never picked.
Step Three: THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE EQUATION YOU FUCKING STUPID IDIOT. I HAVE NOT MOVED THE PRIZE TO A DIFFERENT DOOR. EVERYTHING REMAINS AS IT IS. THE DOOR YOU INITIALLY PICKED STILL ONLY HAS A 1/3 CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT YOU STUPID FUCKING IDIOT
Step Four: I will now ask you if you would like to switch to the other remaining door. Note that the door you picked in the first place STILL ONLY HAS 1/3 CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED and that the door I left remaining open SIMPLY AS A FUCKING TRUISM HAS A 2/3 CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT BECAUSE WHEN I ELIMINATED ALL REMAINING DOORS EXCEPT FOR ONE I WAS FORCED TO LEAVE THE PRIZE IN THE GAME WHICH LITERALLY HAS TO BE EITHER THE DOOR YOU PICKED OR THIS ONE.

>>713731524
it also doesn't mention if your resistance reduces the damage THEN its transferred or if your void walker takes the damage BEFORE reductions.

>>713714095 (OP)
I understood this problem once
Then I saw it again later and did not understand again
It was explained to me several times again and I finally got it again
I do not understand anymore. I only vaguely get that it's because of the context.

>>713730576
So explain why the simulations don't show that.

>>713725303
>Obviously
If it's so "obvious", why do people keep getting confused about it, for decades?

I think the "chances get better" argument only works if you keep playing the game, over and over again. But for a literal "one shot in a lifetime" scenario, it doesn't matter.

>>713732278
it does
you first picked a 1/100 chance
then you were shown a 99/100 chance
not switching makes no sense whatsoever

>>713732350
actually there is no car and they scammed you because it turns out the game show was run by jeets, what now Egghead?

>>713730519
It is retarded.
It's retarded because it's explained incompletely by retards that don't actually understand the Monty Hall problem.

Every time it is parroted, including in this thread, they leave out the issue of the host.
The point that you're missing, because it wasn't explained, is that the host FUCKING KNOWS AND DELIBERATELY CHOOSES A DOOR TO REMOVE THAT HE KNOWS HAS A GOAT BEHIND IT.
IT IS NOT A RANDOM REVEAL.

That's they key to the Monty Hall problem.
When you apply it, it will make complete sense.

tl;dr
You are correct on the parameters you've been provided, because everyone on 4channel is too fucking stupid to actually understand what they're talking about and are just parroting psued bullshit.

>>713731397
And yet even after having everything explained and drawn out, anons still refuse to believe it, so saying it's misleading can't be true if they still don't believe it after all that.

>>713732350
>not switching makes no sense whatsoever
It does, if you believe you made the right choice to begin with.

Due to my personal beliefs, I don't think probabilities even exist in nature. It's all predetermined. You can only speculate or calculate afterwards.

>>713732571
>if you believe you made the right choice to begin with
you believe you made a 1% choice to begin with? why? the host showed you a door with a 99% chance of being right

>>713731881
>>713731935
>>713731954
50/50
I win or lose nothing else matters
>>713732038
i ate your mom, aunt and gandma's pussy. that counts i hope

>>713730576
It's not because you're not choosing between two doors, this is really crucial to understand. Once you get this it will just click. You're picking between a door that had a 1/1000000 chance of being correct when you picked it (this doesn't change when the host reveals 999998 wrong doors), and the door which the host left shut which has a 999999/1000000 chance of being correct, because it's chances of having the car are the inverse of how likely your own initial pick out of all doors was to have the car.

>>713732483
>Every time it is parroted, including in this thread, they leave out the issue of the host.
>>713719367

>>713732674
based retard

>>713732350
>host removes 98 doors
>you get blindfolded and the doors are swapped a round
>both doors are now a 50/50

Explain that you utter retard

>>713732092
>HAS TO BE EITHER THE DOOR YOU PICKED OR THIS ONE.
so a 50% chance

>>713732483
Owned I pointed this out well before you: >>713726545

I'm absolutely convinced that everyone understands this and are just pretending to think it's a 50/50.

>>713732657
>you believe you made a 1% choice to begin with?
Why even play, if you don't believe you can win?

>the host showed you a door with a 99% chance of being right
In one scenario. In another scenario it will be 100% the wrong door.

