News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Gambler’s Fallacy and the Regression to the Mean. Parent comment

Re:Gambler’s Fallacy and the Regression to the Mean by jodrellblank on Friday January 07, 2022 @08:43PM (#29847648)
How can they reliably show you the door that doesn't have the prize, if they don't know where the prize is? They can't, which means the host must know, which means it must matter what the host knows?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gambler’s Fallacy and the Regression to the Mean by mhb on Friday January 07, 2022 @09:52PM (#29848134)
He's not reliably showing it. You're being presented with a situation in which the door shown doesn't have the prize.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gambler’s Fallacy and the Regression to the Mean by mhb on Friday January 07, 2022 @09:57PM (#29848160)
An illuminating example uses a deck of cards. You're trying to get the ace of spades. You pick a card. I don't know anything but I turn over 50 of the 51 remaining cards and they're not the ace of spades. Do you want to switch your pick to the alternative unknown card?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gambler’s Fallacy and the Regression to the Mean by galaxyLogic on Saturday January 08, 2022 @06:44AM (#29850749)
To a casual observer it looks like they picked the door without price by chance.
[ Parent | on HN ]