The Monty Hall Problem

[Huckleberry]

No, it's not that I don't get it.

It's that I could have sworn we had a thread here about this problem but I can't find it. Did this never happen?

Short version is that this issue has come up here at work and, as you can imagine, I am going to need to bring out every single piece of evidence I can.

[Huckleberry]

My apologies. I thought I had included the Archive in my search but clearly didn't.

At least I'm not crazy, just terrible at searching.

Thanks for the assist.

[KWhit]

No matter how much evidence you provide, some people will never get it.

Good luck.

[Pumpy Tudors]

WHAT'S THIS I HEAR ABOUT A PLANE ON A CONVEYOR BELT????????

[Maple Leafs]

Have I told you guys about my system for winning at blackjack?

[Huckleberry]

Yeah, yeah. I did track down a new explanation that is pretty funny to those of us that get it. Instead of 100 or 1,000 it's a lottery example.

You buy a single combination in a lottery where you pick 6 numbers out of 50. I watch the lottery drawing and eliminate 15,890,698 wrong answers and come back with a different combination written on a piece of paper. Do you keep your combination or take mine?

[Radii]

Have I told you guys about my system for winning at blackjack?

I recently heard a story about someone trying out a Martingale style system for roulette:

Individual numbers provide 35:1 odds on a payout. Bet a specific number. Every 34 misses in a row, double your bet. GUARANTEED moneymaker.

I wonder if jbmagic would approve of this unbeatable gambling system.

[QuikSand]

There are a few explanations (including the lottery one) in the thread linked above.

By the way, this puzzle has a much longer history here than that thread. Looks like most of the original stuff has been lost in some forum transition, but it has been given the run here at least three or four times, with fairly predictable results. The first time was fabulous.

[gstelmack]

WHAT'S THIS I HEAR ABOUT A PLANE ON A CONVEYOR BELT????????

Mythbusters actually ran the experiment and proved the plane takes off fine, so that one's been put to bed.

I'd heard recently that some new research had been done on the Monty Hall problem, but I haven't found any details. I need to hunt that down.

[QuikSand]

I'd heard recently that some new research had been done on the Monty Hall problem, but I haven't found any details. I need to hunt that down.

New research? What am I missing. It's math. Pretty simple math, at that, once you get past the semantics. I don't see what research has to do with it.

[Butter]

New research? What am I missing. It's math. Pretty simple math, at that, once you get past the semantics. I don't see what research has to do with it.

I think he was actually referring to the problem of Monty Hall's continued existence. Science is still working away on it.

[gstelmack]

New research? What am I missing. It's math. Pretty simple math, at that, once you get past the semantics. I don't see what research has to do with it.

It may well have had to do with the psychology of it. It was one of those in passing things where I went "wait, there's more research on it?" and by then it was too late for me to dig up the reference.

[path12]

I think he was actually referring to the problem of Monty Hall's continued existence. Science is still working away on it.

The repeats on Game Show Network are fantastic.

[Barkeep49]

John Tierney wrote about some new research, and referenced the Monty Hall problem in the column: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&ex=1208404800&en=96f264412408d6e4&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin

This research isn't directly related to monkeys, but instead is about a possible error in how psychological tests have been setup.

[QuikSand]

John Tierney wrote about some new research, and referenced the Monty Hall problem in the column: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&ex=1208404800&en=96f264412408d6e4&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin

This research isn't directly related to monkeys, but instead is about a possible error in how psychological tests have been setup.

Interesting article, though less to to me for the intended reasons. I find myself regularly amazed by the things that strike credentialed people as "counterintuitive." This monkey research just seems to be making a fairly straightforward application of high school probability, and we have academic researchers seemingly staggered by its findings.

“I worked out the math myself and was surprised to find that he was absolutely right,” says Daniel Gilbert, a psychologist at Harvard. “He has essentially applied the Monty Hall Problem to an experimental procedure in psychology, and the result is both instructive and counter-intuitive.”

Good heavens man, stick to ink blots then.

[cuervo72]

Topic on tonight's MythBusters.

(and yes, the other thread is archived)

[cuervo72]

And....20 out of 20 people tested stuck with their initial door choice.

[albionmoonlight]

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1633538929-20211006.png