JSngry

Jim Palmer Dave McNally Sally Rand

The idea I was getting at was that, using the simulator 100 times for each choice would lead to a recognition that switching results in a very large increase in the odds of winning (winning twice as often). Winning with one strategy at a rate of 2 out of 3 times while winning at a rate of 1 out of 3 times with the alternative strategy would lead me to have a strong expectation of winning when I switch. Two out of three times is winning a great deal - its the equivalent of a 108 win baseball season - so I would logically expect to win after switching. Even though it leaves a not inconsequential chance of losing. As for your feelings about mojo and intuitive sense of what is going to happen reminds me of what I said earlier - if you feel like you never have good initial instincts, you should always switch. Yeah, I hear ya', but on Let's Make A Deal, all the simulator prep work in the world really doesn't come into play other than as a study in probability. When it comes time to actually play, the real question, the one that will definitely determine the outcome is simple - will this be one of the times that the 2/3 scenario goes down, or will it be one of the times that the 1/3 scenario happens? Now, to figure out that one, you need to know...god knows what. Sure, your 2/3 choice is the only/best logical hedge against defeat, but where are you coming in on the "cosmic stage" that ultimately makes the final decision? Is it against every contestant who's ever played the game on Let's Make A Deal? Is it against every time you've played the game in your mind? Is it against all that plus all the times that everybody else has played the game in their mind? Is it in relation to all the people who will play the game in the future? Not only that, but how about in relation to all the people past present & future who have chosen/will choose correctly and/or incorrectly, where is the decision that you are about to make fall on that continuum of Let's Make A Deal-dom? 2-out-of-3, remember, it's statistically sound, but this stuff is never as "simple" as you think it's gonna be, just because nobody knows all they need to know to know where you stand until after you've already stood. 2 out of 3, sounds simple, but whose 2 and whose 3? Especially when you only got 1, and in all likelihood it's the only real 1 you'll ever get? Which is not to say that you don't make the smart call, because you do, it's all you got, but you still gotta hope like hell that this time, this one time, is gonna be your time, because it may not be, odds and all other hedging to the contrary, that sometimes all the odds in the world can be in your favor and you still end up fucked, you still gotta realize that it's still a gamble with nowhere near as "certain" an outcome in reality as it is in theory. Which, actually, is right in line with the rest of life...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsRL51a9dmo

See, you mention goat farts and the next thing you know...

Did you eventually make a synth out of them?

Well ok, you're talking prose, I'm mumbling poetry, but yeah, the earlier expressed notion that you should be surprised if you "smart" pick doesn't pan out the one and only time you get to use it is kinda...laughable to me. Like I said, I've lost big betting on hands with "favorable odds" and won big by sometimes chasing after things that go against the odds. "Beating the odds" is not always "luck", ya' know. Some cats really do have an intuitive sense about which way the wind's blowing at any point in time, and I've lost money to some of them. But then again, there's been times when I've had that intuition working too, and I've won money from people who didn't. and on the whole, hey...I ain't poor, let me put it that way, and if even though that's in no way a result of gambling, it's also not a result of not gambling, if you know what i mean. Odds, in a non-"theoretical" sense, are really just averages, which means that they don't always pan out, which means that sometimes, sometimes, counter-logical play is going to defeat logical play. I know that bugs people who like to think that the universe is a benign, non-fluid oasis of stasis, orderly place and if you just wait it all out you'll come out a winner, but...it is what it is, and what it is ain't no Sure Thing, ever. OK, I think that I am beginning to get you. The notion is that something supernational might be at play. If you just finished listening to ESP and you feel charged, then your choice of an initial door may not have been random, but actually made for a real reason that you don't completely understand, etc. Actually, mathematics doesn't go out the window in that case either. If you start out with a hunch that it is behind door number 1, then you can begin with different prior likelihood assessments (statisticians refer to them as Bayesian priors). For example, you can assign door number 1 50% and only 25% to doors number two or door number three, or something else that reflects your prior hunch. But guess what? You should still switch! In that case, you should make an initial choice of door number 2 or 3 and then switch to door number 1 or the other door. That would make your subjective odds of winning become greater than 2/3. if Monty doesn't show a goat behind door number 1, your odds become 75%. If he does show a goat behind door number 1, they still become 2/3. So there! You expect me to take you seriously when you don't allow for goat farts?

Actually you have a 100% chance of getting that 2 out of 3 chance, and you realize it by switching door. So you're saying that you do not have the option of choosing not to switch? Even when you have a 100% chance, you can choose not to take it. Monty himself, if he were to step in, could choose not to pick the door he knows that the car is behind, but pick the other door instead. I'm not sure why he would do it, but he certainly has the option. Which is what I'm saying - that even though you know that one choice is "smarter" than the other one, you still have the chance not to make that choice. You have a 50-50 chance (i.e. - you can choose or not choose to switch) to get that 2 out of 3 chance (which is what you have if you exercise your choice to switch). Exactly what you're saying, just with numbers attached!

I alos wonder what you could do if you took it apart and put it back together your own way, kinda like Zawinul did with the synths back in the day.

This makes no sense. In your world, maybe. In mine, it makes perfect sense, not as "science" but as "starting point". Guess we live in two different worlds (cue Freddie Roach...) Good thing we're friends and not neighbors!

Of course they are. That has never been a point of contention. Well, you did actually say the following (see question in red): Exactly. Switching will always be the smart choice, but not always the successful one. And the object of the game is to be successful. Now, do you get to be successful by being smart? Yeah, sure, 2 out of 3 times over god knows how many chances. So you should take that route even when you only get one shot at Glory, and even if your selection has only two possible outcomes - win or lose, and even if you have no way of knowing which it's going to be, and even if fate has it lined up so that your time up is the 1 time in 3 that the smart choice is the wrong choice. Unless your mojo is working, and/or unless you smell goat farts.

