Probability theory

[Ustonzen]

Allow me to disagree with you. It is always pleasant to have discussions with Three. Such as he is the "engine" of the forum.

This thread:
505show.jpg

[moses]

Whew! Put all sharp objects out of reach. I just poked myself in the eye with a butter knife. Feels much better than this thread.

Stealth, where are you? Please don your cape.

[moses]

Moses, this below link was their first appearance on the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yyB06HvAjI

LMAO. Thanks Bosox.

[RCJH]

So, I got it wrong but so did everyone else. You might want to give me partial credit for understanding that breaking the symmetry between the envelopes gave you an advantage if you used that information right. Unfortunately I didn't use the information to an advantage and should have an EV of 1.5X using my strategy just like never switching. But if this were a casino game I spotted its weakness. In time I might have figured out an advantage strategy to beat it.

OMG.

Three, this paradox has been debated by philosophers, statisticians, mathematicians for 100 years. Yes, you got it wrong. Then you piled on more posts justifying your incorrect position. Even now, you can't wave the white flag.

And, I got it right. Eighty posts ago. ????

[Gramazeka]

I would look at the solution of this problem by other observers if they did not use Google. I am sure that the overwhelming majority would give the wrong answer ! With Google- all the professors ))

[Freightman]

OMG.

Three, this paradox has been debated by philosophers, statisticians, mathematicians for 100 years. Yes, you got it wrong. Then you piled on more posts justifying your incorrect position. Even now, you can't wave the white flag.

And, I got it right. Eighty posts ago. ????

He simply doesn't know when to let it go.

[Freightman]

Allow me to disagree with you. It is always pleasant to have discussions with Three. Such as he is the "engine" of the forum.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it may be. Oh, wait - that's a 3 comment.

[Freightman]

What truce. You badgered me to death with some imagined feud to the point that I put you on ignore a long time ago and only opened a handful of your posts when I was curious as to what you said about something. I always regretted opening your post on those occasions. By pissing me off you made me not care what you thought or read what you thought. This post is no exception. I showed the problem was beaten with an AP strategy based on the breaking of symmetry. I also showed a link that might have AP applications to those smart enough to figure out how to use it.
You see this defines exactly the way I feel about your posts. I simply put you on ignore. The who gives a fuck about this is those that are trying to spot the weakness in a game. Something as simple as breaking the symmetry of a no win game allowed you to get winning results with the right strategy.
Isn't this exactly what many posters have told you about many of your repetitive and overly long posts. When I put you on ignore you weren't even trying to post anything helpful anymore. You were just trolling for your own amusement. I really tried hard not to put you on ignore because there was a time when you made a lot of helpful posts. That time has long since past. You can bet that this exception to your being ignored is just that an exception. You can go back to your imagined feud and continue disrupting the forum.

PS: I would still use my strategy of always switching unless there was a lot of money in the envelope. It turned out that was the winning strategy. So I had the right solution but got there without the right work. That means I got the right answer but used the logic that was flawed. I don't call that being right even though it is.

The imaginary feud that you describe is your issue, not mine. My concerns are your ongoing long winded, verbostic, pompostic, ridiculous post after post commentary of absolute minutiae, boring the ever living shit out of everybody. will absolutely argue to the nth degree regardless of the logic presented to you.

You have been chastised by the best in the business with regards to your self gratifying love affair of endless useless dribble. Not saying your not a smart guy, but finding nuggets in the middle of your War and Peace novellos us not something I want to do. I would prefer to go the bakery and scratch my balls, or like Professor Flash in his adventures, assist others in perfecting the FBM ASC.

What's amazing is the Problematic theory thread - where you actually admitted making an error, a first in the current millennium RCJH made a very appropriate comment.

Anyways, must go. Been fun chatting.

[Joe Mama]

Actually in the movie, it was a different, but similar problem. There are THREE choices: one door has a new car, and the other two have a goat. You pick door #1. The host opens door #3, and there sits a goat. Now you have a choice; do you stay with door #1, or do you choose #2? Here, it is correct to switch.

Its actually a simpler problem. In the beginning, each door has 1/3 chance of having the car. You picked #1, which means 2&3 combined have 2/3 chance. Well, once it's revealed that #3 is empty, door #2 now has 2/3 chance, and your origional choice still has 1/3 chance. So you switch.

The way this became crystal clear to me was to change the rules a little bit. Rather than three doors there are 100 doors with 99 goats and one prize. You choose one door then Monty Hall opens 98 doors all revealing goats. Do you switch? Of course you do if this is an honest game.

[Norm]

Closed