THE TRICHOTOMY (LCS 2021 CoStreams | Summer Split | W8D3)

[@SnipingHobo_]

▼ Time Stamps [0:00:00] Game 1: GG vs TL - [0:25:23] Lucian W-Movement Speed Bug? [0:30:18] The Monty Hall Problem [0:51:35] Game 2: 100 vs IMT [1:01:26] Sneaky and Meteos 1v1 Tahm Kench (Scuffed W Reaction Test) [1:05:11] Game 3: TSM vs C9 [1:34:19] Post-Game 3: Review [1:36:50] Game 4: EG vs CLG [1:50:14] The Doublelift-Sneaky-Meteos Triple Date [1:52:16] Roasting Doublelift's 0-6 Worlds 2020 [1:54:44] Game 5: FLY vs DIG

[@matthewpinlac2922]

Jensen ulted before w hit

[@OneTwoThreeFourFiveSix78927]

Jensens W didn’t hit, you can see wukong doesn’t have the mark on him

[@AyakaAkira31]

THE STRIPES

[@Ignis_Luna]

Okay okay I will be here

[@Rayvony_]

sneaky: *doesn't understand* editor: holy shit here we go again *puts on the slideshow again*

[@owenstevens7151]

edit: i didn't explain very well the first time The way it's portrayed is quite poor. It sort of glossed over the fact that the gamehost will purposefully choose a goat door rather than opening a random door other than the one you choose. The way it's presented is done poorly on purpose so that it can confuse you into thinking that the second door is chosen at random when in reality, if you chose a goat door on your first go, the game host is required to choose a specific door, that door being a goat. For sure it's *implied* but... without explicitly stating it, the reader is under the impression that opening the door happens randomly. It doesn't happen randomly, but using hypotheticals you could imply that there *was* a 33 percent chance that the door contained the car and you just so happened to roll the 67 percent chance to get a goat. Under this ideology, removing the 3rd option actually doesn't change the odds. I could for example say "there's a box and the cat inside has a 50 50 to be dead or alive". if I then tell you, "you open the box and it's dead". does that mean that there was a chance for it to be alive or was it always dead in every possible reality? to go back to how doublelift explained it word for word - 30:27 "ok sneaky, so there's three doors. and behind two doors is a goat, and behind one of them is a car. So you wanna pick the one you wanna pick the door where behind it is a car...(metoes wants a goat yaddayadda) So you pick a door and then the person uhh the host the gameshow host, then shows you what's behind one of the other doors so lets say you pick door number 1 and he opens another door like door number 3 and he shows you this one has a goat." I don't know about you... but that wasn't very clear that he specifically chose a goat door. More like a reality where he chose a door other than the one you chose and it happened to have a goat. Unless it is EXPLICITLY known that the gameshow host is choosing a goat door, then the door is removed from the equation as if it were 33 percent a car and 67 percent a goat despite the fact that it is clearly a goat. This means that you wouldn't actually improve your odds by switching - *if* it actually was indeed chosen by chance and happened to be a goat. The reason that I am saying this is because Sneaky may not have known this fact. (it's quite crucial)

[@Aweedproductions]

@@owenstevens7151 No the whole thing is based on the fact that you have a 33% chance of choosing a car at the start. Also, its implied that the host has to show you a goat, bc it wouldnt make sense for the host to open a car and then ask if u want to switch.

[@owenstevens7151]

@@Aweedproductions no I'm just saying that the way it's shown is for the sake of creating confusion. If I were to explain the idea I would have 20 doors with 19 goats and 1 car. After you choose a door the host would then open 18 doors revealing 18 goats. When you increase the ratio, the fundamentals of the theory become apparent. By only including three and not explicitly stating the influence the host has on chance, the theorem is harder to understand.

[@haoxinchao7479]

@@owenstevens7151 not really, the reason why sneaky was confused here was that he was eliminating the revealed goat from the probability space, when the chance of the initially unchosen door having a car is a conditional probability dependent on the result of the revealed door. It's just a common and honest misconception.

[@Defenestrationed]

@@owenstevens7151 The easiest way to compare is looking at the 6 scenarios (1 for picking each door, and then switching / not switching). In the 3 scenarios where you swap you get the car in 2 of them. In the 3 scenarios you don't swap you get the car in only 1 of them.

