Dan Gould

Jim, the odds are in no way affected by what has happened before. Period. Its equivalent to flipping a penny. The odds of it coming up heads is 50-50. Yet with those odds you can have a streak of X number of times that heads comes up. That doesn't increase the odds of tails coming up, even if in the long run, more tails will come up to even out the all those times it came up heads. The odds of heads when flipping a fair coin is always 50-50. The odds of winning by switching doors is always 67-33

All due credit to Wang tonight but Jesus Christ, how many times can he serve up a pitch that gets hit on the nose and then hang in the air for the outfielder? There must have been four balls like that that should have been hits. In the meantime, the Yankees got notice that Clay Buchholz looks like a pretty damn good pitcher, and I have to believe that every godawful day Ortiz has at the plate means he's one more day closer to making someone pay, big time. I still like our chances this weekend with Beckett vs Mussina Saturday and then Dice-K vs Hughes Sunday night.

I don't understand the WWF comparison considering this was established by two nominally adversarial groups while the WWF "Wellness" policy is imposed by management on its employees. Did anyone read the Sports Guy's new column for espn the mag? Its about Barry Bonds and mentions his appearance on Beverly Hills 90210. I knew that Bonds had appeared on the show because it was mentioned in Love Me, Hate Me, and I actually noticed that the episode was on when I was flipping around the dial last week. All I can say is that I wish I had watched it, for the capsule description is the very definition of "irony". From the Simmons:

Being too lazy to pull out the Mosaic, when did Pacific Jazz start to record Paul Bryant with Curtis Amy, or Charles Kynard?

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.

Then shit on his chest and run away. Well I didn't want to be that obnoxious.

Okay, I will definitely never call one of those lines...the thought of getting Dan on the line pretending to be Fifi, the French maid I expected is just too much to deal with! But notice that I said "worked at a phone sex room". I left the industry quite a while ago, so its safe to call and ask for Fifi.

No, what has me reeling is the unspoken notion that there's no merit whatsoever in counter-logical decision making. No, there is merit to counter-logical decision making. there just isn't any logic to it. I mean, let's consider another example. The Florida lottery just started a new method of playing their Lotto. Basically (I haven't paid that much attention), if you pay $2 for your ticket, you get an additional 10 million dollars. Three dollars is something like 25 million dollars. Now, if we all agree that even the bare-bones 3 million dollar jackpot is a life-changing amount of money, why would anyone spend three dollars to get a 25 million dollar bonus - but only if their one ticket matches - rather than buy three separate tickets, which triples their chances of winning the "measly" 3 million in the first place? Its the same system of decision making that leads people to shell out for tickets when the jackpot reaches astronomical proportions. They think they are going to win or they decide that the chance is worth it only for a gigantic payoff. Its counter-logical decision making to pay $3 for a lottery ticket instead of buying three separate tickets. But I'm sure people are doing it. 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, not the odds for the choice actually materializing in real time. When switching, the odds of winning are 67-33 in a one-time only scenario with only two possible outcomes. Your last statement has no logical meaning. This makes no sense. The respective odds apply to every single time that you apply the two different strategies. No one has ever disputed this. It is understood that switching carries no guarantee of winning. But everyone else seems to understand that switching improves your chances of winning, by doubling those chances.

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.

Indeed, the will apply every time. But they will not come through every time. Remind me to play poker with you some time... This is not something I have trouble grasping.

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? The part that reminds me that you seemingly have no grasp of statistics or probability theory. The chance is not 50-50 under any circumstances, except the one Aggie mentioned where a new contestant is introduced to the situation after the first goat has been revealed. And I don't have any idea how to interpret "only a 50-50 chance the you'll get that 2 out of 3 chance". There is exactly a 2/3 chance that you will "get that 2/3 chance". 2/3rds of the time that I switch, I will win. One-third of the time that I don't switch, I will win. 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.

The favorable odds will apply every time. The odds are not 50-50 for your one chance. They are 2/3 if you switch, 1/3 if you do not. How about if you go try the simulator that I posted? Follow the two different strategies 20 times each. I guarantee that you will win the car more often if you switch, less often if you don't. If you can't grasp that this applies for each single attempt, then I don't know how to make you understand that there is a 2/3 chance each time you switch. Try it this way: When you go through the simulator, repeat the words "wow, I won!" every time that you win after switching, every time you win after sticking. You will be exclaiming the magic phrase so many more times by switching, something has got to click inside your head.

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. Aggie is correct. The odds are not 50/50 in the "isolated" example of an individual with one chance to win. His odds are 2/3 when he switches, 1/3 when he doesn't. Period. His odds increase when he switches, and its not a long-term thing. The odds are better if you switch. Maybe if someone could get all the old tapes of Let's Make a Deal and collated the number of times that a contestant switched and the number of times that he stuck with his first choice. I guarantee that like the simulator that was posted earlier, 2/3 of all people who switch won, and 1/3 of those who didn't won. What part of that can't you get? The odds improve when you switch.

Your odds do in fact double by making the switch. Period. There is no other way to describe the odds and be mathematically correct. You are right or wrong in the instant that Monty reveals the door you've chosen, but by switching, your odds have measurably improved, from 1/3 to 2/3. Just because 2/3 is not 3/3 or 100% does not mean that you should not switch. And it definitely does not mean that your odds at that moment are 50/50.

About 8-9 years ago, I was dragged along by the boss for meetings with people at Berlitz and somewhere else in Princeton (this would have been shortly after the time that JetBlue opened for business, I remember thinking how nice it was to fly with them). Having seen their ads in DB, I knew I wanted to visit and I ended up with an armful of jazz which I carefully packed in my suitcase. Definitely did not get a "High Fidelity" vibe from the staff but maybe that was a function of what section I was browsing through, I don't know. Prices were OK, nothing that I was interested in was ridiculously expensive or surprisingly cheap. Its impressive that they remain so successful, ironically they'd probably be more successful if they made the effort to put their stock online, a la The Bastards. It probably also doesn't hurt that they aren't actually on the main strip, iirc, and therefore have cheaper rent than the upscale boutiques and chain outlets.

you and me both.

Perhaps there's an answer at the bottom:

There was a Frankly Jazz broadcast that featured the Gerald Wilson band. I had a feeling that this tune was on the broadcast so I pulled out my audio transfer. The host, Frank Evans, is holding up Wilson's then current album, You Better Believe It, and said that this tune was written for the family cat: Blues for Yen-Yah So, its not Gerald himself announcing it but presumably with such an odd name, he told Evans before the broadcast how to say it.

Good luck, but after a successful first date, is it best to ask her out via email the next time? That's just my way. On the initial first ask after the date, I try not to put people on the spot (and tell them that via e-mail). If they have any further interest at all, they'll write back with some type of response. I see. I assume its worked in the past, so ... hope you get that second date.

We'll split the Fellowship money.

I think you've missed a key issue: the question asked what is the best strategy if you are given the option to change doors. The Times, Swede, and myself have given you different-yet-similar explanations of why your odds improve by switching. On the other hand, it seems as though you are simply looking at it as a straightforward binary set of outcomes - goat or car. In a sense that is absolutely correct - in a given situation, there is one car and one goat and you've chosen one or the other. It is true that when you chose the door, your odds were 1 in 3, and when Monty eliminated one door, your odds went up. The question is whether your odds improve by switching at that point, and I think its pretty clear from each of our different modes of explanation that switching doors will improve your chances. Did you run the simulation under the two different strategies? If nothing else, that should have convinced you.

Good luck, but after a successful first date, is it best to ask her out via email the next time?

I would have told him that his prices are quite reasonable and that I'd be happy to bring a long a bank check to complete the transaction, once I have examined the records. Then I would have met the guy, pawed through his collection, and then handed him the sealed envelope with his "payment". Inside would be a note regarding how much of an asshole/loser/fool he is. Then I'd laugh in his face and walk out. If he threatens me physically, I grab the nearest record that actually does retain some value and threaten to snap it over my knee.

Well, thanks - I thought Swede's description nailed it much better. His explanation told us that if you always make a bad decision under pressure and wish you could change it - you should. I think it all boils down to There is a 2/3 chance of being wrong initially. But in those 2/3rds of the time, changing after the first goat is revealed means you win. There's a 1/3 chance of being right initially. Not changing means those odds stay the same.