This is what I mean about repeated attemps/scenarios. In the long run, it would make sense to switch the door, because you would win (slightly) more often. But in real life? It doesn't matter. You only get one shot. One out of 100.

>>713732819
>you get blindfolded and the doors are swapped a round
>both doors are now a 50/50
not a part of the monty hall problem. the problem has specific parameters and rules. you made up a new problem that doesn't need explaining

This is some Shrodigner's Door shit. If you picked correctly on the first go it does NOT increase your odds. It only matters if you picked WRONG first. If both doors the host reveals after your pick has a goat then so fucking what if he reveals one?

You switched your pick to a door with a 2/3 chance to LOSE if you got it right the first time, and 2/3 to WIN if you got it wrong. It only "increase odds" if you believe you chose wrong. This is pseduo math bullshit and is only "useful" if you doubt your first decision

>>713732278
>why do people keep getting confused about it, for decades?
Because by definition a good chunk of the population is retarded and another 20% are midwits at best

>>713732819
If the doors were swapped, or to say the prize location was randomized between the two random doors, then it IS a 50/50. But the prize location is NOT randomized when all but one of the other doors you never picked are opened, THIS is the crucial part. You are NOT choosing between two equal doors when offered the chance to switch. You are choosing between:
1) The door you initially picked, which only has a 1/3 chance of being correct.
2) The door Monty was forced to leave shut, bearing in mind he's not allowed to reveal the prize. This door therefore has a 2/3 chance of being correct.
If there were 50 doors, you would be picking between your initial pick which has a 1/50 chance of being correct, and a door which as a 49/50 chance of being correct.
If there were 100 doors, you would be picking between your initial pick which only has a 1/100 of being correct, and a door which has a 99/100 chance of being correct.
And so on.

>>713732994
you seem to be forgetting how the problem works.
first, you choose a door, then, the host reveals the other wrong doors, then, you decide whether to switch. that's the way this works and has to work
in other words, again, first, you make a 1/100 choice, then the host reveals 98 wrong doors, the last door being a 99/100 choice of being correct. it will be the exact same the first time as the next 1000 times you do it

>>713732674
>I win or lose nothing else matters
So you buy a lottery ticket every day right?

>>713732691
>1/1000000 chance of being correct when you picked it (this doesn't change when the host reveals 999998 wrong doors)
it does because the host didnt reveal the right door

>>713732819
>heh if i completely change the situation now its different
Wow anon youre really smart
the probability of the original door you chose being correct still doesnt change even in this scenario so now youre double retarded

>>713732994
>Why even play, if you don't believe you can win?
Before you were saying you WILL win. Not can.

>another Monty Hall problem thread
NO NO NO FUCK NO

>>713733085
You're so close to understanding it.
>It only matters if you picked WRONG first.
EXACTLY anon. And you're going to pick wrong 2/3 times! So switching will give you the car 2/3 times, so the odds are always in your favor if you switch!

>>713733301
of course he did. he reveled every single wrong door. that, by definition, leaves the right door behind.

>>713733301
He can't reveal the right door, this is crucial.
So either YOU picked the right door, of which you only had a 1/1000000 chance - or of all the doors you didn't pick, of which there is a 999999/1000000 chance the car is among them, he is forced to leave that as the sole shut door remaining besides the one you picked.

>>713733360
these are interesting because you can see in real time people understand the problem and seethe about being wrong, or understand the problem and try to explain it to the ones who still don't get it, it's like a passing of the torch

>>713732819
>Your mother never drank
>She never dropped you on your head
>You grew up cognitively intact
What now retard?

>>713733156
Its not because people are stupid, its because people are WILLFULLY stupid.

A stupid person who doesn't know the answer that seeks it out and learns it becomes a smart person.
A stupid person who doesn't know the answer and chooses to come up with excuses rather than admit he was wrong willingly chooses to be stupid.

Guess which of these two describes /v/?

>>713714439
Well yeah, but it doesn't change the goat location.

>>713733361
But that's just our human understanding of probability. It doesn't guarantee switching will win me the the car. It just potentially, theoretically increases the odds in reference to how we understabd probability. It doesn't necessarily mean anything

>>713733567
>It doesn't guarantee switching will win me the the car.
No one said that.