[@maxyoung8306]

Holy shit these three debating random maths problems is actually the most entertaining thing I've ever seen.

[@DesignerDave]

Stay in school kids...

[@martin993007]

my maths brain hurts

[@OxidisedGearz]

@@DesignerDave to be fair, this isnt a stay in school moment. Tons of renowned mathematicians got the monty hall problem wrong, which is why it became so famous.

[@DesignerDave]

@@OxidisedGearz I know, I struggled with it myself the first time I encountered it. I was just "memeing." I thought that's what the cool kids do.

[@TheJerbol]

@@OxidisedGearz this is know your place moment, sneaky is supremely confident in his 100% wrong ideas and that's not the attitude we should be cultivating. Like he even says the mathematicians are wrong. Pure dumdum stuff that we should actively discourage

[@theokid2000]

honestly the speed that meteos broke down the monty problem for having not encountered it before was pretty impressive. Also just seeing the three different minds try to approach it is fascinating.

[@TrinityEcho]

meteos had heard about it before, it was only sneaky that never knew it

[@botbadger]

He's pretty intelligent imo

[@lordvig8884]

@@TrinityEcho knowing it is one thing but explaining it off the cuff in simple terms is impressive

[@TheJerbol]

fascinating or frustrating

[@theokid2000]

@@TheJerbol I found it fascinating, meteos was pretty quick on it and dbl seemed to Have an understanding. Sneaky was just the comically bumbling fool at that point.

[@Nic-ye2yz]

These uploads are my favorite form of entertainment for the last month +

[@HngCactus]

Same here!! I’m a new sneaky viewer due to these long form videos :)

[@GamerRGames]

The insight is great with the mix of comedy.

[@Nic-ye2yz]

@@HngCactus one of my fav esports memories was going down to LA area to watch the games in person. Went with my bestie. This must have been 2014 or 2013. But after a c9 game my homie and I approached sneaky for a pic. He was very reserved but I appreciated him taking his time out for us. I think this was before he got big on twitch and made a name for himself and before he really came to embrace his stardom. Was a fun time.

[@carterpeachez7523]

@@Nic-ye2yz that’s so cool man, lucky u!

[@KattKirsch]

Day 2 of Sneaky getting absolutely rekt by 8th grade gifted kid trivia.

[@TheJerbol]

I'm not sure whether this or the monkeys was a harder int

[@blafoon93]

@@TheJerbol with the infinite monkey theory he actually had a point that he just didn't explain well at the beginning. Here he is just plain wrong: 'leave the math out of it, this problem is just logic, math has nothing to do with it'. Meteos and Double did a decent job trying to explain it, I think if they explained that poker is the same exact problem Sneaky would probably have had an easier time to understand. The cards that get revealed are information based on which you will change your strategy. Anyone would agree that the percentages change depending on the revealed cards and if you don't use that information you are just terrible at the game.

[@OrangeSqueasy]

@@blafoon93 could you explain what sneaky was trying to say with the monkey theorem?

[@blafoon93]

@@OrangeSqueasy He said at some point that he agrees that if a computer would randomly produce any possible combination of letters and punctuation it would at some point recreate any piece of literature ever written but that a monkey due to how its brain works will not write a truly random text, making it impossible to recreate something like a Shakespeare piece.

[@HankGreenburg]

Sneaky is right about the monkey one but clearly wrong about this one lol. Monkeys operate in patterns just like everything else in nature and would not produce a specific work of fiction given any amount of time. A computer would also not do this as people have stated because the RNG computers have is not *true* random. It's an algorithm based on a seed (usually time). True random does not exist anywhere in our reality and thus this theory that the work would be created given an infinite amount of time could never see fruition. It's a fun thing to think about true random eventually creating something, but since it doesn't exist it's fairly pointless to dwell on.

[@MelniaShadow]

The downtime on LCS is actually crazy. They can discuss the Monty Hall theorem to point that Meteos can explain why it make sense and still make to the next game. Edit: And Sneaky and Meteos have time to test TK's W dodge.

[@cosmicXreptile]

Not LCS fault imt players were spreading new covid variant

[@bug5654]

Makes sense if you expect turnover in a stadium audience, but it's been over a year.

[@AdrianPeterson28VKNG]

Sneaky has the best editor of any league content creator.

