Anonymous user
Talk:Monty Hall problem: Difference between revisions
→Someones theory: Try it yourself instead of arguing!
(→Someones theory: Theory schmeory. Evidence says switching wins.) |
(→Someones theory: Try it yourself instead of arguing!) |
||
Line 164:
: Conditional probabilities ''are'' difficult, but when you model the problem exactly with a contestant agent and a Monty Hall agent (and you can clearly see who has just how much knowledge) you get the counter-intuitive result. Because when you model it properly you get this, it means that if your theory gives any other result, it is ''your'' theory that must be wrong. IOW, Reality sees your theory, has a good chuckle, and spits it back out.
: Here's how I recommend thinking about it. You had a 1/3 chance of picking the right door initially (simple!) so there's a 2/3 chance you got it wrong to start out with. ''What Monty Hall does doesn't change that at all.'' Switching is like going from picking one door to picking two; yes, one has been subsequently eliminated, but you knew at least one of them didn't have the car anyway. BFD. You're switching from a 1/3 chance to the complement of a 1/3 chance (i.e., 2/3), which is a win. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 13:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
:: And if you still don't believe me, get a friend and play the game for real (well, maybe with a swig of beer instead of a car). 10 or 20 rounds with one strategy or the other shouldn't take too long. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
| |||