Preferences

> And in this particular instance, it makes sense to switch.

Are you are accepting that the host might be someone who only opens a door with a goat when your first choice was the door with a car behind it, and still arguing that you should switch?


The question asks what the best choice in this situation is, not a different situation. The answer does not depend on whether any other situations exist.
We don't really know the situation if all we were told is that we picked a door, and the host showed us a goat behind another door.

If we know that the host will always show us a goat behind another door, then yes, we should clearly switch.

If the host typically lets us just open the door, but will show us a goat before we open the door if the show is running too fast and they need to kill time, then we should switch if offered.

If the host typically lets us open the door, but will show us a goat if the show is running too fast, or if the prize budget is running low and we picked the car, then we should switch if we think the previous games went quickly, but not if there were some slow games already.

If the host only shows a goat when the contestent picks the car, then we should never switch.

Many problem statements include that the host always shows a goat; and if it doesn't you can kind of assume it, because it's a well-known problem, but if it's a novel problem and unsaid, then how are you supposed to know? I haven't watched enough Let's Make a Deal to know if they always give a second choice. Reading the NYT article linked elsewhere in the thread, I am reminded that Monty Hall could offer cash to not open doors too, so with the problem as stated and Let's Make a Deal being referenced, I have to assume an antagonistic host, unless provided with more information on their behavior.

As stated, assuming unknown behavior of the host, we can't put a number on the probability of switching.

Also, to address another point you made elsewhere in the thread. In addition to specifying the host behavior, it should also be specified in the problem statement that the car and goat positions were determined randomly, or at least the car was random, and the two goats are considered equal and assigned as convenient.

Here is what Marilyn vos Savant had to say:

> So let’s look at it again, remembering that the original answer defines certain conditions, the most significant of which is that the host always opens a losing door on purpose. (There’s no way he can always open a losing door by chance!) Anything else is a different question.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130121183432/http://marilynvos...

What you are discussing is a different problem.

Sure, the answer to the question states that the host always opens a losing door.

The question does not state that. It's an assumption that was made in the answering.

If that's a premise, then yes, always switch.

If you only go by the question, there's not enough information.

That was how everyone interpreted the original column (according to thousands of letters sent to Marilyn vos Savant), and it was made explicit in a clarification made in a follow up to the column. What you are discussing is a different problem.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal