JSngry

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.

How is a statistical inevitability, even a less likely one, "luck"?

Then that means you have three choices to make - switch, don't switch, and....?

The part that says that the "smart" choice will not always be the right choice, and how can you tell for sure when it will or won't be? You can't, that's how. So 1 out of 3 times, the "dumb" choice will be the right choice. Now, how can you know when to make the smart or the dumb choice in order to make the right choice? You can't, that's how. So even though 2 out of 3 times the smart choice will be the right choice, and 1 out of 3 times the dumb choice will be the right choice, whatever choice you make may or may not be the right choice for the one time you play. You have a 2 out of 3 chance of being right, but only a 50-50 chance that you'll get that 2 out of 3 chance. What part of that can't you get? Repeat after me: There are no guarantees in games of chance. BUT, under these circumstances, switching is the only intelligent decision. Now, go play the simulation. You think the odds are 50-50, so for every time you change doors, notice how much more often you win. Take 10 minutes and do it 100 times each. Absorb the results you observe. Then pretend there really is a car behind the door, and ask yourself if you should switch or not. Then play the game. You may win or you may lose, but if you've absorbed how the odds change by switching, you should not be viewing the outcome as though there are even odds of winning. If you switch, and lose, you should be legitimately surprised at the outcome. We're on the same page up until that last sentence. If you got a one shot, you oughta know that even if the odds are 99-1, you might get the 1. Pissed off, yeah. Surprised, no. The way most amateur gamblers fuck up is by not walking away while (if) they're ahead, by giving the odds a chance to catch up with them. And they always do. But a smart motherfucker quits while ahead, stashes the money away, and lets the odds catch up with him some other time, with some other seed money, and then walks away before they catch up with him too much. People who have statistics as their friends should really watch their backs...

I don't think that's true. Well, here we go back to what everybody's been saying all along - you got two choices, right or wrong. 50-50. Y'all are arguing "wisdom" of choices, and all I'm saying is that, not so fast, sometimes, 1 in 3 times, the smart choice will be wrong. and you really don't know which one it's gonna be until it goes down. So it stands to reason that at some point, making the dumb choice will be making the right choice. So when, then do you make it? Easy - when you decide what to do. And there you got two choices. Switch or don't. One will be right, one will be wrong, and although one will be right more often than the other, you have no way of knowing which will be which or when, so you make one of two choices. And that gives you a 50-50 chance at getting the 2 out of 3 chance.

Indeed, the will apply every time. But they will not come through every time. Remind me to play poker with you some time...

The part that says that the "smart" choice will not always be the right choice, and how can you tell for sure when it will or won't be? You can't, that's how. So 1 out of 3 times, the "dumb" choice will be the right choice. Now, how can you know when to make the smart or the dumb choice in order to make the right choice? You can't, that's how. So even though 2 out of 3 times the smart choice will be the right choice, and 1 out of 3 times the dumb choice will be the right choice, whatever choice you make may or may not be the right choice for the one time you play. You have a 2 out of 3 chance of being right, but only a 50-50 chance that you'll get that 2 out of 3 chance. What part of that can't you get?

I think you do. I'm not talking about whether or not it's a smart choice to make the switch, obviously it is. But once you do, there's still only two possible outcomes. Not "choices" or "chances", but definite outcomes. And no matter how well you position yourself, unless you make a 100% foolproof decision (which in this case is impossible), you're subject to the possibility that your decision, no matter how smart it is, will not pan out this time. And this time is all you get. Measure the probability that switching will be a good idea, and yeah, hey, there it is. You should win 2 of 3 times. But how does that play out when you only got one time? Are you gonna 67% win and 33% lose the one time you play? No way. You will either 100% win or 100% lose, and although your odds by changing favor you winning, they do not guarantee it. Now, what about somebody who doesn't switch but wins anyway? How does that work? Is it "luck"? Or is it that the one time that this person played was a time that the favorable odds did not apply? And again, if we're only playing one time, then it's either all win or all lose. So if the favorable odds are not going to apply every time and we only have one incident with which to work, what other possible odds are there than 50/50 that the smart choice will be successful this one time? Not that it should be, but that it will be?

That's the odds of winning the car. What are the odds that you made the right choice to do so?

i vaguely get what you mean; would you say, playing a lottery (together with a million others and only one of us gets a price) is a 50-50 situation for each of us, because each of us either wins or loses... ? Although that's in no way comparable to the singular experience of the game show in question...no I would not say that. Because in the lottery, it's a matter of "if I win, then XYZ number of people must lose". On the game show, the question is simply "will I win or will I lose". There are no other competitors.

Indeed. But that's not my point. My point is that the seeming "discredited" "50-50 logic" is not entirely without basis. It's not relevant to what the smart choice is, but it is relevant to whether or not the smart choice will be the winning choice when there's only one chance to play. It's probably abstract beyond redemption but there is a distinction between the two criteria, and it kinda bugs me when "logic" is trumpeted as such without the parameters being as clearly defined as they probably :g :g should be.

