arithmetically challenged people

Any details? I note (from promos and 'news' items, not from watching them) that contestants in Biggest Slob and Master Burgerflipper seem to come back after being eliminated.

Sylvia.

I think you miss the point, in this case it's "Not possibly being able to lose (unless the dice are fixed!) is not the same as winning". They MUST show her getting 10 so the "arithmetically challenged people" mentioned in the header can understand what's gong on. Besides they probably had more air time to fill! :-)

Trevor.

Or perhaps don't realise the lowest number on a Die(ce) is one. So she hasn't actually won yet, but she simply can't lose.

Trevor.

When you pick door #1 you only have a 1/3 chance of winning. But after you see that there is a goat behind door #3, your chance of winning is 1/2, so I would change doors and pick door #2. But I don't really know why....It's just gambler's instinct with me.

Well, if they want to compare her score to many others who roll the die four times, then she should be required to roll the die four times. But this depends on the show and its moderators.

After you know there is a goat behind door #3 and are given a chance to guess again, there is a 50% chance the car is behind door #1 and a 50% chance the car if behind door #2. Change your choice or not, you have a 50% chance of being right.

This is not correct. I explained it in a previous post. Like this...

Because you will have initially selected the wrong door 2/3 of the time (right?) it follows that 2/3 of the time the good prize will be behind one of the two other doors. The host will /always/ select a door with a goat, therefore, you should switch, because there's a 2/3 chance the other door will have the good prize.

Lets make it ten doors. You pick one, and get a one in ten chance of being right. That means that the chances are 90% that the car is behind one of the 9 doors you did not pick. You know for certain that at least eight of those doors conceal a goat, so when eight goats are revealed, you have no new information. The chances are 90% that the car is behind one of the nine - only now there is only one remaining to open.

One vital fact here is that the person doing the revealing knows the contents of the doors and chooses to reveal only goats. Had he been guessing too, and just happened to reveal only goats, then yes, you would be down to 50/50.

e!

Rolling again takes less time than explaining, and less time by the production staff, later on, to deal with the communiques sent by puzzled viewers.

snipped-for-privacy@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Alternate:

You walk in with 8 doors already open revealing 8 goats. The car is behind one of the two remaining doors. Convince me that your odds are not 50% to find the car.

Why? That isn't what happens. Read again and try to follow, particularly the last part, which is the vital proviso.

one

t,

or

I learned something today -- thanks!

For people who learn inductively, try this demo:

Does not work properly on Firefox, use IE.

But when you first entered the arena, you only had a 1/3 chance of winning. How does that chance change halfway through the game, and why would it matter whether you changed doors or not?

There you go! I knew there was some good reason why my instinct told me to switch doors, and there it is.

You seriously think I didn't read your alleged explanation?

You've been known to be wrong before... ;-)

That is sheerist bollocks.

Your first mistake is assuming that there is a connection between your 2 guesses. In fact you have been given two different and disconnected games to play.

Other than the fact that the car and 1 goat are carries-over from the first game, there is no connection. If they brought in another car and another goat, then the odds during the second game would be the same.

When you play the second game your odds of winning have improved to 1/2. You have 1 chances out of 2, no more, no less to win when there are 2 opportunities.

Pick whichever door you will, unless you can smell the goat! ;-)

It would appear to me that the real purpose of this thread is to test the gullibility of people.

to

st

Declaring that there is no connection between the two situations is the source of the poster's error. Monty Hall knew if the player was correct or not, and so the player's choice of the door in the first round influenced the selection of the goat door. The graphic helps you understand that there are still three scenarios once a goat door has been revealed.

But by not switching doors, you are ignoring the new information that the prize has to be behind one of the other two doors.... You are sticking with your original guess that had only a 1/3 chance of being right. By switching doors, you are including the new information that the prize has to be behind one of the other two doors, and your new chance of winning is 50%

IOW, lets suppose that you picked door #1 and then left the game, went home, and waited by the phone to find out whether you won or not. There is only a

But by staying on board, and switching your guess to door #2, you are taking advantage of the "new game" that has a 50% chance of success........

Another way to look at it is, you are allowed to play the game twice. If you only play it once, your chance of winning is only 1/3 and you can't play again. But if you accept a loss in the first game, then they will let you play again with a 50% chance of winning. So, you are better off by accepting a loss in the first game, and then getting to play the game again with a 50% chance of winning in the second game.

And as Spamtrap said this is a great site to see the results - and other than you have to run it under IE it will show you how it does benefit you to change doors. Run the iteration a few hundred times - first on keep the door and the other on change the door.

This is a variation of the three cups/shells hiding something shuffle carney game...

John :-#)#