>>713733567
Of course it doesn't guarantee it, it just increases the odds, exactly as you say. Now you're not complaining about the Monty Hall problem, you're complaining about the nature of odds, so I think you're just trying to get reactions and fully understand it.

You can larp about probability all you want but the simple truth is that this scenario is so well known that if this were done in real life the host would purposefully have the prize behind the door you picked instead of the one you think you should swap to

>>713733567
>It doesn't guarantee switching will win me the the car.
well, it's not guaranteed, no one said that

>>713733703
Actually the game was always done above board - there were probably regulations to ensure game show hosts never cheated - and it was because it was figured out that switching always gave a higher probability to win that the game was retired.

>>713733703
you think schrodinger actually did his cat experiment too or something?

>>713733465
>>713733389
50/50

>>713733234
>it will be the exact same the first time
First scenario:
Chances of picking right door: 1/100
Chances of picking wrong door: 99/100.

Second scenario:
Chances of picking right door: 1/2 (kept, or switched?)
Chances of picking wrong door: 1/2 (kept, or switched?)

No, the numbers WON'T stay the same. It WILL NOT be the "exact same" choice/scenario.

Mind you, I do still believe, that switching would make sense with repeated attempts. But in a gameshow, where you only visit once in your lifetime, and make a singular choice? It doesn't matter.

>>713732265
because the simulations don't think like us humans so faggola, are you that stupid?

>>713733696
I mean I guess sure, you're describing something completely different so yes the rules are different.
Let's Make a Deal was in front of a life studio audience, so there was no switching an entire fucking car from the door you picked.

>>713732939
It's 2/3 genuine retards and 1/3 bait. Some people think the retard/bait ratio is 50/50 but they're wrong.

>>713733007
>the "problem" only works uf you follow some retarded rules
pretty stupid

>>713733884
Simulations don't think.

>>713714095 (OP)
I don't understand why the question has to be so anal about the odds remaining the same as your FIRST pick despite you being on your second pick, after the door has opened revealing the goat, and your remaining choice now being 50/50 of nothing or the car, because for all intents and purposes you already have the goat you're just choosing to give it up, it's no longer a 33% chance unless you're including choosing leaving with the goat. As presented the conditions have obviously changed and it makes me think something about the hypothetical is missing.

>>713733910
Meant to quote >>713733703

>>713733249
I have a job I don't need to do that

>>713734152
Does it make you 300 million dollars?

>>713733332
>spoiler
anon tried to be a pseud and got confused by that other retard lmao

>>713734259
400 million actually

>>713714095 (OP)
Let's say there are two doors. The host tells you there's a goat behind one and the prize in the other. You choose a door, the host opens the other door, showing you that there's a goat in here. He then asks you if you want to switch doors. What are your chances of getting the prize?

I hate Monty Hall threads because it's people pretending to be retarded finding themselves in good company.

I used to not understand it. I spent 6 hours on my own doing research and listening to 50 different explainations after one of these threads once. It finally clicked into place like a Jimmy Neutron brain blast and I spent the rest of the day going on some profanity laced autistic rant about Monty Hall.

You're not going to explain it to the few that genuinely don't get it. They need to sit down on their own and logically untangle the knot until they get it.

>>713734539
50%
The door is either open or closed.

>>713733703
this
the house always wins

>>713733985
neither do you caring about the simulations that don't into account how we (or at least me and people that aren't retards like you) think

>>713734547
I personally did finally get it through these threads though, and I like to think there are always a few anons who finally get it through these threads too. It's bizarre now that I not only used to believe it was 50/50, but argued for it, all just because it intuitively feels right and I was ignoring everything being said to me, I just saw 'choice between two things = 50/50' and left it at that. I do get what you mean that people need to untangle the knot themselves, but the aid they get for that can come from any discussion on it, even in these threads.

>>713732212
It's because OP's post is omitting key information.
The guest picks one of three doors. At this stage, it's a 1/3 chance that they picked a door that has the prize of a car.
The host then has to reveal one of the two doors that the guest did not pick, but can only open a door that reveals a goat.
The guest then has the choice of either sticking with their initial choice, or switching to the door that the host did not reveal.
The idea is that switching is more likely to produce a winning outcome, because the odds of the remaining door become 2/3, but I disagree with that assertion.

