Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3823 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

0  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you switch doors?

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      6


Recommended Posts

Posted

So, basically now I have a 50% chance to get the car.


no - you started with a 33% chance, that didn't change - the only thing that changed was the 66% chance moved from belonging to two doors, to one door.

(your pick of door was random

his pick of door is NOT random)

there's no psychology behind Monte's strategy - He ALWAYS shows an unpicked goat and allows the option to switch

so there's 100 doors - you pick one - he reveals 98 goats - do you switch to that last door?

Bill - 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abu3baid

So, basically now I have a 50% chance to get the car.

no - you started with a 33% chance, that didn't change - the only thing that changed was the 66% chance moved from belonging to two doors, to one door.

(your pick of door was random

his pick of door is NOT random)

there's no psychology behind Monte's strategy - He ALWAYS shows an unpicked goat and allows the option to switch

so there's 100 doors - you pick one - he reveals 98 goats - do you switch to that last door?

I only want one goat, not 98 goats.

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I only want one goat, not 98 goats.

I understand

Bill - 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

I thought Tiger was the GOAT.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I thought Tiger was the GOAT.

Great. You had to bring Eldrick into this. Now it's going to turn into a is he better than ______ thread. ;-)

- Shane

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

no - you started with a 33% chance, that didn't change - the only thing that changed was the 66% chance moved from belonging to two doors, to one door.

(your pick of door was random

his pick of door is NOT random)

there's no psychology behind Monte's strategy - He ALWAYS shows an unpicked goat and allows the option to switch

so there's 100 doors - you pick one - he reveals 98 goats - do you switch to that last door?

The reason I mentioned it is a 50% chance is because I have 2 doors and I know that one of them has a car and the other has a goat..

As to your question, this is a very difficult thing now IMO.. without knowing the hosts intention in allowing me to switch how can I make another pick that is not random??

I'm sure there is something I am missing.  let me think about it more.

:adams: / :tmade: / :edel: / :aimpoint: / :ecco: / :bushnell: / :gamegolf: / 

Eyad

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
The reason I mentioned it is a 50% chance is because I have 2 doors and I know that one of them has a car and the other has a goat..  As to your question, this is a very difficult thing now IMO.. without knowing the hosts intention in allowing me to switch how can I make another pick that is not random?? I'm sure there is something I am missing.  let me think about it more.

Read tees2trees explanation ... I believe it to be the most straightforward. You had 33% originally, you have 67% of you switch cuz you're effectively getting two doors for the price of one.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

The gambler's fallacy says that the outcome of previous events does not have bearing on the outcome of future events. Each flip of a quarter has a 50% chance of being heads even if it has come up heads the last 50 times. It depends on whether you look at this as one event or two separate events. From one point of view, you have a new event when given the opportunity to change that is now 50/50. I'm assuming that only an idiot would pick the door that already revealed the goat.

- Shane

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Read tees2trees explanation ... I believe it to be the most straightforward. You had 33% originally, you have 67% of you switch cuz you're effectively getting two doors for the price of one.

Exactly.

I get the scenario were people think,  it is just two doors so it is 50/50 now.

The premise of the problem is you have 3 doors to choose from. You pick one, you are shown one of the remaining two, should you switch? The math shows when considering a 3 door scenario switching gives you a better chance.

As to your question, this is a very difficult thing now IMO.. without knowing the hosts intention in allowing me to switch how can I make another pick that is not random??

I'm sure there is something I am missing.  let me think about it more.

The Host's intention is to always show a goat and ask you to change. Not really anything deceiving about it.

Here is a diagram explaining the situation. You have 3 doors. Each scenario as your 2nd option asks you to switch or change. As shown, if you stick with your door then you only win the car 1 out of 3 times. If you switch you win a car 2 out of 3 times.

I think the situation that leads it to be skewed away from 50/50 chance is that you original pick a car under the 1/3 premise. So right from the start you have a 1/3 chance of having that car. If you sit on that pick you have a 1/3 chance no matter if the host shows you a goat behind one of the doors.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
The gambler's fallacy says that the outcome of previous events does not have bearing on the outcome of future events. Each flip of a quarter has a 50% chance of being heads even if it has come up heads the last 50 times. It depends on whether you look at this as one event or two separate events. From one point of view, you have a new event when given the opportunity to change that is now 50/50. I'm assuming that only an idiot would pick the door that already revealed the goat.

