Impeccable logic

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know if this applies to Monty Hall's program but on some TV game shows in the USA the presenter's payment was reduced by a percentage of the prize won so it was in their interests to steer the contestant towards the smallest prize.

Even if that was not the case then because Monty Hall knew the contents he would be able, by inference and suggestion, to steer the contestant towards a specific prize.

So the Monty Hall saga has no revelance to the situation in Deal or No Deal.
 
Sponsored Links
At last! After this enormously long and arduous, and indeed Homeric thread I think I have arrived at the answer I was looking for, or at least an answer that I can grasp in my mind.

DonD. The chances of the £250k being in the contestant's box at the start are 19/1 (or whatever the number of boxes are). Of course these odds apply to any of the values, including £1. When the game reaches just two boxes then whether you consider that the odds are still at 19/1 for holding the £250k, or 2/1, the same odds apply to the £1. So there is no advantage in swapping.

To emphasise this, if there were an advantage in swapping we would have to come to the conclusion that for any two values the higher would be on the counter side 19 times out of 20, and that would be silly.

Monty Hall is far more devious and deceptive. It deceived me for a long time. The crux, and the deception, is that Monty is not simply offering a swap between one box and another. If he were, then there would be no advantage in swapping. Monty is actually offering a swap between the contestant's box and both of his boxes, one of which he has already shown to be empty. So the contestant who swaps effectively gets to look in both of Monty's boxes, and takes the higher value. The odds for swapping are 2/3.

Many MH websites are misleading in that they state that it is MH knowing what's in the boxes that makes the difference. It isn't, by definition the swap isn't offered unless an empty box has been opened: how it is opened, by chance, goat or otherwise, is irrelevant. The difference is that the swapper sees inside two boxes.

If DonD came down to three boxes, and Noel offered a swap with the box on the counter that contained the higher value, the contestant should swap. That would be classic Monty Hall.

Thanks to everyone who has posted to this thread. I haven't understood all the posts, but no matter. I think that all that is left now is for us to tend our goats. Rgds.
 
Softus
I actually feel some pity for you, because I also used to think that the probability was 50:50, and that there was no advantage in swapping, but I'm happy to admit that I discovered I was wrong.
What sort of sanctamonious condescending nonsense is that? ... Typical Softus. :rolleyes:

Joe-90 Wrote:
Why can't you grasp the concept that the odds are different for the person who joins the game later (when one of the cups has disappeared) than the person who joins earlier when there are three cups to choose from?
I also find it difficult to understand why people aren't getting this is as its core probability ... but ... Ho hum ;)

No doubt in my mind that, when faced with the swapping a final box scenario , the probability is 50:50 and I think Softus has been at the Moroccan Woodbines again :LOL:

MW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

Back
Top