The initial scenario has three unknowns with three possibilities (car / goat / goat).
The follow-up scenario removes an unknown has two unknowns (car and goat).
Whatever your choice at the beginning was, remains an unknown until the final reveal.
You've narrowed down the information, but what started as a 1/3 chance to have picked the door with the car, becomes a 1/2 chance.
However, the guests initial choice produces a 50/50 chance that the host can either reveal either door or can only reveal one door. The follow-through of that has absolutely no bearing on the guest's position though.

>>713734647
but what if there is a gazillions doors and after you pick the host shoves a gajillion doors up his ass, dies and leaves you with the door you picked and a door with a goat painted on it and a sign that says "totally nto a goat behind this door".
do you switch?

>>713734923
Are you saying that a simulation showing the results of 1000 dice throws will be substantially different then if you threw 1000 because you think when you threw the dice?

>>713735212
Oh, I always Switch™

>>713734547
Nah it's simple
Switching will always give you the opposite of what your door currently has behind it
If you chose goat door, you'll get a car upon switching
If you chose car door, you'll get goat upon switching
Since chance of initially choosing goat door is higher, chance of getting car when switching is also higher

>>713714095 (OP)
what if the host opens a door and it has the car behind it?

>>713735576
Then you don't get the make the new choice, and that choice is "the Monty Hall Problem."

>>713735576
Host is retart

>>713735501
This is a really cool simplification, I think it should help people understand without having to fully get it.

>>713735576
He's not allowed to reveal the car, he has to keep the car hidden. This is a crucial part of the rules and I think it's deliberately left out of the OP image at least when posted here just to create further confusion.

>>713735576
when I was a child I saw some clip-art video demonstrating this problem, and then I imagined the scenario you just described playing out with that clip-art
for some reason I found it really funny

>>713735862
and what if you pick the goat first? what does the non-car door open to?

>>713736027
a goat
if your first choice has a goat behind it, the host has to open the other goat door

>>713736126
but how do I know somebody won't switch the car I'm about to switch to with a goat before I open it?

>>713735153
I somehow understand less than I did initially. The host choosing has no bearing on what your initial chosen door has behind it, correct? Ostensibly you have not changed anything with that single goat door, no? Assuming the remaining door has either the remaining goat or the car, and that the host is not trying to trick you, even if the remaining door is now 2/3 it's still not changing anything, right? Please be nice, me rarted.

>Person understands basic knowledge of something
>Presents it in a certain way
>Multiple high-level "experts" disagree, do not understand, and refuse to accept they're wrong
>It becomes infamous
Many such cases

>>713736027
If you initially pick a goat, of which there is a 2/3 chance, the host opens the other goat door, so the only remaining doors will be the door you picked (goat) and the door Monty is forced to leave shut (car). Let's call this Situation A
If you initially picked the car, of which there is a 1/3 chance, Monty can open either of the other two doors because they're both goats, so that the only doors remaining are the one you picked (car) and whichever aritraty wrong door he left shut (goat). Let's call this Situation B.
In both situations, when Monty reveals one of the goats, the location of the car doesn't change. Nothing changes. The door you initially picked still only has a 1/3 chance of having the car.
In Situation A, in which you initially picked a goat, if you switch you will win the car. Situation A happens 2/3 times.
In Situation B, in which you initially picked a car, if you switch you will get a goat. Situation B only happens 1/3 times.
That's why the odds are always in your favor to switch in the Monty Hall problem.

>>713735576
Then the host fucked up and you know where the car is.
The fact that the host knows where the car is and isn't supposed to open that door is why switching works.

I'm surprised no casino has turned this problem into a gambling game before. They could make money off of all the 1/3 retards who think you have a 50/50 chance if you don't switch.

I think if this thing ever became a real gambling game, you would see a significant increase in the number of people who believe switching yields a 2/3 chance of winning.