[@fidzschool2941]

Tobias Fate would disagree

[@fabianalvarado6855]

Tobias fates editors boutta create another masterpiece to help you reconsider that haha

[@thegrayyernaut]

Go watch Tobias Fate's FOR NOXUS Sion video. It might change your mind.

[@FreedomIII]

Props to the editor for smurfing on the Lucian movement-speed shit lol

[@maxyoung8306]

Lmao doublelift is trying so hard not to flame sneaky over the goats

[@tiagohilario4226]

He is in pain

[@evanmartin1591]

The whole Monty Hall discussion killed me man how does Snacker not understand lmao even after Meteos explained it pretty much perfectly

[@bender0428]

even meteos didn't explain it well, all 3 of them didn't even understand it. It was frustrating hearing doublelift try to explain why to switch your choice because he didn't understand it he just looked at the answer and assumed he knew. The point is that the "host" is not RANDOMLY choosing what door to open and show you, said "host" knows what is behind each door, So if said host is deliberately showing you one of the incorrect answers then statistically speaking the host is more likely to subconsciously ask if you want to switch to the door that actually has the car. So in essence it's a math problem at face value, then it's a human nature problem, then it's a math problem again.

[@saviet4222]

@@bender0428 No you actually misunderstood, it’s a math problem not a human one. The condition is that the host always open the wrong door and you will be left with 2 doors and you get to switch. There are three outcomes, you get the goat A and swap to a car, you get goat B and swap to a car and You the car but swap to goat A or B. 2 out of 3 outcomes you get the car if switch.

[@loldoctor]

@@bender0428 subconsciously lol he does it literally every time

[@Dolo888]

@@saviet4222 the human part of the problem is when people get asked this question they are likely to choose to stick with their initial choice because you give them a feeling of them being right with their choice when you show them the first goat. A lot of gambling has to do with human nature getting people to make the wrong choices even though there are mathematically correct choices to make.

[@Drewzdev]

He keeps saying math, when it is a statistics problem. this is why people struggle with statistics. Statistically, you have a better chance switching doors because the odds were initially stacked against you. So by switching doors at the last possible choice, you just gave yourself the house odds. Most likely to win. It is a fun discussion though.

[@lowsistem]

37:04 "It's not a math equation, it's logic" Well... guess what

[@botbadger]

Imagine math being logical

[@TheJerbol]

My fav part is when he says there's probably some bullshit math that backs it up, and then says that's irrelevant XD

[@Kevin_I]

"It's logic, you have to disregard the math". The math is the logic...

[@doom-driveneap4569]

😂😂😂😂

[@peffiSC2source]

New content: throw some thought experiment at Sneaky and watch him rant lol.

[@paulmcdougald4953]

Also meteos has to be one of the most patient dudes I’ve ever seen

[@juggmkj]

He's a beaut

[@Bolfburger]

The fact that Meteos calls Alphari “Alfredo” is so fun to me

[@theokid2000]

double just suddenly coming out with "so what if we went on a triple date" killed me

[@loneith2444]

Sneaky is a shining star of the Florida public education system < 3

[@tonyg5399]

Ahhh,Time for my Favorite podcast: The Triple Monkey Theorem

[@gomjabbar6246]

los tres monos de la selva

[@CyanPhoenix_]

"percentage wise it changes, but it doesn't change your chances of actually getting the car" lol

[@MeMe-nu9cf]

It feels like there's a disconnect in his head regarding what math actually is. He also said something like mathematically it works but it's not logical. Math is a means of formalising logic.

[@FizzleIsGaming]

sneaky trying to talk about logic makes me lose hope in his brain

[@pango9519]

Listening to him struggle with the concept of infinity and the concept of probability actually melts my brain. Like I understand that those are abstract concepts and I admit that I struggled with the Monty Hall problem the first time I had heard it but the way you learn is to approach the concepts from the point of view that your initial rationale may not be correct.

[@WolfGeek64]

"But bricks are heavier than feathers." -Sneaky probably

[@schnitzelking1]

@@pango9519 no he was actually right with the monkey thing. a monkey mashing buttons isnt actually comparable to a computer programmed to randomly push buttons. if he doesnt like the button "a", the whole theory is fucked.

[@pango9519]

@@schnitzelking1 The monkey isn't going to smash the typewriter the whole time. Every sequence events that can happen will happen, and it will happen endlessly. That's the entire concept of infinity. Anything that is possible will occur.

