Monty Hall Problem | Goat or Car behind a door

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Tell us more about the goats, please ...

[@tb14.7]

This is yet another video trying to support a specious argument on Monty Hall problem. The following scenario exposes the flaws easily. Suppose we have two contestants appearing at the same time and they choose a separate door. For clarity we keep the car in door A and contestant number one chose door A, as presented in the video, and contestant number two chose door B. As the host opened door C and offered them to switch doors, contestant number one always kept the same door but contestant number two always switched from door B to door A. At this point they both chose door A and consequently should have the same probability of winning, contradicting the popular belief. Another example is that suppose both contestants switched doors consistently, in effect trading place. The question is who has more advantage? The answer is any door cannot have a one third probability for the keep door player and have a two third probability for the switch door player at THE SAME TIME.

[@thethinkingman-]

its not a special arguement! there is only ONE contestant! NOT 2! get a Brian!

[@dawyer]

The situation is that "decision without results" and "choice with actual benefits" are confused and regarded as the same meaning. It is obvious that the decision has been made, but the rule is changed from one of three to two, and it misleads you into thinking that you have already made a choice. , but the fact is that you don’t get any of the so-called choices. In order to prove how smart and knowledgeable you are when you finally make the choice, of course there are only two choices, but you have to treat them as 2/3. What a Goebbels effect. Verification. If scholars and the education community have not corrected the problems derived from the Monty Hall problem and still believe that 2/3 is correct, what is the meaning of educational scholarship? It will be destroyed.

[@HaziqRosli-d6v]

This is flawed logic because once a door is opened, the equation has changed. Therefore, the decision tree should be recreated. And you'll see the expected 50-50. This is just baggage, letting historical events influence your decision when it really has no business being involved in the current problem.