The way it works is you pick one of three doors. Two of the doors contain a goat and one of the doors contains a new car. Now, there were two goats, and one car, so it is more likely you picked a goat door than a car door. The house then reveals one of the goat doors, there is always two goats, so there will always be another goat door even if you picked a goat door. Since you picked a goat door two out of three times, the host is revealing the "other goat" two out of three times. And then since you likely picked a goat, and the host revealed the other goat, you have a good chance of winning if you choose to switch doors after that. But retards think you have a 50/50 chance because they think the host "eliminated" a door and they "survived" the elimination and now there's only two doors left so it must be 50/50 chances right? Give me your money goy. Lol.

>>713736578
but does he ALWAYS open the door? It seems like it's a deliberate misdirection tactic and the problem kinda falls apart once you know

>>713736206
>>713733910

50/50 giga-brains, your response?

>>713736878
based but as long as one anon reads my post and finally gets it that will be one more ascended anon

>>713736878
The problem is literally "Do you change the door after the host opens a door?" so yes, in the Monty Hall Problem he always opens the door, because the host opening the door and offering a switch is the Monty Hall Problem.

>>713735358
are you saying that a simulation picking a door can replicate the same experience of a person doing the same including their thoughts and feelings each and every time?

>>713737348
anon he's fucking around

>>713737348
but why doesn't the host just take the car himself if he knows where it is? is he stupid?

>>713737362
The simulation is simulating the result of picking a door, not the process of picking a door.

>>713735576
you lost
duh

>>713737401
I got got.

>>713737456
does it or does it not?

>>713736812
a real casino would switch the goat and the car after the first choice to trick you

>>713737561
The simulation is not simulating picking the door,so not it doesn't pick the door.

>>713736812
casinos have been doing this for a long time which is why this problem is bogus, it only works if the big prize can actually be won

>>713737670
does it or does it not replicate what a human experiences during the process, retard?

>>713716892
checkmate atheists

>>713737887
Which process?

no one has to believe me but I have a real image of the results which I will stick to. pick a door, first response wins.

>>713737960
D

>>713731881
It doesn't matter. It's in the past. Right now there are two doors. 50/50

>>713737953
does it or does it not, retard? simple question

I made my own code to test this.
10000000 loops
// Change the door
// You won 6664624 times
// Winrate: 0.6664624
// No changing of door
// You won 3333852 times
// Winrate: 0.3333852 -> 33 percent

>>713738342
Which process?

>>713738376
I was about to go ballistic because I misread this as 10000000 doors instead of 10000000 loops lol

>>713738481
does it or does it not, retard? simple question

>>713738787
I accept your concession.

THanks anons i understand the solution now. hehe

>>713737645
Casinos don't need to cheat anymore because the odds for literally all of their games are in their favor, so they literally always win, especially the more you play, which is why they hide the clocks, have no windows, and try to make you stay as long as possible. If you are winning too much, they reserve the right to kick you out. Lol.

Try it yourselves. In Kotlin.

fun main() {
val rounds = 10000000
val switchDoors = true

var wins = 0;
for(i in 0 until rounds) {
val doors = mutableListOf("", "", "")
val prizeLocation = Random.nextInt(0, 3)
doors[prizeLocation] = "prize"
var guess = Random.nextInt(0, 3)

if (switchDoors){
val removedDoorNumberIndex = doors.withIndex()
.firstOrNull { it.value == "" && it.index != guess }
?.index ?: -1
// Switch guess
val choicelist = mutableListOf<Int>(0, 1, 2)
choicelist.remove(guess)
choicelist.remove(removedDoorNumberIndex)
guess = choicelist.first()
}

if(doors[guess] == "prize") {
wins++
println("WINNER WINNIER CHICKEN DINNER!")
} else {
println("LOSER!")
}
}
println("You won $wins times")
println("Winrate: ${wins.toDouble()/rounds.toDouble()}")
}

>>713739191
And counting cards is cheating lmao

>>713739308
Counting cards is actually legal in most casinos, you just can't use a device to help you count cards you have to do it yourself, it only slightly increases your odds of winning, but Casinos hate when you have any kind of advantage at all, lol.

>>713716689
@grok explain this

>>713716078
Why were people back the obsessed with wooden wheels as representative of weird stuff?

>>713739815
That feature isn't available until Elon buys 4chan. Which he unironically entertained the idea of once.
Lol.