[@KlineStife]

no, if the possibility is above 0, even if its one in a hundred googolplex, then given a long enough timeframe (ie infinity) it will happen.

[@ChaosMKE]

Please please please more theories between games, this is the funniest content I've seen. Put face cam of meteos and double lift not just doublelift

[@TheJerbol]

Meteos is just trying to excuse snacky's stubbornness

[@GreenOpurge]

im crying laughing so hard because i cant comprehend what compelled Meteos to debate the goat door and get so enthralled like, he was invested. Man was on a mission to get this off his chest and seeing DB trying to contain his laughter made it all the better. More of this from time to time please!

[@smeebs]

Give a man a car, he eats for a day. Give a man a goat, he has milk for a lifetime.

[@catlord69]

pretty sure you can eat much longer if you sell the car

[@akshaymishra3674]

Sell car for 50 goats

[@matthewdoan253]

40:29 "Sure the percentage might change but that doesnt mean it really changes your chances of getting the car" ...lmfao

[@botbadger]

Best and dumbest quote ever

[@markgin5285]

Thank you editor for saving my sanity during the Monty Hall problem. Love the videos

[@TheFoxStalksHisPrey]

Meteos is obviously 5head all the way. He also did a such a good job explaining the problem and the examples. Obviously this means every single jungler is smarter than their ADC counter part.

[@keepkarlm6771]

imagine if there is an infinite amount of doors and only one has the car, the first door you chose has 0% chance of being the car therefore its a goat, all doors exept one are opened and reveal goats, now: there is 2 closed doors. there is 1 car and 1 goat. your door has a goat. do you want do switch?

[@davincerica7232]

Sneaky: Yeah I'ma pass

[@MadHermit95]

That's why you shouldn't have thoughts experiments applying to real life

[@imojo971]

@@MadHermit95 You still have a better chance with switching, even though it's not 100% to 0%, the odds are still in your favour after you switch. Even on the smallest scale in real life.

[@enriquemeza2568]

@@MadHermit95 But this does apply??

[@isaaccollins4456]

Sneaky actually was listening to meteos perfectly explain the goat problem and just not believing that switching gives you a 2/3 chance

[@johnj3027]

Dude, he didn't even want to believe that your first choice of 1/100 doors is a 1% chance lmao. FCKN SWITCH for the love of god. "its not probability, its more like a feeling".... I was getting so upset.

[@andrewkelley9405]

This is by far the funniest league of legends content on the earth…besides the LCS games themselves! Edit: yes, Finn is bad DL.

[@FalcoCaliber]

I just want to say, thank you for making these. I’ve been watching them to bed every night and it’s exactly what I need at the end of the day 🙏

[@Kitbats]

This is probably going to be the most forgetful LCS year to date, and the only reason I'll remember it is because it also birthed the best eSports tri-cast to have been formed.

[@rasmusgarbonzo1411]

nope last years was more forgetful.

[@notEAdemize99]

I'm so happy to see you guys having as much confusion as I had when first presented to the Mounty hall problem :) It actually took me learning about it about 3 different times to really grasp the concept 100% so don't worry about not getting it right now, and just appreciate how beautiful it is to be mindfucked by something new

[@TheJerbol]

dw sneaky has already decided he's right

[@blmebro9940]

Honestly, when I first heard of the Monty Hall problem, I was in agreement with Snacky. But, hearing Meaty Toes explain it, it makes sense to me now. Well done, Meteos, you're the goat.

[@shmoe7731]

The essence of the percentage difference is that 2/3 times you’re going to pick the goat. Therefore by switching you’re increasing your odds 66% of the time. Sneaky is looking at it completely randomly rather than thinking you pick the car 1/3 and the goats 2/3.

[@josué1.5.josué]

I love how sneaky differs math from logic

[@peffiSC2source]

If CLG was in the Monty Hall problem and the car was an LCS title, it wouldn't matter if they switched their choice or not, because their chance would still be zero.

[@sparkledfish9483]

I'll give sneaky a break...in 5th grade I thought the same thing about the goats. Then I realized math is the only way to understand the problem fully.

[@TheJerbol]

"mathematically it makes sense but isn't it more of a feeling thing at that point?"