I'm not sure usuality is a word (it's a fuquitous one if it is! ), but the measurement would still be 66/33 in favor of switching for that one isolated decision. AHA! EXACTLY! Yes, in favor of switching - not in favor of it actually working one time and one time only. Yu're trying to fit a 2-out-of-3 peg (probability of outcomes) into a 1-out-of-2 hole (definitely possible outcomes). They won't fit, nor should they, because they're not the same thing.

Somebody explain to me how a question - Did I make the right choice for this one occasion? - that can only have two answers - yes or no - translates into anything other than 50-50 odds. Again, remember that we're not measuring the probability of the choice itself being smart, we're measuring the chances of the certainty that it will be correct in the one and only time we put it to the test. These are not the same things. "Improving your odds" does not equate with "guaranteeing a win" or "preventing a loss". And again - in the real-world scenario of the game show, you only get one shot to be right. So the best you can do is "improve your odds", which still leaves you with only one of two outcomes. I've seen motherfuckers go broke "playing the odds", and I've seen 'em get rich (for a little while anyway ) going against them. Ultimately, no matter how well you position yourself (and make no mistake, I am always in favor of doing so), it always, always comes down to this time as to whether or not you got it right. And when there's only one "this time", hey...

Put another way, 2/3 is the measurement of what will usually win. 50/50 is the measurement of that "usuality" occurring any one time in isolation/absence of any second (or more) chances.

That's not correct, but it's what I was trying to do too, LOL. It's only 50/50 for the guy who walks up at the point where there are two doors left, and he is allowed to pick one of the two doors. For the person who was there when there were 3 doors, his likelihood of winning the car is still better if he switches - by a 2 to 1 margin. It's counterintuitive for sure. The more I think about it, the more I think it is correct, seriously, because the question here is not "Which door is the car behind?", or "Over the long haul, is it a good idea to change picks?", it's now "Ok, I've made a decision - say, to change my pick - that is going to be right 2-out-of-3 times, Is this going to be one of those 2 times?" There's only two answers here, yes or no. When it's no longer about the overall, long-term success rate but instead about the immediate, one-time possibility of good move vs bad move, that's a subtly but truly different criterion. Long term, yeah, you got 2-out-of-3. But the nature of the game is that you got one shot, period. No do-overs or multiple choices. Since you only get one shot, you don't have a chance to play it out long-term to see how it averages. So what are the odds that the odds will come through the one and only time you call upon them? Gotta be 50-50, because the only possibilities are they will or they won't. "They should" or "they probably will" are not options, because those are not results, those are hopes. Even if they're based on statistically sound reasoning, they're still simply hopes. Sounder hopes to be sure, but still, ultimately, just hopes. They're in no way a result. So yeah, it's no doubt smart to make the change, but it's not smart to think that doing so automatically doubles your chances or anything unless you're playing repeatedly over time, which you don't do, not in the "real-world" scenario of being a contestant on Let's Make A Deal. You get one shot, period. You play the odds sure, but it's wither going to work or not, and then it's over, period. It's a gamble either way, and although in theory one choice is better than the other over the long haul, anybody who gambles will tell you that the only way the odds really work out as they should is over time, never, ever in a right-here-right-now moment. There ain't no such thing, and as somebody who's had 4 kings beaten by a straight flush (at no small expense, btw), I'm here to tell you that the moment is where you win or lose and over time is by how much. A subtle but very real distinction.

Well, my son's going to be selling them where he works (Sharper Image), so he asked me to put this up to see what kind of a response it would get. I warned him... However, according to him, there are more complexities possible than what are demonstrated in that godawful promo. How many more, and of what sort, I do not know.

I've got them all except for the final issue, which came out while I was on the road and I never picked up. If anybody has a copy for sale, let me know. I think it's got Sonny Rollins on the cover. But otherwise, at some point, expect some scanned articles here at some point. It was a fine publication.

We had major storms here last night, tornadoes, winds of 75-80 mph, lots of physical damage done.

Ok, here's the deal - yeah, ok, over the long haul, over multiple shots, the 1-in-3 vs 2-in-3 thing plays out. But... In real life, you got only one shot to be right. And the question is - Is this one of the times when the odds work for me or against me? And at that one moment, you got a 50-50 chance of it being so, since there's only two answers to that question - yes or no. Hey, maybe it's not scientific. But it works for me.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/tech...ws/4257800.html

But what if you had the car in the first place & lost it by "playing the odds"? Wouldn't you feel like a dumbass or something?

http://karmyda.podomatic.com/ The podcast entitled "Blessed" Or listen/download directly: http://karmyda.podomatic.com/enclosure/200...27_35-07_00.mp3 I have this vision of being in a dark sweaty club at sunrise on Sunday morning where people have been dancing non-stop all Saturday night and all of a sudden the roof opens, the sun comes in, church is in session, not a beat is missed, and everybody keeps on dancing because its all the same thing. Hey, why not?

Unless Carol Merrill is present, none of this speculation has merit.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080409/D8VU34J00.html