>>713738831
I accept your concession that simulations are pointless in an actual application of the problem

>>713714095 (OP)
God I hate probability so much its unreal

>>713739819
the greatest technology or artform at the time is what people will abstract higher concepts they can't grasp with
>what if life was like... a wheel?
>what if life was like... a tower?
>what if life was like... a stage play?
>what if like was like... a movie?
interestitng isn't it. makes me wonder, what if life was like... an AI simulation?

>>713740201
There is no difference? Either you switch doors or not?

>>713736812
bold of you to assume casinos don't fuck with statistics

>>713737960
B

>>713740201
Which application?

>>713714095 (OP)
Why not just take the gordian knot approach and hold the host at gunpoint and tell him I'll put a bullet in his brain if he doesn't open the door with the car behind it?

>>713714323
man Noita looks different after all the patches

>>713730519
No, it's right. You can do it manually with cards.

>>713739815
They're all divisible by 7 so the day of the week never changes.

>>713740384
Okay, you have picked B. This pick has a 1/3 chance of having the car behind it.
I must now open one of the doors you didn't pick, and I'm not allowed to reveal the car. I open door A, revealing a goat.
Will you stick with door B, or switch to door C?

It also helps with looking at this problem in the extreme. Imagine you have a 1000 doors, you pick one, then the host opens up 998 revealing goats. You can then switch to the remaining one. What are the odds of you picking the correct one the first time, versus switching after seeing 998 goats.

>>713714095 (OP)
I have had this explained to me a million times and my stupid idiot monkey brain still doesn't get it.

>>713714819
>mfw semi consistently get WoF to work
Just lvl up your luck stat irl

>>713740086
Elon's next after Hiro gets cold feet, guaranteed. Screenshot this.

>>713741567
I'm a retard
Because ultimately all I think is that it's still the same 50/50 even though logically switching does make sense because of the idea of guessing right on my first 1/1000 guess is absurd and forcibly removing 998 wrong choices places better odds on the other door.
But my brain physically cannot change my perception of it being 50/50 because in my head it just goes "well it's basically a new choice, clean slate 50/50 1/2 here."

>>713714819
yeah I am

>>713741649
When you switch, you're betting against your initial pick. Your initial pick was 1/3, ergo your chances of you switch are 2/3.
Perchance.

>>713742190
Another way to think about it. You can either pick 1 door out of a 1000, or switch to picking 999 out of a 1000. The only difference in the example with the host, is that he opens them for you.

>>713714439
WRONG
there is only ever a 100/0 probability because the universe is deterministic and quantum stuff doesn't count because we don't understand it fully yet but when we do the system of german idealism will be complete and all of reality will collapse into itself like a properly seasoned sub

i should spend less time here

My favorite part of Monty Hall threads is that the anons that don't get it are the only ones lashing out and calling everyone else retarded so you know they're absolutely seething from the insecurity in not understanding.

I get the goat problem no problem but the gold/silver ball one makes me feel like a retard because every time someone explains it to me they just sound wrong

>>713742489
Well yeah I understand the logic, I understand why fundamentally it's just flat out better to swap, but my brain just tells me "well that's 50/50" when confronted with the OP example.

>>713741458
Stay

You pick a door. You have a 1/3 chance that you picked the right door, and the total probability that it's among the other two doors is 2/3, so that the total probability space adds to 1. As soon as a goat door is opened, you know the odds of that door being the right one is 0. So for the 2/3 odds to stay the same, the last door must have 2/3 odds of being the right door.

>>713742598
if you get a gold ball there is a 2/3 chance that it came from the box with two gold balls

>>713742658
I think if you understand the logic its good enough. The "solution" to this problem is inherently unintuitive anyway. If it weren't everyone would have switched in those old gameshows.

>>713743216
>if you get a gold ball
that's if you get a gold ball, but the problem is always worded such that you always get the gold ball, so the 2 silver ball box is completely irrelevant

>>713743227
Yeah I sometimes come into these threads just to get a refresher on it and "re-understand" the logic because it is sound, but my brain can't accept it when I see it at face value for whatever reason. Thanks mate.

>>713742797
I now reveal what was behind each door.
You stayed with your initial choice, door B, which had a 1/3 chance of having the door.
You didn't switch to Door C, which after the reveal, had a 2/3 chance of having the door.
You lost the game, winding up with a goat instead of a car.