I think the problem is that people forget Monty Hall has information that the contestant does not. The naive assumption is that he’s just picking a door and you’re just picking a door. The unsophisticated viewer never really stops to think about why Monty Hall never points to a door and reveals a prize by mistake.
One way I’ve had success explaining it is to expand the problem to more than three doors. Assume 100 doors. Monty Hall then says “Open 98 doors” and fails to reveal a prize behind any of them. Now its a bit more clear that he knows something you don’t.
The thing you’re getting by switching is the benefit of the information provided by the person who revealed an empty door.
Before a door is open, you have a 1/3 chance of selecting correctly.
After you select a door, the host picks from the other two doors. This provides extra information you didn’t have during your initial selection. The host points to a door they know is a dud and asks for it to open. So now you’re left with the question “Did I pick the correct door on the first go? Or did the host skip the door that had the prize?” There’s a 1/3 chance you picked the right door initially and a 2/3 chance the host had to avoid the prize-door.
Yeah I think the easiest way of understanding how monty affects the choice is to imagine 100 doors, and after you pick one monty opens 97 other ones. Wouldn’t you want to change after that?
Yes, it is more like a sleigh of hand or a magic trick. When the presenter discards an option, they are acting as a hand of god that skews the probability.
It is much easier to understand with a hundred doors. You choose one and then the presenter discards 98 doors, now you decide whether to keep yours or to choose the other one.
Here it is more obvious the role of the presenter discarding negatives.
I think the problem is that people forget Monty Hall has information that the contestant does not. The naive assumption is that he’s just picking a door and you’re just picking a door. The unsophisticated viewer never really stops to think about why Monty Hall never points to a door and reveals a prize by mistake.
One way I’ve had success explaining it is to expand the problem to more than three doors. Assume 100 doors. Monty Hall then says “Open 98 doors” and fails to reveal a prize behind any of them. Now its a bit more clear that he knows something you don’t.
Maybe? I don’t think that was my issue. I think I was overthinking it and using the second “choice” as an event with separate odds.
The thing you’re getting by switching is the benefit of the information provided by the person who revealed an empty door.
Before a door is open, you have a 1/3 chance of selecting correctly.
After you select a door, the host picks from the other two doors. This provides extra information you didn’t have during your initial selection. The host points to a door they know is a dud and asks for it to open. So now you’re left with the question “Did I pick the correct door on the first go? Or did the host skip the door that had the prize?” There’s a 1/3 chance you picked the right door initially and a 2/3 chance the host had to avoid the prize-door.
Yeah I think the easiest way of understanding how monty affects the choice is to imagine 100 doors, and after you pick one monty opens 97 other ones. Wouldn’t you want to change after that?
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip I interviewed someone for a jr data analyst roll once, and one of the questions I asked was to explain the Monty Hall problem.
They told me the odds were 50:50, so I rolled out the 100 door version.
They told me the odds were 50:50.
Management decided to hire him, anyway.
Yes, it is more like a sleigh of hand or a magic trick. When the presenter discards an option, they are acting as a hand of god that skews the probability.
It is much easier to understand with a hundred doors. You choose one and then the presenter discards 98 doors, now you decide whether to keep yours or to choose the other one.
Here it is more obvious the role of the presenter discarding negatives.