And that that choice will be either right or wrong. It will not be 67% right and 33% wrong. Those are the odds that it will be right or wrong, not the relative outcome of my desicison. Thank you for translating this to Humanspeak for me!

i tend to call that number zero - matter of personality i guess Well dude, unless something totally...unscripted goes down, you know you're either going to win or lose.

How do you guarantee that you've chosen correctly? I'd like to have that talent! No... The guarantee is an all-encompassing one that you've either chosen correctly or not, not that you've chosen only one specifically.

Well ok, you're talking prose, I'm mumbling poetry, but yeah, the earlier expressed notion that you should be surprised if you "smart" pick doesn't pan out the one and only time you get to use it is kinda...laughable to me. Like I said, I've lost big betting on hands with "favorable odds" and won big by sometimes chasing after things that go against the odds. "Beating the odds" is not always "luck", ya' know. Some cats really do have an intuitive sense about which way the wind's blowing at any point in time, and I've lost money to some of them. But then again, there's been times when I've had that intuition working too, and I've won money from people who didn't. and on the whole, hey...I ain't poor, let me put it that way, and if even though that's in no way a result of gambling, it's also not a result of not gambling, if you know what i mean. Odds, in a non-"theoretical" sense, are really just averages, which means that they don't always pan out, which means that sometimes, sometimes, counter-logical play is going to defeat logical play. I know that bugs people who like to think that the universe is a benign, non-fluid oasis of stasis, orderly place and if you just wait it all out you'll come out a winner, but...it is what it is, and what it is ain't no Sure Thing, ever.

I wanna play Let's Make a Quantum Deal.

Ok, one...more...time... 50-50 as I'm using it does not refer to the probability that switching will be successful. That is clearly 2/3. It (50-50) refers to what you can guarantee as far as your choice being the right one for any given time, before the results are revealed. You can never guarantee that your choice is the right one, unless you're Monty. Whichever door you pick you might lose, so the guarantee factor is 0. No, you can guarantee that you've either chosen correctly or not. Seems kinda...obvious, that one does...

Actually you have a 100% chance of getting that 2 out of 3 chance, and you realize it by switching door. So you're saying that you do not have the option of choosing not to switch?

I was offered math scholarships out of high school, but even then realized the limitations of literality...

This is where it all breaks down. I too can't understand how Jim keeps stating that he understands that the odds improve by switching yet continues to think that in a singular event the odds are somehow 50-50. If they are 67-33 over 1000 iterations, then they are 67-33 for every single iteration. Dear, sweet Dan - I am not saying that the odds of switching having a successful outcome are ever 50-50 instead of 67-33. But let's look at this non-linearly and/or non 3-D: What are the odds that the 67-33 odds will come to pass in a one-time only scenario with only two possible outcomes? 67-33? No, that's the odds for the choice itself being successful in theory, on an endless stream of Ultimate Outcomes, not the odds for the choice actually materializing in real time at any one time. This is not about the odds, it's about the odds of the odds. Can you guarantee that in a one shot game that the 67% outcome will be the one that materializes? No, of course not. Just as you cannot guarantee that it will not be. So even though it is more likely that one choice will be successful, there's still the nagging little inconvenience that that choice will not be answering the door this time around. And yes, there is a 1 in 3 chance that will be the case for any given time. But will this be that time? Or not? This is not about the odds, it's about the odds of the odds. That and goat farts...

No, what has me reeling is the unspoken notion that there's no merit whatsoever in counter-logical decision making. Because as you alluded to earlier, sometimes the mojo is working. And when it is, it behooves one to listen. Now maybe some people don't have no mojo,in which case, I can only say, hey, too bad. But just as it is dangerous, sometimes fatally so, to put words into the mojo's mouth, it is equally dangerous to never listen to it at all. It's a life's work, getting in touch with the mojo is, but if the alternative is to execute preordained odds, then one cannot complain when preordained results - including living somebody else's life instead of of your own - transpire. Me, I'm gonna switch. Why not? It's a one-off and that's the best shot, although it ain't gonna be perfect. But if I smell a goat fart coming out from behind the curtain I'd be switching to, hey, I'm standing pat. Does the online simulator offer goat farts?

And since 33% of the time your 50% decision will be wrong, your odds are really only 16.5% :g :g :g :g :g Where was this thread on April 1?

Switching or not switching ARE the only choices you have, so it IS a binary decision (either/or), which I think is what you're trying to say. But it's still a 67/33 split of likelihoods, not 50/50. I'm not trying to say it, I am saying it. And have been! You have a 50-50 chance of getting the 67/33 odds.

Of course they are. That has never been a point of contention.

Then that means you have three choices to make - switch, don't switch, and....? No it doesn't. the 66-33 is still dealing with only two alternatives - switching or staying. There are four separate scenarios though, one of which WILL play out: 1 - stay with door A and be correct (33% likelihood of this happening) 2 - stay with door A and be wrong (67% likelihood of this happening) 3 - switch to door B+C and be correct (67% likelihood of this happening) 4 - switch to door B+C and be wrong (33% likelihood of this happening) Even if you choose to look it it like this, you still got 2 out of 4 choices that result in 2/3 scenarios. Even that's 50/50, although it's now a matter of which odds you end up with (2/3 or 1/3, ach value-neutral) rather than whether you've selected the best winning strategy, which is of course to switch..

Nope. Switching or not switching are the only choices you have. The results/outcomes only come into play after the choice is made. You have four possible outcomes, but they result from only two choices.