[@bellyfloppycat]

Basic Math: _exists_ Sneaky: *I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that*

[@botbadger]

Lmao

[@maxxvii2037]

"The math doesn't make any sense here" -They're literally talking about probability Lmao

[@Dennis-cl8dh]

lmao love the editing that explains these random theories these triple theorists are discussing

[@jbradentraw2083]

The trifecta is the highlight of my week. Gotta stay up until one of the boys posts it

[@Th4Scientist]

I think @ 26:05 its either that the culling hit before the w marked wukong and that somehow makes it so the ms doesnt apply OR the W didnt hit at all, since its hitbox is pretty close to the cross that the visuals give. Kinda hard to tell in the replay though, my guess is that the w didnt hit in the first place

[@mr.stormhaven5733]

Double's reaction to Sneaky's logic is maybe the best part of the whole goat/car problem.

[@TrinityEcho]

I cannot emphasize how much the co-streams have brightened my weekends, fucking love these dudes

[@TheFoxStalksHisPrey]

You guys NEED to capitalize on the gameshow with league players. Seriously, everyone i know already loves the guessing game stuff the LEC is doing. Seriously need to jump on that, would be such good content. This whole Monty Hall problem thing is the funniest thing I've watched all week.

[@MrBlahblah22]

Honestly props to Doublelift for viewing Sneaky's thinking in a positive light.

[@paulmcdougald4953]

Yeah I would have had a really hard time not flaming sneaky if I were DL

[@TheJerbol]

What's positive about supreme confidence in a wrong answer?

[@keeganturney3329]

Thank you so much for the amazing content! The edits, commentary, and jokes really are amazing, and it's what I look forward to every week

[@xXUpper90sXx]

The Monty Hall problem is an example of a veridical paradox, meaning it seems absurd on inspection but is demonstrable mathematically. The editor chose (or made) pretty good graphics that explain how the probability does not redistribute across the whole sample. Also, it's not exactly 1/3 vs 2/3 because the probability operates on confidence intervals, which indicate a range you are a certain percent sure (typically >90%) a variable falls in. For example: for 6000 players, all of whom switched, the expected value of winners is 4000, but in reality it is 95% confident that the amount of winners falls between 3928-4072. Hilariously, the woman who popularized this solution - in fkin Parade magazine of all places - was named Marilyn vos Savant. Couldn't make that shit up. (it was originally solved by Steve Selvin in 1975).

[@valekokeefe4883]

it's still rounded to 1/3 vs 2/3 adding in a range of what the actual outcome would be changes nothing because the median is still 4000.

[@bug5654]

As a guy with a math degree, editor's state map made the Monty hall problem FINALLY click. Gracias editor.

[@playr4]

I love that whoever is editing added the pictures for the goat problem because there is legit math behind the problem. They were saying it doesn't add any new information to your own personal probability, but it does. Common knowledge adds a TON to probability problems. Your probability doesn't go from 33% to 50%, it goes up to 66%. And the reason for that is to TOTAL number of doors with goats, is ALWAYS 66%. So even after one of the doors is open, 2 of those 3 doors still have goats, but you only have the choice of one of them. It doesn't move to 50% because it isn't a whole new pick. It's a chance to swap, with the added information. At the start, 66% of the doors have goats, and 33% have cars. One door gets opened with a goat, but that goat is still in the equation. So 66% of doors still have goats, but you now know one of them. So you'd never pick that door. So that 66% now sits on just one of the doors, which is the chance if you're offered to swap. When you first pick, you have a 33% of hitting the car. Basically, taking the swap gives you that 2/3 chance. You can still lose, but it's statistically higher to take the swap.

[@wjhull]

"It doesn't actually make sense." - Doublelift, after posting like 8 charts illustrating how it actually makes sense.

[@TheJerbol]

It's so sad seeing him confident in the answer he's already looked up, then throw it away just because snacky says its stupid

[@vietdang6836]

Must say, big up for the editing for the theorem, very entertaining!

[@fidzschool2941]

Oh boy, I’m gonna have trouble trusting Sneaky’s opinion now. “You have to disregard the math, it doesn’t make any sense”

[@highrise3924]

Props to the editor for illustrating the Goat Theorem!

