Re:Gambler’s Fallacy and the Regression to the Mean
by mikenew on Saturday January 08, 2022 @09:29PM
(#29859302)
I don't know what to tell you at this point. From the wikipedia article:
> Most people come to the conclusion that switching does not matter because there are two unopened doors and one car and that it is a 50/50 choice. This would be true if the host opens a door randomly, but that is not the case; the door opened depends on the player's initial choice, so the assumption of independence does not hold.
Random means there's a possibility the host opens the door containing the prize. The Monty Hall problem specifies that that is not a possible scenario, and that the host does not choose randomly.
> If the host doesn't know where the prize but still, by chance, "opens one door without a prize", then, in this situation the contestant's information remains the same and the odds remain the same.
The host cannon open a door by chance if there's no chance of opening the door with a prize behind it.
> Most people come to the conclusion that switching does not matter because there are two unopened doors and one car and that it is a 50/50 choice. This would be true if the host opens a door randomly, but that is not the case; the door opened depends on the player's initial choice, so the assumption of independence does not hold.
Random means there's a possibility the host opens the door containing the prize. The Monty Hall problem specifies that that is not a possible scenario, and that the host does not choose randomly.
> If the host doesn't know where the prize but still, by chance, "opens one door without a prize", then, in this situation the contestant's information remains the same and the odds remain the same.
The host cannon open a door by chance if there's no chance of opening the door with a prize behind it.