You are applying the math, informed or otherwise, to 2 consecutive guesses. That doubles Monty's chances.
Ignore Bait: Highest IQ, Many Questions, Odds makers invited...
- Thread starter straightline
- Start date
Not an option. One time all in.
Again, not how life works.
One time or a million. Odds are odds.
Our public education fails yet again.
No, you get to open one door,
33% or 66%
Regardless of how many times you get to pick.
This statement is just as incoherent as your whole thought process on this point. At this point the only logical conclusion one can come to is that you are a troll or a bag of hammers.
This might be one of my favorite threads because of how wrong some people are and they dont have a clue about it.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything here. I will just explain how I see it.
I choose a door. I know that at least one of the doors I didnt choose is a goat. Now lets say for arguments sake that after I have chosen my door nothing is revealed and I am given the option of staying with my door and trading for the two remaining doors. The decision with the best odds is to trade for the other door even though I know that one of them is a goat. The host revealing the goat doesnt change the odds. I am at either one third (my first choice) or two thirds (trading). The fact that the goat is revealed does not change a thing. I already knew it was there.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything here. I will just explain how I see it.
I choose a door. I know that at least one of the doors I didnt choose is a goat. Now lets say for arguments sake that after I have chosen my door nothing is revealed and I am given the option of staying with my door and trading for the two remaining doors. The decision with the best odds is to trade for the other door even though I know that one of them is a goat. The host revealing the goat doesnt change the odds. I am at either one third (my first choice) or two thirds (trading). The fact that the goat is revealed does not change a thing. I already knew it was there.
Aww. Can't comprehend the guy guessing twice at the cash? Who has the odds there?
Of course the odds don't change. Neither do they apply to the final condition. The only thing I'm venturing is, by guessing twice, the taker doubles the con's chances.
You (the taker) are uninformed at both guesses. You (the taker) may or may not be informed by some promissory fine print but that doesn't influence the outcome which will be one or the other.
Now you’re just making shit up.
You have extremely more patience than I do. I would have given up with this guy a very long time ago! Lol
It’s easy and free entertainment. It’s like being at an aquarium. You look at odd and interesting shit and sometimes tap on the glass.
Would you say you tap on the glass 33% or 66% of the time?
Troll = 2/3 chance
Bag of Hammers = 1/3 chance
Which part of this don't you understand?
Taker guesses twice on the promise that his chances are double.
What are the proposer's odds? This is not LMAD. The proposer is trying to win.
The proposer’s odds:
66% if you don’t switch
33% if you do switch
The only way it’s not is if your change the scenario,
If this is being setup as a prop bet and I’m trying to win….and I give you the choice after showing you the door or card.
If doing it one time, I’d have to have better odds on money than 2/3. That way I make money when someone swaps and I make even more money when they don’t.
If multiple times, if you get a choice, I need same better than 2/3 odds on cash, or there’s a stipulation where you can’t swap.
That’s the only way the proposer can make money if he shows a card/door *AND* the person playing has the mental capability of knowing the switch is better decision.
If doing it one time, I’d have to have better odds on money than 2/3. That way I make money when someone swaps and I make even more money when they don’t.
If multiple times, if you get a choice, I need same better than 2/3 odds on cash, or there’s a stipulation where you can’t swap.
That’s the only way the proposer can make money if he shows a card/door *AND* the person playing has the mental capability of knowing the switch is better decision.
That’s how a casino would set it up.
They would always have a payout that pays less than the 2/3 odds. So they make money when a player swaps cards.
And they make a ton of money when they stick with their original.
For example:
If you wanted to win $5
You would have to bet $15
We play 3x and you swap (it doesn’t have to be the same player. I don’t care who plays and if it’s just once per person)
Win: 5
Win: 5
Lose: $15
I would now be $5 ahead.
We play 3x and you don’t swap
Lose: 15
Lose: 15
Win: 5
I’m now $25 ahead.
That’s the only way the person administering the game wins *if* they know where the prize is.
If I *dont* know where the prize is, and I just turn over a random card, and if it’s the prize you still lose, that’s even better.
As your odds will never be better than 33%.
They would always have a payout that pays less than the 2/3 odds. So they make money when a player swaps cards.
And they make a ton of money when they stick with their original.
For example:
If you wanted to win $5
You would have to bet $15
We play 3x and you swap (it doesn’t have to be the same player. I don’t care who plays and if it’s just once per person)
Win: 5
Win: 5
Lose: $15
I would now be $5 ahead.
We play 3x and you don’t swap
Lose: 15
Lose: 15
Win: 5
I’m now $25 ahead.
That’s the only way the person administering the game wins *if* they know where the prize is.
If I *dont* know where the prize is, and I just turn over a random card, and if it’s the prize you still lose, that’s even better.
As your odds will never be better than 33%.
Last edited:
The odds or percentage everyone assumes is after a Casino has put expenses. Unless the casino can get someone to play they are in the hole from the start.
Until you find that first player the casino is running up bills. Casinos offer vouchers at no cost to players just to get them to play a game.
Whoever wrote the "math" problem must think acquiring a player is free. As for the player's chances of winning it is better to play fewer times than it is to play a lot.
Those percentages like 1/3 or 2/3 or 1/2 are model based. Compare that to empirical data and discrepancies are usually found.
Simply put playing games more people have beginners luck as long as they stay beginners. Long term gamblers don't develop veterans luck.
Until you find that first player the casino is running up bills. Casinos offer vouchers at no cost to players just to get them to play a game.
Whoever wrote the "math" problem must think acquiring a player is free. As for the player's chances of winning it is better to play fewer times than it is to play a lot.
Those percentages like 1/3 or 2/3 or 1/2 are model based. Compare that to empirical data and discrepancies are usually found.
Simply put playing games more people have beginners luck as long as they stay beginners. Long term gamblers don't develop veterans luck.