[@Johnnybois]

Sneaky’s analytical perspective is why I watch these great costreams :)

[@l.farmer1268]

I watch them because I havnt found double life reuploading them

[@FizzleIsGaming]

hes just showing how completely dumb he is x) it’s half funny and half cringe to me. He says “sure the percentage may change but the outcome doesnt.” bruh the fucking outcome is based on the percentage. welcome to probability. you learn this in like 6th grade.

[@alexanderkim8544]

@@FizzleIsGaming bro its not that deep stop projecting

[@FizzleIsGaming]

@@alexanderkim8544 i know its not deep or complicated which is why it baffles me he cant comprehend it

[@kenpenken]

@@FizzleIsGaming It's not a big deal, if this is what makes you feel superior to others then you need to work on your confidence.

[@mister_snoogles9031]

0:30:18 the funny part about this is that they teach you this shit in decision science in college, so i paid a kidney and a liver learning this over a semester when daddylift explained it in 10 mins

[@lizzb1065]

I would seriously listen to you 3 teach each other math and science and probability for HOURS. *Please* start a podcast. Please test this out. Please let me live more of these moments with you, because it is seriously A++ entertainment. LONG LIVE THE TRIO♡

[@Shiby23]

Doooood that Monty Hall Problem was soooo much fun to watch. Idk which person i enjoyed most in the discussion. Doublelifts facial expressions where legit tho

[@austindavis5533]

There has never been a better commentating team then these three 🙏🏻💙

[@GamerRGames]

This is way more informative and entertaining than the lcs “podcast videos” that they are trying to get rolling.

[@davitofolixd]

it's kinda fun to see other ppl getting to understand something "so simple" it's educational to those who doesn't know

[@xDxMacx77x]

Suggestion for next host title: The Tri-State Area

[@jpgiants21]

After getting a math/stats degree between this and the monkey question it kills me. Please message me to help explain these probability questions.

[@spikegamer5143]

26:05 The part where editor puts ? During lucian replay highlighting movement speed. Is he questioning w not giving movement speed? If that was the point, lucian w missed and did not hit wukong.

[@itzssun]

Sneaky is the type of guy that doesnt understand 1kg of steel vs 1kg of feathers

[@Subscriber250]

Watching the Monty Hall problem live I wanted to smash my head in a wall because of Sneaky lol

[@smatt5153]

The Movie 21 Blackjack has a scene displaying the Monty Hall problem. The answer only thinking statistically is that the variable changes between decision 1 and 2 thinking of all situations. Meteos explains it quite well.

[@gelatoglue9615]

the trio next time : discuss 1 in a trillion algorithm snipinghobo : fuck this shit im out

[@maasawdreamt8521]

Everytime I see people tripping out about this problem, it always surprises me how many people haven’t seen the blackjack movie “21” with Kevin Spacey lol

[@MrPlasticsnowman]

I've never even heard of it

[@maasawdreamt8521]

@@MrPlasticsnowman Yes you have, it's actually your favorite movie. You love it more than anything.

[@solblaze77]

Sneaky the odds of you picking the goat first time aren’t in your favor man you always switch

[@iHollywood_]

The monkey conversation from the last one had me actually crying.

[@vishalgutala]

@@gorshu4246 bro what the fuck does that have to do with the comment 💀💀

[@gorshu4246]

@@vishalgutala my b meant to make my own comment

[@iHollywood_]

@@gorshu4246 just had to roast turtle somewhere haha

[@gorshu4246]

@@iHollywood_ well I mean he has been pro for years now. You'd figure he would get good. I been watching him since like 2015 and he was on tsm and honestly have like never seen him play well. Maybe he only does when I'm not watching idk

[@iHollywood_]

@@gorshu4246 probably has been in the scene so long that he’s just a staple of “good” play but as soon as he’s replaced by a younger better player he will struggle. Similar to Cody Sun. These guys do play against the best in the world so he’s obviously still a top tier player but probably not next level.

[@christianllamas7959]

My boy sneakers 👟 should stay away from the casino 😂

[@LinkTheTiger]

I'm convinced Finn is a gold Gwen otp and we're just witnessing the biggest case of tempelo of all time

[@cedwards1080]

Sneaky needs to watch this video so he understands the three door problem. Editor you're beautiful!

