Game has a solved meta

I tried this with a hula hoop and it's clearly a 1 in 3 chance.

at boot you have 1/3 chance of picking the winning door, 2/3 chance of picking a bad door. if you picked the bad door you have 100% chance of picking the right door once the host showed you which one of the other 2 doors is the bad door.

it's a 50% chance

>redditjak
Get lost, kid

Attached: shadowtakesaimatredditjak.gif (540x304, 3.26M)

Not as much skill as mahjong.

Attached: Skill-Based Game.webm (854x480, 2.75M)

>he says, while posting redditnic
kek

but the host doesn't tell you that if you've picked a bad door

the host always uncovers the other bad door by showing the goat, so it's impossible to switch from bad to bad. So you either start with a bad and switch to good, or you start with the good and switch to bad. there's a 2/3 to start with a bad door and a 1/3 to start with a good door

if you picked the right door, the host can do whatever and shares no additional information with you (1/3 chance from boot)
if you picked a wrong door the host can ONLY reveal the wrong door out of the remaining two doors thus gives you additional information about the state of those options (2/3 chance from boot)

If you choose from 100 doors, 99 of which has a goat behind them and 1 has 1 mil usd, and after you made a choice I open 98 doors with goats in them, do you still think that changing your choice to another closed door does not give you advantage in getting 1 mil?

Let me ask you this.
If there are 100 doors with 99 goats and 1 prize, and the problem plays out as normal.
Between the 99 doors you didn’t pick, what is the chance that all 99 doors are goats? Or rather, how likely would the unrevealed door be just another goat?
That’s how I figured out that switching has a stronger chance. It’s just so unlikely that the door you didn’t pick happens to be another goat.

It basically boils down to, you picked a door and have a 33% chance of success
the host reveals one of the two wrong doors, well showing you that wrong door doesn't magically increase the initial odds of success - your success rate is baked in at 33%.
but if you switch doors, you're basically switching to the remaining door AND taking the opened door - so you're effectively ditching your pathetic one door for two doors, which doubles your odds of success

Like if you think about it this way: Imagine there's 100 doors. You pick one, and there's a goat behind one. Then the host throws open 98 doors revealing nothing. But he knows where the goat is, right? So then you're asked if you want to switch to the closed door. Well of course you fuckin do, what are the odds that you randomly picked the goat right on your first try? And meanwhile this dumbass host has just given away the entire game by straight up telling you where the goat is. So of course you switch doors and have a 99/100 chance to get the goat. It's the same principle, it's just mentally tough for people when it's done with 1/3rds for some reason.

I agree, but only if chance is what breaks deadlocks between equally skilled players, and not helping obviously inferior players bullshit a win

Hivemind

why does this problem act like the chance your door is good doesn't change as well? it was 1/3 when you picked it, but is now 1/2

hello fellow 100 door chad, did we just become best friends

oh shit i thought the goat was the prize lmao
goats are pretty cool tho you gotta admit

>Multiple people pointing out the obvious
>H-h-hivemind!
Do you struggle to tie your shoelaces?

Check the times and post numbers

this would be true if the host revealed a wrong door at random INCLUDING the one you've initally picked, but that door is removed from his possibilities thus his actions share no additional information about that door

thanks I'm getting onto something there

heh.... better luck next time

Attached: vaihdatko.jpg (1268x667, 109.14K)

...wow that makes so much sense. have I just been misreading the problem this whole time?

Attached: EZJmA9TXsAIOk4A.jpg (1024x682, 71.77K)

basically mahjong lmao kill me

Attached: mahjong.png (278x263, 63.25K)

This is not a math problem, it's a semantics problem. Both Bayesian and Frequentist approaches very clearly show that the Monty Hall problem is just a retard trap for those that never learned math or logic.

why did you draw a black man?

well someone has to rim the goat and I'm certainly not doing it

the best way this was explained to me was to take it to a ridiculous level. imagine not 3 but 100 doors. you pick one, then 98 doors open revealing 98 goats. you can either stick with your original choice or switch to the one door that didnt open aside from the one you originally picked.

obviously switching is the move here.

This concept is retarded because the odds on your door do change.
3 doors means 33% on each, if the host opens a door its now 50% on the last two, your door doesn't somehow become less likely than the other unopened door. The other door "doubling" to 66% is absolutely retarded, it doesn't absorb the stats of the opened door like kirby.
Did you fuckers fall asleep in statistics class?