That would be true if the door the host opened was random - if sometimes he revealed a car before asking you to switch, but he doesn't. Its not at all random, it's going to be a goat 100% of the time. And because of that, mathematically, it's completely irrelevant as to whether or not he opens the door before or after you make the switch. Even before you switch, you KNOW the door he opens is s goat, which is why you're trading one for two.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I decided to put this to the test. You can play a simulator at http://www.stayorswitch.com/ . I randomly picked the first door and never won a car. I always switched and...

Won a car 9 times out of 10.

Edit:

I played 10 more times staying every time and...

It's mind blowing.

- Shane

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I decided to put this to the test. You can play a simulator at http://www.stayorswitch.com/. I randomly picked the first door and never won a car. I always switched and...

Won a car 9 times out of 10.

Edit:

I played 10 more times staying every time and...

It's mind blowing.

Or ... (assuming initial door chosen was door #1 - although it works exactly the same regardless)

Behind door 1 Behind door 2 Behind door 3 Result if staying at door #1 Result if switching to the door offered
Car Goat Goat Wins Car Wins Goat
Goat Car Goat Wins Goat Wins Car
Goat Goat Car Wins Goat Wins Car

Stay = 1 out of 3, switch = 2 out of 3.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Or ... (assuming initial door chosen was door #1 - although it works exactly the same regardless)

Behind door 1

Behind door 2

Behind door 3

Result if staying at door #1

Result if switching to the door offered

Car

Goat

Goat

Wins Car

Wins Goat

Goat

Car

Goat

Wins Goat

Wins Car

Goat

Goat

Car

Wins Goat

Wins Car

Stay = 1 out of 3, switch = 2 out of 3.


It made a lot more sense how this is not a second decision after playing it a bunch of times.

- Shane

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlSpackler

The gambler's fallacy says that the outcome of previous events does not have bearing on the outcome of future events. Each flip of a quarter has a 50% chance of being heads even if it has come up heads the last 50 times. It depends on whether you look at this as one event or two separate events. From one point of view, you have a new event when given the opportunity to change that is now 50/50. I'm assuming that only an idiot would pick the door that already revealed the goat.

That would be true if the door the host opened was random - if sometimes he revealed a car before asking you to switch, but he doesn't. Its not at all random, it's going to be a goat 100% of the time. And because of that, mathematically, it's completely irrelevant as to whether or not he opens the door before or after you make the switch. Even before you switch, you KNOW the door he opens is s goat, which is why you're trading one for two.

I don't understand what you have against goats.

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

The reason I mentioned it is a 50% chance is because I have 2 doors and I know that one of them has a car and the other has a goat..

As to your question, this is a very difficult thing now IMO.. without knowing the hosts intention in allowing me to switch how can I make another pick that is not random??

I'm sure there is something I am missing.  let me think about it more.

There is no intent on the part of the host.  There are always 2 unchosen doors, at least one of them has to have a goat, and he always reveals a door that has a goat.  The host's role is, essentially, mechanical.

It is fairy easy to verify the correctness of the answer using monte carlo simulation.  I even did it using Excel a few years ago, to convince someone who said it just couldn't be right but who would only believe empirical evidence..

To me the easiest way to see the answer is to consider that I have a 1/3 chance of hitting the correct door the first time and a 2/3 chance of hitting the wrong door the first time.  Monty showing one of the unchosen 2 doors does not chance the probability that I got it right the first time.  And it means that the probability of the car being behind one of the 2 unchosen doors is 2/3, and revealing the one the car is NOT behind does not change that.

Now, if Monty had simply said "you can keep your door or I will give you both of the other doors" then it would be obvious that you switch.  And that is EXACTLY what he is really saying, but he confuses things, psychologically, but revealing the unchosen goat door.  That gives the contestant the illusion that he is choosing between 2 single doors whereas the real underlying reality is that he is choosing between the initial door and BOTH unchosen doors.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3823 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.