[@Elannaheim]

I actually love these random logic puzzles with these 3

[@JeremySteinWolfe98]

Okay the Monty problem it’s like cool you grouped 2 doors together that had a 2/3rds chance of having a car so when one is proven to not have a door behind it, you assume it’s a 2/3rds chance versus 1/3 but you can have this logic applied for any grouping of doors including the one you picked and the one that was a goat so it’s literally the same odds. Plus, if you picked the right one first and then you switch, the potential tilt is massive, making it more fruitful overall to just stay with the same door given it isn’t disproven yet. Now with the 50 doors, it seems more apparent that the odds are skewed toward switching, but that’s because you singled out the door that you chose. If you were to single out another door, it would have the same odds with the others being 49/50. Switching doesn’t affect the odds, it only affects that you’re guaranteed to have picked the door with the car at some point

[@marcuswong2608]

yo i just love how Doublelift is laughing by himself while Meteos and Sneaky are talking about the monty hall problem. Makes me laugh

[@TWISTEDGiraff3]

Good job editor and sneaky :)

[@vmamarcucci]

Dear editor, we all appreciate the quality of these videos, but I'd like to leave a suggestion: during certain moments, if that's not too difficult (I have no idea), you could insert twitch chat reactions. I think that would be the icing on the cake.

[@kenpenken]

If you wanna see that cancer you could just go to the twitch vod

[@TurkeyMeat]

Highly disagree

[@farahabdulahi474]

no need editor! we dont need no twitch chat (and that would make vidoes come out even later...)

[@stevenarvizu3602]

The practical logic behind the three goat is yes, probability reduced down to its simplest form, so in the three door problem the solution is essentially “you most _likely_ picked the wrong door because there’s two goats and only one car, so you are statistically more likely to be right if you second guess yourself.” It has less to do with the guy showing you a goat and more about the probability of your first guess being right. Since you are only 33% likely to have chosen the car, you could have a 66% chance of being right by choosing the other side of what is essentially a 50/50

[@reflectedillumination2610]

omg the triple date thing killed me 😂 too much sauce

[@zacharyroullier6622]

Meteos explaining this was the first time I actually understood the Monty hall problem.

[@PerkyPineapple]

The monkey typing Shakespeare is much harder to comprehend because infinite values are an abstract concept that nobody can actually imagine because it is actually forever, the Monty Hall problem though is actually just stats, the 100 door example is a great way to explain it and make it seem logical and then you just have to apply that to a smaller set of doors, in this case 3. I don't think anybody is stupid for not getting it but it is also not as complicated as he's making it.

[@kevinmahon5116]

Can't wait for next week when the three monkes tackle quantum physics and the meaning of life

[@noahrobinson5952]

omg Sneakyyy, you have a 66% chance of picking a goat initially. If you pick a goat and the other goat is revealed, you will always switch to a car. You only have a 33% chance of initially picking the car.

[@wesleyurena2217]

Listening to sneaky makes my brain hurt, I just wanted to see how he would figure it out

[@hermanoguimaraes6343]

29:07 Iconic is such a beast

[@visissium]

God I love these so much

[@aesshiro3474]

The Monty Hall Problem: it becomes 33 to 66% because of variable change. This was explained in the movie "21". The variable change happens when the host offers you the choice to switch.

[@shepardprime13]

bruh sneaky taking like 7 years to understand it xD

[@joshpointoh]

I love listening to Sneaky trying to work this out

[@powerpiginc]

These videos never get old

[@delision8265]

Quick explanation for the door problem with 3 doors: If you never swap, you have a 33% chance to choose the car. If you choose to swap after he reveals a goat, the ONLY way you lose is if you chose the car. So if you know you’re going to switch, you will win if you choose a goat, which make up 67% of the doors. Therefore if you choose to switch after he reveals a goat you will get the car 67% of the time. TDLR: If you choose to switch, you’ll win if you initially chose a door with a goat behind it.

[@isboredandonline]

Is the probability thing really that hard to understand? It's so simple...

[@Beergoggle4321]

i love the commentary. we went from monkeys to goats. catch u guys next week to see what animal is next

[@tntcows]

26:11 if you watch as the Lucian w blooms it doesnt hit wukong, no bug just a dodged / missed skillshot.

[@Jitterzz]

I was looking forward to their reaction to this TSM vs C9 game in particular. Hilarious!! 🤣

[@yamanmuammer8188]

enjoying this so much

[@joecrawford306]

Meteos is the math teacher we all needed