The Monty Hall Problem Revisited

[Sarkus]

She could have corrected it by allowing a 4th game.

An interesting approach to problem solving:
1. Look at a problem
2. Analyse and come up with an answer
3. Be told correct answer
4. Amend the problem so that your answer is the correct one.

I'm sure something goes here about Morecambe and Wise meeting Andre Previn?

 

[James R]

I have responded to most of the challenges. You just don't like the replies.
You expect others to question their ideas, but you won't question your own!

phyti:

You are being dishonest.

While you have posted "responses" following other people's posts in this thread, you have deliberately chosen not to engage with any of the many specific demonstrations provided to you that show clearly both that (a) the switch strategy clearly increases the player's chance of winning the car in all Monty-Hall games, and (b) your analysis of the game is incorrect because you consistently ignore the relative probabilities of the player encounting each of the variant scenarios that you have identified.

It is particularly clear in the case of the million-door Monty Hall variant that I posted about (and which vos Savant used as an example). In that case, the player who chooses "switch" increases his chance of winning the car from 1 in 2 to 999,999 in 1 million, i.e. from a 50% chance of a win to a 99.9999% chance of a win.

There is no point is allowing this thread to continue, since you have demonstrated in clear terms that you are unwilling to acknowledge any argument that defeats your claims.

In the absense of any disproof from you of the many correct analyses of the Monty Hall problem that have been presented to you, and given your evident unwillingness to work through any of them to try to identify a flaw, and given that you are unable to refute the correct analyses that have exposed specific fatal flaws in your own analysis, there's no point in continuing this discussion with you.

It is also a waste of everybody else's time when you cannot bring yourself to be intellectually honest about either your own claims or about the demonstrations that have been provided to you. At this point, you're simply a troll.

I must say, personally, that it's a real shame to see this from you. It seems I overestimated you. Either you lack the intellectual capacity necessary to analyse the problem yourself and to understand the analyses that others have provided for you, or (more likely) you simply lack the personal integrity to admit that you're wrong about this.

Anyway, this thread is now closed.

My advice to you, phyti, is that if you're for real (and I don't think you are) about what you claim to believe about the Monty Hall game, you should literally put your money where your mouth is and play a version of it with an unbiased referee, for money. Good luck with that.

 

[James R]

Addendum:

Marilyn Savant is the person who claimed she could beat the odds of the game, as a result of her misconceptions of probability.

This is a lie, and a deliberate smokescreen from phyti. Marilyn vos Savant correctly explained the odds of the game - along with about 10,000 other people who were able to correctly analyse it. It's not her fault that, for whatever reason, phyti either lacks the mathematical skill or else is unable to be honest enough to acknowledge the correct analysis.

If phyti is hung up on something about the personalities involved, due to some unstated prejudice, he could easily write a simple computer program of his own to play the Monty Hall game repeatedly and examine the results. They will duplicate the kinds of results DaveC obtained and presented to phyti in this thread, of course, and which phyti has deliberately and repeatedly and dishonestly ignored, like a troll.

Either phyti is scared to run the simulation (or actually play the game for himself) or else he actually knows what the results will be and is too dishonest to admit that they don't support his incorrect analysis. One more nail in the coffin.